Quote:
Originally Posted by switchlanez
Ok I might be starting to change my mind about AWD now that some of you are bringing up valid points. For F1, I don't think they allow AWD because it takes away from the drama of the sport. There was a time in the '90s when the rules required traction control and other electronic auto-adjusting suspension nannies. Then it became more a race of cars instead of drivers so they reverted back without those things. Maybe AWD would hurt the entertainment factor.
For stock street cars, understeer seems to be the common criticism for Lambos, the R8, and the GT-R. I even see Evo/WRX owners not being fond of it. But I guess they've gotten faster than their non-AWD competition lately and I haven't been paying attention? I've always associated AWD with rally racing or a nanny/safety feature more than a sporty enhancement (and I own an AWD hatchback with WRC pedigree). Or a way to make a supercar understeer. It's like those dual clutch gearboxes. Yeah it makes the car shift faster but it becomes less involving. Our cars are evolving to be bullet trains - go fast with less involvement.
|
the sad thing is that i dont think the sport or the entertainment is the reason it isnt in f1. other wise things like double diffusers, super sticky tires and sequential gearboxes would be gone (imo they should be gone). understeer doesnt equal slow. often times it inspires confidence and i would venture to say that 99% of cars today understeer in a static state.
i agree with that last statement though. its probably why that the frs, which i think is a few shades above mediocore, is such a stellar option in todays world.