Honda Car Forum

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:41:05 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
<sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote:

>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1ter70pr3t6na0ghkd81ntugb7j6bk2m9t@4ax.com.. .
>
>> >> ||Complete waste of money on a FWD car.
>
>> It just don't matter if you spin a wheel from time to time.
>
>Oh.
>
>So why does it matter on RWD?

Because, on RWD cars, the rear wheels are the ones that slip if you
apply too much power for the available traction. This can lead to a
condition called "oversteer". In other words, the tail-end of the car
swings out, and the car may even spin all the way around. This is a
completely different dynamic than what happens when you spin the
driven wheels with a FWD car.

Honestly. You implied that you live in Ontario. I assume you've
driven a FWD car in slippery conditions, and occasionally spun a
wheel? Was it scary/dangerous? Did you feel the need to buy an
expensive traction-control system to prevent it from happening again?

> I think the 4-cylinder and automatic trans pretty much makes traction
control
> redundant
> Rex in Fort Worth

Really, why?

Do you actually understand what traction control is and how it works?

John

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:51:16 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:41:05 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
><sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:1ter70pr3t6na0ghkd81ntugb7j6bk2m9t@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>> >> ||Complete waste of money on a FWD car.
>>
>>> It just don't matter if you spin a wheel from time to time.
>>
>>Oh.
>>
>>So why does it matter on RWD?
>
>Because, on RWD cars, the rear wheels are the ones that slip if you
>apply too much power for the available traction. This can lead to a
>condition called "oversteer". In other words, the tail-end of the car
>swings out, and the car may even spin all the way around. This is a
>completely different dynamic than what happens when you spin the
>driven wheels with a FWD car.

That is *not* oversteer - it's a skid. Oversteer is a controllable
condition where the slip angle of the rear tires is greater than the front
- the tires are still working within their normal grip parameters and have
not yet lost traction.

>Honestly. You implied that you live in Ontario. I assume you've
>driven a FWD car in slippery conditions, and occasionally spun a
>wheel? Was it scary/dangerous? Did you feel the need to buy an
>expensive traction-control system to prevent it from happening again?

Have you not heard of uhh, understeer? Hint: it's slip angles again.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:51:45 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:51:16 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:41:05 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
>><sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:1ter70pr3t6na0ghkd81ntugb7j6bk2m9t@4ax.com ...
>>>
>>>> >> ||Complete waste of money on a FWD car.
>>>
>>>> It just don't matter if you spin a wheel from time to time.
>>>
>>>Oh.
>>>
>>>So why does it matter on RWD?
>>
>>Because, on RWD cars, the rear wheels are the ones that slip if you
>>apply too much power for the available traction. This can lead to a
>>condition called "oversteer". In other words, the tail-end of the car
>>swings out, and the car may even spin all the way around. This is a
>>completely different dynamic than what happens when you spin the
>>driven wheels with a FWD car.
>
>That is *not* oversteer - it's a skid. Oversteer is a controllable
>condition where the slip angle of the rear tires is greater than the front
>- the tires are still working within their normal grip parameters and have
>not yet lost traction.

To be more precise, the loss of control I described is known as "snap
oversteer".

http://eaglewoman.racesimcentral.com...p/glossary.htm

>>Honestly. You implied that you live in Ontario. I assume you've
>>driven a FWD car in slippery conditions, and occasionally spun a
>>wheel? Was it scary/dangerous? Did you feel the need to buy an
>>expensive traction-control system to prevent it from happening again?
>
>Have you not heard of uhh, understeer? Hint: it's slip angles again.

Of course. And it doesn't lend itself to the loss of vehicle control
that snap oversteer can. It's eminently manageable.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:03:05 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:51:45 -0400, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:51:16 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:41:05 GMT, "Stephen Bigelow"
>>><sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:1ter70pr3t6na0ghkd81ntugb7j6bk2m9t@4ax.co m...
>>>>
>>>>> >> ||Complete waste of money on a FWD car.
>>>>
>>>>> It just don't matter if you spin a wheel from time to time.
>>>>
>>>>Oh.
>>>>
>>>>So why does it matter on RWD?
>>>
>>>Because, on RWD cars, the rear wheels are the ones that slip if you
>>>apply too much power for the available traction. This can lead to a
>>>condition called "oversteer". In other words, the tail-end of the car
>>>swings out, and the car may even spin all the way around. This is a
>>>completely different dynamic than what happens when you spin the
>>>driven wheels with a FWD car.
>>
>>That is *not* oversteer - it's a skid. Oversteer is a controllable
>>condition where the slip angle of the rear tires is greater than the front
>>- the tires are still working within their normal grip parameters and have
>>not yet lost traction.
>
>To be more precise, the loss of control I described is known as "snap
>oversteer".

It's a euphemism for tail-wagging.:-)

>http://eaglewoman.racesimcentral.com...p/glossary.htm

Slip angles is *not* "sliding". Either those guys don't really know or
can't be bothered to explain properly.

>>>Honestly. You implied that you live in Ontario. I assume you've
>>>driven a FWD car in slippery conditions, and occasionally spun a
>>>wheel? Was it scary/dangerous? Did you feel the need to buy an
>>>expensive traction-control system to prevent it from happening again?
>>
>>Have you not heard of uhh, understeer? Hint: it's slip angles again.
>
>Of course. And it doesn't lend itself to the loss of vehicle control
>that snap oversteer can. It's eminently manageable.

Unless the speed really is excessive, i.e. the driver completely misjudged
the corner, it's true that backing off on a properly engineered chassis
with FF usually saves you from a catastrophe on a bend where it usually
doesn't on a FR and may even make things worse. OTOH the benefit of
traction control is *not* limited to cornering, e.g. when the front wheels
unload slightly on low speed acceleration with a FF.

In very slippery conditions -- wet snow, ice etc. -- the worst part of the
battle is getting and keeping sufficient momentum without putting too much
torque to the wheel and causing loss of traction. IOW once you lose
traction it's hard to reacquire it - a FF car can benefit from traction
control by that dynamically reduced torque.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
news:rkfd80tobeeinut3flgi5pv8k4easi43st@4ax.com:

> n very slippery conditions -- wet snow, ice etc. -- the worst part of
> the battle is getting and keeping sufficient momentum without putting
> too much torque to the wheel and causing loss of traction. IOW once
> you lose traction it's hard to reacquire it - a FF car can benefit
> from traction control by that dynamically reduced torque.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>

Definately it helps, but not as much as having the right tires for the job
at hand. I found traction control _useless_ with certain types of tires.

I don't know how many drivers are aware of this, but many of the Honda
automatics stay locked in 2nd gear if you select 2nd. They don't downshift
to 1st. So you can reduce the torque and manage wheel spin much easier.
Together with a real winter tire, this works much better than traction
control and supposed "all season" tires. And if you're driving stick, then
you can start in 2nd gear as well to reduce torque.

Of course traction control _with_ good tires is the the best choice if you
can get it. Just don't expect miracles from traction control on tires that
don't suit the conditions.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:28:37 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
wrote:

>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
>news:rkfd80tobeeinut3flgi5pv8k4easi43st@4ax.com :
>
>> n very slippery conditions -- wet snow, ice etc. -- the worst part of
>> the battle is getting and keeping sufficient momentum without putting
>> too much torque to the wheel and causing loss of traction. IOW once
>> you lose traction it's hard to reacquire it - a FF car can benefit
>> from traction control by that dynamically reduced torque.
>>
>> Rgds, George Macdonald
>>
>
>Definately it helps, but not as much as having the right tires for the job
>at hand. I found traction control _useless_ with certain types of tires.
>
>I don't know how many drivers are aware of this, but many of the Honda
>automatics stay locked in 2nd gear if you select 2nd. They don't downshift
>to 1st. So you can reduce the torque and manage wheel spin much easier.
>Together with a real winter tire, this works much better than traction
>control and supposed "all season" tires. And if you're driving stick, then
>you can start in 2nd gear as well to reduce torque.

I used to use "real Winter tires" when I had a VW Beetle - other than that,
for the maybe 3 times a year I'd really need them, they're a waste of my
$$, time and storage space. I do not want tire gorillas hacking at my
wheels, studs & hubs twice a year... and I do not have storage space for 12
wheels/tires. There *are* good all-season tires on the market, even high
performance ones, which with a bit of planning on when to venture out in
Winter can work satisfactorily for places which are not quasi permanently
snowed in.

Unfortunately the OE tires fitted by manufacturers are not in that
category. If there was not this obsession with tire wear on the part of
the consumer, that might be able to be changed more easily. Many of the OE
tires are simply dangerous - prime example: Michelin XGTV4s fitted to
Integras... probably the worst tire in the wet I've ever encountered and
yet it is/was labelled M+S.

Adding traction control to a good all-season tire for the occasional Winter
weather use is a viable alternative IMO.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:14:16 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>>Of course. And it doesn't lend itself to the loss of vehicle control
>>that snap oversteer can. It's eminently manageable.
>
>Unless the speed really is excessive, i.e. the driver completely misjudged
>the corner, it's true that backing off on a properly engineered chassis
>with FF usually saves you from a catastrophe on a bend where it usually
>doesn't on a FR and may even make things worse.

ABS, not traction control, helps to safely deal with excessive speed.

>OTOH the benefit of
>traction control is *not* limited to cornering, e.g. when the front wheels
>unload slightly on low speed acceleration with a FF.
>
>In very slippery conditions -- wet snow, ice etc. -- the worst part of the
>battle is getting and keeping sufficient momentum without putting too much
>torque to the wheel and causing loss of traction. IOW once you lose
>traction it's hard to reacquire it - a FF car can benefit from traction
>control by that dynamically reduced torque.

Sorry, but I just don't see the benefit there. It's just all too
easy to regulate the wheel spin with the gas peddle, and wheel spin
isn't punished by a sudden loss of control, as it can be in a
rear-driver. Traction control can actually be a hinderance in
situations where some wheel spin will indeed accelerate the vehicle
more quickly.

I'll turn it off in my BMW in situations where I need a quick burst
off acceleration, such as crossing a busy highway, and don't want to
worry about my acceleration being squashed at a dangerous moment, just
because I spun a little bit on a patch of sand. Honestly, if the car
wasn't rear-drive, I wouldn't even want traction control - even if it
was free.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:12:11 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>Unfortunately the OE tires fitted by manufacturers are not in that
>category. If there was not this obsession with tire wear on the part of
>the consumer, that might be able to be changed more easily. Many of the OE
>tires are simply dangerous - prime example: Michelin XGTV4s fitted to
>Integras... probably the worst tire in the wet I've ever encountered and
>yet it is/was labelled M+S.

That's what was on my Prelude Si, and they were terrible in Winter
conditions. The Prelude was my first car with ABS, and for years I
thought that ABS was a terrible joke (and indeed, the implementation
of ABS on that car wasn't the greatest), but when I started using
Nokian's in the Winter, it was "wow, this really works!"

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
news:ur5g80tp3g2ibom3tb4dqns5k28gkosv41@4ax.com:

> I used to use "real Winter tires" when I had a VW Beetle - other than
> that, for the maybe 3 times a year I'd really need them, they're a
> waste of my $$, time and storage space. I do not want tire gorillas
> hacking at my wheels, studs & hubs twice a year... and I do not have
> storage space for 12 wheels/tires. There *are* good all-season tires
> on the market, even high performance ones, which with a bit of
> planning on when to venture out in Winter can work satisfactorily for
> places which are not quasi permanently snowed in.

I agree. I like the Nokian WR in that category, it's an all-season that
really works well for snow / ice. That's what I plan to on putting on
soon. I'll still put on Nokian Hakka Qs for winter, but I'll use the WRs
for summer. Where I am, close to the mountains, we still get caught in the
odd snow storm in May for example. The WRs will be far better in these
situations than the Pilot Sports I'm using for "summer" now.

> Unfortunately the OE tires fitted by manufacturers are not in that
> category. If there was not this obsession with tire wear on the part
> of the consumer, that might be able to be changed more easily. Many
> of the OE tires are simply dangerous - prime example: Michelin XGTV4s
> fitted to Integras... probably the worst tire in the wet I've ever
> encountered and yet it is/was labelled M+S.

I found the same thing with the Michelin MXV4s. I don't know how I made it
through a winter with them. I replaced them with Pilot Sports, which are
considered more of a "performance" tire and have less wear, but they were
actually better in snow than the MXV4 "Engergy" tires.

> Adding traction control to a good all-season tire for the occasional
> Winter weather use is a viable alternative IMO.

Yep. It's too bad that you don't see a lot of these on from factory. I'm
guessing for some makes, they're focusing more on tires that are cheap and
have long wear, like you said above. They might also be give priority to
fuel efficiency too. Not many factory supplied tires do well on snow/ice.

> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" -
> Who, me??