Front Wheel Drive Weight Distribution Explained - What is the "Ideal"?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2017
- In this video we discuss the pros and cons of different weight distributions for front wheel drive cars. While people often seem to think 50/50 is the ideal weight distribution, that's really not the case in any manoeuvre outside of steady state cornering.
Facebook: / kyleengineers
Patreon: / kyledrives
Instagram: / shadowraceengineering
Race car consulting: www.jkfaero.com
G+: plus.google.com/1036634081318...
UA-cam: / kyleengineers - Авто та транспорт
Thanks to Ted Sommer for the video request! I'm not a FWD setup expert by any means, but theory is theory. Hope you enjoy the video!
Aston Martin AeroBlade analysis
Great explanation! Like you stated about not being the fwd expert, you did help open my mind to options to counter the instinctive physics of understeer and to set-up my car for track days. Thanks again Kyle! 👍
Awesome explanation. I have been wondering though. Will using lighter materials such as CF on the roof of the car effect weight distribution or is it all just a gimmick? I.e. E92 M3. Related to that, what if the car has CF hood and/or boot?
1:22 it's been a long time since I did the lecture/exam on dynamics, but I think that might not be right. The front wheels would see the centripetal loading, but also have to steer, hence they are under a considerably higher side slip angle than the rear, so the two vectors add up and would use up more of the Kamm's ellipse (ellipse or "circle" of forces/traction, not sure what it is called in English). Am I misremembering this?
@Ted Sommer: Great, glad you enjoyed it!
@BiskutKibal: Lighter materials, particularly high up, will help lower the CG.
@YensR: In a steady state corner, with a 50/50 weight distribution, both front and rear axles must have equal forces on them. While the curvature of the corner will mean the front wheels must be steered, the slip angle of the tyre will still be the same both front and rear (with equal tyres). Remember the tyre slip angle is essentially the angle between the wheelface and the local direction of travel. If the front tyres were at higher slip angle than the rear, they would be generating more or less force (depending on where we sit on the curve) hence we would end up with a transient corner due to the torque around the cars cg from differential axle grip. Make sense?
These are the factors I consider whenever I place an object in my grocery cart
i bet that could actually work
ive pushed carts before that have felt really unstable and want to go backwards all the time, i wander if it had the weight distributed towards the rear too much
@@lucywucyyy Probably too much front distro; excess rear distribution would be a stabilizing factor.
@@Derpy-qg9hn no rear distribution makes things more unstable
Shit I need a friend like u lmao
@@Derpy-qg9hn how so? I feel like I can kind of see why but not sure. Unless ur trolling
Might be an unpopular opinion, but I like your videos more than Engineering Explained, because you talk about more relevant things (at least for me)
smae
I enjoy both shows. EE does a lot of great overall engineering and how things work. KE focuses more on the race application. Personally, as a FWD racer, I love that ANYONE is tackling our engineering needs. This is all so much more helpful than just kinda blindly stabbing in the dark and hoping something works. EE and KE videos are my lifeblood for trying to figure things out.
Also, mad props to both for being pretty quick on answering questions I've thrown at them in the past regarding FWD and attempting to make them rotate and accelerate.
EE is neither a real driver or engineer. He's a youtuber. Kyle is both.
I just unsubbed from EE about a month ago. He started to get to click-baity for me.
EE usually just says how something works but that's about it, he often-times jumps over very critical information and I myself am left wondering, KE seems to think about everything a bit more and explains everything to a little dumber level (?).
And yeah, he is a little click baity, he also seems to have jumped to sponsored videos quite a bit as far as I remember, but both are GREAT in audience engagement, which is quite rare.
Please, talk more about moments of inertia in a car. I think this is a very important thing that nobody talks about.
Yes that is very important principally the yaw inertia.. I hope kyle lets expand it. Regards
EE comes off as some guy that read about a concept in a freshman class textbook, and is 'helpfully' re-explaining it to a dumber classmate while leaving out the nuances and working theory for simplicity, unintentionally getting it half wrong. Kyle is someone who has explored the concepts irl, and is speaking from experience. Huge difference.
The moment of inertia problem with too much weight forward is something I never thought about. What an eye opener.
That was very interesting, my car has a very forward weight distribution but it seems to work as I use the car for low speed racing and it literally allows me to turn the car on the spot by using left foot braking, but it is very unstable at speed. I have been adding aero to combat the high speed issue. Good vid awesome work!
EG Civic setup-275/35R15 front 205/50R15 rear, 32 mm rear sway bar and no front sway bar=insane grip!
Next is, RR weight and mass distribution
Could you do the same thing with rwd and awd as well please.
Great video! I run same size tires, same spring rates, and same tire pressures front/rear. I use damper settings to tune oversteer in my FWD race car
Preface: Not saying this as a "you're doing it wrong" thing, just elaborating on the various complexities of the situation for purposes of completeness: "same spring rates"
if you run stiffer rear arbs it also can help out a lot
now .... that 944 is just beautiful ! many thanks for the video also, TOP job!
Hi Kyle - Can you please comment about corner weights? You move around everything you can as discussed in the above video, but there is still a left/right discrepancy to go along with the front/rear. What corner weighting ideals, or what factors should be considered? I'm particularly interested in FWD, but I suspect that there will be mainly similarities with RWD / AWD? Cheers!
Another vid idea you could discuss under tray aero theory on cars that are under breathers like older corvettes C6 and back, the air dam blocks clean flow from getting under the rest of the car so is a flat tray or rear diffuser worth it on that style. Would a front splitter be put on the bottom of the air dam or put it on the bumper just to get a high pressure zone on top of it to push down?
Great video as usual!
@Kyle.Engineers I would be very interested to hear from you on this, so accepting the Tires will never be in a perfect ratio, would it still help though to get it as close as possible, I'm rim+tire shopping now for next season and seems I might actually benefit more from going 8.5" on the front and 8" on the rear and look at 225 rear 245 front. Its small differences but would this factor in?
Hi! Are you going to analyze weight distribution for rear-wheel drive as well?
Soo uhh. I want my downforce to give me near 50/50 for cornering but to be front heavy without aero effect for acceleration?
Variable Wing moment
Question ! Im trying to combat Weight distribution for better mpg by putting smaller radius tyres on the back . My car is a front wheel drive so my concept was that if I put smaller wheels on the back then the weight which is mainly up the front end will then shift to the back ?
I figured my steering may alter slightly but that is not a big issue if driving conservatively . However if radical driving is necessary I think that the front end will not slide as much if a portion of the weight has been sent to the back allowing the back end to take some of the traction allowing the front to bite traction instead of slide due to having too much weight distribution on the front ?
Another benefit why I think that this is a good concept is that due to the weight being shifted more to the back then the wear on the front cv joints and the suspension assembly will not be as harsh before as the back end will be taking up some of the load !
Any thoughts on my concept ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from this video, I learnt that having the maximum possible weight reduction is better than having positional weight reduction (reducing weight of compenents in the front only, in order to gain a closer to 50-50 weight distribution, which really isn't that great).
I think it depends on the specific course you want to optimize for, how many degrees of freedom you have with your suspension and what your driving style is. Weight distribution is just one variable in a huge equation. But I think for most road courses, if you have the ability to tune your suspension and adapt your driving style, lighter will usually be better.
Do you have any videos on pitch center and how changing it effects handling?
Can you explain me whhat's the differences and the the Pros and Cons between Longitudinal Front mounted engine FWD and Transversal front mounted FWD?
I can't find anything on the internet about this.
Con of longitudinal is the bonnet has to be much longer and/or robs much more space inside the cabin. Pros I'm guessing it's a more symmetrical setup, driveshafts would also be more symmetrical, so probably less torque steer maybe?
So a nose heavy car can cause understeer because the Center of Gravity is too far forward? So If I raise the nose (reduce rake) sometimes I might get better handling?
very informational! cheers!
I hate to push you back to aero, but I have seen pics of 90's F1 cars showing an exhaust induced rear diffuser under the car. If my memory serves me right the Brawn/Mercedes F1 team (Jenson Button) had a type of venturi on top of their rear diffuser that also used the exhaust. I could be wrong though.
I'm considering this kind of aid for downforce with a front splitter and reduce the need for a rear wing on a fwd track car. Just need more explanation, information and the affects of placement in the diffuser.
Love your videos and would like to see you do more real life experiments.
could use stock tyres on the front and pizza cutters on the back saw a civic drag car that used that orientation
great video cheers. the only thing I'd add is: with a FWD set up to have the centre of mass towards the front end, when cornering I try to slightly press on the accelerator just as the car is about to hit the tightest radius of the corner so you can use the load transfer to get to get a better balance and more grip also then trying to hit a later apex to get the tyres as straight as possible to reduce understeer on exits. the only other good thing iv noticed load transfer to be helpful on a fwd is to help correct oversteer via slamming on the accelerator for the rear to grip again and the front will also pull the car straight. other then those 2 points load transfer on a fwd is not helpfully at all, so stiffer set ups will be better (for cuiruit racing of course).
I've found autocrossing a fwd car, with a stiffer roll bar, and 2 psi higher than the front With trail braking, works well to negate a lot of the understeer, going to try stiffer springs in the rear next!
Now how would one go about shifting the center of gravity?
just run a Honda.....dont try to be a hero
move the whole powertrain back a few inches lol
love this!
So can you add weight to the left front to help grip
WoW. Now I undestande why my engine is tiltet upwards the axle! Smart peugeot engineers
Just a question. Based on your explanation about the location of CG during acceleration, a front-engine-RWD car would accelerate in a straight line faster than a front-engine-AWD car because the weight would be transferred onto the rear-driving wheels, ideally for traction. But in reality that most people have known, the front-engine-RWD car is slower. Please explain that.
the extra grip from awd does more for acceleration than the weight transfer to the rear on a rwd
@@budd1669
Yes, the "theorical" weight transfer towards the rear wheels in hard acceleration is quite negligible in real life unless the car is very tall. I recently tested a front-heavy RS3 for 0-100 launch set up as 50:50 vs 60:40 (F:R) torque distribution, the latter was 0.6 second quicker.
Iv always liked same size rear tires because the car is on 3 wheels most of the time throughout the corner and that one tire has a lot to do.
Forget to mention narrow rear track on FWD ?
Cool vid idea would be talking about hood scoops and is the ram air effect worth the negative effect of disturbing the air flow across the hood? Also with a cold air intake under the hood should the inlet be in a high pressure zone or low?
You always want the air inlet for the engine in a high pressure area. It helps the engine to pull air into the cylinders and so on. You always want your exhaust to end in a low pressure zone. That way that helps pull the exhaust gases out of the cylinder after combustion.
Naturally this causes the exhaust to end at the rear and the air intake to be at the front behind the grill.
@@achimhanischdorfer3403 Nice explamation. Is that why CAI's might reduce torque at low/mid rpm's, bc they're positioned far and low from the engine area where pressure is lower?
@@AguilaJR
I don't know what a CAI is.
@@achimhanischdorfer3403 sorry. short for Cold Air Intake
@@AguilaJR
As the name says, cold air intakes are supposed to inhale cold air. If they are placed deep inside the engine bay, they don't inhale cold air, which reduced the engine power. If cold air intakes have more or less flow restriction over a normal air intake, I don't know that.
Thank you
2:23 Dude flipped the W in “that way” upside down lmao
Does installing a spoiler on a FWD car increase the chance of it understeering, since the back of the car is pushed down more than the front thus taking away some of front tire traction ?
I think a spoiler on fwd only helps rear stability in high speeds. Dont think it affects front grip in turns.
@@madmarlone It doesnt affect the front grip per se, but it affects the balance of the car - adding a strong rear spoiler (aka not an ebay wing) would give you a more understeery balance, with the same cornering G's however.
Ferrofluid + Magnets = Moveable ballast.
Thoughts on this?
Woah i wonder how this effects your braking distance and the heat you’ll be making on your brakes
thanks!
Something i don't quite understand is the concept of weight transfer...
Which fundamental mechanics are the underlying?
I mean the effect is clearly there and observable but i don't know why :/
Maybe a video on this?
Adalbert Bender Yea. Would be interesting as a video. Tried to explain it as a comment but it was too long
Its quite basic, so I suppose he wont do a video on that.
When you are accelerating an object and changing its velocity or the vector of the velocity, you put a force on the center of mass of the object.
As the tyres are the connection between road and vehicle, the center of mass of the car pulls/pushes on everything between itself and the contact patch of the tyres.
Erdinc A. Sorry, but that explanation is too basic imo.
It just doesn't follow from basic theory of momentum and angular momentum that simply...
Adalbert Bender Well lets say we have a motorcycle (for simplicity) and we look at weight transfer under braking. Lets just say the CG is right at the drivers seat. Now imagine the bike from the side. If it brakes, the front tire transfers a force just where it is contacting the ground. Now think we draw an arrow for the force, it will start at the contact patch and point backwards. No the CG wants to go on forwards cause momentum so we draw an arrow starting from the seat to the front. Now the forwards arrow is further up than the rearwards arrow so inbetween you can imagine an axle (just for kicks) which now feels a torque anticlockwise. There is no more magic in there
alles klar klaus ok oh it begins to make sense to me now. So the Position of the CG stays the same relatively, but in order to counter the torque the load Force on the front tire becomes bigger. Right?
I race a DC5 Integra (na 250hp atw) which runs 54.1% front. Front Tyres are a Medium Compound and are sized at 355 wide. Rear is a 235 wide in Soft Compound. Springs are 16 front with 18 rear. Roll Bars are both 30mm F/R. Shocks are set at 13(F) / 8(R) from full Soft. This car holds every single track record where it's been (lots of tracks). National and State Titles are plentiful. Steering wheel input is less than 1/8th of a turn then the back rotates and I'm back on the gas hard by the Apex. No U/S. Never come off any more than half throttle anywhere. What do you think of my set up and how can I improve? A couple of other FWD Racers have driven the car and describe the Steering as sharp and you can get back on the gas as soon as the car has taken a 'set' before the Apex.
You have bad weight distribution, thats why u have only 235 rear tire. Best FWD cars have almost 10% more weight at front axle.
Roll bar is bad too, give more stiff on rear, but loose it on front axle. Best fwd autocross cars dont have any rollbar at front.
And this integra have no chances against real ta cars like 600-700 hp, 1000-1100 kg awd cars, so i dont belive in your track record. Were you at Laguna Seca?
30 mm front axle swaybar on fwd race car is madness.
I still find it hard to understand why the farther away from the center of the shape the bigger the inertia is. I mean they're pretty much having similar mass, but the formula says so. so the best possible way to reduce the inertia is to move the center of mass to the center of the shape. probably why almost all serious race car use mid engine placement.
Leverage is the key here. Farther away. Gives more leverage which basically means more force
How do you stop your car from oversteering when your front end is so grippy?
brake earlier and get foot on throttle asap round corner ?
Interesting to watch this in hindsight, you can really see where Nissan was trying to go with the Nismo LMP. Shame that they had a lot of pieces to the puzzle, but were thwarted by the never going to happen performance of the ToroTrak FlyBrid system that was doomed to failure before it was even built.
Actually the main reason behind that car's configuration was the potential for improved aerodynamic efficiency. I believe Kyle did a video on that too.
ASJC27 it was, because while the regulations on the rear diffuser were hard locked down to a spec configuration, the front diffuser was wide open. So the entire aero package exploited that fact, along with also allowing the use of the flow through tunnels to improve front diffuser performance, as well as fill in drag wake, and improve rear diffuser extraction at the rear.
As it relates here though, they made a lot of compromises to the front suspension in order to fit the larger brakes. Which of course was all a direct byproduct of the FlyBrid system not working, which meant there was no harvesting to assist in braking. That of course also mean no small diameter tires like they wanted, which further upset the cars balance. And all of the clutch issues they suffered at LeMans were also a result of the load out on it, again, by lack of Hybrid assist.
They should retry the layout as a non-hybrid with the new regulations, clearly it's plenty fast enough, it just needed some perfecting. Unfortunately, I think almost everyone who was on the project got shit canned by Renault.
bigbuckoramma That car was never fast, it was slower than of all LMP1 cars (it was even slower then fastest LMP2 cars), and all design was failure, which was clear after Nürburgring test, but for some mysterious reason Nissan continued with the project (after Nürburgring test they should do same as Mercedes did with CLR-GT1 which had similar problems, and just retire car never to race again).
i hope they keep trying with it cos i love that car
Miloš Lazović it was only slow in total lap time. In outright speed, it was still one of the fastest trap speed cars on the track, despite not having any Hybrid power, and lugging around an extra 200kg from the non-hybrid LMPs.
The Aero concept worked like a charm. But because the hybrid system was dead on arrival, they rest of the car, and primarily the suspension, had to be compromised so much, that the car did not function properly as designed. As they required big brakes that means no more big sidewall tires, which put a ton of load into the suspension, which broke the car. Everyone loves to blame Nissan and Bowlby, but the real criminals of that design where ToroTrak, and their FlyBrid system which was NEVER going to work.
The only thing I could think about was if you were gonna use those markers or just let them dry out
Tire grip is very important in this equation. The more grip the tires provide, the lower the center of gravity can be.....and on and on and on......any car or drive train configuration. If the tires for the application have poor grip, you often have to raise CG to use weight transfer to obtain additional grip. Front wheel drive does throw it for a loop BUT it still has to be considered because of lateral Gs....not just forward.
The application is a huge influence. Are you drag racing, autocross, road racing, or is this just a street application for a manufacturer........EVERYTHING MATTERS.
Raise CG for increased grip? Raising the CG makes normal load sensitivity worse and reduces total grip. Lowering the CG improves total grip regardless of tyre grip level, if lowering your CG has made your car have less grip you have a problem with your suspension setup...
ThatCarGuy, nope....not when you are on surfaces that have low CoF......dirt.....gravel....snow...ice.
There are times when you need weight transfer and there are times when raising the CG is the only way to accomplish that task. Not everything is about asphalt.
Same goes with instant centers...
I am going to give you an example. Have you ever seen kart racing. In road racing, they have two very particular types. You have laydown enduros and you have sit-up karts. The sit-up karts have a much higher CG. They are the fastest karts until you get on big tracks like Daytona or some super speedway where aerodynamics rule. Otherwise, the sit-ups are much faster. It isn't always about the lowest CG possible.
I'll have to respectfully disagree on several fronts, firstly, your initial comment mentioned low grip tyres needing a high CG, yet the only examples you quote are for low grip surfaces. You'd be hard pressed to find a low grip tyre on asphalt that performs better with a high CG than a low CG, which is what I responded to. However, if we were to consider the low grip surfaces you mentioned, one need only look at WRC cars and the efforts they go to lower CG (navigator mounted so low they can't see properly out the front etc.). Weight transfer will always occur, as we can never get the CG to the ground, so you will always be able to use it as a driver in transient cases, but reducing CG height will provide improved total grip, even if it slightly compromises your ability to weight transfer. Not to mention if you raise the CG too high you will roll the car if you generate enough grip.
Karts are quite a different ball game, firstly they are RWD, not FWD, so higher CG transfers weight to the rear and gives them more traction on the rear axle, very valuable for lower speeds. Also, karts run solid axle, so need a certain CG height to get enough jacking to unload the inside rear for low speed corners. Very different to a FWD car with full suspension.
To add to that, the weight transfer doesn't gain "additional grip", it simply moves about the grip distribution. Total grip will always be less under weight transfer, but increasing the grip on one axle with respect to the other can allow transient manoeuvres to be performed quicker through increased yaw torque
ThatCarGuy, rally cars have a packaging problem. Getting the navigator low is a small piece of the pie. They have fairly forward engines and still have to allow space for the front dif and axles and front suspension components that have to be strong enough to take some pretty big hits. They have an inherently high (relative to a typical race car) CG.
As for creating an opportunity for grip in karts....you do know they often pull well over 1.5 Gs? I don't know what you are talking about in your reference to slow speed corners. Speed is relative.....velocity is what matters. Averaging well over 65 mph on a track the size of a running track....slow? When I was racing dirt ovals in 2 cycle unlimited, there were a couple tracks in the Carolinas where over 3 Gs was possible. If you are pulling 3 Gs, you want to be as low as possible. If the track was not that aggressive, there times where raising the driver was key to optimal grip.
Making the tires work is the KEY to performance in any application....and everything isn't about forward bite. I had over 50 hp and I could rarely get enough weight on the front to suit me. Remember, unlike other forms of racing, in karting, the driver is often the heaviest component of the kart....sometimes over 50% of the complete package. If you raise the driver's seating angle, 5 degrees, the CG goes up significantly.
The point I was attempting to make is there are times where the tires require something different....because of other factors and ALL of those factors need to be taken into account. Dirt Late models.....have you ever seen them run? In the early 90s we built a car that had an extremely low CG. It just didn't work as well. There are more dynamics going on than just CG placement. Roll centers are key. Rear steer is key. Forward traction due to instant centers is key. Braking forces on suspension components is key. Shock technology is key to keeping the tire surface on the track. Load transfer is a component to grip distribution. EVERYTHING MATTERS......can't be stated strongly enough.
To suggest that raised CG doesn't have a positive influenece in some vehicle dynamics is just wrong. That said, because of the packaging issues of a normal car, yes, you want a lower CG almost always...because it was high to begin with.....generally for ground clearance.
Obviously, dirt late models, kart racing.....most of my experience is in racing. I have done the drag racing deal with cars and on dirt/mud surfaces with trucks. I don't profess to know it all but I have personally seen a raised CG pick up times significantly enough to be the difference from mid pack to winning. These are not from watching TV.....it's from doing it. If you want to disagree, that is fine. I have no trophies to prove any of it. After a while, they start taking up space so they go in the dumpster or get donated to some kid class. I spent the money too....
Why did corvette move to a mid engine car? I thought it was for a better weight distribution
Indeed it was for better weight distribution. Front MR engine layout cant have ideal weight distribution.
What about street application
What about a fiberglass back FWD car..
Kyle you should design a race track. It would be the greatest track ever (either as a nightmare or heaven for testing the ability of a car to corner) :D
Go drive Road Atlanta
And here i came to watch to see what would be a good starting point for my civic, i got more confused
10:39 Wait so if the center of gravity was infront of the front axle you'd literally have to turn right to go left?!
Yes, similar to how forklifts steer
Alfa = T/I is not dimensionally correct? Have you left something out with that formula?
You ve spent all this time making an argument about CG placement, when CG is pretty much fixed. Well you can just lower it a few cm but that’s about it. We take CG as a constant and tune the suspension geometries that we can change: ie spring rates, sway bars, alignment, tires, etc. Good video none the less I just subscribed
on a single car, yes its more or less fixed. But it can be quite different from car to car - many front engines go over 60% front, some rear engines as low as 40% front weight bias.
Hey, Can you please explain rear spoiler in Lancia Delta Integrale? It's angle looks quite optimistic for me
i.e. picture: bi.gazeta.pl/im/51/72/11/z18293841IE,Lancia-Delta-Integrale.jpg
I believe it's not actually a spoiler but a gurney flap. Kyle has a previous video on the subject ua-cam.com/video/IVEP3_TC_RU/v-deo.html
Instead of the flap acting on a wing (spoiler), as is normally the case. Lancia were trying to use it to generate more downforce (or at least negate any lift) by treating the entire car as a crude wing.
How effective it was is beyond me though.
thanks, that may be it
I'm here because I like wings and rice. Lol
I love wiiiiiinnnnnngssss! 🏎
I can admit it I like American cars with rear wings. It looks dope if done right. I just like the way they look. Dont judge me. 😊👍
0:59 Kyle can you please draw a bit more precisely? :P
When did Daniel Radcliffe start making UA-cam videos?
So uhh... My little '99 Corolla is perfectly set up? My car has ridiculous over-steer in tight turns. I've only ever used that properly a few times. Granted I am 2 runs in. I never understood uphill runs because going downhill keeping up with 200hp+, 2800 pound s2000's in a 120hp, stock motor, 2400 pound corolla feels good. Footage coming soon. I had previously gone all the way up the hill and spotted a car group gathering. I rode around and went down the hill and having a huge blast in the corners, I decided to go back uphill to see if I could catch some of those "car guys" to test out my new coil-overs...Sure enough, I had 3 s2k's with a Subaru STi coming down. So I flipped a bitch and rode after them. After 30 seconds of whipping my little fwd car down the hill with 200 pounds of gear in the back, I caught up. I lost them at a slight uphill point where power was needed to pass, and the car in front of me wouldn't pull out. So I lost them. Sad story.
TL;DR I suck at driving
In the 100% front wd, you would still lose grip under acceleration. There's a torque between the cog height and your massless rear wheels at the ground.
yeah i was thinking the same thing
What are y'all talking about?
Not if your CG is on the ground, as I mention as the theoretical case at 2:34, if it's on the ground, there is no moment arm, hence no torque around the axle, hence no weight transfer
Interestingly enough. The Renault Clio Cup car is faster on old rear tires than new rear tires.
here is a video which may illustrate the point about having too much front bias and tires with > 1.5 coefficient of friction. the driver misses a gear shift which i think causes the drive train to lock up from bent engine parts(?) any who the result is similar to stepping on the brakes.
ua-cam.com/video/SxZFBcE67NI/v-deo.html
Warning for the mechanically sympathetic people out there! Do not watch! I'd be curious to see what point in the drivetrain let go, however.
Not really...
If you miss a gear you are just in freewheel whatever your grip.
He downshifted.
Creator on the rise..
A FWD should have twin trailing arms on the rear.
1 arm shorter than the other.
This will load up the front axle.... IE rear will not squat.
So Issogonnis got it sorted…
This is all fine for like 50mph and under.. However once you hang a very high speed corner that rear wheel will work it's way out. The main reason I've never subscribed to this setup.
I'm an EV enthusiast and I hate Tesla fanboys going about the car's "ideal" weight distribution.
I am the 1000th viewer...
FIRST COMMENT! #teamnosleep
I am the 10000th viewer...
50/50 is always ideal for chassis balance, it is not for grip it is for prideictability, no pendulum swings and adjustability between understeer and oversteer.
Can u make a perfect car?
Camron Goodall ask Porsche.
Nope
Hello fellow honda drivers
You should do the AWD one next because AWD is the best wheel drive
This isn't Forza kid
OG Drifter This is real life and my 2 AWD cars "kid"
It really isn't.
If we want to talk about "best" drive train, there needs to be established what we weight with our rating:
-cost/complexity
-drivability/handling
-utility
Cost/Complexity
FWD is compact and easy to produce, hence it is used in most production cars today.
RWD is more less complex but more stuff to make, so it ends up costing a little more and weighting a little more.
AWD is most complex, and most expensive, and most heavy
Drivability/Handling:
For causal driving a FWD car is mostly superior. Steer where you want to go and accelerate.
For performance driving using RWD is in most cases superior. You split the load of acceleration and breaking, as well as turning between the axles, causing much more equal tyre wear. It is also far easier to use throttle control to manipulate the car behavior.
AWD offers performance driving and utility advantages, mostly in situations where a vehicle is grip limited. Offroading, pulling. AWD also allows the drivetrain (if engineered that way) to split the torque unevenly, thereby mimicking a FWD or RWD somewhat. If a very special type of handling under all load conditions (breaking, acceleration, coasting...) is desired, such a drivetrain has the best technical capacities.
Utility:
FWD is mostly useless for pulling heavy equipment. It however has its advantage in low cost, making good cheap small haulers (Vans...)
RWD has good pulling capacities, making is useful for Trucks, ... However the drivetrain components can take up valuable space.
AWD is useful for pulling and offroading. If finds its use in construction equipment, military equipment, and offroad cars/trucks. Albeit at not insignificant expense.
TL;DR:
What is "BestWheelDrive" depends what your consider important. Cost or Capability or Handling, or maybe all of them?
Yeah, that's why every race car is AWD.
The best FWD weight distribution is a RWD.
Raymund Hofmann that shit doesn't make any sense. What kind of weed do you smoke?
OG Drifter, that the reason why you brain so fxxk up with all the stpid reply. Good. Keep it by yourself.
rwd is fun when you drift
fwd is fun when you left foot brake
I'm under an impression what you say was meant to be a joke, but excuse me for my ignorance but what do you even mean by that?
I could ASSume but, what do you mean?