http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=wintercarslide.wmv
I dont see why the people where jumping out it wont hurt that much rather stay in the car then get ran over
Wow maybe they should've put chains on their tires haha
Quote from: DeTaiLs on February 05, 2005, 10:15 PM
I dont see why the people where jumping out it wont hurt that much rather stay in the car then get ran over
I took it as them trying to stop it, otherwise they wouldn't have been holding on to the car when it's moving 10mph
They showed that clip on the local news here. I think the video is from Denver if I remember correctly.
I have to agree that jumping out of a car thats going 10mph is pretty stupid and the driver of the black car almost got runover by the white van. Notice that they were all female however? :p
If the wheels were turned towards the curb they might have had a better chance of stopping....
Thats just winter for me. Not really funny.
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 06, 2005, 12:36 AM
If the wheels were turned towards the curb they might have had a better chance of stopping....
Some were turned towards the curb and it was no help.
Now if they had antilock brakes and all-wheel-drive like my Volvo, the computers, taking 500 measurements per second, would prevent that mess by making sure the wheels turn and get some traction. Go go Swedes!
They could've also tried releasing the brakes and steering :)
Ahwell, good thing they were going slow.
That was funny. Now why would something like this happen? When people want to stop, and they don't, they press the brake down harder. Hahaha.
Car repair shop owners must be happy.
Quote from: shout on February 08, 2005, 03:46 PM
That was funny. Now why would something like this happen? When people want to stop, and they don't, they press the brake down harder. Hahaha.
It would make them skid more, sorta. They are skidding because of the lack of friction, by allowing the tires to turn less the car looses more friction & allows it to slide longer.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 04:38 PM
Quote from: shout on February 08, 2005, 03:46 PM
That was funny. Now why would something like this happen? When people want to stop, and they don't, they press the brake down harder. Hahaha.
It would make them skid more, sorta. They are skidding because of the lack of friction, by allowing the tires to turn less the car looses more friction & allows it to slide longer.
It also doesn't help that it takes the transportation department about 8 years to get around to cleaning off the streets. I've driven from DIA through Denver a day after it stopped snowing and I-70/I-270/Highway 36 were still all covered with snow. And don't tell me it was the wind, because they have those massive snow blocking things all around the highways.
*mutter*damn local government.
Buy a 4wd truck &/or have chains. In conditions like that you should have chains anyway..driving on ice without chains, you nutty people...I'd almost think you were from California.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 06:54 PM
In conditions like that you should have chains anyway
Conditions are constantly much worse than that here in the winter, and I've never seen a car with chains on the tires in my life. People in other parts of the country just need to learn to drive.
Quote from: Hitmen on February 08, 2005, 07:04 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 06:54 PM
In conditions like that you should have chains anyway
Conditions are constantly much worse than that here in the winter, and I've never seen a car with chains on the tires in my life. People in other parts of the country just need to learn to drive.
Chains & awd/4wd help, why not use what helps so you don't wreck your car? (unless you have a cheap car)
Quote from: Grok on February 08, 2005, 10:04 AM
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 06, 2005, 12:36 AM
If the wheels were turned towards the curb they might have had a better chance of stopping....
Some were turned towards the curb and it was no help.
Now if they had antilock brakes and all-wheel-drive like my Volvo, the computers, taking 500 measurements per second, would prevent that mess by making sure the wheels turn and get some traction. Go go Swedes!
<.<
>.>
I have antilock breaks... I drive buick.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 09:32 PM
Quote from: Hitmen on February 08, 2005, 07:04 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 06:54 PM
In conditions like that you should have chains anyway
Conditions are constantly much worse than that here in the winter, and I've never seen a car with chains on the tires in my life. People in other parts of the country just need to learn to drive.
Chains & awd/4wd help, why not use what helps so you don't wreck your car? (unless you have a cheap car)
This is one of the only times it is beneficial to have AWD.
Or learn to drive in the snow...? Yes, I am a new driver, but I've never hit another car and I have never gone off road. And I drive in the snow all the time.
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 08, 2005, 09:33 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 09:32 PM
Quote from: Hitmen on February 08, 2005, 07:04 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 06:54 PM
In conditions like that you should have chains anyway
Conditions are constantly much worse than that here in the winter, and I've never seen a car with chains on the tires in my life. People in other parts of the country just need to learn to drive.
Chains & awd/4wd help, why not use what helps so you don't wreck your car? (unless you have a cheap car)
This is one of the only times it is beneficial to have AWD.
AWD is ALWAYS beneficial, you have better traction with it.
Quote from: K on February 08, 2005, 05:39 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 04:38 PM
Quote from: shout on February 08, 2005, 03:46 PM
That was funny. Now why would something like this happen? When people want to stop, and they don't, they press the brake down harder. Hahaha.
It would make them skid more, sorta. They are skidding because of the lack of friction, by allowing the tires to turn less the car looses more friction & allows it to slide longer.
It also doesn't help that it takes the transportation department about 8 years to get around to cleaning off the streets. I've driven from DIA through Denver a day after it stopped snowing and I-70/I-270/Highway 36 were still all covered with snow. And don't tell me it was the wind, because they have those massive snow blocking things all around the highways.
*mutter*damn local government.
Maybe you should be more in favor of keeping that $240 billion that we have spent in Iraq back here at home to improve our roads?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 10:00 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 08, 2005, 09:33 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 09:32 PM
Quote from: Hitmen on February 08, 2005, 07:04 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 06:54 PM
In conditions like that you should have chains anyway
Conditions are constantly much worse than that here in the winter, and I've never seen a car with chains on the tires in my life. People in other parts of the country just need to learn to drive.
Chains & awd/4wd help, why not use what helps so you don't wreck your car? (unless you have a cheap car)
This is one of the only times it is beneficial to have AWD.
AWD is ALWAYS beneficial, you have better traction with it.
AWD creates a massive loss of power. The fact that the front wheel portion of the thing is very complex and the fact that you need a transfer case means you are loosing a ton of power. The the only time AWD is beneficial is on slick surfaces. Otherwise you are just loosing power.
If you have a car that is that has THAT little power that it can't support AWD (or fwd what what you say about the front end being complex) you need a new car.
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 09, 2005, 11:22 AM
The the only time AWD is beneficial is on slick surfaces.
My 300HP, 295 ftlb torque Volvo S60R totally disagrees with your opinion. Maybe you think only one wheel should have power, because two wheels having power is just lossy?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2005, 12:01 PM
If you have a car that is that has THAT little power that it can't support AWD (or fwd what what you say about the front end being complex) you need a new car.
It is not an issue of weather the car can support it. It is an issue of you are wasting power and killing your fule economy with something you really do not need.
Quote from: Grok on February 09, 2005, 01:59 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 09, 2005, 11:22 AM
The the only time AWD is beneficial is on slick surfaces.
My 300HP, 295 ftlb torque Volvo S60R totally disagrees with your opinion. Maybe you think only one wheel should have power, because two wheels having power is just lossy?
No, I do not thing 1 wheel would be better than 2. I think real wheel drive is the way to go.
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 09, 2005, 03:56 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2005, 12:01 PM
If you have a car that is that has THAT little power that it can't support AWD (or fwd what what you say about the front end being complex) you need a new car.
It is not an issue of weather the car can support it. It is an issue of you are wasting power and killing your fule economy with something you really do not need.
WEATHER IS the issue, & also physics! You have better traction. Show me proof that you loose a significant amount of power when using AWD vs RWD. Also, FWD can wear out a bit quicker but give you better traction too!
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2005, 06:38 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 09, 2005, 03:56 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2005, 12:01 PM
If you have a car that is that has THAT little power that it can't support AWD (or fwd what what you say about the front end being complex) you need a new car.
It is not an issue of weather the car can support it. It is an issue of you are wasting power and killing your fule economy with something you really do not need.
WEATHER IS the issue, & also physics! You have better traction. Show me proof that you loose a significant amount of power when using AWD vs RWD. Also, FWD can wear out a bit quicker but give you better traction too!
I am not saying it does not give you more traction. But in normal driving conditions (not slick roads) you do not need power going to 4 wheels. Do I really need to post a website that says that a substantial ammount of power is lost in the transfer case? It is pretty logical, the more moving parts, the more energy required to turn them all, the more firction between them, there is a loss in efficiency. Also there is the fact that if you break an AWD car it is going to cost a lot more to fix and it is easier to break too.
You loose some power, but since there are 4 wheels pushing you along instead of two, it will seem as the car accelerates easier...I think. Grok, where are you, your AWESOME Volvo is AWD you said... explain this to us
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2005, 09:05 PM
You loose some power, but since there are 4 wheels pushing you along instead of two, it will seem as the car accelerates easier...I think. Grok, where are you, your AWESOME Volvo is AWD you said... explain this to us
No, you will accelerate slower. If we are in a drag race situation and you mash your foot on the gas you are not going to peel out as much in an awd so your time off the line will be better, but your acceleration is going to be slower in an AWD car and your top speed is going to be lower. Like I said, not as much power is going to be going to the wheels. The only time it is really beneficial is in slick driving conditions. For instance, I would not enter one of those rallys in a car that is not AWD, once I hit some mud or something I would be screwed.
If we both have a car with the same engine, same gear ratios, same shape, etc etc, but your is AWD and mine is RWD I am going to win the race unless of course it starts snowing or something.
AWD cars are engineered to run.
Also, think about this, 4 wheels moving the car vs. 2 wheels moving the car? Which is gonna get you to XX speed faster? This is OF COURSE assuming you're a good enough driver to not spin your tires when starting. You have same weight, same power (- the little bit lost for the AWD), same wind & all. Since there is 4 wheels moving the car there wouldn't be less static friction, but the static friction would be broken by twiec as many wheels, making it that much easier to accel.
How would there be less static friction? How would there be less friction at all? By nature there would be more friction w/ awd... it has more moving parts so there is going to be more friction, that means energy is removed from the system by the friction.
WTF, I never said there was less, I said there WOULDN'T be less, but that there would be twice as many ground contact points BREAKING the static friction.
Whoops, misread. I am sorry about that.
Ideally you do not wan tthe cars tire to overcome the static friction with the road because if they do that means they are sliding. You want them to roll. If a car overcomes that static friction with the road it would be spinning its back wheels, if it overcomes the friction while breaking or turning it is sliding. Then you just have friction. But you do want all of the gears, axels, bearings, etc to break their static friction and be able to overcome their normal friction as easily as possible and with awd that means you have more surfaces rubbing.
some kinetic energy for the hell of it.
1/2mv^2(final)J = 1/2mv^2J + μ*cos(σ)*d*mg
No potential because I would have to put gravity, em, and spring potential on there and that is too much typing
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2005, 09:05 PM
You loose some power, but since there are 4 wheels pushing you along instead of two, it will seem as the car accelerates easier...I think. Grok, where are you, your AWESOME Volvo is AWD you said... explain this to us
Volvos are awesome? :P
I didn't really think static friction would be what I wanted to say, but I don't know what it would be. "W/e force it takes to get the auto moving to begin with" force, there, I'll call it that.
Volvo's are nice cars, nicer that what I drive. I mean you can find BETTER, but a Ford Focus or something isn't gonna beat it out
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 10, 2005, 10:13 PM
I didn't really think static friction would be what I wanted to say, but I don't know what it would be. "W/e force it takes to get the auto moving to begin with" force, there, I'll call it that.
Volvo's are nice cars, nicer that what I drive. I mean you can find BETTER, but a Ford Focus or something isn't gonna beat it out
Well the energy put in to getting the car rolling is going to has to overcome friction and static friction of the parts, which awd has a lot of. So you are loosing more mechanical energy from the engine before that energy gets to the wheels because of friction so if you want to go head to head with a car that has less static friction in its parts to overcome you are going to supply more chemical potential energy (fule).
AWD offers a higher coef of static friction with the road because it has 4 surfaces touching rather than 2. This means it is not going to peel out so much and when the coef is lower because of a slick road or something you still haver a higher coef then you would with two wheels. It is better for breaking and accelerating on wet roads. The reason it is not better for this on dry roads though is because of above, you loose that extra energy due to friction on the inside of the thing and you really do not need that higher coef on a dry road because the coef is high enough.
ps: Can anyone prove that more weight does not help you on a slick road? Our prof canceled out normal force somehow and I forgot what he did. It was a long time ago and I forgot what he did.
I think it would depend if you already have some traction...because in my truck I fishtail on pavement ALOT easier than in my Jeep. Both weigh about the same (this is a sation wagon Jeep thing)
I think we need a physics phd dude & an mechanical engineer
Well to disprove quasi-modo I'll give an example. Porshe 911 Turbo. All-wheel drive. 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. Slow acceleration? I think not. Gas guzzler? Yes.
Quote from: UserLoser on February 10, 2005, 10:12 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 09, 2005, 09:05 PM
You loose some power, but since there are 4 wheels pushing you along instead of two, it will seem as the car accelerates easier...I think. Grok, where are you, your AWESOME Volvo is AWD you said... explain this to us
Volvos are awesome? :P
Yes.
Quote from: dxoigmn on February 11, 2005, 12:43 AM
Well to disprove quasi-modo I'll give an example. Porshe 911 Turbo. All-wheel drive. 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. Slow acceleration? I think not. Gas guzzler? Yes.
A porshe is a porshe.... That is like saying a ferrari has awd and it is still fast... well of course it is. If you had them same engine, body, gear rations, all else equal I mean, but the thing was rwd it would accelerate faster and have a higer top speed. I am not saying cars with AWD are slow. I am saything that AWD is wasteful and that if the car were in RWD it would be faster then it currently is.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 10, 2005, 10:26 PM
I think it would depend if you already have some traction...because in my truck I fishtail on pavement ALOT easier than in my Jeep. Both weigh about the same (this is a sation wagon Jeep thing)
I think we need a physics phd dude & an mechanical engineer
My truck fishtailed a lot too. Its got a light rear end so therefore a low normal force. But I wish someone could prove that that does not effect how much you slide... I think it does but my prof somehow was able to prove it does not.
My truck is now dead.... flew into a tree. I hydroplaned and had to avoid another car and then I got traction when I was sideways and spun around and went off the road, and when I hit the curb it poped me into the air and I hit the tree :'( The truck was only worth 2 grand... but I still loved it.
You said having more weight doesn't affect traction..... I'm confused now :'( :-\ :-[
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 11, 2005, 11:56 AM
You said having more weight doesn't affect traction..... I'm confused now :'( :-\ :-[
It confuses me too. My professor managed to work it out and cancel out the normal force. I forgot exactly how he did it. I think I am going to have to ask him how because it does not make sense to me either. Since w = n and n * coef is your friction.
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 11, 2005, 11:41 AM
Quote from: dxoigmn on February 11, 2005, 12:43 AM
Well to disprove quasi-modo I'll give an example. Porshe 911 Turbo. All-wheel drive. 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. Slow acceleration? I think not. Gas guzzler? Yes.
A porshe is a porshe.... That is like saying a ferrari has awd and it is still fast... well of course it is. If you had them same engine, body, gear rations, all else equal I mean, but the thing was rwd it would accelerate faster and have a higer top speed. I am not saying cars with AWD are slow. I am saything that AWD is wasteful and that if the car were in RWD it would be faster then it currently is.
You're limiting your usefulness of power to straight-line speed. Consider fun curvey roads and hills. That Porsche and my Volvo would unquestionably benefit from AWD in a race on such terrain. Consider that in street racing, as well, you don't always start on track-like conditions, and often have loose pavement, dirt, tiny rocks, any number of things that take away from traction in one or more wheels. The computers in the Volvo take 500 readings per second of the suspension and make corrections of power to the wheels that need it and can use it (the ones that are not slipping).
During the hurricanes back in October, I was driving down Interstate 95 at 80 mph and there were cars stopped everywhere, and the occasional one in the ditch of the median. At this one place I hit 8 consecutive puddles that completely crossed the road, and the car steered perfectly along the road, only slowing slightly as it hit each body of water. A RWD car likely could not handle it.
So go ahead and enjoy your RWD car in perfect dragstrip conditions. For daily driving, I have more power to the road than you will the rest of the time. In average, impromptu, street-racing-at-the-next light, my Volvo is even with a BMW M3 despite the M3's 0.4s better 0-60 time on the track.
Quote from: Grok on February 11, 2005, 12:23 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 11, 2005, 11:41 AM
Quote from: dxoigmn on February 11, 2005, 12:43 AM
Well to disprove quasi-modo I'll give an example. Porshe 911 Turbo. All-wheel drive. 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. Slow acceleration? I think not. Gas guzzler? Yes.
A porshe is a porshe.... That is like saying a ferrari has awd and it is still fast... well of course it is. If you had them same engine, body, gear rations, all else equal I mean, but the thing was rwd it would accelerate faster and have a higer top speed. I am not saying cars with AWD are slow. I am saything that AWD is wasteful and that if the car were in RWD it would be faster then it currently is.
You're limiting your usefulness of power to straight-line speed. Consider fun curvey roads and hills. That Porsche and my Volvo would unquestionably benefit from AWD in a race on such terrain. Consider that in street racing, as well, you don't always start on track-like conditions, and often have loose pavement, dirt, tiny rocks, any number of things that take away from traction in one or more wheels. The computers in the Volvo take 500 readings per second of the suspension and make corrections of power to the wheels that need it and can use it (the ones that are not slipping).
During the hurricanes back in October, I was driving down Interstate 95 at 80 mph and there were cars stopped everywhere, and the occasional one in the ditch of the median. At this one place I hit 8 consecutive puddles that completely crossed the road, and the car steered perfectly along the road, only slowing slightly as it hit each body of water. A RWD car likely could not handle it.
So go ahead and enjoy your RWD car in perfect dragstrip conditions. For daily driving, I have more power to the road than you will the rest of the time. In average, impromptu, street-racing-at-the-next light, my Volvo is even with a BMW M3 despite the M3's 0.4s better 0-60 time on the track.
Congratulations Grok, you just sucked the fun out of the "FUN" Forum.
Quote from: lord_sammy on February 11, 2005, 01:47 PM
Congratulations Grok, you just sucked the fun out of the "FUN" Forum.
Congragulations Sammy, you just insulted one of the leaders of the "vL" Clan.
Grok didn't suck the fun out of anything, he commented on what was being argued.
Quote from: Grok on February 11, 2005, 12:23 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 11, 2005, 11:41 AM
Quote from: dxoigmn on February 11, 2005, 12:43 AM
Well to disprove quasi-modo I'll give an example. Porshe 911 Turbo. All-wheel drive. 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. Slow acceleration? I think not. Gas guzzler? Yes.
A porshe is a porshe.... That is like saying a ferrari has awd and it is still fast... well of course it is. If you had them same engine, body, gear rations, all else equal I mean, but the thing was rwd it would accelerate faster and have a higer top speed. I am not saying cars with AWD are slow. I am saything that AWD is wasteful and that if the car were in RWD it would be faster then it currently is.
You're limiting your usefulness of power to straight-line speed. Consider fun curvey roads and hills. That Porsche and my Volvo would unquestionably benefit from AWD in a race on such terrain. Consider that in street racing, as well, you don't always start on track-like conditions, and often have loose pavement, dirt, tiny rocks, any number of things that take away from traction in one or more wheels. The computers in the Volvo take 500 readings per second of the suspension and make corrections of power to the wheels that need it and can use it (the ones that are not slipping).
During the hurricanes back in October, I was driving down Interstate 95 at 80 mph and there were cars stopped everywhere, and the occasional one in the ditch of the median. At this one place I hit 8 consecutive puddles that completely crossed the road, and the car steered perfectly along the road, only slowing slightly as it hit each body of water. A RWD car likely could not handle it.
So go ahead and enjoy your RWD car in perfect dragstrip conditions. For daily driving, I have more power to the road than you will the rest of the time. In average, impromptu, street-racing-at-the-next light, my Volvo is even with a BMW M3 despite the M3's 0.4s better 0-60 time on the track.
AWD does not neccessarily help your stearing. I mean yes the front wheels are pulling you around, but that is really not neccessary on a normal road.
Earlier in the thread I said 'that is the only time awd is neccessary', I was referring to a slick road. Really that is the only time you would want it. If you are not driving on roads in someplace that is not london, seattle, or cleaveland (because it rains every day practically in those places.... pea soup) and you are not entering some rally somewhere then you do not need awd.
Also, in a race: If you are doing some nfsu2 stuff and overstearing you are not going to be any better off then someone w/ rwd because you are going to loose all traction on your front wheels, they are not going to be able to pull you out of the turn. On a normal turn, yes your front wheels are pulling you around, but my back wheels are pushing me around... Yes you might be able to hit the gas a little more through the turn but I am going to have substantially better acceleration right out of the turn. I do not need to be in perfect drag racing conditions to run a rwd car, most of the time rwd is really not needed, it is pretty unneccessary.
ps: so you car is on par with the m3, I do not know what that means. I know about the m3 (my pal owns one so he is always filling my ear with how he loves it and yahty yahty yah... I wouldnt mind having one myself though) , but I do not know any of the numbers for your car. I know the m3 is a 3.2 liter i6 and it is rwd. Okay I looked up some stuff about your car, it is an i5 and it is 2.5l.
You don't understand. OF COURSE AWD helps when steering on ANY road. There is more power to the ground & more traction w/4 wheels working. A slick road, gravel, regular clean pavement, it ALWAYS helps you when turning. As Grok said, the only time RWD helps is in a straight away, which NEVER happens in real life
Another one of those threads. :o
Btw its Porsche isnt it? Not porshe :)
Quote from: Blaze - S-1-0-0 on February 11, 2005, 02:51 PM
Quote from: lord_sammy on February 11, 2005, 01:47 PM
Congratulations Grok, you just sucked the fun out of the "FUN" Forum.
Congragulations Sammy, you just insulted one of the leaders of the "vL" Clan.
I disagree, I merely commented on how this forum was supposed to be fun, whereas Grok was going into a large analysis of something that wasn't Fun/Funny. Therefore ruining the idea of the "fun" forum.
Hmm yeah we know what you was saying, but i think do think there is a rule not to insult a vL leader?
I know your saying you didnt, or you didnt mean to, but i guess we will have to wait til Grok sees this and posts..
I don't know...But I think Grok doesn't even care. Heck he probably took it as a comment from his post. But in no way insulting. I know people like him are reasonable.
Quote from: woodtroll on February 12, 2005, 11:57 AM
But I think Grok doesn't even care
I think you would be right, I was just pointing out that saying things like that isn't the best way to fit in.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 06:54 PM
Buy a 4wd truck &/or have chains. In conditions like that you should have chains anyway..driving on ice without chains, you nutty people...I'd almost think you were from California.
I don't have chains and they don't sound like a good idea to me. I thought you were only allowed to drive real slow with chains?
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 09, 2005, 09:37 PM
If we both have a car with the same engine, same gear ratios, same shape, etc etc, but your is AWD and mine is RWD I am going to win the race unless of course it starts snowing or something.
That's not necessarily true. If you both have an infinite power engine with no gears (think really strong electrical engine), then you will most likely lose. The additional weight you put on your rear wheels won't be enough to up the friction of a rear wheel there to be twice the friction of a single wheel.
Quote from: lord_sammy on February 12, 2005, 10:35 AM
Quote from: Blaze - S-1-0-0 on February 11, 2005, 02:51 PM
Quote from: lord_sammy on February 11, 2005, 01:47 PM
Congratulations Grok, you just sucked the fun out of the "FUN" Forum.
Congragulations Sammy, you just insulted one of the leaders of the "vL" Clan.
I disagree, I merely commented on how this forum was supposed to be fun, whereas Grok was going into a large analysis of something that wasn't Fun/Funny. Therefore ruining the idea of the "fun" forum.
As long as a topic starts fun, it's ok for it to deviate later. That happens so much all the time. Actually, if you post more fun stuff, I want you to make it a new topic rather than continue an old one just for that very reason: If you want to see the fun, you read the first post of each topic. Any posts further down will just be comments / laughs / discussions.
Quote from: Adron on February 12, 2005, 01:42 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 08, 2005, 06:54 PM
Buy a 4wd truck &/or have chains. In conditions like that you should have chains anyway..driving on ice without chains, you nutty people...I'd almost think you were from California.
I don't have chains and they don't sound like a good idea to me. I thought you were only allowed to drive real slow with chains?
I don't know about real slow, but slow I'd bet. No highway speed. But on icy surfaces, why WOULD you be driving 80 mph's...COULD be fun, til you have to stop
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 11, 2005, 06:03 PM
You don't understand.
I don't?
QuoteOF COURSE AWD helps when steering on ANY road. There is more power to the ground & more traction w/4 wheels working.
Lets not use the term power liberally, power is energy per unit of time. Then end result of awd would be less power because more energy is lost due to friction before we talk about the kinetic energy of the wheels.
QuoteA slick road, gravel, regular clean pavement, it ALWAYS helps you when turning. As Grok said, the only time RWD helps is in a straight away, which NEVER happens in real life
It may pull you though a turn, but that does not make it better. You cut down your acceleration and top speed with awd so it is not beneficial on your normal roads. Also I am not sliding around turns every day, If I drove awd I would see no difierence in my performance on my trip to work and school. If I raced I would still rather have a rwd car because if you take turns really fast in AWD you are basically going to be in the position of everyone else, having to slow down and accelerate towards the end of the turn. I would not have the losses of an awd car and be able to get up to speed faster when I am coming out of that turn.
You're taking physics too literally. Try practically. The differential required to put 300 HP through to a single axle is going to be larger and less efficient than two differentials with lesser requirements. The less efficient single differential will need to be more dense, stronger, have higher heat dissipation capacity, and all around suffer greater energy losses as a percentage of the source energy provided as input.
For a practical vision, consider a light bulb. A single light bulb consuming 100 watts does not produce as many lumens as two 50 watt light bulbs.
Quote from: Grok on February 15, 2005, 06:39 AM
You're taking physics too literally. Try practically. The differential required to put 300 HP through to a single axle is going to be larger and less efficient than two differentials with lesser requirements. The less efficient single differential will need to be more dense, stronger, have higher heat dissipation capacity, and all around suffer greater energy losses as a percentage of the source energy provided as input.
But there remains the fact that a AWD car does have 2 differentials. It has one in the rear and then power is given to each front wheel individually and there is a tranfer case. Because the front wheels have to able to rotate from side to side means you are having to put the power through a greater number of gears. Then there is the whole transfer case. All of that 300hp is still going through your transfer case (tranfer gearbox) on your awd car. So either way all of the power goes through one gear box. One rwd it is the dif, on awd it is the transfer case. But on the awd you still have the dif and the front wheels.
Why did you totally disregard Grok's info about the heat & density that is needed for the rear differential? Also, many newer cars have independent? suspension all the way around and don't have a rear axle anymore
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 15, 2005, 04:16 PM
Why did you totally disregard Grok's info about the heat & density that is needed for the rear differential? Also, many newer cars have independent? suspension all the way around and don't have a rear axle anymore
I did not disreguard it and I am not disagreeing with him that there is heat. But he is saying that is because all 300 has to go through the dif. Yes on a rwd car it does, but on an awd car all of that 300 has to go through a transfer case. So, as I have been saying, you loose power in the transfer case. All awd / rwd vehicles have a transfer case. One shaft in and two shafts out. One to the front, one to the wheel. The driver may or may not have control over what it is doing depending on what he drives (a sports car is not going to allow you to turn awd off generally, but a truck is). So his argument is against all vehicles w/ 300 hp it seems, because that 300 is going to go through a gear box other after the trans no matter what kind of drive it has.
I am raising the possibility that the energy transformations (to heat, sound, or deformation) in a RWD exceed those energy transformations in an AWD car due to the efficiency ratings of the components involved. Show me some measurements so we both stop guessing?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 12, 2005, 01:58 PM
Quote from: Adron on February 12, 2005, 01:42 PM
I don't have chains and they don't sound like a good idea to me. I thought you were only allowed to drive real slow with chains?
I don't know about real slow, but slow I'd bet. No highway speed. But on icy surfaces, why WOULD you be driving 80 mph's...COULD be fun, til you have to stop
Well, over here, they typically keep the highways clean, so I can go about 40 km at 130km/h. Then the last few km are on smaller roads and icy surfaces, and there I go about 30-50 km/h. Would I have to go out and put the chains on when I turned off the highway?
I don't know. It'd make sense to drive with chains, to me, on icy roads.
Quote from: Grok on February 16, 2005, 03:32 AM
I am raising the possibility that the energy transformations (to heat, sound, or deformation) in a RWD exceed those energy transformations in an AWD car due to the efficiency ratings of the components involved. Show me some measurements so we both stop guessing?
Let's do this logically (I do not feel like looking on google for 45 minutes to find exactly what we would be looking for)
300hp car:
on rwd the power leaves the tranny and goes into a dif and out to the wheels.
on awd the power leaves the tranny and goes into a transfer case, then it goes into two shafts, the rear shaft takes it to a dif, the front shaft breaks off and takes power to each front wheel.
On the rwd all power must go through the dif, which means that dif is going to get pretty hot, but on an awd car all of the power goes through a trnafer case which means the case is going to get pretty hot. Either war all 300hp goes through something after the trans. My issue with awd is that after it goes through that something on awd you have power going through still more stuff. More energy is lost in the end.
Let's do this practically (I am one to entertain guesses, but eventually like to see reinforcement).
Find me some measurements taken on dyno at the transmission and to the wheels, comparing AWD and RWD. That's all I ask. Your assertion may be right. It may be wrong. Right now it's just a guess.
And I'll remind you of the logic I tried before just for kicks...
If your car doesn't go fast enough, you can give the engine more power. This can be done as long as you like, but eventually the tires will be unable to transfer more power to the ground. At that point, you have to improve that transfer, and that is best done by adding 4wd with individual control of power transfer for each wheel.
Typically you want to get a certain amount of power into the ground, to accelerate your car. You don't care as much about whether your engine is 100% efficient or not. Especially since this applies at low speeds - at higher speeds, aerodynamic losses will totally overshadow transmission losses.
Also, personally I much prefer a fwd car over a rwd for being able to drive safely under our current weather conditions. By having the driving wheels directly underneath the heavy engine I get more friction. In addition, I don't risk rear wheel spin, loss of grip and ugly skidding if I push the gas a bit too hard in a curve.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 16, 2005, 05:38 PM
I don't know. It'd make sense to drive with chains, to me, on icy roads.
I use studded tires, works fine for me :)
Quote from: Grok on February 17, 2005, 06:41 AM
Let's do this practically (I am one to entertain guesses, but eventually like to see reinforcement).
Find me some measurements taken on dyno at the transmission and to the wheels, comparing AWD and RWD. That's all I ask. Your assertion may be right. It may be wrong. Right now it's just a guess.
Okay, let me just find dyno results for a lancer with awd and one with rwd.... My previous post was a bit more then a guess.
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 17, 2005, 11:43 AM
Quote from: Grok on February 17, 2005, 06:41 AM
Let's do this practically (I am one to entertain guesses, but eventually like to see reinforcement).
Find me some measurements taken on dyno at the transmission and to the wheels, comparing AWD and RWD. That's all I ask. Your assertion may be right. It may be wrong. Right now it's just a guess.
Okay, let me just find dyno results for a lancer with awd and one with rwd.... My previous post was a bit more then a guess.
You seem to think I am saying you are wrong. That is not correct. I am proposing an alternative viewpoint for discussion. Our arguments about which are correct are not based on engineering, but on common sense and physics, and those typically do not take into consideration the real world. Engineers have to do things practically, and our cars are engineered. To test, we can guess (use predictive formulae) all day long, or we can try to create a valid situation where the only difference is RWD vs AWD, and measure the power at the engine and at the wheels of the same car. This should give us the losses due to the drive linkages to the wheel. Then we can go back to our formulae and assign constants to use for future guesses on other cars.
By the way, a sample size of 1 is not statistically significant, but I am sure you will concede that and we can have fun talking about efficiencies instead of confidence.
Quote from: Adron on February 17, 2005, 11:18 AM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 16, 2005, 05:38 PM
I don't know. It'd make sense to drive with chains, to me, on icy roads.
I use studded tires, works fine for me :)
Very cool, just so long as you don't end up like those people in the video posted here a week or so ago that were sliding down the road jumping out of their cars to stop it. ;)
I like FWD too. It just feels better coming around corners & such, probably because I'm not totally loosing traction & fish tailing. Also, I don't tend to spin my tires AS much since there is more weight on the powered tires.
The Pontiac GrandPrix GT I'm renting while my truck is being fixed is way fun to drive. It has FWD. It goes fast. CrAz3D likes going fast. CrAz3D accelerates to speed limit then is sad because speed limit isn't higher.
Grok, if you dyno'd the @ the wheels on both AWD & RWD wouldn't it be a little hard to compare & get a comprehendable result, since possibly ½ power is going to each set of wheel? Would you just add the HP from both sets of wheels (on an AWD car) & compare that to a RWD.
Quote from: Grok on February 17, 2005, 12:27 PM
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 17, 2005, 11:43 AM
Quote from: Grok on February 17, 2005, 06:41 AM
Let's do this practically (I am one to entertain guesses, but eventually like to see reinforcement).
Find me some measurements taken on dyno at the transmission and to the wheels, comparing AWD and RWD. That's all I ask. Your assertion may be right. It may be wrong. Right now it's just a guess.
Okay, let me just find dyno results for a lancer with awd and one with rwd.... My previous post was a bit more then a guess.
By the way, a sample size of 1 is not statistically significant, but I am sure you will concede that and we can have fun talking about efficiencies instead of confidence.
Oh gosh... please do not get me going on statistics. I am taking a class in that right now... horribly boreing stuff.
Well we would have to chop outliers too, things like ferrari and lamborgini.
Hey I thought we're supposed to stay on topic here :)
Quote from: UserLoser on February 17, 2005, 09:16 PM
Hey I thought we're supposed to stay on topic here :)
It almost, sorta, kinda, relatively is. We're talking about cars & traction & acceleration of them for AWD vs. RWD. Original post (which I thought was another thread) is about cars that have little traction & are sliding about on the ice
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 18, 2005, 12:48 AM
Quote from: UserLoser on February 17, 2005, 09:16 PM
Hey I thought we're supposed to stay on topic here :)
It almost, sorta, kinda, relatively is. We're talking about cars & traction & acceleration of them for AWD vs. RWD. Original post (which I thought was another thread) is about cars that have little traction & are sliding about on the ice
I am thinking he means statistics is not fun™?
"Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder" :P
Quote from: quasi-modo on February 18, 2005, 05:14 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 18, 2005, 12:48 AM
Quote from: UserLoser on February 17, 2005, 09:16 PM
Hey I thought we're supposed to stay on topic here :)
It almost, sorta, kinda, relatively is. We're talking about cars & traction & acceleration of them for AWD vs. RWD. Original post (which I thought was another thread) is about cars that have little traction & are sliding about on the ice
I am thinking he means statistics is not fun™?
It's ok as long as the first post in the thread is Fun™.