Slightly off-topic: RWD vs 4WD
08-08-2005, 03:41 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Berkshire, UK
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off-topic: RWD vs 4WD
Yesterday I ran my radio controlled car in the car park of Newbury Racecourse. It became apparent after several hundred spins that something was wrong and returning the car to my feet revealed that one of the front driveshafts had gone walkabout leaving my car rear wheel drive only.
Obviously due to the power to weight ratio of the car the rear wheel drive made it virtually impossible to drive quickly. From a distance it's almost impossible to perceive the car balance and grip and gauge throttle response accordingly. Over time I instinctively knew how much throttle to apply to keep the car on the tarmac but it was far from optimal due to lack of feedback. This is the reason that all high performance nitro radio controlled cars are four wheel drive. A four wheel drift is much easier to correct remotely than a rear wheel slide.
I was thinking last night how this parallels to the Real World and Real Cars. Is it fair to say that when all other parameters are equal (weight, centre of gravity, tyres, power etc etc) and when within the traction capabilities of the tyres the handling of a rear wheel drive car and a four wheel drive car are identical? Is it also fair to say that the handling characteristics are only different between the two drive models when under power and the tyres have broken traction?
If these assumptions are accurate then would it be fair to say that on a track with a driver good enough to keep the throttle below the point where tyres break traction that a four wheel drive car would perform identically to a rear wheel drive car?
On a side note: Driving a radio controlled car with rear wheel drive only is making me a much better driver
Obviously due to the power to weight ratio of the car the rear wheel drive made it virtually impossible to drive quickly. From a distance it's almost impossible to perceive the car balance and grip and gauge throttle response accordingly. Over time I instinctively knew how much throttle to apply to keep the car on the tarmac but it was far from optimal due to lack of feedback. This is the reason that all high performance nitro radio controlled cars are four wheel drive. A four wheel drift is much easier to correct remotely than a rear wheel slide.
I was thinking last night how this parallels to the Real World and Real Cars. Is it fair to say that when all other parameters are equal (weight, centre of gravity, tyres, power etc etc) and when within the traction capabilities of the tyres the handling of a rear wheel drive car and a four wheel drive car are identical? Is it also fair to say that the handling characteristics are only different between the two drive models when under power and the tyres have broken traction?
If these assumptions are accurate then would it be fair to say that on a track with a driver good enough to keep the throttle below the point where tyres break traction that a four wheel drive car would perform identically to a rear wheel drive car?
On a side note: Driving a radio controlled car with rear wheel drive only is making me a much better driver
08-08-2005, 01:45 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Berkshire, UK
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that a WRX is heavier than the S2k due to the complexity of the engine, transmission and the extra bodywork/seats etc. I don't know if the power from the engine compensates for that and I don't know how well they handle.
It was more a hypothetical question because of the constraints imposed by my thoughts.
It was more a hypothetical question because of the constraints imposed by my thoughts.
08-08-2005, 02:09 PM
#4
Member
Ive owned a lot of scoobs and a well set up one is pretty unbelievable in terms of grip. The design of the engine being low down, the AWD system etc means its qute grippy.
I think the difference would be on track where the surface is much more suited to the S. Impreza's are pretty awesome on a bad surface, and also great when you get air and hit the ground. Ive had a couple of hops in the S and its not suited to it! Getting air in a scoob, hitting the floor then powering round a bend takes your breath away. I used to get out my STi and just shake my head sometimes.
I really miss that.
Its not easy to get the back end out in a scoob either, unless you have a Type R with adjustable diff.
MB
I think the difference would be on track where the surface is much more suited to the S. Impreza's are pretty awesome on a bad surface, and also great when you get air and hit the ground. Ive had a couple of hops in the S and its not suited to it! Getting air in a scoob, hitting the floor then powering round a bend takes your breath away. I used to get out my STi and just shake my head sometimes.
I really miss that.
Its not easy to get the back end out in a scoob either, unless you have a Type R with adjustable diff.
MB
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post