A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Audi
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(still crossposting)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 11th 04, 11:02 PM
Matt O'Toole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(still crossposting)

Fred W. wrote:

> "Wolfgang Pawlinetz" > wrote in message
> ...


>> Imad Al-Ghouleh schrieb:
>>
>>> I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter.

>>
>> Because it is. Especially compared to a FWD saab or a quattro Audi.
>> :-)
>>
>> BTDT.
>>
>> The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
>> will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
>> slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
>> and then the quattro.
>>

>
> Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume
> equal axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the
> rear axle and less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would
> have an advantage over a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with
> the same weight and tires would be better than either.


This is true.

> I have never found a FWD car is better than a RWD car in the snow in
> general. The reason people think that is because at the point that
> they *do* lose traction (and they all will eventually), it is easier
> for the inexperienced troglodyte driver to control the FWD's inherent
> front end plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to
> either under or over steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.


I think you're right. The best handling snow car I ever had or drove was my
Alfa GTV6 -- w/ RWD. I liked it even better than the original Audi Quattro --
which had gobs of traction, but wasn't particularly nimble. The only problems
the Alfa had in winter were low ground clearance, and a poor defroster.

My old 2002 never kept me from getting first tracks on a powder day, or home in
time afterward. I drove right past plenty of 4WD cars stuck in snowbanks and
ditches.

Around here we have ice storms, which are so bad it's dangerous to walk. Yet
somehow the old farmers manage to get by in their old pickup trucks, without
yuppie 4WD or highfalutin' Finnish winter tires. We're talking bargain basement
1982 Ford Rangers and Toyotas. Geez, how did people get around before Quattros
and Xi-s?

Matt O.


Ads
  #2  
Old May 12th 04, 12:57 AM
Bill Bradley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wolfgang Pawlinetz wrote:
> The core message is that the friction force is slowly reduced but
> equally on both front and rear tires as long as you don't change the
> center of gravity.
>
> Ok, now most likely I have made a complete fool out of myself, but if
> you are in doubt, then imagine a 90° sloped road. You'd need to
> support the car on the trunk because there is absolutely no way the
> tires would be able to hold the car in that position :-)
>
> In your theory, there would be a 100% load on the rear wheels and the
> car could still go.
>
> I'd be curious to learn if I am really wrong. Mathematically and
> physically I mean.


Not a bad try, but you're missing the key factor: Torque. Since the
center of gravity is NOT on the road, it has a torque arm to the point
of contact of the tires. The SUM of the forces on the contact area is
as you worked out, but it doesn't remain 50/50 front/rear since the rear
axle is providing a counter-clockwise (if viewed as in your drawing)
torque while the front axle can only provide a clockwise torque. To
reach rotational equilibrium more of the weight force in on the rear
axle. It's the same reason that your car will nosedive under braking
and lift the front end under acceleration.


> I agree. But getting away from a standstill is easier with the FWD
> because the RWD just slips sideways if it looses traction and you
> can't steer the direction vector.


If FWD slips you can't steer either, it's just that most FWD cars have
a front weight bias (due to having the engine, transmission, and other
such bits up front) so you have more traction all other things being equal.

Bill

  #3  
Old May 12th 04, 02:10 AM
pablo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> [physics discussion]


Momentum, forces... one should forbid phsyics students to ever read the
internet and see the ways their science is abused for biased arguments...
In my opinion, the most important driving aspect of FWD in the snow is that
traction and steering are intimately connected, which makes the car very
intuitive to drive. You can make either concept drive relaitvely well in the
snow, and there are also examples for FWD that are undriveable in the snow.
From anecdotical experience, while I lived in Germany, when a lot of snow
fell I would never drive the BMW 320ci, it was very hard to drive, and
mpossible to drive of summer tires. We also owned a cheap FWD Fiat Uno, and
that car was a darling in the snow, you always felt what it was doing
because the steering would feel connected to your hands, the BMW would
regularly totally lose steering feel and you felt like you were just
helpless. Downright scary, and twice when surprise by snow it was a miracle
I made the journey from work to home (both in the city, 8 miles apart) in
one piece.

There is no dount in my mindthe Saab is a very soothing bad weather car.
It's my number one choice for being caught in a bad storm, and we also have
a 4x4 SUV. The more it rains, the more it feels like it steers on tramlines.
And don't be misled by the sunny California thing, we have some pretty awful
storms here every once in a while that invariably hit when you're away from
home and have no choice but heading back.

....pablo


  #4  
Old May 12th 04, 03:25 AM
Somebody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"-Bob-" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:57:11 GMT, Bill Bradley
> > wrote:
>
> > If FWD slips you can't steer either, it's just that most FWD cars have
> >a front weight bias (due to having the engine, transmission, and other
> >such bits up front) so you have more traction all other things being

equal.
> >

>
> The point exactly - and the reason FWD has an advantage over RWD (in
> general, you can always find exceptions). Most FWD cars have less than
> optimal weight distribution with a front bias. This is a feature in
> the snow (probably for acceleration too as it helps fight the FWD
> front end lift issue).
>
> Give me a RWD car for *limit* handling. Give me a FWD car for snow.


Or a viscous AWD car for both. ;-)

-Russ.
'88 iX


  #5  
Old May 12th 04, 03:50 AM
Bill Bradley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

-Bob- wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:57:11 GMT, Bill Bradley
> > wrote:
>
>> If FWD slips you can't steer either, it's just that most FWD cars have
>>a front weight bias (due to having the engine, transmission, and other
>>such bits up front) so you have more traction all other things being equal.

>
> The point exactly - and the reason FWD has an advantage over RWD (in
> general, you can always find exceptions). Most FWD cars have less than
> optimal weight distribution with a front bias. This is a feature in
> the snow (probably for acceleration too as it helps fight the FWD
> front end lift issue).
>
> Give me a RWD car for *limit* handling. Give me a FWD car for snow.


You have to be careful how you use the term "advantage." If you mean
"doesn't get stuck in snow" then FWD _can_ have an advantage with their
weight bias, BUT that's not the whole story. For one thing, how many
FWD cars come with limited slip or a locking differential? Not a lot.
A RWD with limited slip or locker will be at an advantage getting
started in many low traction conditions (of course AWD with LSD or
lockers trumps both, but "AWD" with open diffs often loses).
As a second point you've just stated that a RWD will *handle* better in
the snow. How's that you may ask? The "limit" of handling applies no
matter what the coefficient of friction. The same factors that make a
RWD corner better at speed make it corner better in poor traction. The
recommendation for where to put the "good" set of tires (if you have one
better set) for winter is on the rear tires... to prevent skidding.
That same front weight bias makes FWD more likely to spin out when
cornering or braking. I won't call that an "exception" just a trade-off.
I play both sides of this issue myself, I have a Saab 900SPG and a E30
BMW 325 and I've been in situations where either one would have been the
better choice (Saab loses goes up slippery hills with an open diff and
FWD, BMW gets stuck when you need traction on the _front_ wheels to turn
out of a tight space even when the rear tires are moving the car)

Bill

  #6  
Old May 12th 04, 07:23 AM
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Bradley schrieb:

> Not a bad try, but you're missing the key factor: Torque. Since the
>center of gravity is NOT on the road, it has a torque arm to the point
>of contact of the tires. The SUM of the forces on the contact area is
>as you worked out, but it doesn't remain 50/50 front/rear since the rear
>axle is providing a counter-clockwise (if viewed as in your drawing)
>torque while the front axle can only provide a clockwise torque. To
>reach rotational equilibrium more of the weight force in on the rear
>axle.


Yep.

Must have been the late night yesterday :-)

In fact I did the torque equilibrium but got mislead by the gemotry
I'd drawn up.

You are right, the CoG shifts back and the load on the rearwheel
increases. That load is then split into a component orthogonal to the
road (for friction) and one parallel to the road (pulling the car
back).

So the total orthogonal force on the road for friction is still less
then if the car would be on a horizontal plane, but it's higher than
on the front wheels.

Regards

Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *
  #7  
Old May 12th 04, 01:44 PM
Imad Al-Ghouleh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

how about we all part downhill and walk up!

Wolfgang Pawlinetz wrote:

>"Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
>>>will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
>>>slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
>>>and then the quattro.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal
>>axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle and
>>less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage over
>>a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires
>>would be better than either.
>>
>>

>
>You almost got me there :-)
>
>This is going to be a bit longer:
>
>There's sort of a thinking error in your statement. It took me a while
>to do the math (i.e. mechanics) but the outcome is, that the ratio
>front/rear with regard to the friction force does _not_ change.
>
>Let me elaborate:
>
>The friction is depending on two parameters (yes, this is a
>simplification for tires, but it's valid in all cases so bear with
>with me): the friction coefficient µ and the force _orthogonal_ to the
>surface. The formula for the friction force is Ff = Fn x µ.
>
>The force pressing the car down onto the tarmac in this case is the
>mass of the car x g (the earht acceleration 9,81) so you got Fn = mass
>x 9,81
>
>Now if you have the car on a level surface and assume a 50/50
>distribution then the orthogonal force per tire is basically a quarter
>of the Fn. So the result would be Fn/4 x µ.
>
>The |
> V indicates the direction of Fn
>
>
> ____
> __/ | \__
> |_ __V___ _|
>____U______U_____
>
>So far so good.
>
>Now the worst case example:
>
>Tilt the road and car 90° (don't sit in the car).
>
> __
> | | |
> |C \
> | | |
> | | |
> |C /
> | |_|
>
>In this case, the car would have to be held by something else, because
>for Fr = µ x 0. I.e. there is no acceleration towards the tarmac and
>so there is no resulting orthogonal force pressing the tires to the
>tarmac and therefore no Friction. The car would slide.
>
>So if you choose increasing angles between 0 and 90°, the orthogonal
>force down on the tarmac slowly decreases on all four tires and is
>gradually "converted" into a force wanting to push the car
>"backwards".
>
>But again, for all tires.
>
>The core message is that the friction force is slowly reduced but
>equally on both front and rear tires as long as you don't change the
>center of gravity.
>
>Ok, now most likely I have made a complete fool out of myself, but if
>you are in doubt, then imagine a 90° sloped road. You'd need to
>support the car on the trunk because there is absolutely no way the
>tires would be able to hold the car in that position :-)
>
>In your theory, there would be a 100% load on the rear wheels and the
>car could still go.
>
>I'd be curious to learn if I am really wrong. Mathematically and
>physically I mean.
>
>
>
>>plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to either under or over
>>steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.
>>
>>

>
>I agree. But getting away from a standstill is easier with the FWD
>because the RWD just slips sideways if it looses traction and you
>can't steer the direction vector.
>
>
>
>>-Fred W
>>
>>
>>

>
>Regards
>
>Wolfgang
>
>
>


  #8  
Old May 12th 04, 02:08 PM
Imad Al-Ghouleh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i mean PARK!

Imad Al-Ghouleh wrote:

> how about we all part downhill and walk up!
>
> Wolfgang Pawlinetz wrote:
>
>>"Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
>>>>will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
>>>>slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
>>>>and then the quattro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal
>>>axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle and
>>>less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage over
>>>a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires
>>>would be better than either.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>You almost got me there :-)
>>
>>This is going to be a bit longer:
>>
>>There's sort of a thinking error in your statement. It took me a while
>>to do the math (i.e. mechanics) but the outcome is, that the ratio
>>front/rear with regard to the friction force does _not_ change.
>>
>>Let me elaborate:
>>
>>The friction is depending on two parameters (yes, this is a
>>simplification for tires, but it's valid in all cases so bear with
>>with me): the friction coefficient µ and the force _orthogonal_ to the
>>surface. The formula for the friction force is Ff = Fn x µ.
>>
>>The force pressing the car down onto the tarmac in this case is the
>>mass of the car x g (the earht acceleration 9,81) so you got Fn = mass
>>x 9,81
>>
>>Now if you have the car on a level surface and assume a 50/50
>>distribution then the orthogonal force per tire is basically a quarter
>>of the Fn. So the result would be Fn/4 x µ.
>>
>>The |
>> V indicates the direction of Fn
>>
>>
>> ____
>> __/ | \__
>> |_ __V___ _|
>>____U______U_____
>>
>>So far so good.
>>
>>Now the worst case example:
>>
>>Tilt the road and car 90° (don't sit in the car).
>>
>> __
>> | | |
>> |C \
>> | | |
>> | | |
>> |C /
>> | |_|
>>
>>In this case, the car would have to be held by something else, because
>>for Fr = µ x 0. I.e. there is no acceleration towards the tarmac and
>>so there is no resulting orthogonal force pressing the tires to the
>>tarmac and therefore no Friction. The car would slide.
>>
>>So if you choose increasing angles between 0 and 90°, the orthogonal
>>force down on the tarmac slowly decreases on all four tires and is
>>gradually "converted" into a force wanting to push the car
>>"backwards".
>>
>>But again, for all tires.
>>
>>The core message is that the friction force is slowly reduced but
>>equally on both front and rear tires as long as you don't change the
>>center of gravity.
>>
>>Ok, now most likely I have made a complete fool out of myself, but if
>>you are in doubt, then imagine a 90° sloped road. You'd need to
>>support the car on the trunk because there is absolutely no way the
>>tires would be able to hold the car in that position :-)
>>
>>In your theory, there would be a 100% load on the rear wheels and the
>>car could still go.
>>
>>I'd be curious to learn if I am really wrong. Mathematically and
>>physically I mean.
>>
>>
>>
>>>plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to either under or over
>>>steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>I agree. But getting away from a standstill is easier with the FWD
>>because the RWD just slips sideways if it looses traction and you
>>can't steer the direction vector.
>>
>>
>>
>>>-Fred W
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>


  #9  
Old May 12th 04, 02:10 PM
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Imad Al-Ghouleh schrieb:

>how about we all part downhill and walk up!


*LOL*

Yep, would do us good. :-)

Regards

Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *
  #10  
Old May 12th 04, 03:03 PM
Somebody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


(please excuse the top post, but with the HTML formatted original it's just easier than trying to add the tags to make my reply look right. Honestly I hate top posts. Just scroll down to see the rest of the converstation framed in html)

Nice job of the physics. The only thing you're missing is that on an angle the center of gravity will change, placing more weight on the rearmost wheels. On a car that was perfectly flat, say, a steel plate with tiny wheels, your math is perfect. On a car that was, say, 7 stories high, you can see that a small tilt would place *all* the weight on the rear wheels and the fronts would actually come up off the ground and it would tip over. Just prior to that the front wheel would have zero weight. At smaller angles, or a shorter vehicle, the shift would be someplace in between.

In a real car, much of the weight is low (drivetrain) and some of it is higher (greenhouse). The center of gravity is somewhere between the ground (steel plate) and 7 stories up (my tower car).

So a car on a slope will have some amount of increased weight distribution on the rearmost wheels, and therefore the /4 trick won't work even if the car is 50/50 on a level slope where /4 is correct.

I can't give you math for it, but I'd be the weight transfer on a moderate to steep driveway type hill would be on the order of 5% or so. Strictly a guess, but I suspect a generous one. BMW and other makers try to lower the center of gravity all the time for handling reasons, so it's probably not immense. And the number varies by the steepness of the hill of course. But I'm not up for a calculus function to describe the relationship, especially since I don't know what the center of gravity is to plug in.

So anyway most bimmers are close to 50/50 to start with. Let's go with that. Say going up the hill, it's now 45/55.

Front drivers are probably closer to 60/40 in general. Yes I know, I'm being very inexact here. But with the same transfer, you're now at 55/45. Amazing... the same weight on the drive axel in both cases.

My numbers are made up, poke at them all you want I don't mind. The concept is there though. Play with the numbers and get small variations.

But front drive still wins, no matter how you dice it up. I submit this. Back up you driveway in the FWD car. With math above, you have 65% of weight on the drive wheels, vs RWD's best of 55%. With your math, you have 60% vs 50%.

Now, your point about the direction of the vector of the force is valid. As the angle increases, the force decreases, until it reaches zero. Your car on the wall will indeed have zero force on the rear wheels, only because the vectors are straight down. At 89%, where there is still some amount of lateral force (not enough to produce enough friction to hold the car mind you) almost all the lateral force would be on the rear wheels, but the size of that horizontal vector has become very small. So yes, nearly 100% of the force is on the rear wheels and nearly zero on the fronts, but, the amount of this force in the useful direction is so little that it doesn't help the car to stay put and it slides down the hill. Consider a car on say a 70 degree angle. Add much more and the downward component of the vector will overcome the friction of the tires and the car will slide. Let's imagine that 70 degrees is very near this point. Now walk up to that car and lift the front bumper -- tah dah! You can. You're the Hulk! Because so much of the weight has shifted to the back wheels. Now go to the back and try to lift it. You can't. The weight is all there. Your angled vector is changing the actual size of the frictional force, yes. But, that portion of the force that remains to hold the car down is still much greater on the rear wheels. Imagine now that the front driver is trying to get up this very steep hill where it's very close to sliding back. (dry pavement and unlimited HP for this part of the discussion) The front wheels are barely staying down, all the weight has shifted to the back because of this insanely steep hill. The fronts are spinning like mad. Same car, rear drive. The rears are biting as best they can, they've got most of the available force on them -- but that total amount is now less, becuase much of it is vectored down the hill. On the tall car with the high center of gravity this effect is more pronounced. On my mythic sheet of steel car, the effect is almost zero. Real cars are somewhere in between.

So ok, we know that weight shift does occur on a hill. We don't really know how much, it vaires by the design of the car. The other factors that effect things are the coefficient of friction of the tires on a given surface, and the angle of the hill. At some point of angle with a given center of gravity, the weight over the drive wheels on a front drive going uphill equals that of a rear drive going uphill. On hills that are steeper yet the rear driver has more. At some later point of angle with a given center of gravity and given weight distribution the size of the force pulling down the hill exceeds that of the friction produced by the tires and the car slides down the hill. This would happen for a rear driver first, then a front driver (imagine both sitting on a lift bridge as it goes up)

And once final note: the AWD always wins. It has 100% of its weight on the drive axles, all the time. Plus, in a proper system, if one axle is deficient in traction (ice patch on the driveway) it shifts torque to the other one -- FWD or RWD just sit and spin. So, the AWD will always make the most of whatever force/weight/friction is available at any corner of the car which in the real world makes more difference than weight distribution.

-Russ.
1988 BMW 325iX (AWD)

(again, sorry for the top-post)





"Imad Al-Ghouleh" > wrote in message ...
how about we all part downhill and walk up!

Wolfgang Pawlinetz wrote:

"Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote:

The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
and then the quattro.

Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal
axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle and
less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage over
a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires
would be better than either.

You almost got me there :-)

This is going to be a bit longer:

There's sort of a thinking error in your statement. It took me a while
to do the math (i.e. mechanics) but the outcome is, that the ratio
front/rear with regard to the friction force does _not_ change.

Let me elaborate:

The friction is depending on two parameters (yes, this is a
simplification for tires, but it's valid in all cases so bear with
with me): the friction coefficient µ and the force _orthogonal_ to the
surface. The formula for the friction force is Ff = Fn x µ.

The force pressing the car down onto the tarmac in this case is the
mass of the car x g (the earht acceleration 9,81) so you got Fn = mass
x 9,81

Now if you have the car on a level surface and assume a 50/50
distribution then the orthogonal force per tire is basically a quarter
of the Fn. So the result would be Fn/4 x µ.

The |
V indicates the direction of Fn


____
__/ | \__
|_ __V___ _|
____U______U_____

So far so good.

Now the worst case example:

Tilt the road and car 90° (don't sit in the car).

__
| | |
|C \
| | |
| | |
|C /
| |_|

In this case, the car would have to be held by something else, because
for Fr = µ x 0. I.e. there is no acceleration towards the tarmac and
so there is no resulting orthogonal force pressing the tires to the
tarmac and therefore no Friction. The car would slide.

So if you choose increasing angles between 0 and 90°, the orthogonal
force down on the tarmac slowly decreases on all four tires and is
gradually "converted" into a force wanting to push the car
"backwards".

But again, for all tires.

The core message is that the friction force is slowly reduced but
equally on both front and rear tires as long as you don't change the
center of gravity.

Ok, now most likely I have made a complete fool out of myself, but if
you are in doubt, then imagine a 90° sloped road. You'd need to
support the car on the trunk because there is absolutely no way the
tires would be able to hold the car in that position :-)

In your theory, there would be a 100% load on the rear wheels and the
car could still go.

I'd be curious to learn if I am really wrong. Mathematically and
physically I mean.

plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to either under or over
steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.

I agree. But getting away from a standstill is easier with the FWD
because the RWD just slips sideways if it looses traction and you
can't steer the direction vector.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.