Can you name any FWD sports cars?

[stugray]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Yeah, Toyota didn't pick out this site to advertise, they gave a company a lump of money to put banner ads up on targeted sites, that company doesn't give a flying fuck, cars are cars.

I'm seeing Ford Pickup trucks and I bet the Yaris forum is seeing Camaros or 370Zs.

Ummmm...... The banner is based on your cookies.
The banner is showing me dell laptops.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by stugray

Ummmm...... The banner is based on your cookies.
The banner is showing me dell laptops.

That's why I didn't mention the trans... missions.

Edit: Now it's showing me Chrysler, I haven't looked up any Chrysler product in about a year so... Wasted ad dollars yay!

[stugray]

Originally Posted by fatoni

I also find it hard to believe that out of 200 classic race cars there wouldn't be a mini or fulvia running around

Ok, I'll concede.

There ARE FWD "sports cars".
There were three at the races this weekend One 81 VW GTI and two minis:




All three were DEAD LAST IN THEIR CLASS........

Even though the Minis have a very good HP to weight ratio, they still cannot keep up with cars that have a worse hp/weight ratio.... I wonder why that is? (Hint: It's that damn "Physics" thingy again....)

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by stugray

Ok, I'll concede.

There ARE FWD "sports cars".
There were three at the races this weekend One 81 VW GTI and two minis:




All three were DEAD LAST IN THEIR CLASS........

Even though the Minis have a very good HP to weight ratio, they still cannot keep up with cars that have a worse hp/weight ratio.... I wonder why that is? (Hint: It's that damn "Physics" thingy again....)

if were going to take very anecdotal evidence (at an amateur level especially) in a classed racing system then you are going to find all sorts of interesting things. many of which will make your "physics" invalid no matter how you look at it. is it physics that allows the cobalt ss to stomp all over the s2k in the scca runoffs? was it physics that made andy hollis to ditch a miata for a crx? does physics also tell us that diesel or hybrids make for the best race cars based on what toyota and audi are doing in lamans? why is it that the heavier gtr has a faster nurburg (i hate using this as a metric so i apologize for this) time than the lighter more powerful lfa? "physics"

[JonAvalon]

Mitsubishi FTO maybe I used to really like them in the 90s.

[stugray]

　

Originally Posted by fatoni

is it physics that allows the cobalt ss to stomp all over the s2k in the scca runoffs? .

Maybe we should talk about the SCCA championships in general instead of just one race group?
50th Annual SCCA Championship runoffs:

E-production: Top 26 cars RWD, 27th place Honda Prelude

F-production 1st & 3rd place Acura Integra (both had slower best lap times than 2nd place)
25 of the top 27 were RWD

GT-2 not a single FWD car in top 24

GT-3 (specifically designed race group to include FWD cars due to weight restrictions)
1st place RWD (4 FWD in top 10)

T3 (the race you are referring to) -

1st place AWD

2nd place Cobalt SS

3rd thru 14th RWD

So you are trying to make your point where a race had 13 of the top 14 cars RWD?

Nice way to make my point.
　

　

Originally Posted by fatoni

does physics also tell us that diesel or hybrids make for the best race cars based on what toyota and audi are doing in lamans? .

Yes (but no idea how that is relevant to FWD vs RWD)

Originally Posted by fatoni

was it physics that made andy hollis to ditch a miata for a crx? .

Using that logic, NASCAR is a better performance car than Indy based on Danica Patrick's choices.

Originally Posted by fatoni

why is it that the heavier gtr has a faster nurburg (i hate using this as a metric so i apologize for this) time than the lighter more powerful lfa? "physics".

Maybe because the GTR is AWD and the LFA is RWD?

Physics agrees that AWD is faster than RWD, but what does that say about FWD vs RWD??? No clue

　

Originally Posted by fatoni

many of which will make your "physics" invalid no matter how you look at it.

See if you can make this bit of physics invalid:

1 - When accelerating straight (forwards), downforce on the wheels moves from the front to the rear making FWD cars inferior to RWD cars in pure acceleration.
Fact check - How many drag cars are FWD?

2 - When deccelerating straight (forwards), downforce on the wheels moves from the rear to the front making FWD cars essentially the same as RWD car in pure braking.

3 - When cornering while accelerating a FWD car must share the friction circle between acceleration and cornering forces.
For FWD, this reduces the available force for both cornering and acceleration making neither one as good as RWD.

4 - When cornering while deccelerating a FWD car has nearly the same characteristics as a RWD as long as the weight distribution is balanced(this is less likely the case with FWD cars).

So in two of the four cases, FWD and RWD are the same.
In one of the four cases RWD is clearly superior to FWD
In one of the four cases RWD is usually superior to FWD

So even when giving FWD the benefit of the doubt, RWD wins the physics challenge everytime (at least according to the auto engineers)

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by stugray

　



Maybe we should talk about the SCCA championships in general instead of just one race group?
50th Annual SCCA Championship runoffs:

E-production: Top 26 cars RWD, 27th place Honda Prelude

F-production 1st & 3rd place Acura Integra (both had slower best lap times than 2nd place)
25 of the top 27 were RWD

GT-2 not a single FWD car in top 24

GT-3 (specifically designed race group to include FWD cars due to weight restrictions)
1st place RWD (4 FWD in top 10)

T3 (the race you are referring to) -

1st place AWD

2nd place Cobalt SS

3rd thru 14th RWD

So you are trying to make your point where a race had 13 of the top 14 cars RWD?

Nice way to make my point.
　

　


Yes (but no idea how that is relevant to FWD vs RWD)



Using that logic, NASCAR is a better performance car than Indy based on Danica Patrick's choices.



Maybe because the GTR is AWD and the LFA is RWD?

Physics agrees that AWD is faster than RWD, but what does that say about FWD vs RWD??? No clue

　



See if you can make this bit of physics invalid:

1 - When accelerating straight (forwards), downforce on the wheels moves from the front to the rear making FWD cars inferior to RWD cars in pure acceleration.
Fact check - How many drag cars are FWD?

2 - When deccelerating straight (forwards), downforce on the wheels moves from the rear to the front making FWD cars essentially the same as RWD car in pure braking.

3 - When cornering while accelerating a FWD car must share the friction circle between acceleration and cornering forces.
For FWD, this reduces the available force for both cornering and acceleration making neither one as good as RWD.

4 - When cornering while deccelerating a FWD car has nearly the same characteristics as a RWD as long as the weight distribution is balanced(this is less likely the case with FWD cars).

So in two of the four cases, FWD and RWD are the same.
In one of the four cases RWD is clearly superior to FWD
In one of the four cases RWD is usually superior to FWD

So even when giving FWD the benefit of the doubt, RWD wins the physics challenge everytime (at least according to the auto engineers)

my point was that there is more than just fwd vs rwd when looking at the example you posted regarding the minis because class racing isnt indicative of much and neither is anecdotal evidence. just saying "physics" doesnt explain anything. and there are more than 4 points to physics. you should consider that there are things that favor fwd like how its cheaper, lighter and more effective at getting most of the power to the wheels.

edit: im not trying to sound like a douche so sorry if thats happening. this thread isnt about whether rwd or fwd is superior. its if there are fwd sports car. there are lots of performance levels where fwd is just as capable and for 99% of drivers including many car enthusiasts, a fwd can get the job done with just as much fun/performance for your money.

[stugray]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i didnt read all that because i dont care particularly. .

So you will post a bunch of anecdotal evidence and when I challenge it with facts you are too busy to read it and claim my post contains too much "anecdotal evidence". Got it.
I am sorry that my response is so far above your reading level that it would take an unreasonable amount of time to read it.

Edit: I see that you did respond. Thank you. I rescind my comment above

[stugray]

Originally Posted by fatoni

you should consider that there are things that favor fwd like how its cheaper, lighter and more effective at getting most of the power to the wheels.

I did respond to that exact point and I agree with it.
however if the engineers CARED more about being cheaper than performance, then not sports car. "."

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by stugray

So you will post a bunch of anecdotal evidence and when I challenge it with facts you are too busy to read it and claim my post contains too much "anecdotal evidence". Got it.
I am sorry that my response is so far above your reading level that it would take an unreasonable amount of time to read it.

Edit: I see that you did respond. Thank you. I rescind my comment above

haha its all good.

Originally Posted by stugray

I did respond to that exact point and I agree with it.
however if the engineers CARED more about being cheaper than performance, then not sports car. "."

i think that all cars are built to a budget. ever. the primary reason i will consider fwd in many of these conversations is that i use dollars to buy things. since fwd is cheaper to make, i can get more for my dollar. whether that more be in performance or luxury or some other technology, there is the option for more when the car is more cost effecient. ex: subaru cares more about "performance in the sti than they do in the brz but i would definitely say the brz is the sportscar.

[stugray]

Originally Posted by fatoni

haha its all good..

I would have just deleted it, but assumed you had read it before I got back to apologize

Originally Posted by fatoni

i think that all cars are built to a budget. ever. the primary reason i will consider fwd in many of these conversations is that i use dollars to buy things. since fwd is cheaper to make, i can get more for my dollar. whether that more be in performance or luxury or some other technology, there is the option for more when the car is more cost effecient.

I agree and I think this whole discussion comes down to the fact that there is not clear cut definition of "sports car" other than what I posted already.
Two of my 5 cars are FWD and excel in certain things.
I already stated that I traded in my Supra for a Solara, so I am not so anti-FWD that I dont see the utility.

My definition of "Sports car" is such that: IF the engineers made such a compromise as to submit to FWD, then it was a financial decision and not one based on performance.
If just one post on this thread could convince me of a compelling reason to choose FWD over RWD for performance reasons then I would concede.
However that hasnt happened yet.
Just because FWD cars get raced and are proven to be very fast does not make them the 1st choice of a performance focused design team.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by stugray

My definition of "Sports car" is such that: IF the engineers made such a compromise as to submit to FWD, then it was a financial decision and not one based on performance.
If just one post on this thread could convince me of a compelling reason to choose FWD over RWD for performance reasons then I would concede.
However that hasnt happened yet.

Since everyone agrees that AWD is superior, can we just quit this circle jerk and agree that RWD cars aren't sports cars since AWD is superior. I mean, any performance focused design team really is doing AWD now: Porsche, Audi, Toyota (LMP1)..

Oh and the fastest production cars are now hybrids too so I guess only real sportscars are hybrid and AWD so I suppose that RWD is just some archaic shitty platform from days gone by. I guess the Golf R32 is more of a sports car than a Miata according to the prevailing logic in this thread.

Originally Posted by stugray

Just because FWD cars get raced and are proven to be very fast does not make them the 1st choice of a performance focused design team.

I think the performance design team at Honda would beg to differ.. oh and when Ford asked their performance design department to do the Focus and Fiesta ST, they didn't exactly walk off the job... and Renault sure as hell loves FWD performance.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02cpzgoVqC4"]Renault Mégane R.S. 275 Trophy-R Nürburgring Nordschleife lap record (full version) #UNDER8 - YouTube[/ame]

So does Red Bull and Sebastien Loeb:
http://www.redbull.com/en/motorsport...sebastien-loeb

[juliog]

Because FWD

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmC-0TkGw6g"]Librada Rallye Ourense 2014 S. Pedro de Rocas - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P1EF8voSrw"]47 Rallye de Ourense 2014-Oscar Barroso-Rally car on two whells - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeUx1tZeuqA"]stock hatch[/ame]

[rice_classic]

stugray:

The snarkiness in my response above isn't directed at you personally but at the logical fallacy that's so often propagated in this never ending dance which is: Because RWD is superior, FWD cannot be considered sports car.

Well if we utilize this same logic when presented with new evidence that AWD is superior, we must conclude that due to RWD inferiority to AWD that RWD cars may no longer be considered sports cars.

If that logic sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.