Front-wheel drive vs RWD

It used to be that with RWD you'd brake going into a curve and
accelerate going out to maintain traction via weight shift. It seems
like it ought to be just the reverse with a front wheel drive car, but
that just doesn't feel right.

What's the truth here?

And a bonus question: Is the spoiler on my 2013 Corolla Sport likely to
ever be actually useful?

--
Cheers, Bev
Todd Flanders' hobbies include being quiet on long rides,
clapping to songs and diabetes.

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 8:57:56 AM UTC-10, The Real Bev wrote:
> It used to be that with RWD you'd brake going into a curve and
> accelerate going out to maintain traction via weight shift. It seems
> like it ought to be just the reverse with a front wheel drive car, but
> that just doesn't feel right.
>
> What's the truth here?
>
> And a bonus question: Is the spoiler on my 2013 Corolla Sport likely to
> ever be actually useful?
>
> --
> Cheers, Bev
> Todd Flanders' hobbies include being quiet on long rides,
> clapping to songs and diabetes.

I just drive the same regardless of where the drive wheels are. It works. If you're driving on low traction surfaces, my guess is that it depends on the car mostly, not if it's FWD or RWD. My car is an 04 Passat 4Motion Wagon so it's both.

The Real Bev wrote:
> It used to be that with RWD you'd brake going into a curve and
> accelerate going out to maintain traction via weight shift. It seems
> like it ought to be just the reverse with a front wheel drive car, but
> that just doesn't feel right.
>
> What's the truth here?
>
> And a bonus question: Is the spoiler on my 2013 Corolla Sport likely to
> ever be actually useful?
>

You can still brake on entry and hit the gas on exit. The front end will
pull you in whatever direction it's pointed in so you need to follow the
line of the curve.

Front spoiler will help by keeping air from under the car but the rear
one won't do much until you hit 80 mph or so. Just not enough angle of
attack to create any real down force.

--
Steve W.

On 09/24/2016 06:11 PM, Steve W. wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> It used to be that with RWD you'd brake going into a curve and
>> accelerate going out to maintain traction via weight shift. It seems
>> like it ought to be just the reverse with a front wheel drive car, but
>> that just doesn't feel right.
>>
>> What's the truth here?
>>
>> And a bonus question: Is the spoiler on my 2013 Corolla Sport likely to
>> ever be actually useful?
>
> You can still brake on entry and hit the gas on exit. The front end will
> pull you in whatever direction it's pointed in so you need to follow the
> line of the curve.

If you don't follow the curve, doesn't disaster usually apply some sort
of unpleasant correction?

> Front spoiler will help by keeping air from under the car but the rear
> one won't do much until you hit 80 mph or so. Just not enough angle of
> attack to create any real down force.

80? Really? It's a rear spoiler. Hubby thinks it might make a nice
lifting handle. It IS useful, however, for finding the car in a parking
lot. I think perhaps 1/3 of the cars in any given parking lot are
white and look roughly the same as mine, but very few have actual
spoilers.

I was going to put orange racing stripes on it until I found out how
much that would cost :-( I'm pretty sure the plastic "decals" would end
up looking really awful.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I won't allow the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden
of the other half who aren't paying their fair share." -- Guess Who

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 9:57:56 PM UTC+3, The Real Bev wrote:
> It used to be that with RWD you'd brake going into a curve and
> accelerate going out to maintain traction via weight shift. It seems
> like it ought to be just the reverse with a front wheel drive car, but
> that just doesn't feel right.
>
> What's the truth here?
>
Short answer. The truth is you'd drive the two the same.

Long answer: on fwd you have to slow down a bit more than on rwd to have a wider margin for
error in a slippery turn. On rwd it's way easier to control the skid by the rudder and the
gas/break to the rear wheels. Not so on an fwd car. You do not have nearly as much control.

All you could do is put the wheels straight and keep the fingers crossed.

Basically as long as you understand that the fwd was made for morons who
release steering wheel in a skid you are fine. Cause they ditch the steering
and the wheels start going straight (alteight slooooowly).

I would not buy an fwd car unless say you need a 7 seater: all minivans are fwd
so you have pretty much no choice in that segment. And it sucks.

> And a bonus question: Is the spoiler on my 2013 Corolla Sport likely to
> ever be actually useful?
>
Highly unlikely. Unless you'd pluck it from the car and use it as a boomerang dandee crocodile-style.

On 10/05/2016 04:00 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 9:57:56 PM UTC+3, The Real Bev wrote:
>> It used to be that with RWD you'd brake going into a curve and
>> accelerate going out to maintain traction via weight shift. It seems
>> like it ought to be just the reverse with a front wheel drive car, but
>> that just doesn't feel right.
>>
>> What's the truth here?
>>
> Short answer. The truth is you'd drive the two the same.
>
> Long answer: on fwd you have to slow down a bit more than on rwd to have a wider margin for
> error in a slippery turn. On rwd it's way easier to control the skid by the rudder and the
> gas/break to the rear wheels. Not so on an fwd car. You do not have nearly as much control.
>
> All you could do is put the wheels straight and keep the fingers crossed.
>
> Basically as long as you understand that the fwd was made for morons who
> release steering wheel in a skid you are fine. Cause they ditch the steering
> and the wheels start going straight (alteight slooooowly).

I thought it was due to the emission/mileage requirements that require
lightening pretty much anything that can be lightened. Morons excepted,
of course.

> I would not buy an fwd car unless say you need a 7 seater: all minivans are fwd
> so you have pretty much no choice in that segment. And it sucks.

We do what we gotta. It's not like you have a lot of choice with a
Corolla :-( The handling is WAYYYY better than the 88 Caddy.

>> And a bonus question: Is the spoiler on my 2013 Corolla Sport likely to
>> ever be actually useful?
>>
> Highly unlikely. Unless you'd pluck it from the car and use it as a boomerang dandee crocodile-style.

Maybe I should reattach it with some sort of quick-release fasteners;
you never can tell...

--
Cheers, Bev
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your
informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
- Harlan Ellison

On 10/10/2016 04:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:

> Blame it on technology. Politics has not much to do with it. Car
> manufacturers and tech companies are rushing to produce the car of
> the future. Ironically, many of those car companies won't be around
> once their goal is realized.

I'm sorry to see the continual dumbing- and dulling-down of civilization.

When I see someone's house that's totally tidy and has no evidence of
actual life happening there I wonder what those people do when they're
at home. Anything besides watching TV and survival stuff like eating
and sleeping and bathing?

Same with cars and cities. Why bother going anywhere because cars and
cities are all pretty much alike?


--
Cheers, Bev
"No matter how cynical I get, it's just never enough to keep up."
--Lily Tomlin

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 6:58:46 AM UTC+3, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 04:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > Blame it on technology. Politics has not much to do with it. Car
> > manufacturers and tech companies are rushing to produce the car of
> > the future. Ironically, many of those car companies won't be around
> > once their goal is realized.
>
> I'm sorry to see the continual dumbing- and dulling-down of civilization.
>
> When I see someone's house that's totally tidy and has no evidence of
> actual life happening there I wonder what those people do when they're
> at home. Anything besides watching TV and survival stuff like eating

Does not happen in real life. Don't confuse glamous magazine pages
with the real life homes.

> and sleeping and bathing?
>
> Same with cars and cities. Why bother going anywhere because cars and
> cities are all pretty much alike?

There is a world of difference yet, despite continuous CAFE tightening, etc.
You'd have to look beyond compact cars though.
But even In the el cheapo segment there are gems and the dumbed down point A to point B machines.

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 5:58:46 PM UTC-10, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 04:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > Blame it on technology. Politics has not much to do with it. Car
> > manufacturers and tech companies are rushing to produce the car of
> > the future. Ironically, many of those car companies won't be around
> > once their goal is realized.
>
> I'm sorry to see the continual dumbing- and dulling-down of civilization.
>
> When I see someone's house that's totally tidy and has no evidence of
> actual life happening there I wonder what those people do when they're
> at home. Anything besides watching TV and survival stuff like eating
> and sleeping and bathing?
>
> Same with cars and cities. Why bother going anywhere because cars and
> cities are all pretty much alike?
>
>
> --
> Cheers, Bev
> "No matter how cynical I get, it's just never enough to keep up."
> --Lily Tomlin

I don't see cars that drive themselves as dumbing-down society. Putting a stop to letting humans drive is a smart move because it will save tens of thousands of lives in the US annually. Having our traffic coordinated could solve our problem of too many cars on city roads. It will make DUIs a thing of the past.

People in the future will probably see the piston IC engine the same way we see steam locomotive. Quaint but primitive technology. We've had to tolerate gas engine cars that need to be driven manually because our technology was not sufficiently advanced enough. People drove horse and buggies in the past not because they were hardy, strong, independent, folks. Mostly it was because that's what their primitive tech allowed. The automobile did not dumb down and dull the people mostly, it improved their lives.

On 10/11/2016 02:19 PM, dsi1 wrote:

> People in the future will probably see the piston IC engine the same
> way we see steam locomotive. Quaint but primitive technology. We've
> had to tolerate gas engine cars that need to be driven manually
> because our technology was not sufficiently advanced enough. People
> drove horse and buggies in the past not because they were hardy,
> strong, independent, folks. Mostly it was because that's what their
> primitive tech allowed. The automobile did not dumb down and dull the
> people mostly, it improved their lives.

People still like to ride horses even though it's pretty old-fashioned.
Cars and motorcycles are more than transportation from point A to
point B.

--
Cheers, Bev
I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the
same manner that fish follow migrating caribou.
-- Paul Tomblin