Spinoff: FWD, not bad, just different.

[leon78]

My speed was fail wheel drive I say as a joke...1-3 gears were useless below 40mph. I had full suspension set-up and was fully bolted. The handled better than most any 3200lbs car....plus...bitches love turbo wagons! But the high HP FWD thing did get old.

[mike@vossen]

FWD is made to not be more fun, but to more economical with better packaging. Sure they are fun FWD cars but there is no way in hell I would pic a "fun" FWD car over a "fun" RWD car.

The FRS, Genesis coupe, Mustang, Camaro all IMO made any FWD fun cars out of date since they are offered for the same price. I don't understand how you can get a 300hp Mustang or a FRS for the same price as a Honda Civic Si or Honda CR-Z.....

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Gmhooker is that you? Sheeze, you just admited to being a blatant troll.

Post a thread on a site known to be inhabited by rwd fanatics about how fwd is not bad, just different, and you get what you get...

I've driven a fair number of rwd and fwd cars at the track (instructor), and for *me*, I'll stick with my statement #1, at least for that usage.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Dimman

A late model RSX-S vs a BRZ on the same tire would be a very good fwd to rwd comparo. Very close to the same weight, power, geometry, target market... Someone should do this. Oh, and with telemetry, show where each one has their own advantage.

What are the class restrictions on the ITR? Do you think you could improve times significantly with more front tire?

I hate RSX's so I couldn't say how they feel/do on track

ITR vs BRZ would be close too if they weren't so light..

Class restrictions on the ITR? Depends on where it's raced I guess. I don't race mine, just DEs. The Racecar is a more regular Integra. In chumpcar we are at the edge of a "$500 car" with one so any parts changed from stock = penalty laps.

However we have cut the hell out of springs (spring rate and ride height) and modified other bits to get ride height and shock travel back.. I can post pics of that ghetto engineering once I see the car again next week.

RSB on regular integras is tiny so that's a massive limiting factor. Our chassis is an SE so it has the "big" 14mm bar. ITR was 22mm (I run a 26mm on my ITR). I forget what the basic integra had, pretty sure there was a slightly smaller one.

My ITR right now is as neutral as can be, completely throttle controlled oversteer/understeer (assuming we aren't trying to break the laws of physics/traction circle of course). Equal rate springs and a large rear bar. A wider front would bring it closer to what my GS-R used to be so it likely would be faster.

IMO fast FWD is flat out scary at the limits and is harder to drive than RWD cars. Actually the BRZ/FRS are crazy easy to drive. Getting the BRZ to misbehave takes a bit of effort, doing so with an aggressively setup FWD car takes just a tiny tiny mistake. I've spun my GS-R more times in one year than I'll probably ever spin the BRZ Hell I've had the GS-R oversteer under full throttle due to just slightly too much/too quick steering inputs in Bishop Bend @ Sebring.. After that day I relaxed my rear spring rates on that car a bit....

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX

FWD is made to not be more fun, but to more economical with better packaging. Sure they are fun FWD cars but there is no way in hell I would pic a "fun" FWD car over a "fun" RWD car.

The FRS, Genesis coupe, Mustang, Camaro all IMO made any FWD fun cars out of date since they are offered for the same price. I don't understand how you can get a 300hp Mustang or a FRS for the same price as a Honda Civic Si or Honda CR-Z.....

Agreed on the FRS/BRZ.. Mustang.. better be a Boss.. Camaro.. better be a ZL1, GC.. no thanks.. no a fan of the driving experience.

New Civic Si's are a joke too though.

I'm too much of a driver's car person to like most of the crap out these days.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

I hate RSX's so I couldn't say how they feel/do on track

ITR vs BRZ would be close too if they weren't so light..

Class restrictions on the ITR? Depends on where it's raced I guess. I don't race mine, just DEs. The Racecar is a more regular Integra. In chumpcar we are at the edge of a "$500 car" with one so any parts changed from stock = penalty laps.

However we have cut the hell out of springs (spring rate and ride height) and modified other bits to get ride height and shock travel back.. I can post pics of that ghetto engineering once I see the car again next week.

RSB on regular integras is tiny so that's a massive limiting factor. Our chassis is an SE so it has the "big" 14mm bar. ITR was 22mm (I run a 26mm on my ITR). I forget what the basic integra had, pretty sure there was a slightly smaller one.

My ITR right now is as neutral as can be, completely throttle controlled oversteer/understeer (assuming we aren't trying to break the laws of physics/traction circle of course). Equal rate springs and a large rear bar. A wider front would bring it closer to what my GS-R used to be so it likely would be faster.

IMO fast FWD is flat out scary at the limits and is harder to drive than RWD cars. Actually the BRZ/FRS are crazy easy to drive. Getting the BRZ to misbehave takes a bit of effort, doing so with an aggressively setup FWD car takes just a tiny tiny mistake. I've spun my GS-R more times in one year than I'll probably ever spin the BRZ Hell I've had the GS-R oversteer under full throttle due to just slightly too much/too quick steering inputs in Bishop Bend @ Sebring.. After that day I relaxed my rear spring rates on that car a bit....

The RSX example was to politely point out that a BRZ/ITR direct comparison is er... silly. (Weight, suspension and intensity of its purpose. )

The BRZ is basically a RWD RSX-S or Civic Si. A wider net, so to speak.

Anyways, the behaviour of your GS-R at the limit, do you think it may have to do with how the added stiffness that you are adding to get rotation and balance takes away smoothness/predictability of its break-away characteristics?

[eljefe]

As an owner of a civic that makes big power, i agree that it is a little ridiculous beyond 300hp. Alot of fun in a straight line, but if i want to do any type of road course spirited driving, i turn my boost way down. Luckily that can be done with the click of a button

I have alot of problems getting and keeping traction in a 2500lb car with near 500hp.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Dimman

The RSX example was to politely point out that a BRZ/ITR direct comparison is er... silly. (Weight, suspension and intensity of its purpose. )

The BRZ is basically a RWD RSX-S or Civic Si. A wider net, so to speak.

Anyways, the behaviour of your GS-R at the limit, do you think it may have to do with how the added stiffness that you are adding to get rotation and balance takes away smoothness/predictability of its break-away characteristics?

True on the comparison, no matter how much of a Honda whore I may appear to be those fancy new hondas are so uninteresting to me that I cringe to compare them to a car I like lol

And yes on the GS-R's behavior. There's no doubt that adding stiffness to the rear (and removing a lot of it's independance) is the cause. Sadly no datalogging back then but using an IR laptimer it was the quickest setup for the car and being forced to be smoother isn't a bad thing. I've lost a lot of that smoothness racing cars not setup anywhere near that level of responsiveness lately, re-practicing with the BRZ.

The JDM way is more along the lines of what you mentioned earlier, increasing front traction and leaving (or reducing) rear traction. They also run more aggressive alignments to get rotation. I've always went the 'american' way, just increase the rear stiffness until it's just about uncontrollable and stay on the gas

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

The JDM way is more along the lines of what you mentioned earlier, increasing front traction and leaving (or reducing) rear traction. They also run more aggressive alignments to get rotation. I've always went the 'american' way, just increase the rear stiffness until it's just about uncontrollable and stay on the gas

Being able to dial-out the oversteer but still retaining the cars ability to easily rotate is real art. The GS-R is a darn fine platform and with its long wheel base you can induce oversteer in a pretty reliable manner use it to your advantage. I've noticed that the delta in stiffness between the front in rear usually needs to be greater the longer the fwd wheelbase is. In the CRX I race, the short wheel base makes rotation happen much quicker too. Quick hands are a must, really quick.

Quick hands:
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEub0K_46d8"]Good save T6 PIR - YouTube[/ame]


The JDM thing is a real puzzle piece and maybe you have some insight here as well Dave, but I wanted to expand on it a bit because it was kind of a neat thing when the USDM guys about 5-10 years ago realized the JDM guys were often setting up their fwd cars in an "opposite" manner and achieving the same results...only to discover the results weren't actually the same...

In Japan, not only will they run staggered tires but they will run a spring/shock/swaybar setup completely opposite of what we do in the states. In the states a FWD car will run softer up front and stiff in the rear to help the front squat, hook up and stiffness in the rear to help with rotation. In Japan, a common setup was the inverse of that. We look at their setup like they're crazy and they look at us like we're crazy and then some years back it was realized.. both are right. (also, that we're all crazy)

Without getting into the specifics: Both setups utilized the alignment and contact patches in such a manner that the car would rotate BUT what some folks in the states found when testing the JDM setup was what happened during a long race (30 minutes or more). That disadvantage was that the stiff front setup induced too much tire temp. So the car worked great but briefly. And thus, the soft/front stiff/rear setup has prevailed in the USA. It is important to note that the "USA" setup isn't the only fast way to setup a fwd race car. That was the real lesson learned between the tuners of the two groups. This a very loose representation of how things played so please excuse some creative license.

Dave, your thoughts?



edit: again.. didn't realize how big the wall-o-text is.. My bad.

[Dimman]

^ I would imagine the stiffer front setup would be more for cars with front struts, to reduce camber loss.

Was it common with EF to EK Civics (and corresponding Integras)?

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Dimman

^ I would imagine the stiffer front setup would be more for cars with front struts, to reduce camber loss.

Was it common with EF to EK Civics (and corresponding Integras)?

I'd have to go back and dig up the info but I think it was either the EK chassis or the RSX (forget the chassis code) that commonly was used with a front stiff setup. I can't say for certain which one specifically without some digging.


Edit: Dimman, I've left a lot out here so I wanted to elaborate a bit more. Not only is what you surmise about the fwd Mac strut setup valid but it's also important to illustrate some of the reasoning the Front-Bias setup is used in JDM land.

1: If you take into account the suspension motion ratio you can still have a car with softer front springs than rear springs but the "motion ratio" is still front biased. The DC5 is an example of this. So when people refer to a setup as "biased" they may be talking about a bias in front-to-rear motion ratio. When people say Front stiff or Rear stiff they are typically referring simply to the spring rate. So technically you could have a fwd car that's "rear stiff" but still "front biased" depending on how you intend your wording.

2: In JDM Land they also have a different philosophy of car setup where running staggered tires is normal and in some cases, largely staggered (like mentioned already) and this was independent of whether a car had double a-arm or mac strut suspension. (not a lot of Mac-strut on 1990's Hondas).

I hope that explains a little bit more why we see the "front soft/rear stiff" spring setup in the USA more is because we don't often see staggered tire setups here... and, like on a DC5 you could be running 18k front springs and 25k rear springs and still be front bias in regards to motion ratio.

Good times.

[Rampage]

Great original post. I have said (argued) the same point many times. Perhaps I was not quite as eloquent as you but my points were identical to yours. I also used the Integra as the epitome of FWD handling based on my experience.

Thanks for a well thought out post with great supporting facts.

[Rampage]

I really do not want to get involved in this debate again but I feel a couple obvious points are being somewhat ignored.

Understeer is not exclusive to FWD. It is more a product of weight bias and chassis tuning. Almost all production cars understeer as sold. This is done purposely because average drivers respond better to a car that pushes in a corner than one that rotates the rear end too readily. Much of the problem that is causing what seems to be a high number of wrecked FR-S/BRZ is that many young people learned to drive FWD and expect a car to understeer. The FT86 chassis is tuned to be closer to neutral and these driver's instincts fail them when they react to a car getting loose in a corner by lifting off the throttle suddenly or jamming on the brakes. The result of such action often equals spin and/ or crash.

I have yet to see any proof of low horsepower RWD race cars receiving weight penalties to make the FWD cars able to compete. In fact, in BTCC a race winning car must carry additional kilograms of weight. FWD still dominates even when carrying the extra weight.

It is hard to compare race cars to road cars because often the suspension geometry is nothing like stock. On street cars or any small bore showroom stock class a well prepared FWD will be the equal to a similar displacement equally well prepared RWD. You can look at many of the SCCA club racing classes to see this. In these classes suspension must remain close to stock.

I grew up driving RWD and did not own a FWD until around 1979. I have owned many sports and GT cars. As I stated above, one of the best performing (handling) cars I ever owned was an Integra.

Unlike some, I will never blindly dismiss a properly engineered and built FWD car and claim RWD is universally superior.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Rampage

...Unlike some, I will never blindly dismiss a properly engineered and built FWD car and claim RWD is universally superior.

Quoted for wisdom. EVO magazine's 100 Greatest Drivers Cars has a handful of FWD cars in there that make for brilliant drivers cars.