mike100

iTrader: (4)

so how does it go compared to the GSR... feels lighter? and since it's light, does that help it in corners or does fwd kind of hurt it there? Anyways, talk is cheap, but you actually have one..please break-in and report back.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

So the ACR bit was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I'm sorry but several people on here are arguing in a similar manner meaning that they're exploiting small bits of information and attempting to make them significant. In this case, people are focusing on minor pieces of handling data and attempting to apply it to the entire race despite that the fact that in the big picture, the SS was faster.
Actually if you read my posts you'd notice that I'm using a variety of articles. There's this C&D Lightning Lap, the Motortrend article cited earlier, the R&T Ultimate Track Test and the Nurburgring times. I'm not defending the SS anymore than I defend the Evo when people make up facts regarding its capabilities.
So you expect C&D to essentially write an article for the Evo X crowd? What about the other cars in the test? They can't satisfy everyone and they sure as hell can't release a magazine that is entirely focused on a single review.
If you actually read the articles posted in here you'd notice that when the two cars are compared directly (ie. same day, same track), the SS and MR post nearly identical numbers, in many cases the differences are less than a tenth of a second. That's not significant.
I'm not against the Evo, I wouldn't buy the SS over an Evo and I am definitely considering an Evo as my next car (it's near the top of my list if not at the top) but at the same time, I can't stand fanboism. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just stating that I find it a bit irritating when people ignore facts or come up with silly excuses for a car simply because they like it. The same thing happens in the local Subaru club and it drives me nuts.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

True but until you get to the limits, FWD, RWD and AWD are more or less equal (obviously with different behaviours but the same capabilities).
FWD is pretty prevalent in rally racing, granted all the WRC cars are AWD but they're also million dollar machines. In lower levels of rally FWD cars are common and can and do beat the AWD beasts.
There are some racing series that are purely RWD so AWD isn't exactly the end all best drivetrain arrangement.

MrBonus

iTrader: (4)

Most if not all of those series have banned AWD for one reason or another.

That said, if you're talking about on-track performance, the differences between FWD and AWD/RWD is very relevant, even if you're not driving at the absolute limit.

Noize

iTrader: (24)

I agree with a lot of what you say.

FWD cars can be awesome as long as you don't increase power and torque too much. The inherent physics of a FF car transfer weight off the drive wheels while accelerating. Also, those tires have to share traction for acceleration and turning.

The problem is, most of us don't leave our cars stock. The SS is wonderful in stock form, but very near the ceiling of its potential on street tires. You could go a little further on race rubber, but you'll almost never see 500+ whp FWD cars that are competitive in road racing.

I am sure the SS is a monster, but only to a point. When you start getting serious, AWD and RWD cars are better. All the fastest racecars in the world (other than the WRC) are RWD for a reason.

MrBonus

iTrader: (4)

Because of restrictions on AWD drivetrains.

Noize

iTrader: (24)

Maybe at some medium levels like the Speed World Challenge, but not at extreme levels, hence why I said "fastest".

Do you think AWD could be better than RWD in F1?
Do you think an AWD top fuel dragster would be faster than a RWD one?

MrBonus

iTrader: (4)

Obviously not for top fuel cars. I can't answer the F1 question as there are so many factors relating to design, restrictions, etc. that go so far beyond my meager and pedantic understanding of physics and engineering.

I do however know that, for almost all practical purposes, AWD is a superior drivetrain for the majority of circuit work simply due to the advantages of using all four contact patches to their maximum levels of adhesion.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

Awd rules, especially the X's drivetrain

Is there any way we can actually verify C&D's testing, just so that this debate can be settled or at least one of the sides will be shut up? I'd really like to see some data throughout the entire course of VIR, so the guys who are questioning the times could finally have some answers. I'm sure many people will also write to C&D and we'll see much about it in the letters sent to them that C&D posts in the magazine.

spdracerut

iTrader: (2)

I believe F1 drivetrains are limited to RWD.

I will say this, I believe AWD is always better than RWD given that the cars are equal weights. Why? On corner exit, the front tires are no where near their traction limit. Therefore, power can be applied to the front tires to increase acceleration.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

This isn't completely true though. A well driven RWD car is better than an AWD car. Remember, the fastest cars at the ring are still RWD.

Noize

iTrader: (24)

There's the problem. They aren't. They are heavier and have more driveline loss. Extreme racing has extreme tires, so traction is not the issue.

MrBonus

iTrader: (4)

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Do you have anything constructive to support your assertion that RWD is better than AWD?

MrBonus

iTrader: (4)

Actually, yes, it is. You're simply able to extract more traction coming out of turns with your front tires when they're used for both turning and accelerating.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

yep 100 % true. But the evo was never be designed to handle extreme hp or tq.
It is a rally car.