Anybody know which is faster in a straight line and which is faster> around a track between the Civic type-r and the RX8 (230). This is to> settle an argument with a mate as we have both been in each others cars> and we can't decide.

Mazda RX8 - 1.31.8>Honda Civic Type R - 1.36.5

In message <1114599145.988.0@l­otis.uk.clara.net>, Grant <news@mason.sh> >writes>>"alfi286@a­ol.com" alfi286@aol.com wrote in message>>news:11145­96505.900838.306050@­g14g2000cwa.googlegr­oups.com>>> Anybody know which is faster in a straight line and which is faster>>> around a track between the Civic type-r and the RX8 (230).>>

The Mazda's chassis must be as good as they say it is, then. By Evo's >test figures, the Honda's marginally quicker in a straight line by a >couple of tenths to 60 and a couple of seconds to 100. Their lap times >for the new circuit at Bedford Autodrome are similar to TG's:>

RX8: 1.32.70>Clio 182: 1.33.10>Golf GTi MKV: 1.34.50>Mini Cooper S: 1.34.60>

I think it's fair to say the Mazda is quicker round a track than the >similarly powerful front wheel drive opposition.

I'd be tempted to see that as because it is rear drive and can put> more power down earlier in the corners as the rear drive loads the> rear tyres rather than lifting the fronts when they're driven.

The Mazda's chassis must be as good as they say it is, then. By Evo's >test figures, the Honda's marginally quicker in a straight line by a >couple of tenths to 60 and a couple of seconds to 100. Their lap times >for the new circuit at Bedford Autodrome are similar to TG's:

I think it's fair to say the Mazda is quicker round a track than the> similarly powerful front wheel drive opposition.

I'd be tempted to see that as because it is rear drive and can put more power>down earlier in the corners as the rear drive loads the rear tyres rather than>lifting the fronts when they're driven.

[...]>

FWD == WrongWD

Yeah, that's what I thought too. It's also got a reputation for biting> people in the wet; I wonder whether it's been set up with very little> understeer.

Aye, but try telling some people RWD is gods way of motoring and> they'll start spouting on about "but FWD with TC / ABS is far> better...."

But they're not that expensive, although they're a lot more for a car> than a bike and I've no idea why.

The Mazda's chassis must be as good as they say it is, then. By Evo's test > figures, the Honda's marginally quicker in a straight line by a couple of > tenths to 60 and a couple of seconds to 100. Their lap times for the new > circuit at Bedford Autodrome are similar to TG's:>

RX8: 1.32.70> Clio 182: 1.33.10> Golf GTi MKV: 1.34.50> Mini Cooper S: 1.34.60>

I think it's fair to say the Mazda is quicker round a track than the > similarly powerful front wheel drive opposition.>

I dunno, it has a full 50bhp on the Clio and the Mini - just shows how good>they are really.

Especially performance per pound, where the Clio is>streaks ahead.

Anybody know which is faster in a straight line and which is faster> around a track between the Civic type-r and the RX8 (230). This is to> settle an argument with a mate as we have both been in each others cars> and we can't decide.

Cars have the potential to cause more damage to the crash barriers I > suppose.

Dr Zoidberg wrote:> > Andrewr At Work wrote:

It will surely be to do with the amount of bikes allowed on the > track at one time, compared to the amount of cars. Probably about > a 2:1 ratio?

Mazda is 166 bhp/ton, as is the Civic. Clio is 168 for the Cup version > tested. Mini is 143. Golf is 150.>

It's a fast car for 14k. Buying new, it costs less in depreciation/3yrs > (Ј7038) than the Mazda (Ј8619) or Golf (Ј7918) but more than the Civic > (Ј6500) and a lot more than the Mini (Ј4575).>

Pete M wrote:>

Having just watched someone park their skyline (not a GT-R) sideways on a >damp roundabout at a lower speed than I went through with front drive and >stability control....

D'oh! Civic Type R - Ј20k, IIRC?> RX8 - Ј22k or 24k, depending on how much power.>

Or is my memory deceiving me?

I would hazard a guess, that most of those that extoll the virtues of FWD as>opposed to RWD, would change their minds, if they were taught the correct>way to drive them.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:35:13 +0100, "Mike G" <metier@lycos.co.uk­>>wrote:>

What is the correct way - what do you do that's different? Are you>supposed to drive differently in all conditions, or just when it's>slippery/wet etc?

Apparently on date Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:17:49 +0100, Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com­>>said:>

As a potted summary, you discipline yourself to point the front wheels in the>direction you intend to go, at all times, even when it seems not to be working.>You also learn throttle control so that you can back off a little when the grip>is about to let go at the back, and most importantly, you learn how to feather>the throttle when it does so that you can regain grip at the back, feed power>back through to the rear wheels, and are already pointing the front tyres in>the correct direction when the car straightens up again.>

The best way to learn how to do this is to drive accurate simulator car games>on the PC and practice skidding and correcting. Once you can do it on that sort>of car, you can gain an idea of how the real world is the same, but tells you>loads more about what's happening through things like G forces in all>directions. And it hurts either your head or your wallet when you get it wrong>in the real world. NB also don't start getting ideas about doing what you can>get away with on a simulator in real life. That's an easy trap to fall into as>well, although I think driving back from a Go cart day is probably the most>dangerous time.>

The important thing to understanding what is going on, is how the weight>transfers from one axle to the other when accelerating or engine braking. Under>fierce acceleration, the FWD car will lose grip at the front and the wheels>will just spin, which gains some of the weight and therefore grip so is>self-correcting.­ But, the harder you accelerate, the less grip you have on the>front to allow this to continue. On the RWD the reverse happens, the harder you>accelerate, the more grip you have for further acceleration. But, as soon as>the rears start to slide, all that extra grip vanishes in a fraction of a>second. And so on. Thing is, if the car at rest has 200 bhp of grip through the>driven wheels, as FWD accelerates this decreases so that more than, say, 120>bhp going through the fronts will become impossible to sustain. RWD as the>power increases, the rears will gain more and more grip until you can push 300>bhp through and they still transmit that to the road. Ergo, RWD definitely>accelera­tes better, and in a corner all four tyres are working towards their>limits, not just the fronts.>

The feel is much better too, but I dunno how to describe that except that when>I drive a FWD car, it's all wrong.>

Have you learned how to drive RWD properly before coming to this> opinion?

What is the correct way - what do you do that's different? Are you> supposed to drive differently in all conditions, or just when it's> slippery/wet etc?

I would think most exponents of RWD feel the same as I do. That in a> rear wheel slide you still have a certain amount of control, because> the steering still works. Once a FWD cars driving wheels start to> slide, you have no control at all until the front wheels regain grip,> which could be a little too late to be of any help.> To me RWD just seems more 'natural'. Even without driving to> extremes, RWD cars just feel better balanced. Which in fact most are.> I'm not sure but I think my BM has a near 50/50 weight balance> between front and rear.

"Rooney" <paulrooney@aol.com­> wrote in message>news:0ot671­1mj6j12fppdf5hfncec7­0pcekb3o@4ax.com...>­> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:35:13 +0100, "Mike G" <metier@lycos.co.uk­>>> wrote:>>

In one sense you drive both the same.>There's very little difference until you start to push the performance>envelop­e.>Then the cars react in different ways. A well balanced RWD car, if pushed>into a bend a little too fast will usually lose grip at the rear end first,>an oversteer situation. Providing you're on the throttle, easing off will>bring it back into line. Or if you're feeling adventurous, you can control>the slide or drift, by careful use of the throttle. That technique is best>practiced on a track though. It's exactly the same under slippery or wet>conditions, except that it happens at lower speeds. Of course, if you're>travelling much too fast, the chances are that the car will spin.>My, limited, experience of FWD cars is that in similar circumstances, taking>a bend a little too fast, could result in excessive understeer. The front of>the car wants to carry straight on. If the front tyres still have plenty of>grip, maybe all you need to do is wind on more lock, otherwise easing the>throttle should give more grip and allow you to negotiate the bend safely.>If you're travelling much too fast, the chances are that the car will just>plough straight on.>I would think most exponents of RWD feel the same as I do. That in a rear>wheel slide you still have a certain amount of control, because the steering>still works. Once a FWD cars driving wheels start to slide, you have no>control at all until the front wheels regain grip, which could be a little>too late to be of any help.>To me RWD just seems more 'natural'. Even without driving to extremes, RWD>cars just feel better balanced. Which in fact most are. I'm not sure but I>think my BM has a near 50/50 weight balance between front and rear.>HTH. If I've made any mistakes, I'm sure someone will quickly point them>out. ­>Mike.>

In one sense you drive both the same.

There's very little difference until you start to push the > performance envelope.

Then the cars react in different ways. A well balanced RWD car, if > pushed into a bend a little too fast will usually lose grip at the > rear end first, an oversteer situation.

Providing you're on the throttle, easing off will bring it back into> line.

Or if you're feeling adventurous, you can control the slide or drift,> by careful use of the throttle.

That technique is best practiced on a track though.

It's exactly the same under slippery or wet conditions, except that > it happens at lower speeds. Of course, if you're travelling much too > fast, the chances are that the car will spin.

My, limited, experience of FWD cars is that in similar circumstances,> taking a bend a little too fast, could result in excessive > understeer. The front of the car wants to carry straight on. If the > front tyres still have plenty of grip, maybe all you need to do is > wind on more lock, otherwise easing the throttle should give more > grip and allow you to negotiate the bend safely.

If you're travelling much too fast, the chances are that the car will> just plough straight on.

I would think most exponents of RWD feel the same as I do. That in a > rear wheel slide you still have a certain amount of control, because > the steering still works. Once a FWD cars driving wheels start to > slide, you have no control at all until the front wheels regain grip,> which could be a little too late to be of any help.

To me RWD just seems more 'natural'. Even without driving to > extremes, RWD cars just feel better balanced. Which in fact most are.

I'm not sure but I think my BM has a near 50/50 weight balance > between front and rear.

HTH. If I've made any mistakes, I'm sure someone will quickly point> them out. ­