Audi RS6 Speed GT cars were cheater cars, period, they paid to get series rules modified for their end result, were full tube frame in a street base class, had a significant aero advantage, and had the floor pans modified.
The Audi Quattro Trans Am cars were significantly superior to anything else running in that series, not to mention like the RS6’s that followed 20 years later, they were full tube frame opposed to cars with mostly production shells they were running against.
Yes the 10/90 AWD split in those cars helped them significantly with tire wear and rain traction, I will not deny that. But to say there were not other factors involved is ignorant.
Oh yeah, and big sticky tires and high hp RWD is easy to drive to a point. That point being when ANY slip angle is involved then it’s all skill (which is how you should be driving, 1-2 degrees). At which point lap times start to vary by about 10-30 seconds on average over a 1:50 second course.
[/quote]
??? are you talking about. All tires in dynamic turning operate at slip angles (usually between +/- 0 to 10 degrees).
IIRC max Fy is produced between 2-4 alpha for race tires and 6-8 alpha for street.
10-30 seconds, where does that come from? That is saying a novice is going to be 30 seconds off of lap record? That is extremely poor driving even for the people that drive 10 feet off of an apex.
??? are you talking about. All tires in dynamic turning operate at slip angles (usually between +/- 0 to 10 degrees).
IIRC max Fy is produced between 2-4 alpha for race tires and 6-8 alpha for street.
10-30 seconds, where does that come from? That is saying a novice is going to be 30 seconds off of lap record? That is extremely poor driving even for the people that drive 10 feet off of an apex.
[/quote]
I’m refering to the loss of grip, and significantly less feedback on a race tire that is significantly easier to recover (through lack of skill) in an AWD car vs RWD. In terms of lap times, I was thinking high HP RWD as it was what was posted earlier in the thread. I’d be extremely surprised if 99% of people here could jump in a GT1R car (PCA/BMWCCA) and get within 15 seconds of their average lap time (around 1:55) the time at the Glen.
Nurburgring? I’d say closer to 1-2 minutes, minimum.
Let’s see if I can dumby it up in different words;
Tires produce grip in two directions (longitudinally (Fx) in braking and acceleration and laterally (Fy) in cornering). They cannot do maximum of both at the same time.
[quote=“MPD47,post:48,topic:24501"”]
AWD is much easier for the less skilled to be fast.
[/quote]
So let’s say you have two novices, same tires, same curb weight, same horsepower one RWD one AWD. For any given instant of acceleration AWD is going to be using half of the Fx of the RWD car. Both drivers are taking the same corner at the same speed so the slip angles are the same and Fy are the same.
This is way over simplified…
Novice RWD goes through corner:
Fy: 50% of available tire grip
gets past apex mashes full throttle
Fx: 75% of available grip per driven tire
Driven tires over loaded (@ 125%), looses time.
Novice AWD goes through corner:
Fy: 50% of available tire grip
gets past apex mashes full throttle:
Fx: 37.5% of available tire grip per tire
I’ll say this…right or wrong the AWD guys are doing a better job of backing up their argument.
I think the RWD crew has conceded that AWD performs better in the wet, on dirt, or in any seriously traction limited situation. When it comes to smooth dry pavement it’s a tough argument. I’ve already said I like both.
It’s basically impossible to make a fair comparison. If you compare two different types of cars, one RWD and one AWD there are too many other variables. If you use an AWD car and make it RWD for testing there are other issues. For instance you could take an STi, run it around a road course in the dry with AWD like usual, then pull the front axles, diff, cap the tranny, and put a center spool in and run RWD and see what happens. People have done it and they say it’s fun for drifting and that’s about it. It’s considerably slower around a road course, but that’s not a fair test either because the suspension is set up for AWD. You’ll probably blow a rear end and axles in the process too…
[quote=“MPD47,post:21,topic:24501"”]
RWD > AWD
Not as much shit to break, less tire wear, less friction, more power to the ground, more fun, better in 99% of race enviornments.
[/quote]
Some of your strengths are also weaknesses though.
Less tire wear on the front tires and more on the rears if we assume the same sizes tires all around on the same vehicle RWD vs. AWD.
More power to the ground…when you have traction and less power to the ground while you spin.
I think it’s safe to say the more the 1% of race surfaces are wet or have dirt on them Mike. :lol:
Audi RS6 Speed GT cars were cheater cars, period, they paid to get series rules modified for their end result.
[/quote]
Got some facts to back that up?
Nobody stopped the other teams from running tube frame cars. Audi played within the rules layed out.
Oh and for the record, most if not all the cars competing were tube frame so I don’t know where you are getting this production stuff from. You go look up any site on the makings of those cars, just about all of them (GTO/GTU) were tube frame.
If we look in the rule books for the Grand AM cup and the USTCC. They put retarded weight restrictions on similarly powered AWD vehicles.
When a Subaru Wagon with a totally stock powertrain from intake to exhaust weighing 3100 lbs gives a Mazda RX8 weighing 2650 lbs a run for the money around the track there must be some advantage…
RWD is only better in 1% of applications; Dry conditions with SUPER sticky tires in an under-powered car.
You people need to learn more about physics.
I don’t have time to teach you right now but, QUATTRO has been banned from certain racing series because of the amazing advantage.
I thought this pole was a joke when I first read it.
The laws of physics don’t lie and never change.
[/quote]
You can’t teach what you don’t know. You know nothing of racing or physics.
If we look in the rule books for the Grand AM cup and the USTCC. They put retarded weight restrictions on similarly powered AWD vehicles.
When a Subaru Wagon with a totally stock powertrain from intake to exhaust weighing 3100 lbs gives a Mazda RX8 weighing 2650 lbs a run for the money around the track there must be some advantage…
I have had RWD, AWD, and FWD. Here’s my take for street cars.
RWD: best for very high performance, good for medium/high performance DD in non-snowy climates
FWD: best for DD medium/low performance provided not in heavy snow area
AWD: best for 4-season use in snowy climates. I suppose it is also best for driving fast on wet roads, but this is a very limited use indulged in primarily by squids. If you want this, you know it, but for most getting out of a corner fast on a slippery road just isn’t something we would ever use. There is a Darwinian factor here anyway - these people tend to select themselves out of the population or grow up and out of it.
Realistically, most people who are really into cars don’t have the desire to take a nice car out in the snow, due to the terrible effects of road salt. They prefer to have a “toy” that they would not use in the snow. For them, in a snowy climate, two vehicles (at least) are needed. One toy for three seasons, which is RWD, and one for winter/towing, etc. that is AWD/4WD. I think I am pretty typical. RWD “toy”, AWD winter/DD, RWD race car.