So Much for AWD - Page 23 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #**331** 04-20-2013, 04:34 PM

The reason most sports cars have rwd is that it is more fun than awd because awd, even though superior in traction and drivability at the limit is no challenge to take near the limit as rwd is....therefore less fun.

layback40 · #**332** 04-23-2013, 09:40 PM

Well to all you arm chair experts who wish to use what ever "science" you can claim to give an opinion on this. A university in Japan did some work for Subaru about 10 years ago. They conducted a series of tests using one of the Subaru AWD's. They undertook cornering tests with AWD, rear wheel drive only connected & front wheel drive only connected.
One of the many results was that that when they compared maximum cornering speeds of the 3 configurations, the AWD showed a significantly higher speed. This was examined at a 95% confidence level with the null hypothesis being rejected. The rear wheel / front wheel comparison did not achieve a null hypothesis rejection at the 95% confidence level.
This is very definitive & for those who wish to understand better, best remember what you were supposed to have learned 1/2 way through your undergraduate engineering studies.

sixto · #**333** 04-23-2013, 09:58 PM

Engineering degrees aside, a more complete test will include comparing something like an S2000 in standard form, an S2000 converted to FWD and an S2000 converted to AWD.

Tests can be performed on older Subaru models that were available in FWD and AWD form, as well Mitsubishis with the same range of options (e.g., 1989-99 Eclipse GS-T vs GS-X). For that matter, wasn't AWD an option on some vintage of Camry and Tempo? AMC Spirit/Concord vs AMC Eagle?

Sixto
87 300D

ned2683 · #**334** 04-23-2013, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

Well to all you arm chair experts who wish to use what ever "science" you can claim to give an opinion on this. A university in Japan did some work for Subaru about 10 years ago. They conducted a series of tests using one of the Subaru AWD's. They undertook cornering tests with AWD, rear wheel drive only connected & front wheel drive only connected.
One of the many results was that that when they compared maximum cornering speeds of the 3 configurations, the AWD showed a significantly higher speed. This was examined at a 95% confidence level with the null hypothesis being rejected. The rear wheel / front wheel comparison did not achieve a null hypothesis rejection at the 95% confidence level.
This is very definitive & for those who wish to understand better, best remember what you were supposed to have learned 1/2 way through your undergraduate engineering studies.

care to provide a link to this study? I learned to check my sources 1/2 way through my undergraduate engineering studies. i would really like to read "A university in Japan did some work for Subaru about 10 years ago."

was it done on the same car and disconnecting front an rear wheels? or did they remove the rear differential and drive shafts for the front drive version and vice versa for the RWD?

2009 Infiniti G37x S Sedan - First Test - Motor Trend

While the all-wheel-drive G37x S would likely fair considerably better on snow-covered roads than the standard G37 S, on hot, dry asphalt, it falls slightly behind. The only major difference between the 2009 G37 S sedan we tested late last year and the G37x S sedan we just tested is the inclusion of Infiniti's "Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All Electronic Torque Split" all-wheel-drive system lifted from Infiniti's crossovers, along with the seven-speed automatic transmission. Both cars featured the same 328-hp, 3.7L V-6 producing 269 lb-ft of torque and both were equipped with the optional Sport package. The ATTESA-TS all-wheel-drive unit adds just over 150 lb of curb weight over the rear-drive model, tipping the scales at 3859 lb. The added weight and drivetrain loss make themselves apparent at the track. The G37x S was nearly half a second slower to 60 mph and through the quarter mile than the G37 S, hitting 60 in 5.4 sec and tripping the lights at 13.9 sec at 100.5 mph. Braking was similarly affected, with the G37x S stopping 10 ft farther than the G37 S, needing 120 ft to come to a halt from 60 mph. This can also be explained by the G37x S' smaller brakes, as it doesn't get the same upgrade that the G37 S does with its Sport package.

1. please send that study to Infiniti, they didn't get the note.

2. also please send that study to BMW, so they can make their M3, M5 and M6 AWD, they have mistakenly made their flag ship models with the wrong drivetrain. also their Xdrive models are slower than their normal counter part which cannot happen according to this unlisted study.

3. Also send that study to Ferrari as all but one car is AWD, they could have done a lot better building AWD cars.

4. Send the study to Mini, as their FWD Coopers are faster than their AWD coopers.

5. Send that study to Lexus for their IS, their AWD models are slower than their RWD

Skid Row Joe · #**335** 04-23-2013, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

2009 Infiniti G37x S Sedan - First Test - Motor Trend

While the all-wheel-drive G37x S would likely fair considerably better on snow-covered roads than the standard G37 S, on hot, dry asphalt, it falls slightly behind. The only major difference between the 2009 G37 S sedan we tested late last year and the G37x S sedan we just tested is the inclusion of Infiniti's "Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All Electronic Torque Split" all-wheel-drive system lifted from Infiniti's crossovers, along with the seven-speed automatic transmission. Both cars featured the same 328-hp, 3.7L V-6 producing 269 lb-ft of torque and both were equipped with the optional Sport package. The ATTESA-TS all-wheel-drive unit adds just over 150 lb of curb weight over the rear-drive model[/B], tipping the scales at 3859 lb. The added weight and drivetrain loss make themselves apparent at the track. The G37x S was nearly half a second slower to 60 mph and through the quarter mile than the G37 S, hitting 60 in 5.4 sec and tripping the lights at 13.9 sec at 100.5 mph. Braking was similarly affected, with the G37x S stopping 10 ft farther than the G37 S, needing 120 ft to come to a halt from 60 mph. This can also be explained by the G37x S' smaller brakes, as it doesn't get the same upgrade that the G37 S does with its Sport package.

1. please send that study to Infiniti, they didn't get the note.

2. also please send that study to BMW, so they can make their M3, M5 and M6 AWD, they have mistakenly made their flag ship models with the wrong drivetrain. also their Xdrive models are slower than their normal counter part which cannot happen according to this unlisted study.

3. Also send that study to Ferrari as all but one car is AWD, they could have done a lot better building AWD cars.

4. Send the study to Mini, as their FWD Coopers are faster than their AWD coopers.

5. Send that study to Lexus for their IS, their AWD models are slower than their RWD

care to provide corresponding "cornering" testing information on ALL the above referenced brands, models?

Since "cornering" is what layback40's post is ALL about?

Where's all the "cornering" testing comps from all your brands and models, ned?

I don't believe the thrust of this thread is about straight-line, drag, or time racing....

.

ned2683 · #**336** 04-23-2013, 11:07 PM

bored today, some post back some one asked about F1 (i am feeling meh about wikipedia)

Four-wheel drive in Formula One - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boom in 1969

With the introduction of the Cosworth DFV in 1967, F1 constructors found the exceptional power-to-weight ratio of the new engine increasingly gave them much more power than the grip levels of their cars could deal with, particularly in wet conditions. As a result several solutions were tried, with three leading Cosworth customers and even Cosworth themselves each trying their hand at building 4WD F1 cars.

Ironically, while the 1968 season was plagued by wet races, there was hardly a raindrop to be seen in 1969, so the 4WD cars never got to fully demonstrate their abilities. Meanwhile, advances in wing and tyre technologies negated any advantage to compensate for the extra weight and complication of their 4WD transmission systems compared to their rear-wheel drive contemporaries. Furthermore, virtually every driver who drove the cars hated the way they handled.
Lotus 63
Main article: Lotus 63
Lotus 63 4WD driven by Mario Andretti at the Nürburgring

Of the four 4WD projects, the Lotus team were undoubtedly the most committed. The design of the car was influenced by the all-conquering Lotus 49 and the two 4WD gas turbine cars Lotus had entered in the Indy 500, and as well as its wedge shape the later Lotus 72 would also inherit its inboard front brakes. As with the Matra and McLaren cars, the 63 featured a back-to-front DFV with a bespoke Hewland gearbox and a Ferguson 4WD transmission with provision to adjust the front-rear torque distribution between 50-50 and 30-70.

With a ban on high-mounted wings following Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt's accidents in the 1969 Spanish Grand Prix meaning low grip was more of a problem than ever the 63s were pressed into service two races later at Zandvoort. Hill tried the car in the first qualifying session, but after going nearly four seconds quicker in his regular 49B, and declaring the 63 a "death trap", it was left to Lotus test driver John Miles to give the car its debut at the French GP, retiring after a single lap with a fuel pump failure. At the British Grand Prix both chassis were available, but after Hill again tried the car in practice, and again refused to drive it, Jo Bonnier drove the car with Hill in Bonnier's 49B, while Miles again drove the other 63. Bonnier retired with an engine problem while Miles finished tenth, some nine laps down.

Mario Andretti drove in place of Miles in the next race at the Nürburgring, but crashed heavily on the first lap, badly damaging the chassis. At the International Gold Cup Jochen Rindt was forced to drive the 63, despite protesting furiously to Chapman, and in an under-strength field of F1 and F5000 cars came second, some way behind Jacky Ickx's Brabham. In the remaining races of the season Miles drove the car in the Italian, Canadian and Mexican races, retiring from all three with engine, gearbox and fuel pump failures, with Andretti retiring at Watkins Glen with broken suspension. After losing both championships to Jackie Stewart's Matra, Chapman finally decided that it was time to abandon the 4WD car and concentrate on the designs for the Lotus 72.

One 63 chassis is currently on display as part of the Donington Grand Prix Collection, the other is believed to be in Australia.
Matra MS84
1969: Jackie Stewart pictured with the MS84 at the Nürburgring

Leading French constructor Matra based their 4WD car on the MS80 with which they won the 1969 Constructors' Championship, and from the rear of the cockpit forward the cars looked virtually identical, save for the driveshaft to the front wheels. At the back the engine was mounted back-to-front with the gearbox directly behind the driver, but tellingly the Ferguson transmission and other necessary additions left the car 10% heavier than the two-wheel drive sister cars. Like the Lotus 63, the MS84 made its first appearance at the Dutch Grand Prix, where Jackie Stewart tried the car out but opted to use his MS80, as he would for the rest of the season.

The car was still present at all the remaining races as a spare, and at Silverstone Jean-Pierre Beltoise gave the car its first race and came home ninth, six laps behind Stewart's two-wheel drive Matra (but three laps ahead of Miles's Lotus 63). By the next time the car raced, the front differential had been disconnected and the car effectively ran as an over-weight MS80 with inboard front brakes, memorably giving the lie to Johnny Servoz-Gavin's protestations about the 4WD car being "undriveable" after he finished the Canadian Grand Prix six laps down in sixth place. Servoz-Gavin also drove the car at Watkins Glen, finishing 16 laps down and unclassified, and finally in Mexico, crossing the line "just" two laps down in eighth place.
McLaren M9A
The McLaren M9A.

Bruce McLaren's team was the last front-running team to produce a 4WD car in 1969, a brand new chassis designed by Jo Marquart and designated the M9A. The car, complete with distinctive "tea tray" rear wing, was completed in time for Derek Bell to use in the British Grand Prix alongside the standard M7s, where he retired with suspension failure. After McLaren himself tested the car he compared driving it to "trying to write your signature with someone constantly jogging your elbow" and the car was never raced again.

Cosworth
The Cosworth Formula One car.

With Keith Duckworth's DFV engine being the root of the grip problem, it was perhaps to be expected that Cosworth were the first to attempt a 4WD solution. Ford's Walter Hayes, who had backed the DFV, gave the project his blessing and former McLaren designer Robin Herd joined Duckworth in designing the car, which was a pretty radical departure from the normal late-60s cars. The Cosworth featured a very angular shape, with sponsons between the wheels either side of the aluminium monocoque to house the fuel tanks and improve the car's aerodynamics, and the cockpit was quite visibly off-set to the driver's left. Unlike all the other 4WD F1 cars, instead of using the Ferguson transmission Cosworth built their own version from scratch, and even went as far as producing a new gearbox and a bespoke magnesium-cast DFV, perhaps anticipating a future market for their technology.

Trevor Taylor and Cosworth co-founder Mike Costin tested the car extensively, the first problem being the positioning of the oil tank, which for weight distribution had been placed directly behind the driver's backside, causing considerable discomfort. With the oil tank moved back behind the engine and a redesign of the front driveshafts the only major remaining problem was the excessive understeer which dogged all the 4WD cars. A limited-slip front differential was tried with some slight success, but after Jackie Stewart briefly sampled the car reporting that "the car's so heavy on the front, you turn into a corner and whole thing starts driving you", confirming what Taylor and Costin already felt, Hayes withdrew his support and the Cosworth 4WD project was axed shortly before the British Grand Prix.

This remains the only Formula One car Cosworth have ever built, and like the Lotus 63 the car is now on display as part of the Donington Grand Prix Collection. There was a second cosworth FWD built out of factory parts by Crosthwaite and Gardner, it was on display at the now closed Fremantle motor museum and now in a private collection in Melbourne Australia.
Lotus 56B (1971)
Main article: Lotus 56

The wedge-shaped, gas turbine-powered Lotus 56, one of the most unusual cars ever to race in F1, was originally designed to compete in the 1968 Indianapolis 500 where it nearly won, but with USAC introducing a ban on gas turbines and four-wheel drive for the 1970 race, a new B variant of the car was built to Formula 1 spec with an eye to replacing the failed 63.

With a Pratt & Whitney engine driving the trusty Ferguson-derived transmission without the need for a clutch or gearbox, the car made its Formula 1 debut in the 1971 Race of Champions with Emerson Fittipaldi at the wheel. He qualified seventh out of 15 runners, but retired after 33 laps with a suspension failure. A similar problem forced Reine Wisell out of the Spring Trophy at Oulton Park, and with Fittipaldi back for the International Trophy, the suspension broke yet again in the first heat before the Brazilian took third in the second race, the car's best finish in an F1 event.

Dave Walker was then drafted in to drive the car in the Dutch Grand Prix, qualifying a lowly 22nd. However the race was wet, handing a massive advantage to the 4WD car, and Walker proceeded to carve his way through the field, getting right up to tenth place in only five laps before seriously blotting his copy-book by crashing out, leading Chapman to remark "that was the one race that should, and could, have been won by a four-wheel drive". Reine Wisell had another go with the car in the British Grand Prix, but more problems meant that by the finish he was some 11 laps down. The final F1 entry for a 56B came in the Italian Grand Prix, where the car featured an early prototype of the JPS livery that would go on to become a motor racing icon. Fittipaldi brought the car home in eighth place, a lap down on the closest finish in F1 history.

Curiously, Fittipaldi drove the car once more in an F5000 event, his second place at Hockenheim marking the best result for the car. By now though it was clear that the 63 and 56B cars had deflected attention from developing the Lotus 72, with Lotus not taking a single win in 1971, and the turbine car was shelved and never raced again.
Others

March and Williams each built cars with an identical 6-wheeled layout, but neither car was ever raced in F1. In both cases it was found that the cars were about the same as normal cars in terms of speed since the extra traction was negated by the added rolling resistance, although the March 2-4-0 was later to have some success in hillclimbs.

Nevertheless it is interesting to note that it was the Williams FW08D, rather than any 4-wheeled car, which prompted FISA to ban 4WD from Formula 1 in 1982.

ned2683 · #**337** 04-23-2013, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

care to provide "cornering" testing information on ALL the above referenced brands, models?

Since "cornering" is what layback40's post was ALL about?

Where's all the "cornering" testing comps from all your brands and models, ned?

I don't believe the thrust of this thread is about straight-line, drag, or time racing, ned.......

.

i too lazy

Skid Row Joe · #**338** 04-23-2013, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

i too lazy

i'll wait - if you can find such.

ned2683 · #**339** 04-23-2013, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

care to provide "cornering" testing information on ALL the above referenced brands, models?

Since "cornering" is what layback40's post was ALL about?

Where's all the "cornering" testing comps from all your brands and models, ned?

I don't believe the thrust of this thread is about straight-line, drag, or time racing....

.

Actually i call BS on his "Japanese study FOR Subaru" i am a car guy and NEVER heard of such thing ever. i did my google-fu and found nothing about it. if you cannot produce it then i may as well not give you the link to Ferrari's study that RWD is 2X faster than AWD that i have hidden away.

not looking to get in a fight, but some crazy "facts" have been said in this thread.

I was asked to give examples of motorsports that AWD does not dominate and i gave 2 (autocross and race laps).

some guys ask for an explanation and people had tried to simplify it, then they say you can simplify it like that and called us arm chair racers.

then name calling, then personal attacks that i know nothing of.

seems like i am spending a lot of time on the defense and trying to prove it to people who won't hear it. so let me get this challenge out:

1. Provide to me a motorsport that all drivetrains can compete in where AWD dominates RWD (and FWD) - that is not rally and not drag racing

2. Show me this so called scientific study that some "Japanese university did 10 years ago for Subaru" i am doubting its existence, and if it does and the University DID IT FOR SUBARU, i am guessing there are some iffy details in their (like leaving the weight in for the differentials and drive shaft)

t walgamuth · #**340** 04-23-2013, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

bored today, some post back some one asked about F1 (i am feeling meh about wikipedia)

Four-wheel drive in Formula One - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boom in 1969

With the introduction of the Cosworth DFV in 1967, F1 constructors found the exceptional power-to-weight ratio of the new engine increasingly gave them much more power than the grip levels of their cars could deal with, particularly in wet conditions. As a result several solutions were tried, with three leading Cosworth customers and even Cosworth themselves each trying their hand at building 4WD F1 cars.

Ironically, while the 1968 season was plagued by wet races, there was hardly a raindrop to be seen in 1969, so the 4WD cars never got to fully demonstrate their abilities. Meanwhile, advances in wing and tyre technologies negated any advantage to compensate for the extra weight and complication of their 4WD transmission systems compared to their rear-wheel drive contemporaries. Furthermore, virtually every driver who drove the cars hated the way they handled.
Lotus 63
Main article: Lotus 63
Lotus 63 4WD driven by Mario Andretti at the Nürburgring

Of the four 4WD projects, the Lotus team were undoubtedly the most committed. The design of the car was influenced by the all-conquering Lotus 49 and the two 4WD gas turbine cars Lotus had entered in the Indy 500, and as well as its wedge shape the later Lotus 72 would also inherit its inboard front brakes. As with the Matra and McLaren cars, the 63 featured a back-to-front DFV with a bespoke Hewland gearbox and a Ferguson 4WD transmission with provision to adjust the front-rear torque distribution between 50-50 and 30-70.

With a ban on high-mounted wings following Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt's accidents in the 1969 Spanish Grand Prix meaning low grip was more of a problem than ever the 63s were pressed into service two races later at Zandvoort. Hill tried the car in the first qualifying session, but after going nearly four seconds quicker in his regular 49B, and declaring the 63 a "death trap", it was left to Lotus test driver John Miles to give the car its debut at the French GP, retiring after a single lap with a fuel pump failure. At the British Grand Prix both chassis were available, but after Hill again tried the car in practice, and again refused to drive it, Jo Bonnier drove the car with Hill in Bonnier's 49B, while Miles again drove the other 63. Bonnier retired with an engine problem while Miles finished tenth, some nine laps down.

Mario Andretti drove in place of Miles in the next race at the Nürburgring, but crashed heavily on the first lap, badly damaging the chassis. At the International Gold Cup Jochen Rindt was forced to drive the 63, despite protesting furiously to Chapman, and in an under-strength field of F1 and F5000 cars came second, some way behind Jacky Ickx's Brabham. In the remaining races of the season Miles drove the car in the Italian, Canadian and Mexican races, retiring from all three with engine, gearbox and fuel pump failures, with Andretti retiring at Watkins Glen with broken suspension. After losing both championships to Jackie Stewart's Matra, Chapman finally decided that it was time to abandon the 4WD car and concentrate on the designs for the Lotus 72.

One 63 chassis is currently on display as part of the Donington Grand Prix Collection, the other is believed to be in Australia.
Matra MS84
1969: Jackie Stewart pictured with the MS84 at the Nürburgring

Leading French constructor Matra based their 4WD car on the MS80 with which they won the 1969 Constructors' Championship, and from the rear of the cockpit forward the cars looked virtually identical, save for the driveshaft to the front wheels. At the back the engine was mounted back-to-front with the gearbox directly behind the driver, but tellingly the Ferguson transmission and other necessary additions left the car 10% heavier than the two-wheel drive sister cars. Like the Lotus 63, the MS84 made its first appearance at the Dutch Grand Prix, where Jackie Stewart tried the car out but opted to use his MS80, as he would for the rest of the season.

The car was still present at all the remaining races as a spare, and at Silverstone Jean-Pierre Beltoise gave the car its first race and came home ninth, six laps behind Stewart's two-wheel drive Matra (but three laps ahead of Miles's Lotus 63). By the next time the car raced, the front differential had been disconnected and the car effectively ran as an over-weight MS80 with inboard front brakes, memorably giving the lie to Johnny Servoz-Gavin's protestations about the 4WD car being "undriveable" after he finished the Canadian Grand Prix six laps down in sixth place. Servoz-Gavin also drove the car at Watkins Glen, finishing 16 laps down and unclassified, and finally in Mexico, crossing the line "just" two laps down in eighth place.
McLaren M9A
The McLaren M9A.

Bruce McLaren's team was the last front-running team to produce a 4WD car in 1969, a brand new chassis designed by Jo Marquart and designated the M9A. The car, complete with distinctive "tea tray" rear wing, was completed in time for Derek Bell to use in the British Grand Prix alongside the standard M7s, where he retired with suspension failure. After McLaren himself tested the car he compared driving it to "trying to write your signature with someone constantly jogging your elbow" and the car was never raced again.

Cosworth
The Cosworth Formula One car.

With Keith Duckworth's DFV engine being the root of the grip problem, it was perhaps to be expected that Cosworth were the first to attempt a 4WD solution. Ford's Walter Hayes, who had backed the DFV, gave the project his blessing and former McLaren designer Robin Herd joined Duckworth in designing the car, which was a pretty radical departure from the normal late-60s cars. The Cosworth featured a very angular shape, with sponsons between the wheels either side of the aluminium monocoque to house the fuel tanks and improve the car's aerodynamics, and the cockpit was quite visibly off-set to the driver's left. Unlike all the other 4WD F1 cars, instead of using the Ferguson transmission Cosworth built their own version from scratch, and even went as far as producing a new gearbox and a bespoke magnesium-cast DFV, perhaps anticipating a future market for their technology.

Trevor Taylor and Cosworth co-founder Mike Costin tested the car extensively, the first problem being the positioning of the oil tank, which for weight distribution had been placed directly behind the driver's backside, causing considerable discomfort. With the oil tank moved back behind the engine and a redesign of the front driveshafts the only major remaining problem was the excessive understeer which dogged all the 4WD cars. A limited-slip front differential was tried with some slight success, but after Jackie Stewart briefly sampled the car reporting that "the car's so heavy on the front, you turn into a corner and whole thing starts driving you", confirming what Taylor and Costin already felt, Hayes withdrew his support and the Cosworth 4WD project was axed shortly before the British Grand Prix.

This remains the only Formula One car Cosworth have ever built, and like the Lotus 63 the car is now on display as part of the Donington Grand Prix Collection. There was a second cosworth FWD built out of factory parts by Crosthwaite and Gardner, it was on display at the now closed Fremantle motor museum and now in a private collection in Melbourne Australia.
Lotus 56B (1971)
Main article: Lotus 56

The wedge-shaped, gas turbine-powered Lotus 56, one of the most unusual cars ever to race in F1, was originally designed to compete in the 1968 Indianapolis 500 where it nearly won, but with USAC introducing a ban on gas turbines and four-wheel drive for the 1970 race, a new B variant of the car was built to Formula 1 spec with an eye to replacing the failed 63.

With a Pratt & Whitney engine driving the trusty Ferguson-derived transmission without the need for a clutch or gearbox, the car made its Formula 1 debut in the 1971 Race of Champions with Emerson Fittipaldi at the wheel. He qualified seventh out of 15 runners, but retired after 33 laps with a suspension failure. A similar problem forced Reine Wisell out of the Spring Trophy at Oulton Park, and with Fittipaldi back for the International Trophy, the suspension broke yet again in the first heat before the Brazilian took third in the second race, the car's best finish in an F1 event.

Dave Walker was then drafted in to drive the car in the Dutch Grand Prix, qualifying a lowly 22nd. However the race was wet, handing a massive advantage to the 4WD car, and Walker proceeded to carve his way through the field, getting right up to tenth place in only five laps before seriously blotting his copy-book by crashing out, leading Chapman to remark "that was the one race that should, and could, have been won by a four-wheel drive". Reine Wisell had another go with the car in the British Grand Prix, but more problems meant that by the finish he was some 11 laps down. The final F1 entry for a 56B came in the Italian Grand Prix, where the car featured an early prototype of the JPS livery that would go on to become a motor racing icon. Fittipaldi brought the car home in eighth place, a lap down on the closest finish in F1 history.

Curiously, Fittipaldi drove the car once more in an F5000 event, his second place at Hockenheim marking the best result for the car. By now though it was clear that the 63 and 56B cars had deflected attention from developing the Lotus 72, with Lotus not taking a single win in 1971, and the turbine car was shelved and never raced again.
Others

March and Williams each built cars with an identical 6-wheeled layout, but neither car was ever raced in F1. In both cases it was found that the cars were about the same as normal cars in terms of speed since the extra traction was negated by the added rolling resistance, although the March 2-4-0 was later to have some success in hillclimbs.

Nevertheless it is interesting to note that it was the Williams FW08D, rather than any 4-wheeled car, which prompted FISA to ban 4WD from Formula 1 in 1982.

Well, its complicated, apparently. they felt the need to outlaw them at the Indy 500 because they were too good, but from the above posting it appears that is not the case in F1.

ned2683 · #**341** 04-23-2013, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

i'll wait - if you can find such.

i actually had 1 the Infiniti in the link their, does that not count?

its hard to find a good usable source since most car manufacture/magazine test 0-60, and qtr mile time. Its hard to find one done on the same day same track by same driver. the infiniti was one of the few.

ned2683 · #**342** 04-23-2013, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Well, its complicated, apparently. they felt the need to outlaw them at the Indy 500 because they were too good, but from the above posting it appears that is not the case in F1.

yes, i feel that the Aero development, Tire development (probably huge since the 60's) probably made it not feasible with the complicated layout. the rain racing in there showed that the AWD did him wonders tho.

Skid Row Joe · #**343** 04-23-2013, 11:27 PM

I didn't think you had the comparative data ned - just seeing if you did.

I'm a car guy too......your POST #335 - INFINITI testing:
Yeah, I'll throw a couple hundred pounds of weight in my car and see if it accelerates as fast as the identical car without the 150 to 200 pounds.

Gee, what a breakthrough.....extra weight==slower times.

ned2683 · #**344** 04-23-2013, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

I'm a car guy too......your testing:
Yeah, I'll throw a couple hundred pounds of weight in my car and see if it accelerates as fast as the identical car without the 150 to 200 pounds.

Gee, what a breakthrough.....extra weight==slower times.

not getting if you are against me or not

i think you sarcasm.

but i think you made the point here. AWD cars have an extra differential and drive shaft and in all cases will be heavier than the FWD and RWD counter part.

so why would a heavier car corner better than a lighter car of the same type?

cmbdiesel · #**345** 04-24-2013, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ned2683

not getting if you are against me or not

i think you sarcasm.

but i think you made the point here. AWD cars have an extra differential and drive shaft and in all cases will be heavier than the FWD and RWD counter part.

so why would a heavier car corner better than a lighter car of the same type?

Ned, I fear you are wasting your time here. You'll never convince some of these folks. They will continue to demand more and more detailed information from you so they can frame their argument just outside the border of your well supported position, all the while never backing up a single incredulous claim of their own.