FWD so useless..

[El Jarretto]

FWD = not meant for racing, i hope you know that

FWD = Safer Driving, no driveshaft, lighter and less expensive

Not to be a dick, but nobody cares what they're meant to do. It's a video game.

 

[Loon]

You are indeed correct I've got limited knowledge in the motorsport industry, not the 'enthuisiast" about it either. I know there are FF cars tuned to do racing, but i was saying that because FF wasn't invented for racing..not because it CAN'T race

However when i do buy myself a Mini Cooper i'd like to test out it's handling capabilities

I know this is off topic, but I'm fairly sure no specific drive train was invented for the sole purpose of racing, so your point is moot.

 

[Spec M]

I know this is off topic, but I'm fairly sure no specific drive train was invented for the sole purpose of racing, so your point is moot.

Very true 👍.

 

[4DSC]

Good post 👍

I have a Focus RS for example with like 300hp and it's completely undrivable without TCS. A Civic is alot easier. Im gonna try and do some research on tuning settings and try a few things myself. But definatly, not all FWD cars in this game are created equal.

On the original topic, I totally disagree with your comments about lack of traction for over 250hp cars. My Primera N/A has 290hp, 325hp with a turbo, and while 1st gear is a bit of a feather job, from 2nd gear on, there's no real problems. A lot of us in TCv3 had up to 320hp in our cars which was enough for the S3 tyres.
And there's other cars that have no problems having 300hp+ with S3's. The Alfa 147 is another for NA, and for factory turbos you can have the SRT-4, the Eclipse or Focus RS. I personally have no problems slapping R3's on these cars and having MORE power. There are a couple on my MC that near 400hp which are very tractable when driven right on R3's. TCS helps if you want it too, but that should be left for getting the best times on the sprints.

Listen to Parnelli & Soprano because your best helps for traction are good settings on the LSD, huge frontal downforce, ballast on the front and stiffer rear suspension. My proof is in the pudding on the FF 1/4 mile sprint times.
It's a compromise in sorts, how much do you want it to stick to the ground vs how much you can get it to turn.

 

[Kurei]

I don't believe you guys try that hard to feather the throttle each and everytime. lol TOO much effort is required there for it to be fun.

I don't think everyone tries each and everytime, maybe some do, but I've done it enough for it to become almost second-nature, It's kinda like learning how to drive w/o abs (which we will all eventually have to do for a test in GT5 Im sure 👍)

You keep doing it until you get it, if it's not fun at first you make it fun (I believe all those who use a DFP or better can agree to this), think of it as a mini-game, "How hard/fast can I work the engine/drivetrain to pull out of a corner coming up without spinning the wheels?"

I understand however that it is probably more difficult with a DC2 unless you use the analog sticks, but I believe it can still be done

And I guess when working on driving tech. doesn't work, there's always tinkering to be done in the setup, but I enjoy driving more than tuning to be honest, but that's just me

 

[Motominded]

And yet a very mildly modded RX, S2K, or even a bleeding nose-heavy, understeery, overweight Mustang on equivalent tires would walk it.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Here watch this and know how wrong you are.

Here is a very HIGHLY MODDED R32 from BEE-R, a Group N R33 GTR, A Group N GTO, and a Ferrari F355 Challange getting walked by this Accord.

It only lost to an FIA GT2 911 and a JGTC GT500 Supra.....that's more than lightly modded.



1997 57 Sec lap around Tsukuba for this "FWD ACCORD"



Seriously you know nothing about FWD super touring class ii. BTCC in the late 90's was almost more popular than F1 cause of the great racing.

 

[Spec M]

BTCC in the late 90's was almost more popular than F1 cause of the great racing.

I remember when it use to come on Speed channel.
Before NASCAR came through with there trash way back when it was called Speed Vision.

 

[mafia_boy]

4DSC, can you put your Focus RS settings up and I'll see what I can do about your wheelspin problem.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Motominded: I stick to my previous point, but 340-350hp would be needed, as would identical tires, otherwise the Accord would walk away on straights.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I agree with RJ, given the same standards, i.e. similar PWR, tyres, aerodynamics etc. RWD and AWD will walk on FWD.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

I see.. Have you guys experimented with the ballast weight? Maybe adding some more weight to the front might help?

Funny thing about ballast weight...I always forget it's there! I played around with it to try and get some better drifts in rear-drive cars, and every once in awhile I'll add weight to a car to get a fairer fight with the Ai, but I've never tried it in front-drive yet.

My guess is: you'll get better traction if you add weight up front. Problem is, in a FWD, most of the weight already is up front...so if you shift it forward, you'll get even more understeer....and possibly less rear stability under hard braking (which could lead to spins at a track like Route 246 or Grand Valley)

...but that's just an untested guess. Perhaps someone has a better answer here.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

If you balance the weight further forward, the front springs must be stiffened in relation to the rears or the rears softened in relation to the fronts.

But go too extreme with it and you can go Arab Drifting.

 

[mafia_boy]

Which is why I said it was a compromise between how much traction you actually want vs how much you want the thing to turn.

For drag, fair amounts of ballast slapped over the front wheels/bumper breed good results unless your weight reduction total is LESS than 100kg after 3 stages. But for circuit, you want 0 ballast and no weight shift so you can maintain that handling advantage and focus your attention to the suspension, brakes and LSD.

Drive most of the cars in TCv3 and you'll see that even though you will get wheelspin, it's still pulling hard rather than smoking up the tyres which is where the difference lies in accelerating well or not, and that's with 0 ballast, add 100kg right over the front and you'll notice a good difference in when the traction is regained from the car.

 

[niky]

I know this is off topic, but I'm fairly sure no specific drive train was invented for the sole purpose of racing, so your point is moot.

+1. Note: FWD and RWD of equal PWR and grip? Check out the Spoon (I think it's Spoon... might be Mugen) Civic Type-R, with 240ps, versus an S2000 with the same power, exact same tire compounds and same tire widths (except the Civic, naturally, has the wider ones on the front)... quite an eye-opener.

FWD's have two drive shafts, one each side. I've just replaced the two on my FWD clio because both the abs sensor rings were corroded and cv boots wrecked, an MOT fail in the uk, less hassle to change the whole shaft then replace rings / boots.

All cars with independent suspensions have one drive-shaft per side. It's only on older and less sophisticated RWD cars that you have a solid rear axle... and that's actually a hindrance in racing... unless you're going drag racing and you need a big beefy solid rear end to put the power down.

Funny thing about ballast weight...i always forget it's there! I played around with it to try and get some better drifts in rear-drive cars, and every once in awhile i'll add weight to a car to get a fairer fight with the Ai, but i've never tried it in front-drive yet.

My guess is: you'll get better traction if you add weight up front. Problem is, in a FWD, most of the weight already is up front...so if you shift it forward, you'll get even more understeer....and possibly less rear stability under hard braking (which could lead to spins at a track like Route 246 or Grand Valley)

...but that's just an untested guess. Perhaps someone has a better answer here.

The problem with ballast is that it adds weight. Using extremes of ballasting can cure a little understeer (rear ballast... front just does nothing)... and add some of the oversteer that's missing in the game, but the problem is, in GT4, the rear suspension just doesn't react in ways you want it to to modification.

Simply put... when you modify a parameter in GT, you move the grip for that subsection of the car along a sliding scale based on the stock set-up. In real life, adding an infinitely hard rear anti-roll bar can give you infinite rear-roll stiffness... which causes the rear wheels to lose adhesion in cornering, causing awesome oversteer. In GT4... it just causes more grip... wait... what?

It's a flaw in GT4's engine that we've been discussing forever. And no, it's not excessive understeer. Rather, it's the lack of snap-oversteer at low speeds... which is why you can't do a proper handbrake turn in GT4... but you can do a proper J-turn. In a J-Turn, the front reacts dynamically, the way it's supposed to. In a handbrake turn in GT4, the rear end doesn't snap like it should. And the lack of effect of the infinitely hard rear anti-roll bar should clue you in as to why... it's impossible to lift the wheels completely off the tarmac in GT4 unless you jump the car. It's un-natural, unrealistic, and causes infinitely more grip on non-drive wheels compared to drive wheels... which can leave the tarmac due to simulated wheel-hop and lack of traction.

Rear-drivers in GT get around this by having less natural grip at the rear, due to the spinning wheels... so you don't feel it as badly. For front-drivers and many AWD cars, there's no way to drive around it. This is why an Evo is inherently less tail-happy in GT4 than a Subie, even though the reverse is true in real-life. (And I've been studying the Subaru settings, to no avail, to figure out why).

It's also to do with the way tires are modelled. Simply put... you aren't getting R-Compounds in 175-70-13... but that's exactly what you get when you slap R-comps on some of the cheap cars in game. Unless the front-driver is already set to be tail-happy in real life and comes with good sized tires, too... (Focus RS, Beetle Cup Cars, Renault Clio, Trial Celica, etcetera), there's not much way of making it more tail-happy in Turismo-life.

So... in effect... yes... in GT4, front-drivers aren't as good as they should be. But then, neither are AWD cars. Whatever... just work at it... tune... tune... tune... and try to extract as much performance as you can from what you're given. It's fun. And I've beaten an Evo with a Protege, on the same tires, with less power. It's doable, but it's pretty damn hard.

I can't wait for GT5. GT:HD seems to go some way to correcting GT4's sins... but then, it's a rally track. Word is, GT5 has a little less oversteer. I've yet to see how GT5P models this behavior (low-speed snap oversteer... FWD and AWD), but I'm hopeful... I'm getting mine later this month.

 

[Ignignoc N Err]

I find that FWD's with around 100-200 hp can be pretty fun around the right tracks. For example, running a Kusabi at Tsukuba can be pretty entertaining, especially with a FWD's ability to "dive" into corners while threshold braking. It seems to give them a little bit of a handling edge against other cars of similar weight/power, yet varying drivetrains.

However, when you're talking about serious race cars, MR seems to be king...

 

[Megasoft Office]

Here is a very HIGHLY MODDED R32 from BEE-R, a Group N R33 GTR, A Group N GTO, and a Ferrari F355 Challange getting walked by this Accord.

It only lost to an FIA GT2 911 and a JGTC GT500 Supra.....that's more than lightly modded.

What you say is all 100% true. But bear in mind that the race was on the relatively very slow Tsukuba Circuit. The JACCS JTCC Accord CD used a very close-ratio sequential gearbox that fits TC2000 almost perfectly (he tops out on the backstraight), combined with a weight advantage that is well beyond the permitted reaches of the other competitors.

But great video. The Gemballa 995 and JGTC JZA80 were nuts and Nakaya and Hattori were going at it the entire race 👍

My guess is: you'll get better traction if you add weight up front. Problem is, in a FWD, most of the weight already is up front...so if you shift it forward, you'll get even more understeer....

That's not always true, but it isn't necessarily false either. It depends on on the scenario, but the majority of the weight already being at the front bites down the front tires under braking. That is why FF cars can brake deeper into a corner and turn into it relatively better, at the same time. However, while making the corner, you have to be cautious not to lift the weight off of the front tires or you will go wide--which is where trail-braking comes into play.

 

[Motominded]

I agree with RJ, given the same standards, i.e. similar PWR, tyres, aerodynamics etc. RWD and AWD will walk on FWD.

of coarse it will but my argument is that FWD had provided some of the greatest racing ever and to just talk it down is not necessary.

 

[superturbo]

Interesting post Niky. One thing I would have liked to see is tri-poding with the fwd's in GT4 at least three cars that are in the game are pretty well known for this, the Mk1 Golf Gti, Clio 172, pug 106 (all) and 206, CTR... these car's will do this in reality, even with standard suspension, when being pushed.

I'm thinking that in GT4 this must be like you said, the way the rear wheels stay in contact with the road is making the cars handle less realistically.
Tripoding happens due to, partially, chassis flex and suspension setup it is necessary to trade lateral grip at the rear to transfer more even grip to the front in fwd when cornering heavily because that is where the power and steering is coming from.

You are also right that lift off over steer is certainly played down and most of the fwd cars are under steer heavy, adding more power makes it even more noticeable although, as mentioned earlier, there are setups which can help alleviate some of these problems.

It might be worth mentioning that some of the cars I've mentioned that appear in the game plus a host of others that are not, which are FWD, are regarded as some of the most fantastic handling cars of all time.

One of the debates between clio owners (at least here in the UK) is whether the fwd clio 172 cup is a better handling car than the rwd clio v6.
Some argue the clio cup is a quicker point to point car because of the confidence the set up gives you when cornering at speed and they dislike the unpredictable snap in traction that V6's are renowned for, V6 owners on the other hand prefer their superior power and argue the grip is huge in the dry when driven correctly. Yet compare the two in GT4 (standard for standard) and there is a much larger margin of difference, partly due to the unnaturally tame handling of the V6 and the poorer than real life handling of the 172.

 

[mafia_boy]

I agree with RJ, given the same standards, i.e. similar PWR, tyres, aerodynamics etc. RWD and AWD will walk on FWD.

of coarse it will but my argument is that FWD had provided some of the greatest racing ever and to just talk it down is not necessary.

Holdenboy has forgotten his Bathurst history it seems. The 300hp FWD Renault Megane BTCC's a few years back were less than 2 seconds a lap behind the then 600hp RWD Holden & Ford V8 Supercars, and they were FWD. They only lost time up mountain straight and down Conrod straight. So that argument doesn't hold up to me.
The problem came when you had the Audi A4 quattro's in BTCC which lead to the FWD only rule that stayed there for a few years. Plus, if you look at the BTCC, they have got the RWD BMW's in there again, and they aren't having it their own way in the championship, the Seat's & Honda's & Vauxhall's have been the one's dominating it the past year or two.....all FWD.

Look at the WTCC nowadays aswell.....the turbo diesel Leon is dominating that championship over the BMW. FWD beating RWD, convincingly.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

That's not always true, but it isn't necessarily false either. It depends on on the scenario, but the majority of the weight already being at the front bites down the front tires under braking. That is why FF cars can brake deeper into a corner and turn into it relatively better, at the same time. However, while making the corner, you have to be cautious not to lift the weight off of the front tires or you will go wide--which is where trail-braking comes into play.

Cool, thanks for your answer. 👍 I'll eventually start messing around with weight as time goes on. I'm gonna be stuck with GT4 for quite awhile. since I can't afford a PS3.

+1. Note: FWD and RWD of equal PWR and grip? Check out the Spoon (I think it's Spoon... might be Mugen) Civic Type-R, with 240ps, versus an S2000 with the same power, exact same tire compounds and same tire widths (except the Civic, naturally, has the wider ones on the front)... quite an eye-opener.



All cars with independent suspensions have one drive-shaft per side. It's only on older and less sophisticated RWD cars that you have a solid rear axle... and that's actually a hindrance in racing... unless you're going drag racing and you need a big beefy solid rear end to put the power down.



The problem with ballast is that it adds weight. Using extremes of ballasting can cure a little understeer (rear ballast... front just does nothing)... and add some of the oversteer that's missing in the game, but the problem is, in GT4, the rear suspension just doesn't react in ways you want it to to modification.

Simply put... when you modify a parameter in GT, you move the grip for that subsection of the car along a sliding scale based on the stock set-up. In real life, adding an infinitely hard rear anti-roll bar can give you infinite rear-roll stiffness... which causes the rear wheels to lose adhesion in cornering, causing awesome oversteer. In GT4... it just causes more grip... wait... what?

It's a flaw in GT4's engine that we've been discussing forever. And no, it's not excessive understeer. Rather, it's the lack of snap-oversteer at low speeds... which is why you can't do a proper handbrake turn in GT4... but you can do a proper J-turn. In a J-Turn, the front reacts dynamically, the way it's supposed to. In a handbrake turn in GT4, the rear end doesn't snap like it should. And the lack of effect of the infinitely hard rear anti-roll bar should clue you in as to why... it's impossible to lift the wheels completely off the tarmac in GT4 unless you jump the car. It's un-natural, unrealistic, and causes infinitely more grip on non-drive wheels compared to drive wheels... which can leave the tarmac due to simulated wheel-hop and lack of traction.

Rear-drivers in GT get around this by having less natural grip at the rear, due to the spinning wheels... so you don't feel it as badly. For front-drivers and many AWD cars, there's no way to drive around it. This is why an Evo is inherently less tail-happy in GT4 than a Subie, even though the reverse is true in real-life. (And I've been studying the Subaru settings, to no avail, to figure out why).

It's also to do with the way tires are modelled. Simply put... you aren't getting R-Compounds in 175-70-13... but that's exactly what you get when you slap R-comps on some of the cheap cars in game. Unless the front-driver is already set to be tail-happy in real life and comes with good sized tires, too... (Focus RS, Beetle Cup Cars, Renault Clio, Trial Celica, etcetera), there's not much way of making it more tail-happy in Turismo-life.

So... in effect... yes... in GT4, front-drivers aren't as good as they should be. But then, neither are AWD cars. Whatever... just work at it... tune... tune... tune... and try to extract as much performance as you can from what you're given. It's fun. And I've beaten an Evo with a Protege, on the same tires, with less power. It's doable, but it's pretty damn hard.

I can't wait for GT5. GT:HD seems to go some way to correcting GT4's sins... but then, it's a rally track. Word is, GT5 has a little less oversteer. I've yet to see how GT5P models this behavior (low-speed snap oversteer... FWD and AWD), but I'm hopeful... I'm getting mine later this month.

I'm hopeful too.

Getting off-topic, hope you don't mind. Have you tried GT1 at all? That's the only GT game in which it's possible to consistently raise inside tires during cornering (and lose traction that way). It's not entirely realistic, but at least it's an attempt PD made to get some realism into the game while it was still young. Not sure why they changed this.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Look at the WTCC nowadays aswell.....the turbo diesel Leon is dominating that championship over the BMW. FWD beating RWD, convincingly.

Yes, and the Leons get the BMWs on corner entry and down the straights. The BMWs are quicker at corner exit, and if they could keep up with the Leon down the straightaways they'd have it bagged.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

of coarse it will but my argument is that FWD had provided some of the greatest racing ever and to just talk it down is not necessary.

Oh of course, my mistake. You can indeed still have loads of fun with FWD.

Holdenboy has forgotten his Bathurst history it seems. The 300hp FWD Renault Megane BTCC's a few years back were less than 2 seconds a lap behind the then 600hp RWD Holden & Ford V8 Supercars, and they were FWD. They only lost time up mountain straight and down Conrod straight. So that argument doesn't hold up to me.
The problem came when you had the Audi A4 quattro's in BTCC which lead to the FWD only rule that stayed there for a few years. Plus, if you look at the BTCC, they have got the RWD BMW's in there again, and they aren't having it their own way in the championship, the Seat's & Honda's & Vauxhall's have been the one's dominating it the past year or two.....all FWD.

Look at the WTCC nowadays aswell.....the turbo diesel Leon is dominating that championship over the BMW. FWD beating RWD, convincingly.

2 things I must say. 1, how much did those Renaults weigh? Back in those days the Falcons and Commodores had very little weight reduction if any at all. 2, how far back are we talking here? Before 1990 the V8 Commodores and Falcons had less than 500hp and technology wasn't the greatest so they still slipped and slided around a fair bit.

 

[mafia_boy]

I'm talking around 1997 there Holdenboy. The V8's at that time were just touching the 600hp mark, where the Renaults (it was the Laguna, not the Megane my mistake) were around the 300hp mark.

Found this from the Williams F1 team database, as they prepared the BTCC Laguna's.

A production Renault Laguna produces approximately 110bhp. The BTCC Laguna outputs over 320bhp, from a production block

So there you go.

*added bit* Also found the weight too. 975kg dry weight for the Laguna.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Which is lighter than the bare shell of a Commodore/Falcon.
(Exaggeration, but you get my point)

 

[Skygrasper550]

man, that Accord just owned the opponents in front of him.., but, no way it can keep up with that 911 and GT500 Supra...,

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I'm talking around 1997 there Holdenboy. The V8's at that time were just touching the 600hp mark, where the Renaults (it was the Laguna, not the Megane my mistake) were around the 300hp mark.

Found this from the Williams F1 team database, as they prepared the BTCC Laguna's.



So there you go.

*added bit* Also found the weight too. 975kg dry weight for the Laguna.

And the V8 Supercar weighed 1400kg.

That gives them similar WPR ratios, yet even though the Renault is FWD it is far lighter and smaller so it will naturally handle better/at least be up to par with the V8s handling. And you did say the V8 was quicker by 2sec, so I'm not seeing the problem here.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

3.25kg/hp for the Laguna.

2.33kg/hp for the V8 Supercars.

I guess he was trying to say that they make up for the lacking power around corners.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Bah, compare a 1400kg FWD of any power to the V8 Supercar, then I'm listening.

 

[mafia_boy]

Bah, compare a 1400kg FWD of any power to the V8 Supercar, then I'm listening.

It would have to be that way because V8's are boat anchors, we'd never see a V8 at 975kg unless the motor was surrounded by an Ariel Atom shell.

I said before they ONLY lost time was up mountain straight and down conrod straight. That's where the extra 300hp comes into play.

*added bit* And since when is 1hp/kg barely any difference?!!? That's heaps!!

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Have you ever driven a TVR Griffith 500? 1000kg out the factory with a V8 up front.

And I'll pretend I didn't hear that boat anchor remark I don't go around saying L4s are what power my supercharger.