On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:15:37 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:

>On 04/21/2015 04:07 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:37:14 -0700, The Real Bev
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 04/20/2015 05:37 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>> Is this a rear wheel drive caddy with a v8 engine?
>>>
>>>V8, but front-wheel drive.
>>>
>>>And speaking of front vs rear wheel driving -- I seem to remember that
>>>the standard with rear-wheel drive is to brake going into a curve and
>>>accelerate going out to maximize traction. Wouldn't it be exactly
>>>opposite with front-wheel drive, even though it sounds absolutely
>>>unworkable?
>>
>> In my 1965 drivers ed behind the wheel training they said to slow down
>> before the curve, then apply gentle power thru the curve. Not sure
>> really why they bothered, it's entirely pointless for normal driving
>> and they were not trying to get us up to speed for grand prix events.
>> I think it partly had to do with how RWD cars, esp back then, would
>> over steer if you gave them too much gas and spin out but if you went
>> into a curve too fast they would under steer and the front end just
>> plow off the outside of the curve. So they had you slow down going in
>> to avoid running off the outside from under steer and then only give
>> it a little power thru the curve so you wouldn't spin out. But again,
>> at normal driving speeds it's just a silly thing to worry about. On a
>> slippery road in the rain it might make sense if you tend to not slow
>> down much and with RWD. With FWD it think it's too complicated to
>> have a fixed rule, it will depend on how the car handles but since the
>> front tires handle 80% of the braking and 100% of the steering forces,
>> anything you do at "too high a speed" exposes you to problems with
>> loss of control if you then add to the high speed a change in the
>> demands on the front tires, such as changes in steering angles or
>> brake application. Maybe some of the weekend racers will chime in
>> with better explanations/corrections to my thoughts.
>
>Why would anybody ever want a car with oversteer?
>
>Given the importance of front tires, I'm amazed that modern
>tire-replacement theory says you put the new pair of tires on the rear.
> It was explained that this was due to needing more traction on the
>lighter rear end for slowing/stopping. It still sounds like bull****.

No one wants a car with over steer but if you have a RWD car with lots
of power AND you spin the rear tires in the middle of a turn the
resultant effect is that the rear end swings wide and you "over
steer". It could be argued that it's not really over steer I suppose.
My 60 Corvair had bad over steer due to the way the rear suspension
reacted to front steering inputs so if you turned kinda fast you then
had to back off once you were "set" where you wanted to be.