[ToothDoc]

AWD is better for acceleration. Not for turning. Cars that have a heavy rear weight bias won't benefit as much but cars that have an even f/r balance and have a ton of horsepower will definitely benefit. Drag cars shift all their weight to the rear so they won't benefit but actually lose due to the extra weight.

Most street cars simply don't have the power to lay down rubber from a 60 mph roll so AWD isn't really necessary on the track.

If F1 rules were changed to allow AWD, those cars have the HP and NEED the traction to get going and would greatly benefit from it.

For the same reason, awd works in those types of tracks where traction is limited so definitely in rally, off-road, etc.

In a nutshell, our cars aren't powerful enough (yet) to benefit from AWD.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by elistan

If Wikipedia is to be believed, keep in mind that the GTR was only 1.54 seconds behind (after 442 seconds - 0.3% difference) with the disadvantage of a "semi-wet" track. And despite more horsepower, the GTR is heavy enough to have a power-to-weight disadvantage compared to the Z06. (The lap time listed in Wikipedia was done with, it appears, the 523 hp version.) The fact that it was so close given those challenges is pretty remarkable. Strip the GTR down to Z06 weight (probably wouldn't be street legal then ) and adjust the hp down to 505 hp like with the Z06, and I suspect the tables would be turned...

So you are comparing all the aesthetics of each vehicle that gives it its own individuality from one another. It may have been close (although I think anything less than .75 is considered close in racing), but RWD will always prevail. You can start taking down weight, reducing power, yada yada yada, but then you are just making two equal cars go head to head, where's the realism behind that? The tables would be turned because its an unrealistic comparison. Nissan builds an AWD system through testing thinking it can compete with the Vetter or Viper, and it failed to deliver, plain and simple.

[scorcherjf]

For scenarios on an asphalt racetrack, AWD's advantage is really on corner exit where the power can be applied sooner (usually) than a RWD car. The penalty of AWD is added weight, added drivetrain loss, usually higher center of gravity since the engine is usually mounted higher to account for the extra drive shafts, and also a higher polar moment of inertia.

The best AWD track stars are probably the lamborghinis and the nissan GTR but I don't think they can achieve as low of a center of gravity and polar moment as a Ferrari 458 or McLaren MP4-12C.

Anyway, your experience with the STi is really just an anecdote in isolation since we know nothing about the modifications of either cars. Tires alone could have made all the difference, not just because the STi is AWD. Also, the most important unknown... the drivers.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by Billup

Nissan builds an AWD system through testing thinking it can compete with the Vetter or Viper, and it failed to deliver, plain and simple.

this guy gets it.

an AWD car will never be at the top of any fastest times list....

[elistan]

Originally Posted by Litos

the Aventador LP-400 is AWD with 690hp and STILL can't beat a Viper around Laguna Seca....

RWD, ya'll.......

True.

Based on MT's 2012 Best Driver's car:
Aventador LP 700-4: 4109 lbs as tested, 691 hp. 1:35.40.

Based on MT's article about the 2014 Viper SRT Time Attack:
Viper SRT TA: 3332 lbs as tested, 640 hp. 1:33.62.

Same driver, but different days. 14% power to weight ratio advantage for the Viper, but only 2% advantage in lap time.

(ps - when thinking about "4109 lbs," the word that comes to my mind is "pig." Although I'm sure it's fun to drive regardless. )

[elistan]

Originally Posted by Litos

it still lost, even with the misconception that AWD is better/faster.......

I would instead say that the advantage of the AWD wasn't enough to overcome the disadvantage of the greater weight and wet track.

I'm curious about your thoughts on why RWD is faster. Is it because it's lighter? Yes, of course, I'd totally agree there. What else...?

[MediaArtist]

Because the purpose of AWD isn't to win races on tracks with perfect conditions, it's purpose is for increased traction in non-perfect conditions.

On a snow covered track, AWD cars will beat comparable RWD cars all day long.

On a normal track, the extra weight, and bigger drive train loss will be big disadvantages against a traditional RWD platform. Think of AWD and RWD as different tools for different purposes and it makes sense. You use a hammer on nails, and a screw driver on screws, and not vice-versa for a reason.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by elistan

I would instead say that the advantage of the AWD wasn't enough to overcome the disadvantage of the greater weight and wet track.

I'm curious about your thoughts on why RWD is faster. Is it because it's lighter? Yes, of course, I'd totally agree there. What else...?

read post #30.

i've been posting on car forums since 2004 - i get tired of explaining the whole RWD vs AWD thing.

it was just as old a decade ago as it is today.....

[elistan]

Originally Posted by Billup

You can start taking down weight, reducing power, yada yada yada, but then you are just making two equal cars go head to head, where's the realism behind that? The tables would be turned because its an unrealistic comparison.

But that's racing. There are weight restrictions, horsepower restrictions, dimensional restrictions, tire restrictions, aero restrictions... Racing is not "reality" in that sense. However, AWD certainly has a weight penalty in street cars, and that certainly shows up often in street car performance... I wonder how a 991 S and 991 4S would compare head-to-head on the same track on the same day with the same driver. Porsche says there's only a 111 lbs difference. It's the best sort of "all else equal" test. I suspect a novice like me would be faster in the 4S, while a more experienced driver like Randy Pobst could get to the edge of the performance envelope of the S just as easily as the 4S, and the weight advantage of the S would be the deciding factor.

Nissan builds an AWD system through testing thinking it can compete with the Vetter or Viper, and it failed to deliver, plain and simple.

IIRC, when it was released in 2007 the GTR was faster than it's RWD Corvette and Viper competition around the Nurburgring. Not what I'd call a failure to deliver. But there's still a bit of an arms race among some vehicle manufacturers - MT's article about the Viper GTS Time Attack notes how SRT president Ralph Gilles was pissed about a test showing a Corvette ZR1 as faster than a Viper GTS, and the TA version was a direct result of that - so it's not surprising to me we're seeing Chevy and Chrysler with the faster cars. Nissan is continuing to tweak the GTR, but it's not clear how much attention they're paying to those cars.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by elistan

Nissan is continuing to tweak the GTR, but it's not clear how much attention they're paying to those cars.

if they'ne not openly GOING AFTER those cars, Nissan is doing it wrong....

[Billup]

Originally Posted by elistan

I would instead say that the advantage of the AWD wasn't enough to overcome the disadvantage of the greater weight and wet track.

I'm curious about your thoughts on why RWD is faster. Is it because it's lighter? Yes, of course, I'd totally agree there. What else...?

Not only lighter, but the transfer of direct inert energy to two wheels would naturally create a quicker response time as well, since you are eliminating the much needed increase in power to accommodate all four wheels. What does an AWD foundation provide other than an added amount of traction in a situation where traction isn't exactly going to benefit that much more. Now if it were on a dirt track, AWD would prove what its existence is and always will be intended for.

[elistan]

Originally Posted by Litos

read post #30.

i've been posting on car forums since 2004 - i get tired of explaining the whole RWD vs AWD thing.

it was just as old a decade ago as it is today.....

Gotcha. Extra weight and extra drive train loss. Certainly agree with you there!

[Sandye90m3]

I think for novice drivers or even intermediate drivers, AWD will be faster than RWD. AWD is very easy to drive "fast" because there is so much traction and the only thing that could really happen is understeer which is very predictable compared to oversteer IMO.

Having said that, advanced driver/experts can use RWD to its full potential because first, they are more light and secondly the car is more agile compared to the numbness in a AWD.

For example, in an AWD you can just hammer the throttle around a turn and generically you'll be safe. However in a RWD you need to squeeze that throttle input as linearly as you can, and when perfected it would destroy a AWD.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Understeer is slow. AWD will unduce understeer, not just because of the extra weight up front, which doesnt help, but also because the tires can only give so much. As you start asking the tire to pull you forward, it reduces the tire's ability to hold side loads for cornering. Cant have your cake and eat it too, at least not at the same time. (google Friction Circle)

I rode along for a few hot laps in GTR with a driver who knew what he was doing. I recall thinking (besides the fact the car is FUGLY): how did Nissan manage to make it so fast, while making it less "fun" at the same time ? It was strangely impressive and disappointing at the same time.

[MediaArtist]

That's the subjective part of RWD and AWD.

My take, RWD tingles the senses. AWD, you're sensing for that tingle.

[elistan]

Just for fun, here's some Audi TT RS in-car footage from Mid Ohio last weekend.

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Billup

This is the most intelligent thing I've seen on the internet in a long time.

I will add you to my moron list. Do some research!!!

[Billup]

Originally Posted by kits135i

I will add you to my moron list. Do some research!!!

You need to do the research, Mr. two superlatives. Common knowledge. Well..., apparently it is not.

I'm deeply concerned with this "moron list", however. I can't stand the thought of being on a complete strangers crap list. Let me know when I am off so I can resume sleeping at night.

[Litos]

two superlatives > AWD

[Litos]

Originally Posted by Billup

I'm deeply concerned with this "moron list", however. I can't stand the thought of being on a complete strangers crap list. Let me know when I am off so I can resume sleeping at night.

love this guy

[Billup]

Originally Posted by Litos

two superlatives > AWD

That is surely the most dumbest thing ever. One superlative > AWD > RWD.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by Billup

That is surely the most dumbest thing ever. One superlative > AWD > RWD.