Quote from ajp71 :

if a driver can't cope with anything other than enormous understeer they shouldn't be on the road

Someone is mistaking the public roads for a track All we Joe Drivers are required to do, is drive safely, which means we shouldn't even approach the limits of the car.

If after all understeer does happen, all that Joe Driver does is lift the right foot because it's the most natural thing to do = I'm scared, I want to slow down.

Which is why RWD is dangerous for an untrained driver = 99.9% of the licensed population, including those who think they can drive, until proven wrong by wrapping their car around a tree or running over some innocent bystander.

Quote from NightShift :

Someone is mistaking the public roads for a track All we Joe Drivers are required to do, is drive safely, which means we shouldn't even approach the limits of the car.

There is some basic theory on how to control a car in the UK theory test, but all too often you hear of new drivers who crash the first time they encounter oversteer (usually on ice), normally the explanation is they kept trying to counter the natural reaction of the wheel and force the car into a bigger mess by steering the wrong way, often coupled with an explanation that this is what they thought the driving theory test taught them. I don't really think it is good enough that the average new driver is incapable of controlling a car on the limit in a way that those who were used to driving unassisted rear wheel drive cars on poor quality roads just did automatically.

The public road is not a race track, and far too many people who can't handle basic car control do treat it as on. Driving law abidingly on the public road does not mean one can't suddenly be required to react to an unexpected change of conditions of the road surface or obstacles, if the initial reaction is panic and trying to remember theory of car control you are guaranteed to become closely friends with the obstacle in question. With some basic experience of driving a car at and beyond its limits the initial reaction may not be so hopeless, in the UK car control does not exceed pressing the brake pedal hard and coming to a computer controlled stop in a straight line on an empty piece of road. In other parts of Europe skid pans are compulsory and I'm sure fewer drivers fill in statements explaining how they used opposite opposite lock as a result.

I prefer cars that steer at the front and are driven by the rear. Seams pointless having a race car that uses the front wheels to do everything and the back wheels just get dragged along for the ride. What a waste. In a road car, I see the logic in FWD. FWD allows the car to be more compact yet provides more interior space flexibility. That makes sense to me.

I'm not saying FWD isn't fun. I've had plenty of fun in real life FWD cars and LFS FWD cars. But given the choice, RWD is my preference.

I've never had problems with stock cars on trackdays.. even on testdays (Nordschleife) they usually cope with the abuse very well.. if your brakes are catching fire in 2 laps time.. then you're probably doing something wrong heh.

FWD's are less uhmm.. interesting compared to RWD. I was gonna say less "challenging" but that's not totally true. I personally think it takes skill to drive a FWD on the very limit. I like it how one can use the rear end to rotate the car and balance on the throttle.. it's nice. People who claim all they get is understeer, I'm sorry to say but maybe you should learn how to drive properly. There's more to it then just turning the wheel and pushing the loud pedal all the way down. They sure can be very rewarding, but like I said, it can take some dare-pills and skill to get to that level.

I was going to disagree with Tristan as usual (lol sorry) but in the end I agree with him, I think he explains it very good in his last post.

Oh well, another useless reply. I'm sorry.

Quote from ajp71 :

all too often you hear of new drivers who crash the first time they encounter oversteer (usually on ice),

All I hear is about people crashing because they were going too fast. Those who spin on ice, were going too fast, it's as easy as that

Quote from ajp71 :

those who were used to driving unassisted rear wheel drive cars on poor quality roads just did automatically.

Since the FF layout already took a foothold in the 70s, I assume we're talking about 50+ years ago. At the time, there were far less cars, they were technically inferior most of the times, and the roads sucked.

And FR was popular with road cars because it was easy to build not for some inherent technical superiority (race cars are another matter)

Quote from ajp71 :

if the initial reaction is panic

Every sensible person will be scared when something bad and unexpected happens, it's programmed in our brain, and even race car drivers will, especially if they have their family onboard.

Some people are more cold blooded than others, but you won't know which type you are unless you find yourself in real trouble.

Since cold blood and technique aren't a solution, all you can do is try and stay out of trouble, but you can't trust people to do that, so I'm all for easy, safe FWD cars with loads of electronic stuff which assists the driver when $hit happens.

Why take the chance of a mistake you can't repair?

The thing is, people don't think of a car in the right way. Your car shouldn't be something that you are sitting inside controlling in your mind. You shouldn't think "I tell the car to do this and then such happens". If you do that, you will crash. You cannot solely use logic. Your car starts oversteering/understeering, you can't start thinking about what the book you read said to do.
Your car must be an extension of your own body. You literally must feel what the car feels in my opinion. Like the amount of space that your car takes up. Some people hit things because they think their car is smaller then it really is. You have to be able to feel when you are close to objects. I mean, when you're walking on foot you don't run into things everywhere.
But the problem with your car being an extension of yourself is that traction control, stability control, and such make that more difficult. Traction control systems usually do not interface very well with humans. It ends up feeling un-natural. ABS feels too blocky and digital. Now, if there were an ABS system that worked smoothly, and kept the tires right at optimum slip, then it would feel really natural.

Quote from ajp71 :

Rear wheel drive cars should be much better than there front wheel drive counterparts in low traction conditions.

Not in ice and snow. When you have a heavy engine and gearbox sitting over the driven wheels you'll have a lot more traction than you would without those.

Quote from ajp71 :

Rear wheel drive cars should be much better than there front wheel drive counterparts in low traction conditions, if a driver can't cope with anything other than enormous understeer they shouldn't be on the road, although most rear wheel drive road cars will naturally understeer when they're not being provoked.

As I said again, try it in a somewhat mountainous area. As long as you're going, it's fine. Problems start if for whatever perverted reason (like another car, obstacles, pedestrians, or simply not enough momentum to make it upwards) you have to stop and get going again: no weight on the driven wheels on slippery roads = circle madness. At least for FR layouts. But then, most MR/RR cars aren't exactly fit to drive safely on snowy roads... Most beemer/merc drivers here help themselves by putting one or two sacks of cement in their trunks, but I for one don't think that should be neccesary for a car to get me anywhere.

Nof is a RWD more fun when it's slippery? Yes. BUT, and that's a very, very big BUT the last thing you want to do is going sideways when 80% of the clueless drivers slide around without control. It's much safer and to skid slowly into the snow banks on the side of the road than spinning into oncoming traffic that, for the same reason you spun, can't stop in time. As most drivers here drive too fast in winter anyway, you'll hit them before they even get considerably slower.

Hopefully though that will improve, as in the last few years driving security courses with skkidpads etc. are compulsory for new drivers.

Quote from ColeusRattus :

Nof is a RWD more fun when it's slippery? Yes. BUT, and that's a very, very big BUT the last thing you want to do is going sideways when 80% of the clueless drivers slide around without control. It's much safer and to skid slowly into the snow banks on the side of the road than spinning into oncoming traffic that, for the same reason you spun, can't stop in time. As most drivers here drive too fast in winter anyway, you'll hit them before they even get considerably slower.

Hopefully though that will improve, as in the last few years driving security courses with skkidpads etc. are compulsory for new drivers.

It is because there simply aren't many rear wheel driven cars made anymore and those that are still made are either busses or too expensive. There is a generation of drivers who have never driven anything else than fwd. When you put a person in rear light rwd car who has only driven fwd with lots of electronics, got used to lots of engine braking and powering out of trouble with the tcs lights blinking you know it's not going to end well.

Quote from NightShift :

All I hear is about people crashing because they were going too fast. Those who spin on ice, were going too fast, it's as easy as that

Too fast for the conditions they were on? Yes. Too fast for the conditions they thought they were driving on? Maybe not. If you have X ray vision and can spot black ice everytime then maybe you can argue your point. Unless you literally drive at walking pace down any road that might have some ice on it you will be arriving at the danger point far faster than is safe if the car simply handles the situation for the driver then chances are he'll barely notice it and continue to drive at the same (probably law abiding but far too fast) speed next time when the computer won't save him.

Quote :

Since the FF layout already took a foothold in the 70s, I assume we're talking about 50+ years ago. At the time, there were far less cars, they were technically inferior most of the times, and the roads sucked.

Yeah on ice and snow my 80 year old granny just gets on with it and is perfectly able to control a car in bad conditions, unlike a majority of road users.

Quote :

Every sensible person will be scared when something bad and unexpected happens, it's programmed in our brain, and even race car drivers will, especially if they have their family onboard.

If your scared it is already to late, you should be far too busy dealing with whatever the problem is to actually be in anyway afraid or thinking of what will happen if you don't sort it out. If fear and panic should come after the danger has passed.

Quote :

Since cold blood and technique aren't a solution, all you can do is try and stay out of trouble, but you can't trust people to do that, so I'm all for easy, safe FWD cars with loads of electronic stuff which assists the driver when $hit happens.

None of the aids fitted to modern cars really help in an emergency though, they're largely anti-idiot devices to stop the driver causing an accident when he tries to drive beyond his ability. Conventional ABS does nothing a well trained foot can't do, if drivers were required to take their tests in cars without ABS then they would be much safer in cars without it. Not to mention the fact that ABS is potentially lethal in winter conditions.

Quote from amp88 :

Not in ice and snow. When you have a heavy engine and gearbox sitting over the driven wheels you'll have a lot more traction than you would without those.

If that is an issue put some weight in the boot to change the weight balance and sit back and watch the front wheel drive cars getting stuck. A simple old rear wheel drive car with good ground clearance and correctly added ballast could give most soft roaders a run for their money when the going gets tough.

Quote from Stew2000 :

You never know. It might actually boost Scirocco sales in the real world.
Personally I would buy the Polo Bluemotion or GTi.

The bluemotion is g@y. Even a eco car has a engine cover made out of ABS(type of plastic=not green) to cover its pathetic 3 cylinder diesel engine. I wonder... Its single and small turbo can make enough torque??? I haven't check it out... :ices_rofl

But I just know the revs :revs: are maxed out at 4500rpm and max torque at 2700:revs:

Quote from tristancliffe :

It's not the oversteer on demand of a RWD that excites me - the public road isn't the place to indulge in that sort of driving except in very exceptional circumstances (damp roundabout on a dual carriageway miles from anywhere on a road you know as not having pedestrian access for example).

It's the lack of balance. It's the lack of being able to steer the car on the throttle. It's the feeling of torque steer. It's the steering going lighter as you put the power on (as opposed to straight line torque steer, which I admit it very rare these days).

Of course, some RWD cars are awful too!

And I bought a 205 and a 306 on the basis of Peugeots handling reputation. I loved them, until I started driving RWD cars, when I realised that they were only good relative to other FWD cars, rather than being good outright.

We'll agree to differ. A 306 GTi/Rallye is a fun car to drive by any standard, with great steering and a pointy chassis.
For the record, though, I'm not saying some RWD cars are not more fun, that would be ridiculous, but good FWD cars are be no means the brainless choice, nor are they unpleasant to drive in any way.

Quote from ajp71 :

There is some basic theory on how to control a car in the UK theory test, but all too often you hear of new drivers who crash the first time they encounter oversteer (usually on ice), normally the explanation is they kept trying to counter the natural reaction of the wheel and force the car into a bigger mess by steering the wrong way, often coupled with an explanation that this is what they thought the driving theory test taught them.

Which way is the right way when you encounter oversteer (on ice)?

Which way will the wheel turn naturally?

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Your car must be an extension of your own body.

The vast majority of drivers are not out there driving because they want to feel the car/truck/whatever. They want to go from point A to point B, usually because they have to.

It's a very different thing to take up the car once in a while to have some fun rather than to waste hours in the middle of traffic while commuting or driving a car around because that's part of your job.

In that situation the last thing on your mind is to feel the car. All you want want is to arrive to your destination ASAP.

Relying on your feeling alone isn't foolproof anyway - you can't possibly always be at 100% of your potential, as soon as you're forced to drive when tired or pissed off blam! here you'll end up with an expensive and/or dangerous mistake.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Now, if there were an ABS system that worked smoothly, and kept the tires right at optimum slip, then it would feel really natural.

I'm all for better assistance

Quote from ajp71 :

if the car simply handles the situation for the driver then chances are he'll barely notice it and continue to drive at the same (probably law abiding but far too fast) speed next time when the computer won't save him.

Stability control programs are made exactly to face situations like you mention, though not perfect they are still more reliable than Mr Joe Driver.

Quote from ajp71 :

If your scared it is already to late, you should be far too busy dealing with whatever the problem is to actually be in anyway afraid or thinking of what will happen if you don't sort it out. If fear and panic should come after the danger has passed.

Yeah I guess most drivers react according to their instinct and that proves exactly my point that the car should be as intuitive to drive as possible. FWD wins as it is more intuitive for the majority.

Quote from ajp71 :

None of the aids fitted to modern cars really help in an emergency though, they're largely anti-idiot devices to stop the driver causing an accident when he tries to drive beyond his ability.

I wouldn't call those anti-idiot, even Schumacher has crashed cars, so I guess for you he's an idiot too.

Quote from ajp71 :

Conventional ABS does nothing a well trained foot can't do,

But it will always do its dirty job every time, no strings, no questions asked. It can't be tired, pissed off or lazy. Can you say the same of all the right feet out there?

Quote from ajp71 :

if drivers were required to take their tests in cars without ABS then they would be much safer in cars without it.

If all drivers were required to train for a number of weeks every year in driving to the limit all the vehicles they have to use, then you might have had a point.

Quote from ajp71 :

Not to mention the fact that ABS is potentially lethal in winter conditions.

And not having ABS is potentially lethal whenever it rains

So unless we all live in places where it snows everyday and rains never, ABS has clearly the better benefit vs risk profile.

Quote from NightShift :

Stability control programs are made exactly to face situations like you mention, though not perfect they are still more reliable than Mr Joe Driver.

Not quite. They are good in certain situations, and worsen other situations. They feel too modular, just as I said in a previous post. You can feel it engaging. It feels like you are interacting with a computer, it doesn't feel like the inputs that you give the car are actually doing anything.

Isn't that because they're mostly drive-by-wire?

Quote from NightShift :

And not having ABS is potentially lethal whenever it rains

Why's that? Just because there is less friction, a skilled driver would suddenly become unable to modulate the force their foot exerts on the brake pedal?

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Isn't that because they're mostly drive-by-wire?

Do you even know what that means?

Bob: Agreed. There is nothing ABS can do that decent driver training couldn't do better. A driver training should be (partially) about teaching people what to do when they reach their limit of ability, reach the limit of ability of their car, or find a situation that requires some skill (be it a queue of cars hidden behind a blind bend at night in the rain and having to cadence brake with 3 inches to spare [been there, done that ], or encountering 'black ice' and having to limit the seriousness of the accident.

I'd be interested to know if there has been a reduction in the number of motoring fatalities since the widespread introduction of ABS. Judging by the fact that the car companies never shout about it, I can only assume there are no supportive statistics. I'm not saying it's dangerous per se, but that relying on very limited computer control in complex emergency situations isn't the answer.

I forgot the exact source, but during my involvement in a science project at university I've seen statistical data that analysed the propability of accidents for cars with optional ABS or optional ESP. Those cars equiped with the system in question had a significantly lower propability of having crashes or being involved in crashes with significant damage than their counterparts without the system.

ABS and ESP save lifes. They are as important as seat belts.

The average driver is best protected by not being allowed to drive a car. Unless the driver is a racing driver he should be disconnected from the real physics as much as possible. Computers can drive much better than the average driver.

Vain

P.S.: I fully acknowledge that I've made a "weak" statement. I can't quantify the effect and don't have a link to sources to back up the statement. Usually I wouldn't post in such a situation, but I believe that wrong assumptions about the effects of assistant-systems can make people lose their lives.

Quote from southamptonfc :

0-60 - 7.2 seconds.
197bhp
1296kg
152 bhp/tonne
FWD

I am I the only one who thinks this car is boring? I don't like to be negative for no reason but I find the idea of driving in a simulated version of VWs latest posh mums shopping mobile not very exciting. Will the sim be accurate enough for the brakes to fail after 2 laps like any normal VW would?

Maybe the developers are getting money for doing this, which will benefit LFS in the long run, in which case good. Otherwise I'd really like to see them doing some proper race cars please...

Dosen't matter about the performance of the car, If everyone is in the same car the excitement will come from the close racing you will have in the car, Slower cars provide better and closer racing.

As for the brakes, Good point!

Quote from Vain :

I forgot the exact source, but during my involvement in a science project at university I've seen statistical data that analysed the propability of accidents for cars with optional ABS or optional ESP. Those cars equiped with the system in question had a significantly lower propability of having crashes or being involved in crashes with significant damage than their counterparts without the system.

That is not the same as saving lives. It might be that every single person that avoided an accident from having the system would only have cut their lip, whilst all the ones that still had their accident died horribly. Be careful of what statistics tells you!

Quote from Vain :

The average driver is best protected by not being allowed to drive a car.

But unfortunately for them they drive anyway.

Quote from Vain :

Unless the driver is a racing driver he should be disconnected from the real physics as much as possible.

I think I prove quite well that this is not the case. Several times in my racing 'career' I should have been removed from the physics loop.

Quote from Vain :

Computers can drive much better than the average driver.

What's the best computer driving in a simulation you've seen? Have you seen that car that tries to park itself, but gets confused easily? Have you seen the self-driving car competition? Computers can't drive much better than a three year old. In a special school.

Quote from Vain :

Vain

Am I?

Quote from Vain :

P.S.: I fully acknowledge that I've made a "weak" statement. I can't quantify the effect and don't have a link to sources to back up the statement. Usually I wouldn't post in such a situation, but I believe that wrong assumptions about the effects of assistant-systems can make people lose their lives.

You'll regret it in the long run you know

Quote from Vain :

The average driver is best protected by not being allowed to drive a car. Unless the driver is a racing driver he should be disconnected from the real physics as much as possible. Computers can drive much better than the average driver.

I'd agree with that on many levels I'd even go further and include race drivers though Why? because most incidents occur through distraction, tiredness, being under the influence or something happening that cant be anticipated. And while a good experienced driver can get out of sticky spots better than the average joe - good drivers still die on the roads The future is cars that drive themselves with passengers that can sit back and read the LFSForum dreaming of the day when they actually drove to work on one of the cars many inbuilt broadband connected computer onboard entertainment systems hmm maybe we could set up a wheel in the car and play LFS all wouldn't be lost

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Not quite. They are good in certain situations, and worsen other situations.

Did I say better? I said more reliable than Joe Driver.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Why's that? Just because there is less friction, a skilled driver would suddenly become unable to modulate the force their foot exerts on the brake pedal?

Come on, that was a paradox

But since you ask... Forget that skilled driver. Take the average driver who hasn't ever heard about cadence braking. He stomps on the brakes and goes straight. Bye-bye.

Seatbelts are the same story: there are people swearing you can die because of them (e.g. fall in a lake). Compare the number of geniuses who smashed their skulls on the windshield or tarmac, vs those who died in a lake. Risk vs Benefit as I said.

I'm glad most people won't even dream to pull out the ABS fuse only because they think they can drive - There's no Shift-P when you drive a real car.