This fella manages to put into words what I've thought for a long time: http://www.slate.com/id/2081194/. I used to drive a RWD Celica,and even though it had *less* horsepower than my current crappy little 90hp FWD, it was more fun to drive. And if I ever buy another used Celica, it has to be one of those older turbo'd all-wheel-drive ones.
If you want to go speeding around, you bet rear is better, but if you are driving casually or in poor road conditions I still think front is better.
If I was going to get a sports car it would be rear or AWD that is for sure.
Actually, the point of the article was that at
regular speeds, rear-wheel drive offers a sensation that front-wheel drive simply cannot
Quote
It's pretty clear to me, after driving hundreds of different vehicles over several decades, that rear drive offers a big aesthetic advantage to ordinary drivers at ordinary speeds in ordinary conditions. Why? The lock-in effect I mentioned earlier. Suppose you go into a corner in a rear-drive car at a reasonable, safe, legal speed. Nothing's about to skid. But you can still feel the front end starting to plow wide a bit. What to do? Step on the gas! Don't stomp on it -- but add a bit of power, and a miraculous thing happens. The front end swings back in, the car tightens its line. Cornering traction seems to increase. And the car feels locked into a groove, balanced between the motive power from the rear and the turning power in the front.
You don't have to be a race driver to feel this. You can be a defensive driver and feel it. You can be driving a 1973 Ford Maverick with leaking shocks and you'll feel it. Accountants feel it on the way to the office and housewives feel it on the way to the Safeway. Even Ralph Nader probably feels it. It's a good part of what makes driving a car a sensual act. (What's happening, technically? None of the tires is at its limit of adhesion. But the added speed is making the front tires --which [since they are undriven] have plenty of surplus traction -- apply more force to the road surface to change direction. Meanwhile, the rear of the car is shifting outward, ever so slightly -- not a Bullitt-style power slide, but a subtle attitude adjustment that cancels the plowing effect. The power "helps you through the corner," as Zellner puts it.)
This doesn't happen in a front-drive car. The best an ordinary driver can hope for in a FWD car is that it "corners as if on rails" -- no slippage at all. No plowing -- but also no semi-orgasmic "lock in." More typically, if you hit the accelerator in a fast corner, things get mushy up front (as they did that evening near Jayne Mansfield's house). The lesson the FWD car seems to be teaching is: Try to go faster, and you're punished. Front-drive cars are Puritans! In a rear-drive car, you hit the accelerator and things get better! Rear-drive cars are hedonists. (This is assuming you don't hit the accelerator too hard.)
I've experienced this lock-in effect in low-powered cars driving near the speed limit on city streets - and it really does feel entirely different than driving FWD cars.
There's a nod to front-wheel-drive being better in snowy conditions, but this is an article written by someone living in California I think. Performance in the snow is much more important here. Which is why I wish they made the Toyota Sienna with both AWD and eight-passenger seating in the same model (you have to pick one or the other <sigh>).
RWD cards do not push into corners and through corners. Why do you think you see an extremely few (if any) FWD racing cars?
AWD is the way to go though. My next vehicle (fall next year?) will be an AWD SUV guaranteed.
Quote from: Shayne on December 10, 2006, 11:36:18 PM
RWD cards do not push into corners and through corners. Why do you think you see an extremely few (if any) FWD racing cars?
Do you mean "understeer"? I've never heard the terms "pushing into corners" and "pushing through corners" used when discussing vehicle handling,
I'd say be careful and research how the AWD system works in each of the vehicles you're considering. A lot of them started off as FWD systems and then have some mechanism added that transfers some-but-never-all of the power to the rear wheels - for instance, the Ford Escape. One of the ways to tell just how much power the designers expect at the rear wheels is to take a good look at the rear axle diameter. On some of these cute-utes it's less than the diameter of my finger!
Do you have a particular SUV in mind already?
Pushing is how NASCAR explains it to the lesser intelligent southern viewership. It is understeer but pushing I find gives a better picture.
Leaning towards either the Kia Sorento or the Hyundai Santa Fe (same vehicle i know, but my fianc?s father owns a Kia dealership so paying dealership pricing is awfully tempting). We will test drive everything, etc. We got a loner Subaru Impreza wagon a few months ago for a week and loved how it drove and have a good idea of how a proper AWD vehicle should drive.
Ive driven a few RWD cars and I love how they feel but it could be just the types of cars I drove versus what I own :P
I have a lot of fun driving my old '85 Celica, the last rear wheel-drive model they made. I've driven some front wheel drive vehicles before, and even given a six banger over my four banger, I prefer the feel of driving my vehicle. Mind you, I can see the point about winter driving, as even with three sandbags in my trunk I'll still get a little fish tailing if I accelerate too quickly on slippery roads. I'm sure my next vehicle will have to be a front wheel drive when my old one konks out, but I'll still miss driving it :)
Quote from: Ustauk on December 11, 2006, 09:07:30 AM
I have a lot of fun driving my old '85 Celica, the last rear wheel-drive model they made. I've driven some front wheel drive vehicles before, and even given a six banger over my four banger, I prefer the feel of driving my vehicle. Mind you, I can see the point about winter driving, as even with three sandbags in my trunk I'll still get a little fish tailing if I accelerate too quickly on slippery roads. I'm sure my next vehicle will have to be a front wheel drive when my old one konks out, but I'll still miss driving it :)
Your car also has some big tires on it Ust for winter. Traction in winter is Weight over Surfice area (with in reason); more weight per square inch of surface area is better, so not so wide tires would give you way better traction. My Supra I had 225 70 R15 on original Mags in the summer and 175 60 R15 on Steel Rims in the winter (granted my winter tires were also winter grips and couldn't run them in the summer). Man did that Supra look funny during the winter months, as the wheel flares well over shot the tires.
Quote from: Thorin on December 10, 2006, 11:12:45 PM
There's a nod to front-wheel-drive being better in snowy conditions, but this is an article written by someone living in California I think. Performance in the snow is much more important here. Which is why I wish they made the Toyota Sienna with both AWD and eight-passenger seating in the same model (you have to pick one or the other <sigh>).
Should go back a couple of years to the Previa. AWD, and can get Eight seaters. Basically almost the same look as the Sienna.
My preference for winter vehicle is similar to what I drive now, or what most people have in a truck. I want the option for 2WD and 4WD, whether it is Rear or Front. 4WD or AWD has it's advantages in snow and get up and go, but I find that cornering on ice is easier with 2WD enabled. Granted you have options on newer vehicles that I don't on my Tercel or my old Toyota SR5, such as traction control and limited slip, but when all 4 tires start spinning and sliding on ice, cornering just isn't as simple. Good ice grip tires can help with this as well, obviously.
As a side note, E-Brake slides are freakin hard to do in an AWD/4WD vehicle, a bit easier in a FWD, and simple in a RWD. I like my E-Brake slides :D.
If I was to buy a new sports car, in this climate, my preference (although these are hard to find - may even be custom built only - I don't know - I deal in older stuff) would be one RWD with on the fly optional shifting to 4WD or AWD. Why I am currently looking for that Toyota SR5 RWD/4WD Extended Cab 4Cyl (for gas saving and trust me enough power there, no issue) Truck.
Quote from: Melbosa on December 11, 2006, 09:13:13 AM
Quote from: Ustauk on December 11, 2006, 09:07:30 AM
I have a lot of fun driving my old '85 Celica, the last rear wheel-drive model they made. I've driven some front wheel drive vehicles before, and even given a six banger over my four banger, I prefer the feel of driving my vehicle. Mind you, I can see the point about winter driving, as even with three sandbags in my trunk I'll still get a little fish tailing if I accelerate too quickly on slippery roads. I'm sure my next vehicle will have to be a front wheel drive when my old one konks out, but I'll still miss driving it :)
Your car also has some big tires on it Ust for winter. Traction in winter is Weight over Surfice area (with in reason); more weight per square inch of surface area is better, so not so wide tires would give you way better traction. My Supra I had 225 70 R15 on original Mags in the summer and 175 60 R15 on Steel Rims in the winter (granted my winter tires were also winter grips and couldn't run them in the summer). Man did that Supra look funny during the winter months, as the wheel flares well over shot the tires.
The rims that came with the car were 195 70 R14, so that's what I got when I replaced the old tires on buying the vehicle, since they were nice rims and I didn't want to buy new ones. I thought about getting a set of winter tires and rims, but I couldn't justify it given I only drive once a week or so. I try to be more careful when I'm driving in the winter, and the sandbags do help a fair bit, plus the all seasons I did buy were the best rated on snow and ice that I could find for the tire size. So far so good :knocks on wood:
Traction control on most budget cars as far as I can tell is simply a rev limiter. If the car detects slippage it decreases the engines rpms till the wheels get grip at lower speeds. Exactly what I do not want. I am very tired of car manufactures taking over the driving of the vehicle.
Alyson and I took a couple 4cyl AWD SUVs for a drive in the last month and they were horribly gutless. The reason we wanted the 4cyl is that manufactures keep the standard transmission in them. As soon as they go to the V6 the standard goes away, but driving a 6 compared to the 4 is night and day in terms of power AND engine quietness.
Besides fuel economy isn't that far off (depending on engine size obviously) consider the Kia Sportage engine specs:
2.0 L, In-line 4-cylinder, aluminum head (140 HP @ 6,000 rpm)
FWD: 10.6 L/100 km (city) 7.8 L/100 km (highway)
AWD: 11.2 L/100 km (city) 8.2 L/100 km (highway)
2.7 L, V6 Aluminum block and head (173 HP @ 6,000 rpm)
FWD: 12.1 L/100 km (city) 8.5 L/100 km (highway)
AWD: 12.4 L/100 km (city) 9.4 L/100 km (highway)
The FWD version is less then a liter where the AWD is slightly more. You would be saving about $0.80 per 100Km and have significantly less horsepower.
Quote from: Shayne on December 11, 2006, 09:47:38 AM
Traction control on most budget cars as far as I can tell is simply a rev limiter. If the car detects slippage it decreases the engines rpms till the wheels get grip at lower speeds. Exactly what I do not want. I am very tired of car manufactures taking over the driving of the vehicle.
Actually traction control works like ABS does. When you apply power to the wheels the car will detect if there is a free wheel spinning and begin pulsing the break to that wheel, forcing power to shift to the other wheel. I have both ABS and traction control on my car. The traction control can be disabled at the press of a button, but I never turn it off, if you are applying so much power that your wheels are spinning free you need to let up on the power, not increase it.
How Traction Control works (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/28000-traction-control-explained.htm)
You could apply the peddle to the floor if you wanted to and the power would be distributed to the tires. Again this is an icy condition feature, you may want to disable it if you want to do a burnout or something.
Quote from: Shayne on December 11, 2006, 08:55:27 AM
Pushing is how NASCAR explains it to the lesser intelligent southern viewership. It is understeer but pushing I find gives a better picture.
Heh, even as I read that, "pushing" still conjures forth the image of the back wheels pushing the car whereas "pulling" conjures up the image of the front wheels pulling the car. Guess I saw too many commercials for FWD vehicles in the 80s when they were pushing the (relatively) new idea of FWD.
Quote from: Shayne on December 11, 2006, 08:55:27 AM
Ive driven a few RWD cars and I love how they feel but it could be just the types of cars I drove versus what I own :P
Yeah, most people like the way RWD feels (in the summer - with a big dump of snow, everyone starts singing the FWD/AWD/4WD song). The article I originally linked goes into some detail as to *why* most people instinctively like RWD better than FWD.
Quote from: Shayne on December 11, 2006, 08:55:27 AM
Leaning towards either the Kia Sorento or the Hyundai Santa Fe (same vehicle i know, but my fianc?s father owns a Kia dealership so paying dealership pricing is awfully tempting). We will test drive everything, etc. We got a loner Subaru Impreza wagon a few months ago for a week and loved how it drove and have a good idea of how a proper AWD vehicle should drive.
I think the Kia Sorento and Hyundai Santa Fe are quite different.
The Sorento (2006):
- Engine: 3.5L V6
- Transmission: 5-speed Manual or 5-speed Automatic
- Drivetrain: RWD or part-time"shift-on-demand" 4WD
- MSRP: $27,895 to $38,965
The Santa Fe (2007):
- Engine: 2.7L V6 or 3.3L V6
- Transmission: 5-speed Manual or 5-speed Automatic
- Drivetrain: FWD or AWD
- MSRP: $25,995 to $35,995
I notice neither has a low-range option for their 4WD/AWD system. If it were me deciding, I'd avoid the Santa Fe, given its FWD roots. But then, I don't like the Honda CR-V either, even though I've heard several older people rave about them and about how I should buy the Honda.
Quote from: Lazybones on December 11, 2006, 09:59:07 AM
How Traction Control works (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/28000-traction-control-explained.htm)
You could apply the peddle to the floor if you wanted to and the power would be distributed to the tires. Again this is an icy condition feature, you may want to disable it if you want to do a burnout or something.
Or get stuck in the snow. Don't know how may people I have pushed out in the country, and until I figured out they left their traction control it wasn't working. :D
Quote from: Melbosa on December 11, 2006, 03:38:29 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on December 11, 2006, 09:59:07 AM
How Traction Control works (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/28000-traction-control-explained.htm)
You could apply the peddle to the floor if you wanted to and the power would be distributed to the tires. Again this is an icy condition feature, you may want to disable it if you want to do a burnout or something.
Or get stuck in the snow. Don't know how may people I have pushed out in the country, and until I figured out they left their traction control it wasn't working. :D
Mined re-wording wording that? I can't tell if you implied that they had it turned off to begin with or if it was easier to push them with it off. If you are applying external force to get them out then, YES you don't want the breaks engaging any of the wheels. However if you are sitting at an icy intersection under the cars own power and want to get going or are moving through snow you want to ensure both wheels are doing some work and that one is not spinning free on the icy spot.
I have tested it on and off when my subdivision iin deep and rutted with snow, and in iced over parking lots. It was clearly easier to maintain momentum and traction with it enabled.
If you're car/truck/suv is stuck in a snow drift, and someone is pushing you out, you want those tires to be turning as much as possible. If they are barely turning, you are just beating a dead horse. Trust me, if your stuck, traction control is not what you want on. If your in deep snow or on ice, that is a different story, as long as your moving your good. Spinning tires in that case will get you stuck.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 11, 2006, 09:07:30 AM
I have a lot of fun driving my old '85 Celica, the last rear wheel-drive model they made.
I was going to refute this point, then realized that, yes indeed, they changed to FWD with the fourth generation in 1986. I was thinking of the All-Trac that was offered in the fourth and fifth generations (1988-1993), but that was AWD, not RWD.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 11, 2006, 09:07:30 AM
I'm sure my next vehicle will have to be a front wheel drive when my old one konks out
Not necessarily. There's lots of RWD cars coming out these days, along with a lot of AWD (some AWD systems are a lot better than others, though).
Quote from: Melbosa on December 11, 2006, 09:13:13 AM
Your car also has some big tires on it Ust for winter. Traction in winter is Weight over Surfice area (with in reason); more weight per square inch of surface area is better, so not so wide tires would give you way better traction. My Supra I had 225 70 R15 on original Mags in the summer and 175 60 R15 on Steel Rims in the winter (granted my winter tires were also winter grips and couldn't run them in the summer). Man did that Supra look funny during the winter months, as the wheel flares well over shot the tires.
Traction is a lot more than just pounds per square inch. Wide snow tires can work wonders compared to skinny summer tires. Tread design, tread block size, tread void (space between the tread blocks), tread block sipes, stickiness of the rubber compound at the operating temperature (summer tires get hard, winter tires stay soft, soft rubber grips better than hard rubber), and additional ingredients in the rubber compound (such as crushed almond shells in some winter tires, which works like micro-studs in the tire) all have a huge impact on your traction. On top of that, the skinny-vs-wide debate frequently forgets that the type of snowpack influences the tire choice, as well. Skinny tires are good when you need more weight per square inch so that you break through the upper layers of soft snowpack to get to the hard stuff underneath where you find real traction. Skinny tires are bad when there is so much snow that your car will bottom out before reaching the hard stuff - better to go with real wide balloony tires so you can float over the top of the snowpack without bottoming out.
Adding sandbags for weight over the wheels makes quite a difference, too, as it loads the springs which in turn pushes the tires down harder on the ground which in turn provides more weight per square inch and thereby increases traction (so long as the tires can reach a hard road surface (including hardpack snow, ice, or asphalt).
As for those 225/70R15s versus the 175/60R15s, the total wheel height would've been 696mm versus 591mm - a loss of 105mm total height that would've resulted in a loss of 52.5mm of clearance. That's 2" less clearance. If you drove through deep snow with the bigger tires, you'd be less likely to get your undercarriage hung up on snowbanks. This is why if you put a skinnier tire on your vehicle you should pay close attention to make sure that the wheel height is at least the same as the regular-width tire you're replacing.
Ultimately, though, the most important thing is to have tires with tread that grips in the conditions you're in. Nearly bald tires (and I remember Ustauk asking about tread depth at one of the D&D sessions), even if they're winter tires, will probably leave you stranded one cold and snowy night.
Quote from: Melbosa on December 11, 2006, 05:54:06 PM
If you're car/truck/suv is stuck in a snow drift, and someone is pushing you out, you want those tires to be turning as much as possible. If they are barely turning, you are just beating a dead horse. Trust me, if your stuck, traction control is not what you want on. If your in deep snow or on ice, that is a different story, as long as your moving your good. Spinning tires in that case will get you stuck.
I pushed three separate vehicles out of snowdrifts on my street this week - one RWD truck (with large-block/large-void rear tires for decent traction) and two FWD cars. In all three cases, the driver had gotten themselves stuck and then tried to get unstuck by flooring the accelerator. In all three cases, all they accomplished was digging semi-circular holes through the snow; the snow around their spinning tires melted, and when they stopped accelerating the melted snow got cold and froze into extremely slippery ice. The only way to describe this is that they made "glass potholes" for their drive-wheels. In all three cases, two grown men (myself and a neighbour) could not push the vehicles out while the drive-wheels were frantically spinning. In all three cases, we *did* push them out when the drivers stopped gunning the gas and kept the engine barely above idle.
The reason we could get them out is because we had *just* enough strength to push them to the edge of the "glass pothole" they made. When they were gunning the gas, the tires were rotating so fast there was no chance they'd get any traction. When they were basically idling the engine, the tires turned really slowly and caught just a fraction of traction, which was just enough to get them out of their ruts. Once the vehicles were out and had traction, the drivers gave it more gas to keep the vehicle in motion until they reached the ruts where hard-packed snow provided better traction. I'm sure that traction control would have helped prevent wheelspin which in turn would have helped them get out of their predicament earlier.
Keep in mind, the less torque applied to the wheel, the less traction the road surface needs to provide to keep the tire from spinning out of control. This is the cornerstone to slow-and-steady 4x4 crawling. And in the three cases this weekend, what the tires really needed to do was crawl out of the holes that they'd dug when spinning too fast.
So back to the topic at hand, did anyone read the linked article? Does the assertion that RWD is intrinsically funner and more satisfying than FWD even at regular, legal road-speeds ring true for you as it did for me?
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 12:24:25 AM
Traction is a lot more than just pounds per square inch. Wide snow tires can work wonders compared to skinny summer tires. Tread design, tread block size, tread void (space between the tread blocks), tread block sipes, stickiness of the rubber compound at the operating temperature (summer tires get hard, winter tires stay soft, soft rubber grips better than hard rubber), and additional ingredients in the rubber compound (such as crushed almond shells in some winter tires, which works like micro-studs in the tire) all have a huge impact on your traction. On top of that, the skinny-vs-wide debate frequently forgets that the type of snowpack influences the tire choice, as well. Skinny tires are good when you need more weight per square inch so that you break through the upper layers of soft snowpack to get to the hard stuff underneath where you find real traction. Skinny tires are bad when there is so much snow that your car will bottom out before reaching the hard stuff - better to go with real wide balloony tires so you can float over the top of the snowpack without bottoming out.
Adding sandbags for weight over the wheels makes quite a difference, too, as it loads the springs which in turn pushes the tires down harder on the ground which in turn provides more weight per square inch and thereby increases traction (so long as the tires can reach a hard road surface (including hardpack snow, ice, or asphalt).
As for those 225/70R15s versus the 175/60R15s, the total wheel height would've been 696mm versus 591mm - a loss of 105mm total height that would've resulted in a loss of 52.5mm of clearance. That's 2" less clearance. If you drove through deep snow with the bigger tires, you'd be less likely to get your undercarriage hung up on snowbanks. This is why if you put a skinnier tire on your vehicle you should pay close attention to make sure that the wheel height is at least the same as the regular-width tire you're replacing.
Ultimately, though, the most important thing is to have tires with tread that grips in the conditions you're in. Nearly bald tires (and I remember Ustauk asking about tread depth at one of the D&D sessions), even if they're winter tires, will probably leave you stranded one cold and snowy night.
Lets clarify this. Yes Tread does make the difference, and yes I won't argue that point. But don't discredit the smaller tire as a bad idea either. My supra was already low to the ground, and clearance wasn't my issue. Weight was. Yes sand bags are a must for most RWD vehicles, and with out it, even those smaller winter grips wouldn't have helped much. But when plowing snow, control is also a factor. With wider tires, floating on show isn't always a good thing. Yes at low speeds its not a factor, but at 50+km/h your control isn't as good if your floating on top, versus cutting through. A good happy medium is best, but I will argue with you or anyone who thinks that keeping the same size tire on the car/suv/truck and just putting Winter grips is better than downsizing your width.
Side note: Only reason I used the 2" smaller tire was that they were a way better deal at the time than anything else. Can't go wrong with $400 Studded Winter Grips for $30 a piece.
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 12:42:02 AM
I pushed three separate vehicles out of snowdrifts on my street this week - one RWD truck (with large-block/large-void rear tires for decent traction) and two FWD cars. In all three cases, the driver had gotten themselves stuck and then tried to get unstuck by flooring the accelerator. In all three cases, all they accomplished was digging semi-circular holes through the snow; the snow around their spinning tires melted, and when they stopped accelerating the melted snow got cold and froze into extremely slippery ice. The only way to describe this is that they made "glass potholes" for their drive-wheels. In all three cases, two grown men (myself and a neighbour) could not push the vehicles out while the drive-wheels were frantically spinning. In all three cases, we *did* push them out when the drivers stopped gunning the gas and kept the engine barely above idle.
The reason we could get them out is because we had *just* enough strength to push them to the edge of the "glass pothole" they made. When they were gunning the gas, the tires were rotating so fast there was no chance they'd get any traction. When they were basically idling the engine, the tires turned really slowly and caught just a fraction of traction, which was just enough to get them out of their ruts. Once the vehicles were out and had traction, the drivers gave it more gas to keep the vehicle in motion until they reached the ruts where hard-packed snow provided better traction. I'm sure that traction control would have helped prevent wheelspin which in turn would have helped them get out of their predicament earlier.
Keep in mind, the less torque applied to the wheel, the less traction the road surface needs to provide to keep the tire from spinning out of control. This is the cornerstone to slow-and-steady 4x4 crawling. And in the three cases this weekend, what the tires really needed to do was crawl out of the holes that they'd dug when spinning too fast.
OK you took my post to the extreme other side. Gunning it wasn't what I was getting at, but with traction control in a position you are talking about would be no help to you. Once traction control sense slip in the tires it will limit the rotation of the tire. Now if your only already going about 10km/h, the limit is to much and doesn't help at all. In fact it hinders something terrible. Obviously the opposite is true as you said, putting it to the floor causes just as much problems.
Like ABS, Like Limited Slip, and Traction Control, they all help the less experienced or panic prone or not confident driver get through life easier. But there are situations where they aren't as useful. ABS is something I really like for other people, but I wish I had the option to disable mine in certain situations (not that my car currently has this option) - like when your about to rear end someone, and your already to close, and its a brand new BMW and I'm driving a 20 year old rusted PoS. All I want to do is lock up my tires, swing the butt end in to the curb, and take the hit on my rims and axel instead of taking the hit on my insurance. I'm talking 30km/h, nothing too fast. Or a better example, which has happened to me, of where your on a parkade ramp, on your way out, its icy and all I want to do is skid down it, letting the slid be my pace, but ABS kicks in and I come down that ramp faster (but with more control) than I want to and almost leap into traffic at the wrong time.
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 12:44:17 AM
So back to the topic at hand, did anyone read the linked article? Does the assertion that RWD is intrinsically funner and more satisfying than FWD even at regular, legal road-speeds ring true for you as it did for me?
Yes I did read it, and yes I did agree with it. Just the push from behind feeling, vs the pulling from the front feeling when you gun it is enough to convince me which is more satisfying.
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 12:44:17 AM
So back to the topic at hand, did anyone read the linked article? Does the assertion that RWD is intrinsically funner and more satisfying than FWD even at regular, legal road-speeds ring true for you as it did for me?
At regular road speeds I can hardly tell the difference, however when trying to perform skids, burnouts, highspeed cornering, I would say RWD is a clear winner, however I don't drive like that, and I have to deal with Alberta road conditions 30% to 50% of the year, so I prefer front wheel drive, and having both traction control and ABS. I wouldn't mind AWD over traction control, but most new AWD system have it as well.
So do I agree with the article? Yes and no. I don't believe that FWD is as bad as he makes it, nor that RWD is as good as he states. They have trade offs, it is plain and simple. In city driving, in good weather without stunting, i could almost care less what my car had.
Also to clear up something about traction control and ABS.
In a regular cars axle the wheels are setup so that the easiest spinning wheel gets the power. this is done because when a four wheel vehicles turns, the outer wheels spin faster than the inner ones.
If you are in deep snow or an icy intersection, as a pro driver, the only thing you can do is let off the gas, once your wheels begin to spin, so that they slow down and gain traction again.
In a vehicles with traction control, the computer senses that one wheel is not spinning at all and the other is free spinning so it will apply the break only to the spinning wheel, this automatically transfers the remaining power back to the stationary wheel which likely has traction. I can almost guaranty that you can get moving faster or maintain traction better in a car with traction control enabled than with it disabled, it is not simply a feature for panicked drivers.
ABS however, IS a technology where a very skilled driver can out perform the system. Since ABS always assumes that locking the tires is bad, you do loose stomping distance, however this is most pronounced at very high speeds. As for rear ending cars, in theory, you should still be able to turn and go into the curb with ABS, however you would definatly not have the same control over skidding the rear of the car, unless you had a hand break. So in most cases I also prefer ABS over not having it.
Quote from: Lazybones on December 12, 2006, 09:08:06 AM
In a vehicles with traction control, the computer senses that one wheel is not spinning at all and the other is free spinning so it will apply the break only to the spinning wheel, this automatically transfers the remaining power back to the stationary wheel which likely has traction. I can almost guaranty that you can get moving faster or maintain traction better in a car with traction control enabled than with it disabled, it is not simply a feature for panicked drivers.
I will give you that Traction Control is for the most part a good thing. The only time I would disable it is when I am stuck already, and its not helping me get out (as I have already described).
QuoteIf you are in deep snow or an icy intersection, as a pro driver, the only thing you can do is let off the gas, once your wheels begin to spin, so that they slow down and gain traction again.
There are more things you can do to prevent this from happening or when it happens on top of just letting off the gas. Its a matter of experience and understanding, and traction control is only there to help with part of it.
* First understanding your road conditions rather than just hoping that your car will just handle it is a must.
* Downshifting/Upshifting in an Automatic or Standard (depending on the situation).
* Breaking with the motor versus breaking with your breaks.
* Pumping the gas slightly to burn off some ice or snow just enough to catch pavement or cause a bank to push off of.
Personally I like the concept of Limited Slip better than Traction Control. I like the idea of reduction in torque or power to a tire (and transfer of that to another) versus hindering the tire with a breaking motion. Of course this doesn't help if all 4 tires are slipping but I guess a combination of the two would be best.
I double checked my tread with my Dad a while back, and he said it looked fine, and I'll trust his fifty years or so of driving experience on this one. As Thorin says, the larger diameter tires do help with clearance, which I find useful when driving over freshly gravelled roads or larger drifts in the country. In the city that wouldn't be a factor. The downside is burning some rubber on hitting bumps when I have heavier passengers in my back seat and a full load in the trunk, though I don' thave htis problem with just sand bags.
I'd probably like to get another Celica when mine conks out, probably a fifth generation model, which would limit me to FWD unles I coughed up the cash for an AWD model, which still cost a fairly hefty amount. I won't be doing that until I break something too expensive to repair on my current ride, though, and I'm hoping to get a few more years out of her. She's got over 300000 kilometres on the ticker, but my Dad told me about a rusted out one in Fort Sasksatchewan that had 500000 kms on it. I'll probably have to give her up if the body rusts out too badly, as well, but hopefully she'll keep going for a while.
As I stated earlier, I like the feel of driving a rear wheel drive vehicle. I especially agree with the article on the thrill of acclerating into a curve, that whole locked in thing. Mind you, I'm probably biased since I grew up driving older trucks and cars, which were all rear wheel drive.
Quote from: Melbosa on December 12, 2006, 09:24:36 AM
* First understanding your road conditions rather than just hoping that your car will just handle it is a must.
* Downshifting/Upshifting in an Automatic or Standard (depending on the situation).
* Breaking with the motor versus breaking with your breaks.
* Pumping the gas slightly to burn off some ice or snow just enough to catch pavement or cause a bank to push off of.
Personally I like the concept of Limited Slip better than Traction Control. I like the idea of reduction in torque or power to a tire (and transfer of that to another) versus hindering the tire with a breaking motion. Of course this doesn't help if all 4 tires are slipping but I guess a combination of the two would be best.
The first is a given, regardless of how your vehicle is equiped.
2 and 3 are both methods of slowing the wheels down, just different ways to do it
4 works sometimes, but others just polishes the spot you are on or creates a rut. Going back to point one through you can use it to your advantage.
Traction Control should be superior to common limited slip differentials (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/differential.htm). In most cases the differentials will reduce over all power to reduce wheel speed, where as Traction Control only reduces the speed of the free wheel, transferring all of the power to the other wheel. The negatives I can see for traction control are two fold as I have had a far amount of driving time on cars equipped with it. 1. It can be loud, just like some ABS systems. On my car it makes a GRRR GRRR noise when it engages. 2. It will at will at extra wear on your break system. 3. Don't try and do a burn out with it engaged.... it is counter productive.
There's several types of limited slip differentials available. Funny enough, the one that's used on the HMMWV (or Hummer in it's civilian guise) is the Torsen system. The manual for the HMMWV actually suggests applying the brake lightly to keep a wheel that's off the ground from spinning so that all its torque can be transferred to the other wheel.
Applying the brake on one wheel so that it doesn't take any of the torque the engine is producing is an excellent concept, in my mind. That's not to say it hasn't been implemented poorly in some vehicles, though.
(Hah hah, Lazy and I both read the same LSD article, although I knew about the HMMWV using Torsen before I read that article).
Quote from: Lazybones on December 12, 2006, 09:56:28 AM
Traction Control should be superior to common limited slip differentials (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/differential.htm). In most cases the differentials will reduce over all power to reduce wheel speed, where as Traction Control only reduces the speed of the free wheel, transferring all of the power to the other wheel. The negatives I can see for traction control are two fold as I have had a far amount of driving time on cars equipped with it. 1. It can be loud, just like some ABS systems. On my car it makes a GRRR GRRR noise when it engages. 2. It will at will at extra wear on your break system. 3. Don't try and do a burn out with it engaged.... it is counter productive.
Traction Control is superior to standard differentials. Limited Slip diffs, even according to your article do, the transfer of power that you are talking about in your line about Tranction Control. Traction Control limits the speed of the tire it is working on, but does not by definition cause any power to be transferred anywhere else as a mechanic. It may happen as a result, but that is more the mechanics of other parts of the car, not the Traction Control system itself. Limited slip on the other hand does this as a design:
QuoteA limited-slip dif' is a type of differential which uses either fluid or mechanical mechanisms to control the amount of power being directed to a particular wheel. When a wheel loses contact with the ground a standard differential will transfer all power to this wheel and none to the wheel which remains in contact with the ground. This means this axle is no longer effective in driving the vehicle. The limited slip dif' reduces the amount of power going to the wheel which is no longer in contact with the ground. This allows the other wheel to retain a varying degree of efficiency depending on the type of limited slip dif'.
Source: http://www.fronteraowners.co.uk/info/using4wdfaq.htm (http://www.fronteraowners.co.uk/info/using4wdfaq.htm)
QuoteThe solution to these problems is the limited slip differential (LSD), sometimes called positraction. Limited slip differentials use various mechanisms to allow normal differential action when going around turns. When a wheel slips, they allow more torque to be transferred to the non-slipping wheel.
Source: Link from Lazy (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/differential1.htm)
In any case, I think we've covered most of this stuff on this thread. There is a lot of helpful information posted here for the average driver, and a lot of help on how to handle our winter roads. Good luck out there and drive safe.
As a side note: Here is a nice tool for determining changes in size tires (for what the tire will look like at that size):
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html (http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html)
And a good link for tire sizes themselves:
http://www.nationaltire.com/basics/default.asp (http://www.nationaltire.com/basics/default.asp)
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 09:52:30 AM
the larger diameter tires do help with clearance [...] The downside is burning some rubber on hitting bumps when I have heavier passengers in my back seat and a full load in the trunk
If your tires are contacting *any* part of the body of your car, you might as well be juggling a couple of hand grenades with the pins pulled. In this scenario, tires will wear prematurely in weird ways and fail *spectacularly* at the most inopportune times, possibly causing collisions, roll-overs, and injury. For instance, tires that come into contact with the top of the wheel well repeatedly have a much higher chance of having the steel belts break, at which point the tire will try to re-form itself from looking like a car tire (flat tread) to looking like a bicycle tire (round tread). If the belts break without the tire bursting, you're vehicle will now have little traction on that corner of the vehicle because so little of the tire is still touching the ground (as opposed to a flat tire where lots of your tread is touching the ground). If this happens at highway speed, you're likely to careen off the road in a random direction.
Vehicles are designed (and they were in 1985 as well) to never have contact between tires and car-body. Even if your springs are completely compressed and hitting the bump-stops, the correct size tires for the vehicle will not touch any part of the body of the car.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 11, 2006, 09:35:07 AM
The rims that came with the car were 195 70 R14, so that's what I got when I replaced the old tires on buying the vehicle, since they were nice rims and I didn't want to buy new ones.
Rims are measured in diameter and width. Most likely, they were 14" x 6", with a J lip (less common is a JJ lip). Tires are measured as 195/70R14, which means
195mm wide tread, sidewall height is
70% of tread width (195mm x 70% = 136.5mm sidewall height), the tires are
Radial tires, and the tires fit on
14" wheels. According to The Tire Rack Online (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/SelectTireSize.jsp?autoMake=Toyota&autoModel=Celica&autoYear=1985&autoModClar=), your Celica is supposed to have 185/70R14 tires on it. The 195/70R14 tires that you have are 10mm (5%) wider and 14mm (2.3%) taller, with 44mm (2.3%) more circumference. This may be just enough to allow rubbing against the car body, which really shouldn't happen. It also means that your speedometer is 2.3% slow (100km/h on the speedo is really 102.3km/h). There should be a metal plate attached to one of the door jambs, the inside of the glove box, or the inside of the gas filler door that specifies the correct size of tire for the vehicle, if you want to double-check what The Tire Rack lists.
Nice post Thorin
Thanks. Was it the deft use of quotations, or the sexy mathematics that made you like it? :)
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 10:47:02 AM
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 09:52:30 AM
the larger diameter tires do help with clearance [...] The downside is burning some rubber on hitting bumps when I have heavier passengers in my back seat and a full load in the trunk
If your tires are contacting *any* part of the body of your car, you might as well be juggling a couple of hand grenades with the pins pulled. In this scenario, tires will wear prematurely in weird ways and fail *spectacularly* at the most inopportune times, possibly causing collisions, roll-overs, and injury. For instance, tires that come into contact with the top of the wheel well repeatedly have a much higher chance of having the steel belts break, at which point the tire will try to re-form itself from looking like a car tire (flat tread) to looking like a bicycle tire (round tread). If the belts break without the tire bursting, you're vehicle will now have little traction on that corner of the vehicle because so little of the tire is still touching the ground (as opposed to a flat tire where lots of your tread is touching the ground). If this happens at highway speed, you're likely to careen off the road in a random direction.
Vehicles are designed (and they were in 1985 as well) to never have contact between tires and car-body. Even if your springs are completely compressed and hitting the bump-stops, the correct size tires for the vehicle will not touch any part of the body of the car.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 11, 2006, 09:35:07 AM
The rims that came with the car were 195 70 R14, so that's what I got when I replaced the old tires on buying the vehicle, since they were nice rims and I didn't want to buy new ones.
Rims are measured in diameter and width. Most likely, they were 14" x 6", with a J lip (less common is a JJ lip). Tires are measured as 195/70R14, which means 195mm wide tread, sidewall height is 70% of tread width (195mm x 70% = 136.5mm sidewall height), the tires are Radial tires, and the tires fit on 14" wheels. According to The Tire Rack Online (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/SelectTireSize.jsp?autoMake=Toyota&autoModel=Celica&autoYear=1985&autoModClar=), your Celica is supposed to have 185/70R14 tires on it. The 195/70R14 tires that you have are 10mm (5%) wider and 14mm (2.3%) taller, with 44mm (2.3%) more circumference. This may be just enough to allow rubbing against the car body, which really shouldn't happen. It also means that your speedometer is 2.3% slow (100km/h on the speedo is really 102.3km/h). There should be a metal plate attached to one of the door jambs, the inside of the glove box, or the inside of the gas filler door that specifies the correct size of tire for the vehicle, if you want to double-check what The Tire Rack lists.
Thanks for the info. I've always known my speedometer's been off. As for the rubbing, this only happens in the few instances when I'm running a full passenger load and a full cargo load in the trunk, or when I'm making a really sharp turn. If it was doing it all the time, I'd be worried given what you have said, but I think it'lls be ok given how its only infrequently I've had this trouble. The only time I smelled rubber over a good deal of the trip was with four people in the car and a full load in the trunk on the way to and from Lazy's house warming, and even then it was only happening when I hit bumps along the road, mostly by Tom's place. I'll probably get my tires rotated in the spring, so I'll ask for them to look for odd wear then. Thanks.
Quote from: Melbosa on December 12, 2006, 10:26:10 AM
As a side note: Here is a nice tool for determining changes in size tires (for what the tire will look like at that size):
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html (http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html)
Thank you! Now I can tell my wife that we need 215/40R20s for the new minivan, when we buy it (up from 215/65R16s). Just so we can say we've got 20" rims... :P
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 12:06:40 PMThanks for the info. I've always known my speedometer's been off. As for the rubbing, this only happens in the few instances when I'm running a full passenger load and a full cargo load in the trunk, or when I'm making a really sharp turn. If it was doing it all the time, I'd be worried given what you have said, but I think it'lls be ok given how its only infrequently I've had this trouble. The only time I smelled rubber over a good deal of the trip was with four people in the car and a full load in the trunk on the way to and from Lazy's house warming, and even then it was only happening when I hit bumps along the road, mostly by Tom's place. I'll probably get my tires rotated in the spring, so I'll ask for them to look for odd wear then. Thanks.
Actually, from what I've heard
any scraping is typically a bad sign, under load or not.
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 12:03:00 PM
Thanks. Was it the deft use of quotations, or the sexy mathematics that made you like it? :)
Well thought out I guess. I read it, understood it all.
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 12:08:28 PM
Quote from: Melbosa on December 12, 2006, 10:26:10 AM
As a side note: Here is a nice tool for determining changes in size tires (for what the tire will look like at that size):
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html (http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html)
Thank you! Now I can tell my wife that we need 215/40R20s for the new minivan, when we buy it (up from 215/65R16s). Just so we can say we've got 20" rims... :P
You and the escalades :D
Quote from: Mr. Analog on December 12, 2006, 12:11:57 PM
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 12:06:40 PMThanks for the info. I've always known my speedometer's been off. As for the rubbing, this only happens in the few instances when I'm running a full passenger load and a full cargo load in the trunk, or when I'm making a really sharp turn. If it was doing it all the time, I'd be worried given what you have said, but I think it'lls be ok given how its only infrequently I've had this trouble. The only time I smelled rubber over a good deal of the trip was with four people in the car and a full load in the trunk on the way to and from Lazy's house warming, and even then it was only happening when I hit bumps along the road, mostly by Tom's place. I'll probably get my tires rotated in the spring, so I'll ask for them to look for odd wear then. Thanks.
Actually, from what I've heard any scraping is typically a bad sign, under load or not.
Ust's are from the tires. I know Ray told him when he bought it that they were bigger that should be on the car. The previous owner thought they looked kewl.
Quote from: Melbosa on December 12, 2006, 01:20:41 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on December 12, 2006, 12:11:57 PM
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 12:06:40 PMThanks for the info. I've always known my speedometer's been off. As for the rubbing, this only happens in the few instances when I'm running a full passenger load and a full cargo load in the trunk, or when I'm making a really sharp turn. If it was doing it all the time, I'd be worried given what you have said, but I think it'lls be ok given how its only infrequently I've had this trouble. The only time I smelled rubber over a good deal of the trip was with four people in the car and a full load in the trunk on the way to and from Lazy's house warming, and even then it was only happening when I hit bumps along the road, mostly by Tom's place. I'll probably get my tires rotated in the spring, so I'll ask for them to look for odd wear then. Thanks.
Actually, from what I've heard any scraping is typically a bad sign, under load or not.
Ust's are from the tires. I know Ray told him when he bought it that they were bigger that should be on the car. The previous owner thought they looked kewl.
Yup, I knew going in they were oversized, but I was too cheap to buy smaller rims, and I did like the way they looked as well. The tires were brand new when I bought them, and I haven't put that many kilometres on them, so I think it should be ok.
I haven't posted in here yet, cause I don't even know where to start with this thread...
As for the original subject, I didn't bother to read the article, but yes RWD is ALWAYS better than FWD in all situations (except stupid examples designed to make it bad eg. stopped with only rear-wheels in an icy hole).
As to other points...
Tire diameter is really irrelevant as far as traction is concerned - ground clearance is the only thing affected.
In the summer on wet/dry surfaces you typically want a wider tire. On snow/ice you typically want a narrower tire.
When stuck, you do NOT want the wheels to be spinning - you get maximum friction (traction) when there is no spinning/slipping, once you break friction it will continue to slide/spin easily. It doesn't matter how your specific traction control works, if your tires are turning at least as fast as the car is moving forward it won't hurt anyone trying to push the vehicle - preferably though the tires are spinning as slowly as possible, such that if the car starts to move forward the tire will grip and stop spinning, thereby actually pulling the car instead of a person pushing it. Yes - 99% of people who get stuck are idiots who don't know better than to floor it.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 01:38:45 PMYup, I knew going in they were oversized, but I was too cheap to buy smaller rims, and I did like the way they looked as well. The tires were brand new when I bought them, and I haven't put that many kilometres on them, so I think it should be ok.
I am deeply concerned for your safety on the highway with the tires you have. You or your family have not been stuck out on the highway before I take it, well I can say from personal experience that it is not pleasant, even in the summer, with a cell phone. You will get towed to the nearest town and (if my experience was typcial) get soundly gouged by the local mechanics for replacement tires + any additional damage to your vehicle that might be required to make it roadworthy.
Sure, AMA did the towing and insurance eventually paid for most things but it takes hours out of your day and, more importantly, it can be potentially fatal to be driving on unsafe tires (the metal was almost showing on both tires in our case).
So consider this; for a mere $450 you can get new all-season tires, installed+balanced at Costco (or wherever) and ensure your own personal safety.
Sounds like he is fine with potentially injuring himself and others.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 01:38:45 PM
Yup, I knew going in they were oversized, but I was too cheap to buy smaller rims, and I did like the way they looked as well.
No, you shouldn't have to buy different rims - your car is supposed to have 14" rims and it does; I'm willing to bet the rims are even the expected 6" width. It's just the tires that are oversized (and not by a lot, but apparently enough to allow rubbing against other parts of the car). Melbosa, the rims he has on his car, are those actual Celica rims? I can't remember what they look like.
It's also possible that the bumpstop for the springs has worn out and is allowing the springs to allow the tires too close to the wheel well, or that the springs were shortened by whomever owned the car before and therefore the tires touch the wheel well under heavy load. It's even possible that the metal that the springs are mounted against has given way a bit and therefore at full compression the springs aren't sticking down far enough.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 01:38:45 PM
The tires were brand new when I bought them, and I haven't put that many kilometres on them, so I think it should be ok.
Under normal use tires generally last as long or longer than their tread wear warranty. However, rubbing against the wheel well is not considered normal use, and it definitely causes tires to wear out much quicker. If it's rubbing enough to heat up to the point that you can smell the tires, a *lot* of the tread has been melted away. I will add here that I am speaking from direct experience; this is not just conjecture.
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 03:05:41 PM
Melbosa, the rims he has on his car, are those actual Celica rims? I can't remember what they look like.
No actually the rims on his car are Mags and not the originals for a Celica. Even then, most Celica owners opted to find rims from a Supra of the same year as the spoke layout is the same, and the rims on the Supra are by default are wider and Mags. As to the width of the Mag, that I am not sure.
Quote
It's also possible that the bumpstop for the springs has worn out and is allowing the springs to allow the tires too close to the wheel well, or that the springs were shortened by whomever owned the car before and therefore the tires touch the wheel well under heavy load. It's even possible that the metal that the springs are mounted against has given way a bit and therefore at full compression the springs aren't sticking down far enough.
Actually last time we had it in the shop we took a look at the struts in the front and rear and they were still in great shape.
QuoteUnder normal use tires generally last as long or longer than their tread wear warranty. However, rubbing against the wheel well is not considered normal use, and it definitely causes tires to wear out much quicker. If it's rubbing enough to heat up to the point that you can smell the tires, a *lot* of the tread has been melted away. I will add here that I am speaking from direct experience; this is not just conjecture.
This is definately true. Although the rubbing that happens on Ust's car is a result of the wheel well plastic skirt under the metal quarter panel, and isn't the panel itself. More likely his tire will eventually rip or wear the plastic than melt the tire under the heat.
Quote from: Melbosa on December 12, 2006, 03:27:15 PM
This is definately true. Although the rubbing that happens on Ust's car is a result of the wheel well plastic skirt under the metal quarter panel, and isn't the panel itself. More likely his tire will eventually rip or wear the plastic than melt the tire under the heat.
Is this likely to happen imminently? Should I be replacing my tires and rims with something more appropriate to the car, as suggessted here, Mel? I'm thinking of taking in my car to the place I got the tires for rotation on Saturday. Hopefully they can give me an honest opinion on whether they need to be replaced, though there job is to sell tires, so I don't know. I only smelled rubber that one time going to Lazy's place, with a really full load. That's the exception, not the norm. I'll investigate further, and get back to you guys.
Quote from: Cova on December 12, 2006, 02:01:38 PM
As for the original subject, I didn't bother to read the article, but yes RWD is ALWAYS better than FWD in all situations (except stupid examples designed to make it bad eg. stopped with only rear-wheels in an icy hole).
Boo for not reading the linked article first. The point of the article was that RWD produces a more pleasant driving sensation than FWD due to the differences in design (balance, etc). Don't say "ALWAYS" and then say "except"; it's like
begging me to point out all the exceptions to the statement :P Basically, both drive configurations can be horribly botched with poor engineering of the drivetrain and suspension components. And you have to admit, in Edmonton's thick snow blanket FWD is easier to use than RWD, especially when trying to start off at icy intersections or crawl your way through slushy, squishy, deep snow. Given that we have icy intersections and snow at least three months of the year average, this means that FWD is better at least one-quarter of the time.
Quote from: Cova on December 12, 2006, 02:01:38 PM
Tire diameter is really irrelevant as far as traction is concerned - ground clearance is the only thing affected.
The issue of tire diameter was raised precisely because ground clearance is affected, and ground clearance has a distinct effect on traction as soon as it is not enough to clear an obstacle. That is, as soon as you put the car on top of an obstacle that doesn't let the tires touch the ground, you have zero traction. Now, if you need only 1" more ground clearance and you put on tires that reduce your ground clearance by 2", then the choice of tire diameter has a profound and measurable effect on your traction in that particular situation. Given that we were discussing winter driving with deep snow, this scenario is entirely possible.
Quote from: Cova on December 12, 2006, 02:01:38 PM
In the summer on wet/dry surfaces you typically want a wider tire. On snow/ice you typically want a narrower tire.
Lets qualify this a bit. Generally, wider tires help you corner better while narrower tires give you better straight-line traction. If you'll be racing in a straight line, you *don't* want wide tires even if it's on dry pavement. Think about those top alcohol dragsters. Their tires look wide, but as soon as they spin up they get horribly skinny. Because the tires have such low pressure and such a large circumference, though, they still have a huge contact patch to apply torque against the ground. However, in our day-to-day driving cornering is a much more important ability, so for day-to-day driving on dry surfaces wider tires are better.
I will point out again, though, that a wide Blizzak with crushed almonds and buttery rubber that stays soft at -20 will give you better traction in the winter than a skinny summer tire. The rubber composition, tread layout, siping, and other items I mentioned before have a profound impact on the ability of the tire to grip - if it were just the width of the tire that mattered, I'd put bicycle tires on all four corners and laugh at everyone who gets stuck.
----
Thanks to those that did make the effort to read the article and indicate whether they agree with its principal point: that RWD produces a more pleasant driving sensation than FWD, even at regular speeds.
Quote from: Melbosa on December 12, 2006, 03:27:15 PMthe rubbing that happens on Ust's car is a result of the wheel well plastic skirt under the metal quarter panel, and isn't the panel itself. More likely his tire will eventually rip or wear the plastic than melt the tire under the heat.
The last time we picked up Tom with the windows down we could definately smell burnt rubber after hitting bumps or railroad tracks, up until then I didn't really think about it.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 03:35:41 PM
Hopefully they can give me an honest opinion on whether they need to be replaced, though there job is to sell tires, so I don't know.
You could look for yourself. There are indicators in the tread that if you see them, you know that you're getting close to the legal minimum tread thickness allowed. They go across the channels in the tire, between the tread blocks (the raised parts of the tread). If it looks like tread blocks are connected by skinny little bits of rubber across the channels, and the tread blocks and the indicators are the same height, your tires are definitely worn out. If you can't tell, you can still ask the people at the shop. Yes, there's the chance they're going to tell you yes when the answer is no, but you'll have to *assume* that they're not trying to rip you off (otherwise why take your car there at all?). I still think you shouldn't need new rims, just new tires (if they're worn down enough for the indicators to be visible). But I don't know the actual width of your rims, so I can't say for-sure-for-sure.
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 03:35:41 PM
I only smelled rubber that one time going to Lazy's place, with a really full load.
I used to drive a Suzuki Swift. Same as the Chevy Sprint and Pontiac Firefly (well, almost; the sprint had the 55hp 1.0L 3 cylinder engine, the Firefly had the 68hp 1.0L 3 cylinder turbo, the Swift had the 70hp 1.3L 4 cylinder engine; but the body's the same). I folded down the back seats and put eight adults in there, for a total of about 1,300lbs (way over the maximum payload capacity). The original tires *did not rub*. I bought wider tires that had roughly the same circumference, put them on steel wheels intended for a RWD, and put five adults in the car (about 900lbs). Sure enough, they rubbed, but it was because the rims stuck out to far and the edge of the wheel well was getting the edge of the tire. I bought FWD rims and put the wider tires on them, then ended up with seven adults in the car (about 1,100lbs). The rubbing no longer happened. The springs in the back bottomed out over bumps (as they did with the original tires as well), and everybody's butt hurt when I went over the tracks at 80km/h, but the tires *did not rub*. And they really shouldn't. But like I said in a previous post, it could be something other than the tire height...
Quote from: Ustauk on December 12, 2006, 03:35:41 PM
Is this likely to happen imminently? Should I be replacing my tires and rims with something more appropriate to the car, as suggessted here, Mel? I'm thinking of taking in my car to the place I got the tires for rotation on Saturday. Hopefully they can give me an honest opinion on whether they need to be replaced, though there job is to sell tires, so I don't know. I only smelled rubber that one time going to Lazy's place, with a really full load. That's the exception, not the norm. I'll investigate further, and get back to you guys.
You can check your tires yourself for wear. If they are rubbing, it will be very evident on the side walls. If your not bottoming out (i.e. your tires are hitting the top of the car over bumps), and that you would feel in the steering as well as a very hard bump, you should be fine. Rubbing on the side walls will show very easily on tires and be very evident if the damage is bad.
As for your struts, just jump on the bumper in each corner of your car. If it settles easily each time(stops bobbing somewhat fast) then your struts and springs should be fine. If the car continues to bob for 2 or three times quite noticably, you should get it down to the shop to be looked at. Basically you would feel this in the front of the car if it was one of them, the steering would jerk when going over a bump. In the back you would find that you rear would kick out to the bad side when doing a tight turn or joing over a bump.
The guys at the shop are very good (talking Autoya now), and wouldn't let you be driving something unsafe. It's their ticket on the line if they sold you a vehicle, passed its safety, and then you had an accident to find out your tires weren't safe to ride on.
As for the tred, follow Thorin's advice.
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: Cova on December 12, 2006, 02:01:38 PM
As for the original subject, I didn't bother to read the article, but yes RWD is ALWAYS better than FWD in all situations (except stupid examples designed to make it bad eg. stopped with only rear-wheels in an icy hole).
Boo for not reading the linked article first. The point of the article was that RWD produces a more pleasant driving sensation than FWD due to the differences in design (balance, etc). Don't say "ALWAYS" and then say "except"; it's like begging me to point out all the exceptions to the statement :P Basically, both drive configurations can be horribly botched with poor engineering of the drivetrain and suspension components. And you have to admit, in Edmonton's thick snow blanket FWD is easier to use than RWD, especially when trying to start off at icy intersections or crawl your way through slushy, squishy, deep snow. Given that we have icy intersections and snow at least three months of the year average, this means that FWD is better at least one-quarter of the time.
No - I don't have to admint that a thick snow blanket makes FWD better, because it doesn't. When starting off at an icy intersection it may be benificial to have more weight over the drive tires - the problem is poor weight balance of the car, balance doesn't seem to be considered by vehicle makers except in performance vehicles where it affects cornering performance. The fronts are responsible for steering, the rears (or all) for acceleration, every contact-patch with the road has a purpose - FWD gives too much responsibility to your front two contact-patches, and makes the rears useless for anything other than keeping the back of the car off the ground. RWD allows you to maintain steering control even when too much power is applied, and if yer good allows extra steering control with your foot.
Quote from: Thorin on December 12, 2006, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: Cova on December 12, 2006, 02:01:38 PM
In the summer on wet/dry surfaces you typically want a wider tire. On snow/ice you typically want a narrower tire.
Lets qualify this a bit. Generally, wider tires help you corner better while narrower tires give you better straight-line traction. If you'll be racing in a straight line, you *don't* want wide tires even if it's on dry pavement. Think about those top alcohol dragsters. Their tires look wide, but as soon as they spin up they get horribly skinny. Because the tires have such low pressure and such a large circumference, though, they still have a huge contact patch to apply torque against the ground. However, in our day-to-day driving cornering is a much more important ability, so for day-to-day driving on dry surfaces wider tires are better.
I will point out again, though, that a wide Blizzak with crushed almonds and buttery rubber that stays soft at -20 will give you better traction in the winter than a skinny summer tire. The rubber composition, tread layout, siping, and other items I mentioned before have a profound impact on the ability of the tire to grip - if it were just the width of the tire that mattered, I'd put bicycle tires on all four corners and laugh at everyone who gets stuck.
If you are drag racing, you want the widest rear tires that will fit in your wheel-wells without rubbing, while taking into consideration the weight of all that rubber will require more power to spin. Those top-fuel dragsters still have very wide tires even while they are spinning - the large circumference will slightly increase the contact-patch length, but not nearly as much as you can easily increase the width by just using a wider tire. The reason they have very soft tires that expand so much on those dragsters is so that the hub can twist close to 1/4 of a rotation ahead of the contact-patch - that acts as a kind of shock-absorber for acceleration and allows them to immidiatly apply huge amounts of torque without breaking friction - the moment friction breaks the tire will continue to spin until the driver gets off the gas, by which point the race is already over cause the other guy won.
And don't try and change what I said to imply that having a narrow tire is the most important thing in winter - obviously compound and tread-pattern are far more important. However in the summer you typically want to maximize the contact-patch with the road - therefore wider tires. In the winter you want to cut down through snow, such that when cornering you can actually use the sides of the tires against the ruts you form to help control your direction. It also increases the amount of weight per square inch on your contact patch, which helps whatever studs you may have grip in ice (studs being anything from real studs, walnuts or other "chunky" compounds built into the rubber, or just all the gravel on the road / gravel stuck in your tread pattern).
For a real-world example, on my car I run 225/50R16's in the summer, and I believe a 195/65R15 in the winter. And if I remember right, the stock tires for my car were 205/55R16. And I know that both my summers and winters are within 5% of the outside diameter of the stock tires for my car, so my speedo/odometer are still reasonably accurate.
-------------
Ustauk: Go look at your tires. If you can see on them by the wear where they are rubbing you have a problem. If not (and they aren't just freshly put on) then you don't have a problem.