FWD vs RWD: which can you drive faster?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FastEddie12
  • 68 comments
  • 3,765 views

Which can you drive quicker?

  • VW Golf GTi Mk1 '76, 115PS, 820kg, N2

    Votes: 23 51.1%

  • Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA '65, 115PS, 820kg, N2

    Votes: 22 48.9%
  • Total voters
    45
think about it this way, which way does the weight shift on acceleration? if you said towards the rear, then congratulations, you can take your pick of the showcase! Now think about where that places the weight in comparison to the driving wheels. In a RWD car, it is putting the weight over the rear wheels, causing them to gain more grip, by forcing them harder onto the road, whereas in a FWD car it is also putting the weight over the rears, and lifting it off of the front wheels, which causes them to break traction a lot easier. What this means is that you can accalerate a lot harder in a RWD car than a FWD, therefore decreasing the time taken for a RWD to reach a higher speed, which will in turn bring your lap times down. And thats not taking into account the torque steer effect of a FWD

<edit>

Actually tried it out against a mate of mine who is a better driver than me, and a FWD freak, at the 'ring, and I beat him quite convincingly (I forget the time but it was quite a bit gap, he was just coming onto the big straight while i was crossing the line)
 
FastEddie12
Pay attention Niky, I've made sure they have the same weight and power.

Good point with the tyres though, and yes, I've found the same. However in this case I still go quicker in the (older) Alfa.

Also my Alfa Romeo 1600 GT Junior (Bertone) (a later update of the same car) was made in 1976 so they are not from wildly differing eras. (And if you google it, watch out, as there was a Zagato model that had a different body)

I think this comparison is MORE valid as I can go quicker in the older car...
Click to expand...

I know... it sucks for us FF lovers. :lol:

The thing is, if you're only getting very slight differences, it still means that the basic chassis and suspension tuning of the Golf are much better... just because the older car lasted up to 76' doesn't mean the chassis tuning is as good... maybe if the 76' GT Junior was in the game, though, it could be a better match.

Though I've found certain FFs more nimble than certain AWDs, and a handful, like the Focus RS, that rotated as quick or quicker than some AWDs or RWDs in very short, sharp corners... give the corner any length at all, and understeer and traction loss under power becomes an issue. Not to mention the fact that FFs can't get power down very well compared to the others.

You really have to manhandle an FF to keep up with an FR... induce snap-oversteer as much as possible, and try to find a way to turn constant diameter turns into actual corners... failing that, you're stuck with driving through tire shredding understeer through the corner, or taking it at part throttle (I've experienced this in real-life, and it sucks).

And the traction handicap in the game doesn't help any. I've recently switched to dual analog controls from my previous analog+buttons style to try to control wheelspin, and I'm faster (at times) than the traction control, but I still can't convincingly dissect an FR with my FF cars.

I'm still trying to get my first sub-8 minute ring time on street (N3) tires with an FF (no aero). Frustrating, but a fun exercise in tuning. :lol: :lol: :lol:

----

How about a follow-up? Let's do 90's FF vs. FR. :D I'll check my game later and see what matches up in terms of power and tire profile.
 
niky
I'm still trying to get my first sub-8 minute ring time on street (N3) tires with an FF (no aero). Frustrating, but a fun exercise in tuning. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

now theres a challenge, I may have to try that one for myself
 
niky
How about a follow-up? Let's do 90's FF vs. FR. :D I'll check my game later and see what matches up in terms of power and tire profile.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that. This is actually a warm up for something much bigger I have up my sleeve. I was trying to figure whether my driving was the main reason that the FFs were always so slow. I'll PM you about that, cos a specialist FF driver could be useful...:)
 
FastEddie12
Take a VW Golf GTi Mk1 '76, give it an oil change, N2 tyres and a set of Minilites from the Ginetta (:D ), then take an Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA '65 with NO oil change, and give it 75kg ballast and a set of N2s. Run them both at any circuit you like and tell us which one you can drive quicker.

I'm surprised to see Golf winning. If so, where did you run? How much was the Golf ahead by? Please tell, I put the Alfa 1.5secs ahead at Motorland, one of the shortest courses in the game!
Click to expand...


Had a go at this FastEddie12,

Thanks for posting as I had a great deal of fun running these two cars:tup:

I used my current favourite circuit "Tsukuba" for the comparison and ran ten laps in each car, Golf first and Alfa second.

The Golf surprised me, all of the power is useable with just a hint of traction problems in 2nd gear after 5000rpm, usually exiting the hairpin's. Quicker than I thought though and quite adjustable for a FF hatch. Best lap time - 1'16.079

The Alfa on the 1st lap was slower than the ghost Golf replay, 2nd lap I got more used to it and immediatly dropped under 1'16s. I would say that the Alfa was less forgiving of mistakes and pushing too hard, but it also shone the most if you got it hooked up well in a good lap. Best lap time - 1'15.285

I would say that the Golf given another 5 laps I could have gone under 1'16 but ultimately the Alfa is quicker. The Golf loses time exiting those tight corners but saves a very slight amount by requiring 1 less gearchange.

Great fun.

regards

David
 
FastEddie12
BTW they're prizes in the GTi challenge and GTA challenge, but you probably knew that (someone's bound to ask...). I simply want to know if there are FWD specialists out there who are quicker in the Golf, 'cos I'm always really slow in FWD.
Click to expand...

i really dont find it hard to drive FF, FR,RR, or 4WD, i use a little drifting technique in it (A LITTLE)

MR cars sometimes give me headache though. The weight balance is all off so my last resort is to put more powah on

the trick to FF's is that you rememberr that they are pulling the car rather thanpushing it like an FR, MR, 4WD, or an RR

SIFO - slow in fast out
 
Dave_George
Had a go at this FastEddie12,

Thanks for posting as I had a great deal of fun running these two cars:tup:

I used my current favourite circuit "Tsukuba" for the comparison and ran ten laps in each car, Golf first and Alfa second....etc
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave, I haven't tried Tsukuba yet, but your appraisal reflected pretty much what I have found. I bet the long last curve was a delicate affair in the Golf...:crazy:

Samjay, try the challenge, equalise the weight and power, let us know how you get on, if you drift FF cars, you may have an answer.
 
FastEddie12
Thanks Dave, I haven't tried Tsukuba yet, but your appraisal reflected pretty much what I have found. I bet the long last curve was a delicate affair in the Golf...:crazy:
Click to expand...

It wasn't too bad actually, held quite good speed througout but just got a bit ragged on the exit if I wasn't carefull with the throttle. The Alfa was much better on said corner....

Keep in touch regarding the other thing you have planned?👍

regards

David
 
I've been looking for cars that match up well in terms of power, weight and body-style. I've come up with some interesting ones.

I've found the Lexus IS200 (J) and the Nissan Primera 20V are nearly identical in weight and power and tire profile, but after an oil change, the Lexus has the power advantage (by 10). I didn't have time to buy new copies, though, so I used the ones I had in my garage.

The Lexus is a compact in terms of size, and I've picked it as a relatively average handling FR, with not-so-aggressive tire sizes and suspension tuning.

The Primera is one size up, though... about the same as the older mid-size class and just below current mid-sizers. It may have a 10hp disadvantage on paper, but from experience, it has enough grunt to match a 231hp (after oil change) Accord Euro-R.

On N3's at the Autumn Ring... a track which doesn't emphasize top-end speed so much (It's a necessity, though) and has just one long constant radius turn, the Primera has the muscle to match the Lexus, but it never quite comes close in terms of lap-times. The Lexus can be drifted mildly through the tight sequence of bends at the horseshoe, but the Primera has more understeer and needs a bit of muscling to flick around.

The Primera also has an annoying habit that I'm pretty sure resembles axle tramp or wheel hop... where it feels like traction control is on in bends, as the engine revs and bogs alternately as you're putting the power down with a bit of lock. The wheels don't quite lose traction, but you can tell that the drivetrain isn't happy being asked to do so much while the car is turning. Once you've unwound the steering a bit, the Primera lunges for the horizon, and gets that tiny bit closer to the IS200 pulling away down the straight.

Surprisingly, the Primera doesn't lose as much time through the 200+ degree roundabout as I'd thought it would. Both cars maintain just over 70 km/h through the roundabout, but the IS200 leaves it a lot earlier.

End of the first session, tentatively, has the Primera at 1:38 and the Lexus at 1:36.5. I wanted to try to work the Primera in closer, but it wasn't worth the effort.

I decided then to go for the Accord Euro-R... the older version. This is a closer match in terms of manufactured year, weight and power, as the Accord has 219hp (used, but after oil change) and just a smidge less weight. Tires are aggressive, but still just 17's. It's also reputedly tuned for both comfort and performance... thus, not as hardcore stiff and edgy as the Type Rs. A perfect match in ethos and market-segment to the IS200.

After an hour or so of trying, I've got the Accord within spitting distance of the Lexus. It's better than the Primera at laying rubber down in tight turns, and you can get on the gas earlier without killing the rotation through the turn. While the Accord doesn't quite snap-oversteer as easily as a smaller car, the extra weight and length of the body help it rotate cleanly, and throttle lift-off allows you to place the nose more accurately than in the Primera.

There's one nasty left-hander (after the 180 that follows the horseshoe flick-flacks) wherein I'm used to booting the car sideways (if it's rear-wheel drive) and putting the power down on the straight that leads up to the roundabout. Driving the Accord smoothly, I can just about put the power down at the same time as my IS200 ghost.

The Accord's a nasty b*tch to shift, though. The gearbox delivers clean, crisp shifts, but if you shift just 5 km/h too early, you're way out of the power band, and losing lots of ground to the car in front. You really need to concentrate on your shift points. It's an aggravation you don't need on a track wherein a few of the turns put you in speeds smack-dab between 2nd and 3rd gear.

Despite the power deficit outside the VTEC zone, this is a good car. 1:36.9. That's as far as I can take it in such a short time, and I'm happy to get so close to the rear-driver.

Then, in fairness, I have to have another go in the IS200. I clean up the lap, tone down the powerslides through the horseshoe (my exit was putting me in the wrong place for the follow-through) and clip the apexes a little closer.

A few laps later, I'm at 1:35.5... bummer. I wasn't even close. :lol:

These times aren't definitive, though... and a good driver can probably get another second off each (or even more off the IS200).

Another interesting match-up would be between the 123 hp MX-5 and the 128 hp Fiat Barchetta. Both showroom models. Both sports convertibles. Again, similar tire profile, size, power and weight. The MX-5 definitely does have an advantage, being a better car with or without the drivetrain advantage, but I can't find any other front drivers that are close. I'll try again later... but if anyone else wants a go, it'd be interesting. :)

I'm trying to match up either an Integra or an Alfa Romeo GT against the Mazda RX8, but the RX8 gets such a big power boost after you buy it (c'mon, 300 damn hp?!?!?!) that I have to figure some way of handicapping it.
 
Nice work, niky, but I have a question...why aren't you equalizing the cars in arcade mode using the percentage power/weight sliders? ;)
 
Thanks for that, Niky. What's interesting is that everyone who has contributed to the thread was faster in RWD, yet the poll gives the Golf the edge. Seems to me that people assume the Golf will be faster, when in fact it's the Alfa every time...
 
Well, the Golf could be faster in a straight line, but what you really don't notice is the time it takes you to go around a bend... and that's where an FF really loses. It feels quick around there, but the arc you have to take keeps you at minimum speed longer than with an FR.

@Wolfe: I'm such a sim-freak, I never thought of that... will try it later.
 
niky
Well, the Golf could be faster in a straight line, but what you really don't notice is the time it takes you to go around a bend... and that's where an FF really loses. It feels quick around there, but the arc you have to take keeps you at minimum speed longer than with an FR.
Click to expand...

Quite right, the Golf was 2-3mph slower around the last corner at Tsukuba when I ran this comparison.

That corner and slightly worse drive out of the hairpins accounted for the difference between the two cars.

David
 
The one bad thing about hairpins is the inability to go WOT right after. It's imperative to get the car straightened out fast after a turn in an FF, as that translates into a 0.5 second difference in lap-times. Very hard to get right, thus it takes so long to get a best lap in an FF (for me) compared to an FR. With an FR, you just drive smoother and smoother, with an FF, you're constantly searching for that virtual apex that'll make you just that little bit faster.

Long radius turns are teh suck. With an FF, you're stuck slogging through the understeer. You can apex them, though, but hitting that imaginary apex lap after lap is extremely difficult.

I've been doing some exploratory laps with the Alfa Romeo GT and the Mazda RX8 on Infineon. As per Wolfe's suggestions, I used Arcade mode to equalize power. Weight is nearly identical, with the Alfa only being a bit heavier.

I pegged the Alfa at 237hp (closest I could get to quoted stock... it comes out as 228 in Arcade) and the RX8 Type S (the one with the more aggressive rubber) at 235hp (the new quoted stock figure, after the US dyno scandal).

Still wasn't close. Even on N2s, the Alfa squirms and oversteers with enough provocation, so travel through the long left-sharp right combination after the start line and through the sharp hairpins was relatively quick, and close enough to the RX8 (which suffers from a lack of torque), but the long downhill lefthander and the fast turns had the Alfa fall far behind.

As a side note: I've never driven the RX8 before... at least not extensively. Wicked car. Much like an M3, but with very little torque, which equals bogging if you don't downshift into the right gear, but translates into fantastic traction on poor tires. Defaults to understeer, but very easy to get sideways. Still, maintaining a neutral attitude is a must, as you scrub too much speed off if you're sliding sideways or driving through understeer into a corner. 1:55.5 (not sure of time, will confirm later)

The Alfa Romeo GT has great pull, and the engine is still one of the car's best assets. This car has felt good on the road courses (Nurb, El Cap, Seattle) I've had it on, but it feels too soft for a real race circuit like Infineon, it bobs, rolls and feels heavy as you try to kick the rear end out. But the rear end is easier to kick out than most FFs, and the wide tires keep things under control. Needs to be driven with good throttle modulation on N2s. 1:58.8
 
I gunned for the golf! Im not a FF specialist either. as a rule i prefer a car to oversteer. Though i do know how to control understeer. You should make this track specific Tsukaba is the in trend for the Japanese time attackers!
 
I'm on a phone right now, so I can't edit long posts, but I checked my times again, and I made a mistake. That's Alfa at 1:58.6 and RX8 at 1:56.0.
 
Whell,i will try it when i get the cars,i`m playing sim mode again :D
My theory is that,the FF car with same power and same weight cannot be faster than FR.FF use same axel for steering,accelerating,and braking,that`s tough job for axel and for the tires.On FR car the tires are wearing out slower than FF,just beacuse of that.So my conclusion is,if you know how to drive an FR car(no spinning out),you`re faster with FR,offcourse sometimes you need to handle the oversteering.I like most FF cars in RL but i like FR even more.FF understeers a lot in GT4,especcialy when you add some power!So i say i`m probably faster with FR,but i need to try it first!
 
RenesisEvo
As much as the Alfa is RWD, I suspect the better set-up/suspension arrangement of the Gold (sic) .....QUOTE]

*Alfaholic chokes on his coffee*🤬

Just so set the record perfectly and clearly straight on this point, to ensure that there is no confusion about this:

The Alfa Giulias, in particular the 105 series family of coupes to which the Guilia GTA depicted in GT4 belongs, possess double wishbones at the front and a positively located live axle at the rear. Live axles aren't the last word in rear suspension technology but they do give excellent location, as do wishbones. It's good suspension and in '65 it was great suspension. It is and was also well set up, and if you didn't like the balance, the front was adjustable (not modelled in GT4). I am quite sure that the vw thingy with which the Alfa Romeo GTA is being compared in this thread uses early mcpherson struts at the front and semi trailing arms at the back, both of which are popular because they are cheap and space efficient, and are not well known for their wheel location abilities. I have not been able to verify this despite some extensive internet searching so if I am wrong please correct me.

I have some further comments to add:
As for the age of the cars, while the GTA predates the gti by a good few years, the Giulia 2000 GTV was still on sale when the gti was first released, as were the smaller engined GT Junior models. Certainly one is at the end of its life cycle while the other is at the beginning, but they are absolutely not from different eras. The age gap between an original MX5 and a new MR2 is larger, for example.

As for the actual comparison, and FastEddie's reference to the Junior, it must be noted that the GTA was a limited edition homologation special built specifically for touring car racing and is to the standard Giulia GT what a Lotus Cortina is to a Ford Cortina. The GTA used aluminium body panels extensively, lighter suspension bits, thinner glass, less trim... a closer comparison for the gti in GT4 would probably be with the Duetto Spider, which would have more in common with any production Giulia than the GTA has and should have performance closer to that of a Giulia available at the time to any person also interested in a golf. What I am saying is that the GTA, despite its ballast, is probably faster in GT4 than the golf because the GTA is a racing special and has likely been modelled with that in mind.
Even then though, it still seems unfair to me to be comparing a proper sports car with an overactive shopping trolley. The Lexus / primera comparison seems far more fair to me, as both cars are comfortable saloons capable of moving families.
Click to expand...
 
Alfaholic
I am quite sure that the vw thingy with which the Alfa Romeo GTA is being compared in this thread uses early mcpherson struts at the front and semi trailing arms at the back, both of which are popular because they are cheap and space efficient, and are not well known for their wheel location abilities. I have not been able to verify this despite some extensive internet searching so if I am wrong please correct me.
Click to expand...

Close -- MacPherson and Trailing arm.

Alfaholic
What I am saying is that the GTA, despite its ballast, is probably faster in GT4 than the golf because the GTA is a racing special and has likely been modelled with that in mind.
Even then though, it still seems unfair to me to be comparing a proper sports car with an overactive shopping trolley. The Lexus / primera comparison seems far more fair to me, as both cars are comfortable saloons capable of moving families.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but that point is moot, because the Lexus / Primera / Accord and Alfa / RX-8 tests mirrored the results of the Alfa / GTI comparison. ;)
 
Alfaholic
As for the actual comparison, and FastEddie's reference to the Junior, it must be noted that the GTA was a limited edition homologation special built specifically for touring car racing and is to the standard Giulia GT what a Lotus Cortina is to a Ford Cortina. The GTA used aluminium body panels extensively, lighter suspension bits, thinner glass, less trim...
....What I am saying is that the GTA, despite its ballast, is probably faster in GT4 than the golf because the GTA is a racing special and has likely been modelled with that in mind.
Even then though, it still seems unfair to me to be comparing a proper sports car with an overactive shopping trolley. The Lexus / primera comparison seems far more fair to me, as both cars are comfortable saloons capable of moving families.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input, Alfaholic. I was always under the impression that the real race cars were the twin spark 1300 GTAs and that the 1600s were a bit flabby by comparison, but that was only an impression (like MkI Lotus Cortina vs MkII)

Mostly what I took from this comparison is that people's impression of FF ability (in GT4) is way ahead of the truth. Alfaholic has certainly pointed out a flaw in my choice of cars, but every time I've done this sort of thing at home, FF is always way behind. Even Niky, who seems to put much more effort into FF than most, has been unable to put them ahead.

This also begs the question "does GT4 physics discriminate against FF?" But I think that is for someone with way more RL track miles under their belt than me...

Watch this space though, because I'm putting a much bigger test together that should prove interesting.
 
FastEddie12
This also begs the question "does GT4 physics discriminate against FF?" But I think that is for someone with way more RL track miles under their belt than me...
Click to expand...

I've just posted about a similar issue over in the Enthusia forum area, as I believe that EPR is too easy on the whole FWD and understeer issue.

As I hinted at in that thread GT4 has almost the exact opposite problem (and I do have a responable amount of track and proving ground time with FWD cars).

GT4 certainly does make life harder for FWD cars, in that while the degree of understeer it simulates in not a huge amount off, it is still a bit too severe. What also exagerates the problem is that its harder than it should be to recover from the situation, in that the throttle reaction to a lift is not as quick as it should be.

What GT4 does get right in this area is teh rather stark message that driving a FWD car on the limit, on a track does require very, very smooth and measured inputs (unless the car has been set-up very differently - and we see this in real life BTCC cars).

Skip Barber
The problem with front wheel drive is that the driven wheels become unloaded under acceleration, reducing the tyres traction just at the time you need it. As a general rule, front wheel drive cars create power understeer in circumstances where a conventional drive car creates power oversteer. Where an aggressive burst of power robs traction from the rear of the car in a conventional set-up, the same burst robs cornering grip from the front of a FWD car. This traction loss is worse than it is in a conventional layout.
Click to expand...

No rocket science in the piece above but the important bit is the last sentance, the traction loss from FWD power understeer is much worse that the loss from RWD power oversteer. For two main reasons, one the load is being transfered off the front wheels (but into the rear) and the front wheels also have to steer. Its the reason why FWD power understeer while cornering is so damn severe.

Ross Bentley (Race instructor)
with a front wheel drive car you have to be very careful while accelerating in a corner. If you get on the throttle too hard, you over work the front tyres' traction limit while causing a serious rearward weight transfer, resulting in extreme understeer. Be smooth with the throttle - squeese rather than smash.


With rear wheel drive, you can kick the rear around tight corners with power oversteerby quickly applying lots of throttle. If you try this with a front wheel drive car, all you'll do is increase the understeer.
Some say you must be precise - that there's less room for error - when racing a front wheel drive car. Definatley, you can't be as harsh with the throttle to help overcome an error, as that will usually overload the frontbtyres.
Click to expand...

Again the above piece simply reinforces the point that while being basically easier to drive near the limit, front wheel drive cars have the massive disadvantage that if you step over the limit the only thing you can do to get it back is to slow down, sometimes a lot. Hence the reason why hot laps at or near the limit are a damn sight harder with a FWD car, one slight slip and you can throw the lap away.

Hope that helps.

Regards

Scaff
 
I love RWD... and I give RWD the advantage in almost any situation.

IRL, i absolutely love just BLOWING AWAY Civics and whatnot around on/off ramps with my '84 325e. Although i do have a limited slip i guess... One time I smoked a WRX that was pretty intent on staying with me. I just kept pulling away, and after the on ramp he pulled onto the highway and gave me a look like "you've gotta be ****ing kidding me!". I wish i had a camera because the look on his face was just gold.

But enough of that, I'm gonna go try this comparison at Trial Mountain, where I'm fastest and most consistent.
 
Scaff
I've just posted about a similar issue over in the Enthusia forum area, as I believe that EPR is too easy on the whole FWD and understeer issue.

As I hinted at in that thread GT4 has almost the exact opposite problem (and I do have a responable amount of track and proving ground time with FWD cars).

GT4 certainly does make life harder for FWD cars, in that while the degree of understeer it simulates in not a huge amount off, it is still a bit too severe. What also exagerates the problem is that its harder than it should be to recover from the situation, in that the throttle reaction to a lift is not as quick as it should be.
Click to expand...

I still maintain that EPR isn't that bad when it comes to FWD understeer -- if it was really that friendly, I would enjoy driving FF cars in that game :sly: ...and I don't. :lol: Perhaps it's easier with the DFP than it is with the DS2, but I can't make that comparison because, as I've mentioned before, the USB slot on my PS2 is fried. :indiff: In any case, I agree with you that the understeer isn't as bad as it should be, but there isn't any other console driving sim that is any closer to reality on that point, IMO.

I also think that the understeer in GT4 is not the main culprit -- it's the relative lack of oversteer, as you hinted at with the comment on the "throttle reaction to lift" -- lift-off oversteer is all but nonexistant, regardless of drivetrain. Also, braking oversteer is quite difficult, and even the handbrake doesn't work very well.

The biggest problem by far, however, is the fact that wheelspin itself has absolutely no influence on your direction of travel.

That's why full-throttle launches in the Cobra or a tricked-out 1100hp Supra are a piece of cake, why donuts are impossible, why applying full-throttle mid-corner doesn't produce enough oversteer, and why drifting doesn't work the way it should -- the momentum and physical forces involved with wheelspin are simply incorrect.

It only occurred to me rather recently, and I wish I would have realized it before, back when you and I debated this stuff. :lol: Go ahead and try it yourself -- take a high-HP RWD out and play around with the wheelspin. You should be able to make turns and corrections, while smoking your tires, without spinning out or entering a donut/drift.
 
Wolfe2x7
I still maintain that EPR isn't that bad when it comes to FWD understeer -- if it was really that friendly, I would enjoy driving FF cars in that game :sly: ...and I don't. :lol: Perhaps it's easier with the DFP than it is with the DS2, but I can't make that comparison because, as I've mentioned before, the USB slot on my PS2 is fried. :indiff: In any case, I agree with you that the understeer isn't as bad as it should be, but there isn't any other console driving sim that is any closer to reality on that point, IMO.

I also think that the understeer in GT4 is not the main culprit -- it's the relative lack of oversteer, as you hinted at with the comment on the "throttle reaction to lift" -- lift-off oversteer is all but nonexistant, regardless of drivetrain. Also, braking oversteer is quite difficult, and even the handbrake doesn't work very well.

The biggest problem by far, however, is the fact that wheelspin itself has absolutely no influence on your direction of travel.

That's why full-throttle launches in the Cobra or a tricked-out 1100hp Supra are a piece of cake, why donuts are impossible, why applying full-throttle mid-corner doesn't produce enough oversteer, and why drifting doesn't work the way it should -- the momentum and physical forces involved with wheelspin are simply incorrect.

It only occurred to me rather recently, and I wish I would have realized it before, back when you and I debated this stuff. :lol: Go ahead and try it yourself -- take a high-HP RWD out and play around with the wheelspin. You should be able to make turns and corrections, while smoking your tires, without spinning out or entering a donut/drift.
Click to expand...


Rather than repeat what I have just posted over in the EPR thread here is a nice linky for anyone who does not know the thread in question.

As far as the issues regarding oversteer I would not disagree, as I have said many times before GT4 has its fair share of flaws and I would not disagree with this one.

However in regard to understeer I still rate GT4 better than EPR, based on my own experence.

Regards

Scaff
 
:lol: Wolfe is finally letting off on understeer, eh? :lol:

Good response... I kind of agree it's the lack of oversteer that just makes things so uncomfortable. I'm not going to go off into a tangent about the inability to tripod... am I? :lol:

C'mon... even Need For Speed has fake torque steer built in... GT should have it, too! :dopey:
 
For me, if a car has got 70 bhp, the FWD will win anytime, both in times and pleasure. If they've got 200 bhp, well the Skyline GTS-m is an okay drive, but the Integra Type-R DC2 will always be superior, at least in pleasure. Over 250 bhp, an RWD car will always be faster and more fun, because FWD then struggles with understeering and torquesteering..
 
Wolfe2x7
-- lift-off oversteer is all but nonexistant, regardless of drivetrain. Also, braking oversteer is quite difficult, and even the handbrake doesn't work very well.
Click to expand...
I agree. The only cars I've found any lift-off oversteer in were the Lotus Esprit Turbo HC ('84?) and the Cizeta. And not being able to rotate the car on the brakes is a pain, while being able to trailbrake without being even vaguely concerned about going arse first into the barriers :dopey: is, to say the least, disappointing...
Wolfe2x7
The biggest problem by far, however, is the fact that wheelspin itself has absolutely no influence on your direction of travel.
Click to expand...
Haven't thought this through, but that's definitely valid.

niky
Good response... I kind of agree it's the lack of oversteer that just makes things so uncomfortable. I'm not going to go off into a tangent about the inability to tripod... am I?
Click to expand...
I was wondering about this: surely the Golf is a classic 3 wheeler? And then, on a long curve, you should get some serious pogoing action as the lack of rear wheel grip (on account of having only 3 wheels on the ground...)becomes oversteer, bringing the inside rear back to the ground, allowing the grip to rebuild, bringing the inside rear off the ground, putting the car into oversteer etc, etc. (I remember watching Renault 5GT Turbos doing this forever at Thruxton some 20 years ago (oh God, is it really?), bouncing round the back of the circuit...). But we can't do that :grumpy:

Which brings us to Scaff (and to think I nearly added "cue Scaff" to my last post!:lol:):
Scaff
GT4 certainly does make life harder for FWD cars, in that while the degree of understeer it simulates in not a huge amount off, it is still a bit too severe. What also exagerates the problem is that its harder than it should be to recover from the situation, in that the throttle reaction to a lift is not as quick as it should be.
Click to expand...
As neat a summary to the above debate as I can think of.
 
niky
:lol: Wolfe is finally letting off on understeer, eh? :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually, no, you've just finally understood what it is I'm saying. ;) :lol: I've always felt that the lack of oversteer was the biggest problem in GT4.

If your car is too grippy to oversteer, then "realistic" understeer is too severe, is it not? :sly: That's where my "GT4's understeer is too much" came from. The lack of proper oversteer characteristics almost forces you to understeer like crazy.
 

Latest Posts

Back