Dumb Questions Thread

[kikie]

Is there a difference between the feeling of torque and acceleration between an RWD or an FWD?

I mean, the RWD pushes the car and the FWD pulls the car and I was wondering if this makes a difference in how the feeling of torque and acceleration is perceived by the driver.

 

[Dotini]

Is there a difference between the feeling of torque and acceleration between an RWD or an FWD?

I mean, the RWD pushes the car and the FWD pulls the car and I was wondering if this makes a difference in how the feeling of torque and acceleration is perceived by the driver.

Maybe the quickest way to feel the difference is to stomp on the gas pedal. In RWD, you will get wheel hop at the rear and you will feel it in your ass. With FWD, you will get front wheel hop and you will feel it in your hands.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I mean, the RWD pushes the car and the FWD pulls the car and I was wondering if this makes a difference in how the feeling of torque and acceleration is perceived by the driver.

This is going to sound odd but I'll say it... I feel a RWD with the back of my arse and an FWD with the front, and there's a definition difference in sensation between push/pull with them, and in FWD you feel the stick move around slightly under your hand too. At least my Astra GTE used to do that

 

[eran0004]

Is there a difference between the feeling of torque and acceleration between an RWD or an FWD?

I mean, the RWD pushes the car and the FWD pulls the car and I was wondering if this makes a difference in how the feeling of torque and acceleration is perceived by the driver.

If we only talk about longitudinal acceleration then there is no difference. In both cases you’re being pushed forwards by the seat.

On a microscopic level the FWD car is stretched a bit while the RWD car is compressed, but the lengths are much too small to be noticeable.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If we only talk about longitudinal acceleration then there is no difference.

I respectfully disagree. RWD feels "straight" and FWD feels very different from that in one's deep-withins, it's a kind of turny/twisty acceleration. Probably helped by the torque steer of course.

 

[Famine]

FWD feels very different from that in one's deep-withins

I'm still reeling from the information that you feel it in your front bum.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm still reeling from the information that you feel it in your front bum.

Me too, if I'm honest. I'd never actually thought about it, and I'd certainly never expected to see myself describing on that way. I'd like to correct that to "knackers".

 

[eran0004]

I respectfully disagree. RWD feels "straight" and FWD feels very different from that in one's deep-withins, it's a kind of turny/twisty acceleration. Probably helped by the torque steer of course.

Sure, the drive-train has a lot of effects on the dynamics of the car, but if we only talk about longitudinal acceleration then there is no difference. Intuitively you may experience a sensation of being pushed or pulled if you know where the powered wheels are (you may expect to be pushed when you know that the powered wheels are in the back, so that's how you choose to interpret the force), but in both cases you are being pushed forwards by the seat so there is no difference to the forces acting on your body.

 

[wfooshee]

The difference only becomes obvious as one of the drive wheels loses traction. Unbalanced thrust at the front wheel is a completely different steering phenomenon than at the back wheels.

If you don't break wheels loose, as in not enough power, you can't tell where the power's coming from as long as acceleration is a straight line.

 

[Famine]

Me too, if I'm honest. I'd never actually thought about it, and I'd certainly never expected to see myself describing on that way. I'd like to correct that to "knackers".

Either way, it makes for a haunting rendition of Love is All Around.

 

[ryzno]

I'm dead! Thanks for the morning laugh @Famine and @TenEightyOne

 

[kikie]

I had to look up "Front bum". I almost asked another stupid question.



I remember that many, many years ago in Austria during winter on the Felbertaurn Strasse, a Dutch guy put his snow chains on the rear wheels while his car was FWD.

It is true that most people don't feel/know if their car is FWD or RWD. So there is probably no difference in how the G-forces feel when accelerating very hard. I was just wondering.

 

[Dotini]

It is true that most people don't feel/know if their car is FWD or RWD. So there is probably no difference in how the G-forces feel when accelerating very hard. I was just wondering.

If you drive like Balloon Foot, you probably wouldn't notice the difference. But if you drive like Lead Foot, you will know instantly.

 

[kikie]

If you drive like Balloon Foot, you probably wouldn't notice the difference. But if you drive like Lead Foot, you will know instantly.

I hope so otherwise my question was dumb.


Thinking about it, I thought that there is a difference. I try to imagine that I'm in an RWD car and an FWD car and try to feel" the G-forces. It felt different but considering it is all in my head, I wasn't sure.

 

[UKMikey]

I had to look up "Front bum". I almost asked another stupid question.

That one should probably go in the "bum" questions thread instead.

I remember that many, many years ago in Austria during winter on the Felbertaurn Strasse, a Dutch guy put his snow chains on the rear wheels while his car was FWD.

It is true that most people don't feel/know if their car is FWD or RWD. So there is probably no difference in how the G-forces feel when accelerating very hard. I was just wondering.

It certainly feels different in games like Forza when going round the final bend after haring down the back straight. I suspect not many people drive fast enough in real life to notice much of a difference unless they have very sensitive nether regions.

 

[kikie]

That one should probably go in the "bum" questions thread instead.
It certainly feels different in games like Forza when going round the final bend after haring down the back straight. I suspect not many people drive fast enough in real life to notice much of a difference unless they have very sensitive nether regions.

Is there a bum thread?


So, my initial feeling/thought/think experiment () gave me the correct answer, that there is a difference because of the push and pull thing of the two drive trains.

 

[Danoff]

Now I get it. You are talking about cloaking and I'm not. I am talking about invisibility like in Sci-Fi movies or series like "The invisible man".
Yes, you are correct but only if the bubble is transparent.
If a cloak is solid you can't see through it. It would be like having a piece of cloth over your body. I'm not sure that it is even possible to have a transparent cloaking thing. Maybe it is possible. That also means that you're not invisible as in really invisible without a cloak. You will still be visible inside the cloak. Oh, you said that as well.
If an invisible man (my invisibility) is still able to see because of some kind of technology, he or she won't be able to see his or her body because it is invisible. It is this kind of invisibility that is the basis of my dumb question.

If light is not affected and goes unaltered (not bend, reflected or refracted) through a person, this person is truly invisible, so are the lenses and the retina making an invisible person blind.

I still don't get your goggle or glasses reasoning. How I see it, and I'm probably wrong, is that these goggles inside the bubble won't work because the light is bent around the bubble and is not reaching the goggles. No light from the outside reaching the goggles, no light is refracted by the lenses and focussed on the retina. So you will still be blind.
The outside light must bend unaltered around the cloaking bubble. The slightest alteration of the light (refraction, reflection thus the speed and angle) will make the bubble somehow visible.


I always thought that light can't escape the gravity of a black hole. The light gets absorbed by the black hole making it pitch black and thus invisible.
The light that is far enough from the black hole can escape the black hole but that light will not be the same on the other side. It is the same with time (time dilation). Time and probably light will slow down when going around the apparent horizon of a black hole due to the huge and strong gravity.

It is 11:45 pm and I'm going to be. My brain is tired and so am I.

If I'm completely wrong, please be kind because I'm very sensitive.

This is why I asked whether "you" could be invisible without being invisible. If you're saying that the person's eyeball literally doesn't interact with light, which is one way that the concept of an invisible person might manifest, then I think you are correct that the person cannot see. I suppose one might be able to create some sort of camera system whereby a visible camera shot digital information at a non-visible piece of wifi equipment which translated the signal (invisibly) into electrical impulses that bypassed the eyes and went straight to the brain and was interpreted by the invisible brain as sight. But I think that's not what you mean.

This is also how I was using the goggles. The person inside the bubble is receiving an invisible digital signal from a camera outside the bubble. The image signal is reproduced on screens inside the goggles and sent into the person's visible eyes.

Is there a difference between the feeling of torque and acceleration between an RWD or an FWD?

I mean, the RWD pushes the car and the FWD pulls the car and I was wondering if this makes a difference in how the feeling of torque and acceleration is perceived by the driver.

I'd say it's not really noticeable (aside from the aforementioned torque steer) if you're driving in a straight line. If you're mid-turn though, you can feel a difference in how the car's weight responds as you roll on the gas through the turn. It helps to know what you're looking for though, so if you've never experienced the edge of traction it's harder to pick up on subtle weight shifting during a well-within-the-limits turn.

 

[UKMikey]

Is there a bum thread?

Keep on scrolling down the topics list until you get to the bottom.

 

[daan]

If the invisible man did a poo, would it remain invisible, or would we see it as it left his body?

 

[Danoff]

If the invisible man did a poo, would it remain invisible, or would we see it as it left his body?

If the person's body is not interacting with light, then I'd have to assume that anything the person ate would be visible the entire time. So you would see the food go in, get mashed up, and go through various stages of digestion - portions of it would disappear as they were absorbed into the invisible person's body, but then other portions would become stored in the bladder and large intestine - visible the entire time.

So I think the answer is that it would not become visible as it left the body, it would already be visible. Smoking would create a 3D view of the lungs. I'd have to guess that a bleeding invisible person would create invisible blood.

 

[kolio]

If the invisible man did a poo, would it remain invisible, or would we see it as it left his body?

Of course it is visible. He isn't a black hole.

 

[TexRex]

Is there a bum thread?

 

[GranTurNismo]

Here's a question completely unrelated to politics/current events: why do so many normal cars have speedometers that go all the way up to 160mph, even those can't even come close to reaching 160mph? I was in my friend's base-spec 2003 Accord the other day and I noticed the speedometer went all the way to 160. My own car, a subcompact Hyundai, also has a 160mph speedometer but I never realized this is something all new cars tend to have, it seems like. Is this some kind of marketing gimmick, or do speedometers have to be up to 160 by law, regardless of the car? Either way, I'm curious.

 

[Exorcet]

This is a guess on my part, but it's probably a number that exceeds the performance of most vehicles, making speedometers easy to standardize. This is something you see in aircraft, where instruments are shared between different cockpits to cut down on cost because you don't need to design a new altimeter, etc for each plane.

 

[Blitz24]

Here's a question completely unrelated to politics/current events: why do so many normal cars have speedometers that go all the way up to 160mph, even those can't even come close to reaching 160mph? I was in my friend's base-spec 2003 Accord the other day and I noticed the speedometer went all the way to 160. My own car, a subcompact Hyundai, also has a 160mph speedometer but I never realized this is something all new cars tend to have, it seems like. Is this some kind of marketing gimmick, or do speedometers have to be up to 160 by law, regardless of the car? Either way, I'm curious.

I think it's due to costs. My guess is one car that shares the speedometer with yours (or your friend's) might actually reach that speed. (Say, an NSX for your friend and perhaps a Stinger with yours?)

 

[Danoff]

Here's a question completely unrelated to politics/current events: why do so many normal cars have speedometers that go all the way up to 160mph, even those can't even come close to reaching 160mph? I was in my friend's base-spec 2003 Accord the other day and I noticed the speedometer went all the way to 160. My own car, a subcompact Hyundai, also has a 160mph speedometer but I never realized this is something all new cars tend to have, it seems like. Is this some kind of marketing gimmick, or do speedometers have to be up to 160 by law, regardless of the car? Either way, I'm curious.

People like to pretend.

 

[Famine]

Here's a question completely unrelated to politics/current events: why do so many normal cars have speedometers that go all the way up to 160mph, even those can't even come close to reaching 160mph? I was in my friend's base-spec 2003 Accord the other day and I noticed the speedometer went all the way to 160. My own car, a subcompact Hyundai, also has a 160mph speedometer but I never realized this is something all new cars tend to have, it seems like. Is this some kind of marketing gimmick, or do speedometers have to be up to 160 by law, regardless of the car? Either way, I'm curious.

I think it's due to costs. My guess is one car that shares the speedometer with yours (or your friend's) might actually reach that speed. (Say, an NSX for your friend and perhaps a Stinger with yours?)

It is entirely due to this.

Put the same dial/cluster/binnacle in for everything or put an engine/gearbox specific speedo for every model in the range depending on power output and recalibrate the sender each time, plus the chance of the wrong part making it in on the assembly line?

 

[Danoff]

It is entirely due to this.

Put the same dial/cluster/binnacle in for everything or put an engine/gearbox specific speedo for every model in the range depending on power output and recalibrate the sender each time, plus the chance of the wrong part making it in on the assembly line?

Surely they can make custom parts for supercars right? Here is a '91 NSX speedo compared to a '91 accord speedo (I think).

'91 accord theoretical top speed without governor looks like 125 mph.

 

[Pupik]

The dial face behind the needle in the instrument cluster is the $10 part (good luck finding it at any parts counter short of scrap yards), but the inner workings vary just enough to make sure it's an astronomical cost to the consumer.

 

[Liquid]

I had that Accord speedo and rev counter in my Civic. God, it was great to look at. They chose the right font.