"Dave LaCourse" <davplac@aol.comPirate> wrote in message
> Hey, Pete. I think we are dealing with a 10 year old who has taken
over his
> "mummies" <sic> computor.

I think you're giving him too much credit. Most 10-year-olds know how
to spell better than that. They also grasp simple concepts.



Pete

 

"Tha Ghee" <grewatson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40119f4b$0$12785$a04e5680@nnrp.fuse.net...
> "Dave LaCourse" <davplac@aol.comPirate> wrote in message
> news:20040121195334.13026.00000484@mb-m02.aol.com...

<snip>

> the funny thing is you think your correct but you aren't and your to
> pigheaded to see this just look in the post about Quattro Expense and you
> will see that someone cosigned my statement if you can't read that I'll
mail
> you out a Braille copy or call you on the phone so you can have this info.

English translation:

"The funny thing is that you think you're correct. You aren't, however, but
are too pig-headed to see this. Reference my posting in the 'Quattro
Expense' thread, and you will see that some other dumb schmuck actually
agreed with me (assuming that I was awake when I read that bit). If you fail
to comprehend that, then I'll either send you a Braille copy or telephone
you"

Please note that Braille emails are in fact very easy to compose, but
require both a sighted person, detailed instructions, and some Play-Dough
("Doh"?) to reconstruct on the average monitor.

Of course, it's a lot more difficult to locate the information when you get
someone like ol' "butter cheeks", who can't seem to grasp the concept of
Usenet threads.. ;o)

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

 

>As for the expense, quatrro is a safety feature.

No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.

If it was a safety feature, you can bet that Mercedes-Benz S600, SLR and
Maybach would have it standard, no question asked. But there are questions.
The only thing that AWD does it better is accelerating on slippery surfaces.
All the rest is urban legend. It adds mass and is less predictable when
going over the limits. Car&Driver did many times comparos between twins 2WD
and AWD. Their conclujsion is always repetitive. Addtional mass of AWD is
more of a detriment. This is not to say thatyAWD can not be fun in winter
(it is), but as a safety feature, NOTHING supports this claim... except
marketing.

Actually, it is a safety measure; it saved Audi and Subaru from going in
bankruptcy. ;o)

 

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:42:54 -0500, "Saintor"
<saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:

>No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.


Another thought from the ramblings of an antagonist.
Thank you so much for your viewpoint, it's always entertaining.

AWD vehicles have more even tire wear. The odds of having two bald
tires is greatly reduced. If you end up with four bald tires, that's
your problem, not marketing. Not a factor? Keep in mind that most
drivers can't drive, nor do they maintain their leased junk.
Even treadwear = safety.

Would I buy a quattro for even treadwear? Hell no. I drive
quattros so I can drive 80Mph in 4" of loose snow. Same reason I buy
new studded snows every winter. Because I can.

FWD sucks. It is simply not safe to have the steering wheels lose
traction due to torque application or weight shift. FWD cars exist
for one reason, and one reason only; It's cheaper to produce.

AWD, with torque applied to all four wheels, is safer in all weather
conditions, as torque is not concentrated on any two wheels, but all
four. The tendency to understeer/oversteer is greatly reduced. Lose
adhesion in an AWD car, and you pushed physics too far.
It's more difficult to lose adhesion in an AWD car.

Most cars do not offer RWD any longer. It's FWD or the bus, which is
still, for now, RWD.

My old 1988 BMW 535is was RWD, and the most fun you could ever have on
four wheels. Wow, I miss that old car. At 145, I could eat a
sandwich, drink a beer, and drive with my knee. In the snow, it was
very predictable, and it went through it very well. On four studded
snows. It was no quattro.

FTR, I bought a Land Rover. I put four studded Hakka SUV tires on it.
It's good in the snow. In fact, you could say it's damned good. It
will indeed go through anything, I drove the thing through a field
full of snow that was a couple of feet deep, and blowing up over the
hood. It is nowhere near as confident and secure on the streets as
my Audi V8 quattro in the snow with four similar tires. And Holy
, does it gobble fuel! It makes the Audi V8 look like a Prius.


>
>If it was a safety feature, you can bet that Mercedes-Benz S600, SLR and
>Maybach would have it standard, no question asked.

Or Bentley, or the 760Li, or Rolls Royce.
It would seem that when the demographic audience hits 60+, and the
entry ticket hits $120K, those folks spend slippery season in Florida.
Ever go to Teluride? Aspen? Tahoe? What do rich folks drive in the
winter? Hummers, Escalades, Range Rovers. Now *that's* marketing.

 

JPF writes:

>It would seem that when the demographic audience hits 60+, and the
>entry ticket hits $120K, those folks spend slippery season in Florida.
>Ever go to Teluride? Aspen? Tahoe? What do rich folks drive in the
>winter? Hummers, Escalades, Range Rovers. Now *that's* marketing.

d;o) Hey, wait a minute. This 66 year old phart is enjoying his winter in
New England with his RS6. Screw those pantywaists who head south, although if
my ***** don't drop down from my chest (because of the cold), I too may soon be
on an aircraft for sunnier climes. d;o)
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

 

> >No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.
>
>
> Another thought from the ramblings of an antagonist.
> Thank you so much for your viewpoint, it's always entertaining.
>
> AWD vehicles have more even tire wear. The odds of having two bald
> tires is greatly reduced. If you end up with four bald tires, that's
> your problem, not marketing. Not a factor? Keep in mind that most
> drivers can't drive, nor do they maintain their leased junk.
> Even treadwear = safety.
>
> Would I buy a quattro for even treadwear? Hell no. I drive
> quattros so I can drive 80Mph in 4" of loose snow. Same reason I buy
> new studded snows every winter. Because I can.


What does tire thread have to do with this conversation?

>
> FWD sucks. It is simply not safe to have the steering wheels lose
> traction due to torque application or weight shift. FWD cars exist
> for one reason, and one reason only; It's cheaper to produce.

I disagree. I prefer my cars FWD thank you. So does most people from
Sweden and Nordic countries. And there is more snow here than a normal
person would bear. When going 40-60mph on an iced highway and drifting, FWD
is easier to recover than AWD. I have experienced this extensively. And
don't tell me AWD don't drift.

>
> AWD, with torque applied to all four wheels, is safer in all weather
> conditions, as torque is not concentrated on any two wheels, but all
> four. The tendency to understeer/oversteer is greatly reduced. Lose
> adhesion in an AWD car, and you pushed physics too far.
> It's more difficult to lose adhesion in an AWD car.
>
> Most cars do not offer RWD any longer.

On what planet do you live? RWD is the way to go on higher priced cars.
Lexus, BMW, Ferrari. 4-MAtic is not even proposed on Mercedes S600, neither
AWD is proposed on Porsche top cars. GT, GT2, GT3... no mistake. Traction
control is enough, and common sense will do the rest.

>
> My old 1988 BMW 535is was RWD, and the most fun you could ever have on
> four wheels. Wow, I miss that old car. At 145, I could eat a
> sandwich, drink a beer, and drive with my knee. In the snow, it was
> very predictable, and it went through it very well. On four studded
> snows. It was no quattro.

I agree; winter tires make all the difference in the world in winter.

>
> FTR, I bought a Land Rover. I put four studded Hakka SUV tires on it.
> It's good in the snow. In fact, you could say it's damned good. It
> will indeed go through anything, I drove the thing through a field
> full of snow that was a couple of feet deep, and blowing up over the
> hood. It is nowhere near as confident and secure on the streets as
> my Audi V8 quattro in the snow with four similar tires. And Holy
> , does it gobble fuel! It makes the Audi V8 look like a Prius.
>
> >
> >If it was a safety feature, you can bet that Mercedes-Benz S600, SLR and
> >Maybach would have it standard, no question asked.
>
> Or Bentley, or the 760Li, or Rolls Royce.
> It would seem that when the demographic audience hits 60+, and the
> entry ticket hits $120K, those folks spend slippery season in Florida.
> Ever go to Teluride? Aspen? Tahoe? What do rich folks drive in the
> winter? Hummers, Escalades, Range Rovers. Now *that's* marketing.
>

LOL! You have a point here. But it does not change that AWD is mostly
often sold on false assumptions.

 

"Saintor" <saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ODCQb.114183$XO3.1969774@wagner.videotron.net ...

> > FWD sucks. It is simply not safe to have the steering wheels lose
> > traction due to torque application or weight shift. FWD cars exist
> > for one reason, and one reason only; It's cheaper to produce.
>
> I disagree. I prefer my cars FWD thank you. So does most people from
> Sweden and Nordic countries. And there is more snow here than a normal
> person would bear. When going 40-60mph on an iced highway and drifting,
FWD
> is easier to recover than AWD. I have experienced this extensively. And
> don't tell me AWD don't drift.

Can't say I've noticed it (uncontrollable drift, that is). I suppose in
theory that towing the car behind the front wheels would help to straighten
things out (assuming that you're still facing the right way!) On the
downside, of course, you can get interesting effects when driving on roads
that aren't straight.. which might explain why it's been a bit popular with
rally drivers, over the years.

So, I have to say that I have to agree (in part) with whomever you were
arguing with - what's the relative availability of FWD against RWD and AWD,
on an average car budget?

Pretty much all FWD, I would have thought; mostly because of lower
productions costs and better packaging.

You might also want to remind me again of how many FWD Saabs have won
Scandanavian rallys, compared to the RWD ones..? ;o)

> On what planet do you live? RWD is the way to go on higher priced cars.
> Lexus, BMW, Ferrari. 4-MAtic is not even proposed on Mercedes S600,
neither
> AWD is proposed on Porsche top cars. GT, GT2, GT3... no mistake.
Traction
> control is enough, and common sense will do the rest.

Well, I won't get into a fight about the price of a Lexus compared with,
say, a Volvo or Saab. OTOH, you may be aware that BMW have launched AWD cars
over here in Europe (they've been selling them in the US for yonks), and I'd
suggest a quick recount of the number of driven wheels on the average
911/Carrera, these days ;o)

Just in case you suspect bias - I personally prefer RWD as a concept (I like
small, light cars), but tend to take each car that I drive on individual
merit.

FWD certainly has its place, and between about 1935 and 1959 it was Citroen
;o) Just to stop any other thoughts of bias - my first car was a Mini, and
I've owned a Citroen.

> > FTR, I bought a Land Rover. I put four studded Hakka SUV tires on it.
> > It's good in the snow. In fact, you could say it's damned good. It
> > will indeed go through anything, I drove the thing through a field
> > full of snow that was a couple of feet deep, and blowing up over the
> > hood. It is nowhere near as confident and secure on the streets as
> > my Audi V8 quattro in the snow with four similar tires. And Holy
> > , does it gobble fuel! It makes the Audi V8 look like a Prius.
> >
> > >If it was a safety feature, you can bet that Mercedes-Benz S600, SLR
and
> > >Maybach would have it standard, no question asked.
> >
> > Or Bentley, or the 760Li, or Rolls Royce.
> > It would seem that when the demographic audience hits 60+, and the
> > entry ticket hits $120K, those folks spend slippery season in Florida.
> > Ever go to Teluride? Aspen? Tahoe? What do rich folks drive in the
> > winter? Hummers, Escalades, Range Rovers. Now *that's* marketing.

> LOL! You have a point here. But it does not change that AWD is mostly
> often sold on false assumptions.

Bit of a sweeping statement, that.. you might have changed your mind if you
ever had the opportunity to drive the Mk.I TT - you could literally feel the
traction transfer around the car. Unfortunately, they modded that behaviour
out before I took delivery (

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

 

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:20:30 -0500, JPF
<frickjphasgrownwearyofspam@noemail.net> wrote:

>
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:42:54 -0500, "Saintor"
><saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.
>
>
>Another thought from the ramblings of an antagonist.
>Thank you so much for your viewpoint, it's always entertaining.

Well, I think in fact he's not entirely wrong.

You can see it that way: AWD distributes the acceleration forces (not
decceleration) to all four tires. That itself is undoubtedly an
advantage when accelerating. Now if in a fast curve all four tires are
at the edge of friction (sorry, can't find a better word for it) any
change of balance would make it lose friction on all four tires
whereas in the case of only one powered axle only this would loose
traction. Now if that is bad or good or easier or harder to cope with
is a different story.

It's just Kamm's circle of friction. Don't know if it's named
identically in english

Personally I think that the rather neutral behaviour of Audi quattros
more stems from a different balance of weight front and back than from
the actual drive train concept.

Really, quattro is at it's best in getting you forward when RWD or FWD
get stuck. As far as braking is concerned AWD itself has no effect.
BTW: physically mass is not a factor in braking.

And now feel free to flame me

Regards

Wolfgang

 

"Wolfgang Pawlinetz" <mille@afm.at> wrote in message
news:rt8710101jtpd5p53l37rapa4uuge8nvq1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:20:30 -0500, JPF
> <frickjphasgrownwearyofspam@noemail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:42:54 -0500, "Saintor"
> ><saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.
> >
> >
> >Another thought from the ramblings of an antagonist.
> >Thank you so much for your viewpoint, it's always entertaining.
>
> Well, I think in fact he's not entirely wrong.
>
> You can see it that way: AWD distributes the acceleration forces (not
> decceleration) to all four tires. That itself is undoubtedly an
> advantage when accelerating. Now if in a fast curve all four tires are
> at the edge of friction (sorry, can't find a better word for it) any
> change of balance would make it lose friction on all four tires
> whereas in the case of only one powered axle only this would loose
> traction. Now if that is bad or good or easier or harder to cope with
> is a different story.
>
> It's just Kamm's circle of friction. Don't know if it's named
> identically in english
>
> Personally I think that the rather neutral behaviour of Audi quattros
> more stems from a different balance of weight front and back than from
> the actual drive train concept.
>
> Really, quattro is at it's best in getting you forward when RWD or FWD
> get stuck. As far as braking is concerned AWD itself has no effect.
> BTW: physically mass is not a factor in braking.
>
> And now feel free to flame me
>

Don't expect me to flame you! ))) Your explication is indeed very
plausible. After having driven tens of cars (FWD, AWD, RWD) in extreme
conditions particularly on windy and icy highways, I find FWD more
predictable *and* safer.

"When theory and pratical experience are in conflict, pratical experience
always win".

> Regards
>
> Wolfgang

 

> You might also want to remind me again of how many FWD Saabs have won
> Scandanavian rallys, compared to the RWD ones..? ;o)

The point is *NOT* winning rallys, but safety and ease of driving. Just the
fact that AWD accelerate harder on slippery surfaces is enough for them to
win rallies. I will never argue with this.

But people keep confusing safety and winning rallies. ;o) I guess that it
is where marketing succeeded.