Test drove Acura TL and G35x, a review
#46
08-26-2005, 10:35 PM
Specifics
Motorkhana's
FWD's win every time, simple as that! Because it's pretty much low speed stuff, they can point the driving tyres in the direction they need to go, and power off in that direction with the tail end just along for the ride.
RWD's can also do okay, but to rotate the car around a point they tend to waste time thowing the rear around with the wheels spinning.
4WD's are normally pretty crap, as they have a lot of trouble getting a slide happening.
For example all the cars that win the championships are specially made FWD's with very light space-frame chassis.
Drag racing
As mentioned in the above paragraphs, but it's hard to beat a RWD for cost and performance.
I don't know of the rules for the various classes in drag racing, but if there was one where you could pick between all three types you'd go for either 4WD or RWD, depending on how much power & tyre size you were allowed.
Circuit racing
RWD is very hard to beat, though if you can get a 4WD car down to about the same weight they can often be a little quicker. 4WD is banned in quite a few classes though. FWD has a slight power advantage in lower powered car, but as soon as there's any reasonable power the RWD's work out better. For example, in any class where the car is purpose built (and you can make it FWD or RWD) no-one makes a FWD chassis.
An example being my Sports 1300 class and the Aussie Formula Two's; The rules allow for either FWD or RWD (not 4WD though) but no-one has built a FWD because it would just not be competitive.
Rallying
All things being equal (weight, suspension, etc) 4WD rules here - The traction and stability is by far the best out of the three types. With FWD & RWD it's a little harder to pick, as the days of RWD rally cars are long over thanks to the FIA and CAMS. There's also not very many modern RWD cars around to compete against the FWD's, and so there's not been a lot of developement with them. But I think that again with all things being equal, the RWD's should be better.
There was an example given in another post about Ed Ordinski's 4WD Mitsubishi when it ran around in RWD and then FWD when the centre diff was playing up, and how Ed said it was much nicer to drive in FWD configuration. That's an example of it not being all things equal, as the Mitsu's are basically a converted FWD car and so have a relatively heavy front end. A RWD car will have different suspension geometry and weight distribution, and so handle quite a bit better.
At the end of the day though, with any reasonable amount of power in a well set-up car, it's up to the way that the driver likes the car, either FWD or RWD. As I've said, I can't get my head around FWD so they're quite un-natural to me.
Rain
Rain is great because it brings the maximum corning power of the car right down, and so lets you see the handling characteristics of your car at a much lower speed. This is where you can see FWD's understeer off into the gutters, RWD's spin off into the gutters backwards, and 4WD's generally ignore the wet altogether.
Most of the gutter hitting from the FWD & RWD isn't due to bad handling, but more so because of the driven wheels spinning from excess power, thus making them lose grip. The way to check is to find something like a flat roundabout (with no traffic) and gradually speed up around it until you can feel the car start to do something.
A better example is where my club ran an event at the Driver Training Centre at Norwell, just south of Brisbane. They have a nice, big skidpan there with a good sprinkler system. In my AE-86, as I accelerated around it, the car understeered, but as the speed picked up it started to become more neutral, then finally several laps of full-lock were done. (yes, I enjoyed it!) There was a few 4WD WRX's there, and they were all understeering badly around the skidpan. That could have been fixed by more rear torque bias.
Wheelbase
Or to more more correct wheelbase to track ratio. The general trend of cars that have a short wheelbase in comparison to their track is to be fast in a straight line (less weight & aerodynamic drag) and twitchy in the corners. This is one reason why it's difficult to compare modern FWD & RWD cars as they often have quite different ratios, with the FWD's usually being shorter. FWIW, the apparently optimum ratio for a RWD is about 1.7:1, which as an amazing co-incidence (not!) is very close to the AE-86's ratio.
Other examples
Toyota MR2
These are RWD, but of course also have the engine in the rear as well and so use a FWD type gearbox. So, that means that for the same horsepower as something like an AE-86, they'll be putting more power to the ground. However, Toyota decided to make the MR2's a bit porky and so they're not as fast as they should be.
Subaru Impreza WRX
4WD as we all know, but with a 50/50 torque split. They also have quite similar suspension geometry front and rear, and this is why they understeer when pushed. It's tough to try to explain without resorting to pictures, but bascially when the car is cornering and the tyres are running near their limit if you extend a line from the centre of each wheel to the centre of the circle that the car is making , then the point at which the two (okay, four) lines join is going to be in 'front' of the central point of the circle, hence the car is understeering. To make the car neutral and so bring the two points back to the same place, the front roll centre needs to come down a bit and so make the front stick better - or - more torque to the rear to make that end lose traction first - or - more weight to the rear of the car, etc.
Anyway, that's why they understeer when pushed, and that's also why the STi's have much more power going to the rear end than the plain vanilla WRX's.
Falcon Ute's
Saw this one in a previous post, and so I thought I'd have a go at explaining why they handle like a sloppy bucket of crap when pushed. The front suspension is actually pretty good, but the rear is pretty bad! The problem they have, like many other live axle cars including the AE-86, is that the rear axle isn't allowed to move freely in roll. It's because of the need to have the upper trailing arms shorter than the lower ones to fit them under the floor. In the case of the leaf-sprung ute's, the springs are rather stiff in both rate and and because they have multiple leaf's they tend to stick a little to each other before moving in bump/rebound. (That's why there was a lot of effort back years ago to try to get single leaf springs to work, as it eliminated the slight binding effect)
They're also quite stiff to be able to carry the 1,000kgs or whatever it is that they're rated to stick in the tray and not bottom out too much.
Anyway, the end result is that they're too stiff in roll and this tends to make them lift up the inside wheel when cornering, thus making it spin much earlier than what it should. The cure for that is to 'three and a half link' the rear end, which in the case of an AE-86 means putting hard poly bushes in the rear trailing arms, but in the upper left-hand one you leave the factory rubber bushes in and drill them full of holes to let that arm move around a lot easier. This lets all the arms, because they all follow different arcs in roll, move around without binding. You put the poly bushes in the upper RH arm because it tends to hold the diff housing flat when under power.
Honda Integra Type R
They are a bloody quick little car, and it's largely thanks to the very clever LSD they have in the front. It's a very clever adaption of the old tank system of getting power from the engine to both tracks in varying amounts, to let them turn. In the Honda it's bascially three small diffs in one package, and the middle diff is turned by a small electric motor that make the torque go unevenly to one side of the car. By using sensors from the steering wheel, etc, the computer works out which wheel is loaded up more and so diverts more torque that way. Apparently it works really well, as the car suffers from very little understeer. It's understandable as with the system working flat out there's no reason why you couldn't have a good 75% of the torque going to the outside wheel, which of course tends to 'pull' the car into being more neutral.
Brabham BT24
At least I think it's the BT24 ... Anyway, it's the 1984 turbo Formula One car as designed by Gordon Murray. It was the last year of the unrestricted F1 turbo engines, and shortly after the season started the BMW engine that they were using was tested on a dyno at about 1470hp. I say 'about', as the dyno 'only' went to 1450hp! Anyway, Murray knew that this was coming as so he designed the car with just one feature in mind - He knew that the races would be won on the straights, and so he made the car with as much weight as possible on the rear; about 62% in fact! By doing that they could get good traction as 4WD is not permitted in F1. 4WD was banned in the mid 70's I think, with the last effort by Lotus getting erratic results. It was also indirectly banned by the banning of the Tyrell P34 six-wheel car with the change in rules.
Stupidly powerful drag cars
The 6,000hp odd methanol burning rails that do sub five second runs are all RWD, but they woudln't really benefit from being 4WD because the front wheels are hardly on the ground very much throughout the run. Again because of the great power they have they need a very large rear weight bias, and so the fronts are very lightly loaded but a long way out in front to give some control.
Motorkhana's
FWD's win every time, simple as that! Because it's pretty much low speed stuff, they can point the driving tyres in the direction they need to go, and power off in that direction with the tail end just along for the ride.
RWD's can also do okay, but to rotate the car around a point they tend to waste time thowing the rear around with the wheels spinning.
4WD's are normally pretty crap, as they have a lot of trouble getting a slide happening.
For example all the cars that win the championships are specially made FWD's with very light space-frame chassis.
Drag racing
As mentioned in the above paragraphs, but it's hard to beat a RWD for cost and performance.
I don't know of the rules for the various classes in drag racing, but if there was one where you could pick between all three types you'd go for either 4WD or RWD, depending on how much power & tyre size you were allowed.
Circuit racing
RWD is very hard to beat, though if you can get a 4WD car down to about the same weight they can often be a little quicker. 4WD is banned in quite a few classes though. FWD has a slight power advantage in lower powered car, but as soon as there's any reasonable power the RWD's work out better. For example, in any class where the car is purpose built (and you can make it FWD or RWD) no-one makes a FWD chassis.
An example being my Sports 1300 class and the Aussie Formula Two's; The rules allow for either FWD or RWD (not 4WD though) but no-one has built a FWD because it would just not be competitive.
Rallying
All things being equal (weight, suspension, etc) 4WD rules here - The traction and stability is by far the best out of the three types. With FWD & RWD it's a little harder to pick, as the days of RWD rally cars are long over thanks to the FIA and CAMS. There's also not very many modern RWD cars around to compete against the FWD's, and so there's not been a lot of developement with them. But I think that again with all things being equal, the RWD's should be better.
There was an example given in another post about Ed Ordinski's 4WD Mitsubishi when it ran around in RWD and then FWD when the centre diff was playing up, and how Ed said it was much nicer to drive in FWD configuration. That's an example of it not being all things equal, as the Mitsu's are basically a converted FWD car and so have a relatively heavy front end. A RWD car will have different suspension geometry and weight distribution, and so handle quite a bit better.
At the end of the day though, with any reasonable amount of power in a well set-up car, it's up to the way that the driver likes the car, either FWD or RWD. As I've said, I can't get my head around FWD so they're quite un-natural to me.
Rain
Rain is great because it brings the maximum corning power of the car right down, and so lets you see the handling characteristics of your car at a much lower speed. This is where you can see FWD's understeer off into the gutters, RWD's spin off into the gutters backwards, and 4WD's generally ignore the wet altogether.
Most of the gutter hitting from the FWD & RWD isn't due to bad handling, but more so because of the driven wheels spinning from excess power, thus making them lose grip. The way to check is to find something like a flat roundabout (with no traffic) and gradually speed up around it until you can feel the car start to do something.
A better example is where my club ran an event at the Driver Training Centre at Norwell, just south of Brisbane. They have a nice, big skidpan there with a good sprinkler system. In my AE-86, as I accelerated around it, the car understeered, but as the speed picked up it started to become more neutral, then finally several laps of full-lock were done. (yes, I enjoyed it!) There was a few 4WD WRX's there, and they were all understeering badly around the skidpan. That could have been fixed by more rear torque bias.
Wheelbase
Or to more more correct wheelbase to track ratio. The general trend of cars that have a short wheelbase in comparison to their track is to be fast in a straight line (less weight & aerodynamic drag) and twitchy in the corners. This is one reason why it's difficult to compare modern FWD & RWD cars as they often have quite different ratios, with the FWD's usually being shorter. FWIW, the apparently optimum ratio for a RWD is about 1.7:1, which as an amazing co-incidence (not!) is very close to the AE-86's ratio.
Other examples
Toyota MR2
These are RWD, but of course also have the engine in the rear as well and so use a FWD type gearbox. So, that means that for the same horsepower as something like an AE-86, they'll be putting more power to the ground. However, Toyota decided to make the MR2's a bit porky and so they're not as fast as they should be.
Subaru Impreza WRX
4WD as we all know, but with a 50/50 torque split. They also have quite similar suspension geometry front and rear, and this is why they understeer when pushed. It's tough to try to explain without resorting to pictures, but bascially when the car is cornering and the tyres are running near their limit if you extend a line from the centre of each wheel to the centre of the circle that the car is making , then the point at which the two (okay, four) lines join is going to be in 'front' of the central point of the circle, hence the car is understeering. To make the car neutral and so bring the two points back to the same place, the front roll centre needs to come down a bit and so make the front stick better - or - more torque to the rear to make that end lose traction first - or - more weight to the rear of the car, etc.
Anyway, that's why they understeer when pushed, and that's also why the STi's have much more power going to the rear end than the plain vanilla WRX's.
Falcon Ute's
Saw this one in a previous post, and so I thought I'd have a go at explaining why they handle like a sloppy bucket of crap when pushed. The front suspension is actually pretty good, but the rear is pretty bad! The problem they have, like many other live axle cars including the AE-86, is that the rear axle isn't allowed to move freely in roll. It's because of the need to have the upper trailing arms shorter than the lower ones to fit them under the floor. In the case of the leaf-sprung ute's, the springs are rather stiff in both rate and and because they have multiple leaf's they tend to stick a little to each other before moving in bump/rebound. (That's why there was a lot of effort back years ago to try to get single leaf springs to work, as it eliminated the slight binding effect)
They're also quite stiff to be able to carry the 1,000kgs or whatever it is that they're rated to stick in the tray and not bottom out too much.
Anyway, the end result is that they're too stiff in roll and this tends to make them lift up the inside wheel when cornering, thus making it spin much earlier than what it should. The cure for that is to 'three and a half link' the rear end, which in the case of an AE-86 means putting hard poly bushes in the rear trailing arms, but in the upper left-hand one you leave the factory rubber bushes in and drill them full of holes to let that arm move around a lot easier. This lets all the arms, because they all follow different arcs in roll, move around without binding. You put the poly bushes in the upper RH arm because it tends to hold the diff housing flat when under power.
Honda Integra Type R
They are a bloody quick little car, and it's largely thanks to the very clever LSD they have in the front. It's a very clever adaption of the old tank system of getting power from the engine to both tracks in varying amounts, to let them turn. In the Honda it's bascially three small diffs in one package, and the middle diff is turned by a small electric motor that make the torque go unevenly to one side of the car. By using sensors from the steering wheel, etc, the computer works out which wheel is loaded up more and so diverts more torque that way. Apparently it works really well, as the car suffers from very little understeer. It's understandable as with the system working flat out there's no reason why you couldn't have a good 75% of the torque going to the outside wheel, which of course tends to 'pull' the car into being more neutral.
Brabham BT24
At least I think it's the BT24 ... Anyway, it's the 1984 turbo Formula One car as designed by Gordon Murray. It was the last year of the unrestricted F1 turbo engines, and shortly after the season started the BMW engine that they were using was tested on a dyno at about 1470hp. I say 'about', as the dyno 'only' went to 1450hp! Anyway, Murray knew that this was coming as so he designed the car with just one feature in mind - He knew that the races would be won on the straights, and so he made the car with as much weight as possible on the rear; about 62% in fact! By doing that they could get good traction as 4WD is not permitted in F1. 4WD was banned in the mid 70's I think, with the last effort by Lotus getting erratic results. It was also indirectly banned by the banning of the Tyrell P34 six-wheel car with the change in rules.
Stupidly powerful drag cars
The 6,000hp odd methanol burning rails that do sub five second runs are all RWD, but they woudln't really benefit from being 4WD because the front wheels are hardly on the ground very much throughout the run. Again because of the great power they have they need a very large rear weight bias, and so the fronts are very lightly loaded but a long way out in front to give some control.
#47
08-26-2005, 10:35 PM
#50
08-26-2005, 11:05 PM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G35_TX....your blanket statement of AWD's being fastest at the track is wrong. If you truly did spend any time at the track, or even watch drag racing on tv, you would realize that. It is true, that in the class of cars running in the 12's to 14's, an awd car may be faster than a more powerful car. This is because generally a tenth gained in the 60ft range will give you 2 tenths in the quarter. So if you run a 2.0 60 ft time, and end up with a 14 sec quarter, and then the next run you run a 1.5 60ft, you should end up around a 13 second quarter give or take a tenth or 2.
If your statement were true, all the professional drag racing cars would run AWD. MOST (there are some exceptions) all cars 10 seconds and quicker are RWD. If your statement was true, there would be many more truely fast cars running AWD. There are some 1g DSM's in the 8's (John Sheppard for example) and other fast WRX and Evo's.
However, for most amatuer racers, awd can be a big advantage in gaining a lead in the beginning, while the more powerful car is pulling hard on you at the end. For example, my 90 talon tsi awd best time so far is 13.0 at 104 mph, with a 1.8 60ft. Now, since I bogged the launch, and I know my car is capable of a high 1.5x 60ft or so, I should be able to get a 12.6 or so in the quarter with the same boost level. My car at this time was putting down around 260 AWHP (currently around 310 AWHP-havnt been to the track since dyno tuning at a higher boost) My GTO runs a 13.5 at 104mph, but that is with a 2.0 60ft (Auto trans, with stock all season tires) It has dynoed with 305 RWHP and 310 RWTQ. It does weigh a couple hundred pounds more, and an auto but still traps the same speed as my Talon, and past the quarter mark will pull on the talon. I did get some Nitto drags for the GTO, and I should be able to get a 1.8 with those, so that will get me to about a 13.1-13.2 and if I get a higher stall torque convertor, that will knock off another .5 tenths and bring me to about a 12.7-12.8, without touching the engine.
When I start to mod the GTO more, it will pull even harder on the talon. Plus you can actually build a RWD drivetrain to be able to consistantly take the punishments of sub 10 second runs. It is much harder to build an AWD drivtrain to do this. John Sheppard has with his Talon, but he is more of an exception than the norm. As I said before most all cars that are in the 11's and lower are RWD.
If your statement were true, all the professional drag racing cars would run AWD. MOST (there are some exceptions) all cars 10 seconds and quicker are RWD. If your statement was true, there would be many more truely fast cars running AWD. There are some 1g DSM's in the 8's (John Sheppard for example) and other fast WRX and Evo's.
However, for most amatuer racers, awd can be a big advantage in gaining a lead in the beginning, while the more powerful car is pulling hard on you at the end. For example, my 90 talon tsi awd best time so far is 13.0 at 104 mph, with a 1.8 60ft. Now, since I bogged the launch, and I know my car is capable of a high 1.5x 60ft or so, I should be able to get a 12.6 or so in the quarter with the same boost level. My car at this time was putting down around 260 AWHP (currently around 310 AWHP-havnt been to the track since dyno tuning at a higher boost) My GTO runs a 13.5 at 104mph, but that is with a 2.0 60ft (Auto trans, with stock all season tires) It has dynoed with 305 RWHP and 310 RWTQ. It does weigh a couple hundred pounds more, and an auto but still traps the same speed as my Talon, and past the quarter mark will pull on the talon. I did get some Nitto drags for the GTO, and I should be able to get a 1.8 with those, so that will get me to about a 13.1-13.2 and if I get a higher stall torque convertor, that will knock off another .5 tenths and bring me to about a 12.7-12.8, without touching the engine.
When I start to mod the GTO more, it will pull even harder on the talon. Plus you can actually build a RWD drivetrain to be able to consistantly take the punishments of sub 10 second runs. It is much harder to build an AWD drivtrain to do this. John Sheppard has with his Talon, but he is more of an exception than the norm. As I said before most all cars that are in the 11's and lower are RWD.
#51
08-26-2005, 11:07 PM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#52
08-26-2005, 11:23 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chesapeake Bay, MD.
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks, stl..I'll deal with this nukklhead later....I have a life, as well as you...
It's simply unbelieivable that these guys that have never seen the track have opinions that all others should beleive.....If it makes him feel good, then let him have at it.But the truth is, I have proof . He does not
I'll chat tomorrow with you guys.
It's simply unbelieivable that these guys that have never seen the track have opinions that all others should beleive.....If it makes him feel good, then let him have at it.But the truth is, I have proof . He does not
I'll chat tomorrow with you guys.
Last edited by DP03; 08-26-2005 at 11:27 PM.
#53
08-26-2005, 11:39 PM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#54
08-26-2005, 11:45 PM
Hmm still waiting for proof to back these statements up. I presented mine for you noobs. I am done here. Enjoy the site and quit spamming.
Originally Posted by stl_ls1gto
G35_TX....your blanket statement of AWD's being fastest at the track is wrong. If you truly did spend any time at the track, or even watch drag racing on tv, you would realize that. It is true, that in the class of cars running in the 12's to 14's, an awd car may be faster than a more powerful car. This is because generally a tenth gained in the 60ft range will give you 2 tenths in the quarter. So if you run a 2.0 60 ft time, and end up with a 14 sec quarter, and then the next run you run a 1.5 60ft, you should end up around a 13 second quarter give or take a tenth or 2.
If your statement were true, all the professional drag racing cars would run AWD. MOST (there are some exceptions) all cars 10 seconds and quicker are RWD. If your statement was true, there would be many more truely fast cars running AWD. There are some 1g DSM's in the 8's (John Sheppard for example) and other fast WRX and Evo's.
However, for most amatuer racers, awd can be a big advantage in gaining a lead in the beginning, while the more powerful car is pulling hard on you at the end. For example, my 90 talon tsi awd best time so far is 13.0 at 104 mph, with a 1.8 60ft. Now, since I bogged the launch, and I know my car is capable of a high 1.5x 60ft or so, I should be able to get a 12.6 or so in the quarter with the same boost level. My car at this time was putting down around 260 AWHP (currently around 310 AWHP-havnt been to the track since dyno tuning at a higher boost) My GTO runs a 13.5 at 104mph, but that is with a 2.0 60ft (Auto trans, with stock all season tires) It has dynoed with 305 RWHP and 310 RWTQ. It does weigh a couple hundred pounds more, and an auto but still traps the same speed as my Talon, and past the quarter mark will pull on the talon. I did get some Nitto drags for the GTO, and I should be able to get a 1.8 with those, so that will get me to about a 13.1-13.2 and if I get a higher stall torque convertor, that will knock off another .5 tenths and bring me to about a 12.7-12.8, without touching the engine.
When I start to mod the GTO more, it will pull even harder on the talon. Plus you can actually build a RWD drivetrain to be able to consistantly take the punishments of sub 10 second runs. It is much harder to build an AWD drivtrain to do this. John Sheppard has with his Talon, but he is more of an exception than the norm. As I said before most all cars that are in the 11's and lower are RWD.
If your statement were true, all the professional drag racing cars would run AWD. MOST (there are some exceptions) all cars 10 seconds and quicker are RWD. If your statement was true, there would be many more truely fast cars running AWD. There are some 1g DSM's in the 8's (John Sheppard for example) and other fast WRX and Evo's.
However, for most amatuer racers, awd can be a big advantage in gaining a lead in the beginning, while the more powerful car is pulling hard on you at the end. For example, my 90 talon tsi awd best time so far is 13.0 at 104 mph, with a 1.8 60ft. Now, since I bogged the launch, and I know my car is capable of a high 1.5x 60ft or so, I should be able to get a 12.6 or so in the quarter with the same boost level. My car at this time was putting down around 260 AWHP (currently around 310 AWHP-havnt been to the track since dyno tuning at a higher boost) My GTO runs a 13.5 at 104mph, but that is with a 2.0 60ft (Auto trans, with stock all season tires) It has dynoed with 305 RWHP and 310 RWTQ. It does weigh a couple hundred pounds more, and an auto but still traps the same speed as my Talon, and past the quarter mark will pull on the talon. I did get some Nitto drags for the GTO, and I should be able to get a 1.8 with those, so that will get me to about a 13.1-13.2 and if I get a higher stall torque convertor, that will knock off another .5 tenths and bring me to about a 12.7-12.8, without touching the engine.
When I start to mod the GTO more, it will pull even harder on the talon. Plus you can actually build a RWD drivetrain to be able to consistantly take the punishments of sub 10 second runs. It is much harder to build an AWD drivtrain to do this. John Sheppard has with his Talon, but he is more of an exception than the norm. As I said before most all cars that are in the 11's and lower are RWD.
#55
08-26-2005, 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by DP03
thanks, stl..I'll deal with this nukklhead later....I have a life, as well as you...
It's simply unbelieivable that these guys that have never seen the track have opinions that all others should beleive.....If it makes him feel good, then let him have at it.But the truth is, I have proof . He does not
I'll chat tomorrow with you guys.
It's simply unbelieivable that these guys that have never seen the track have opinions that all others should beleive.....If it makes him feel good, then let him have at it.But the truth is, I have proof . He does not
I'll chat tomorrow with you guys.
Where IS YOUR PROOF? You say you have proof but have nothing showing it?!
EOD. I will let someone else deal with you.
#56
08-27-2005, 06:32 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chesapeake Bay, MD.
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G35_TX
Never seen a track. You should look in the mirror for making stupid comments as these above. I have been the track probably more than you. So shut up with the childish remarks.
Where IS YOUR PROOF? You say you have proof but have nothing showing it?!
EOD. I will let someone else deal with you.
Where IS YOUR PROOF? You say you have proof but have nothing showing it?!
EOD. I will let someone else deal with you.
I LOVE AWD. But your comments are simply wrong and misleading to the other members on this board.
I'd like to shake hands and call it a day, if you're willing.
#57
08-27-2005, 08:41 AM
Originally Posted by DP03
Dude, it is the next day, so I'm taking a new look at this. I still can't believe some of your statements. Proof? I gave you a picture. If you think it isn't real, look at the license plate. I didn't gray that out. That plate can be traced back to me......if you don't know how to do the research, find someone that can. In addition, if you want to keep being sh!tty, I can post timeslips. You admit never being to the track. Don't begrudge me for having an extensive track backround....
I LOVE AWD. But your comments are simply wrong and misleading to the other members on this board.
I'd like to shake hands and call it a day, if you're willing.
I LOVE AWD. But your comments are simply wrong and misleading to the other members on this board.
I'd like to shake hands and call it a day, if you're willing.
I am not calling it a day or shaking hands because you are wrong on this subject. I already copy and pasted the proof needed. AWD will always be better for drag than RWD. But it is more expensive as well.
I am going to Austin, so have a nice day.
#58
08-27-2005, 08:53 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chesapeake Bay, MD.
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incredibly stubborn, but still wrong.
All you have to do is visit the track once. That's all I ask. The fastest cars, in ANY class, are RWD. This is not my opinion, but fact.
If you can find someone to help you with the research (because I'm sure you would have done it by now, if you were capable), it will be painfully clear to you.
Now, I need to go research the AWD, 320 mph dragsters
All you have to do is visit the track once. That's all I ask. The fastest cars, in ANY class, are RWD. This is not my opinion, but fact.
If you can find someone to help you with the research (because I'm sure you would have done it by now, if you were capable), it will be painfully clear to you.
Now, I need to go research the AWD, 320 mph dragsters
Last edited by DP03; 08-27-2005 at 08:57 AM.
#59
08-27-2005, 09:12 AM
Originally Posted by DP03
Incredibly stubborn, but still wrong.
All you have to do is visit the track once. That's all I ask. The fastest cars, in ANY class, are RWD. This is not my opinion, but fact.
If you can find someone to help you with the research (because I'm sure you would have done it by now, if you were capable), it will be painfully clear to you.
Now, I need to go research the AWD, 320 mph dragsters
All you have to do is visit the track once. That's all I ask. The fastest cars, in ANY class, are RWD. This is not my opinion, but fact.
If you can find someone to help you with the research (because I'm sure you would have done it by now, if you were capable), it will be painfully clear to you.
Now, I need to go research the AWD, 320 mph dragsters
#60
08-27-2005, 09:27 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chesapeake Bay, MD.
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You, my friend, are a complete and utter idiot. If you've been to the track 200 times, then you're either incredibly unobservative, or there were horses at that track.
I have given you pictures and my car is featured on an LS1 website. If the facts you want are not relative to me, and instead relative to general racing, have someone teach you how to use the computer outside of this website. I will not do your homework for you.
I have given you pictures and my car is featured on an LS1 website. If the facts you want are not relative to me, and instead relative to general racing, have someone teach you how to use the computer outside of this website. I will not do your homework for you.