So what's good about FWD?

[quk@sievers.com (Phil Payne)]

In message <m0vlXrj-0008WoC@yage.tembel.org> shields@tembel.org (Michael Shields) writes:

> I can understand the advantages of RWD over AWD -- predictability,
> low weight, low cost, less complexity (= more reliability, quicker
> to market).  And I can understand the advantages of AWD over RWD when
> you have more horsepower than traction.
> 
> But I cannot figure out why anyone would build a FWD car.

Whatever the physics proves to be, the current BTCC situation tells you what 
it's really like out on the track for the professionals.  RWD is considered the 
lowest performing option of all - FWD cars carry a weight penalty over RWD and 
AWD carries a significant penalty over both.  Just about everything else is 
regulated to uniformity, including bhp.
 
It amuses me to see comments about the supposed superiority of RWD over AWD, 
and then see Cleland's comments about Biela winning "while towing a caravan."

(And before anyone tells me Biela is in a different league to street cars with 
his 295bhp - it's less than a Sport and only 30% more than a 20V.) 

--
 Phil Payne
 phil@sievers.com
 Committee Member, UK Audi [ur-]quattro Owners Club