On 12/7/2017 12:27 AM, harry newton wrote:


In California, where I live, when you go to Tahoe, you use the HIGHWAY.
It's on the HIGHWAY that the cops force 2WD vehicles to put on chains.

The whole point of using chains is that you're going SLOWLY in deep snow.
Same as the ONLY TIME that FWD handles better than RWD.



Since I've goneback to dedicated
snows, I've not had a situation where having chains would have been
any advantager (and I'm in "snow country")

I lived for 40 years in snow country and we did just fine without chains,
but that's how they do things out here in California.

Chains were the way to go years ago but not so much in many places
today. They clear the roads quickly and you'd be bumping along on your
chains in very little snow. Where I live in CT, close to MA, minutes
after the snow stops you can easily drive most anywhere. Exceptions are
a big snowfall, like 18" or more.

Chains limit you to about 25 mph, a detriment when it is clear enough
for 50+.

On 2017-12-07, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Chains were the way to go years ago but not so much in many places
today.

Agree, Ed.

It's the tires. Michelins are what usta answer, but they also cost a
whole bunch more $$$$!

About 10 yrs ago, I brought my mom out to CA during the Winter. I
drove her 4WD T100 Toyota. Michelins all around.

We got to Truckee Pass and the CHP was turning EVERYONE around to
spend the night in Reno (US 80). After a 5 hr wait, we did like
everyone else and spent the night in Reno.

Next morning was bright and sunny and we'd get to pass, IF we had the
proper equipment. Since it was a 4WD Toyota and was shod with
Michelin all weather tires, we got a pass (over the pass!). I drove
the next 20 miles on green ice. Never took it out of rear wheel drive
(2WD) and passed everyone --except some guy in a 2WD Toyota p/u. He
jes blew past me. Too fast to even see his tires (no chains).

I hit the brakes, once, jes to see what would happen, at speed, on
ice. Damned iff'n that T100 didn't stop like it was on dry pavement.
That sold me on high quality tires.

Unfortunately, Michelin quit making smaller tires. First to go were
13" tires (my pre-90s Civic). Then 14" tires. Not sure what their
min size is, now.

BTW, the brand-new chains we bought in Reno (just in case) are still
in their original canvas bag, unused. I can't give 'em away! 8|

nb

On 12/7/2017 3:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/7/2017 12:27 AM, harry newton wrote:

Yes. With a few inches of snow, the FWD has the weight where you want ti. I
agree. How deep? I don't know. Maybe four inches? Maybe six?

Nobody is driving fast in six inches of snow.
At least they shouldn't be driving fast in six inches of snow.


Sure they are.* The SUV drivers with AWD.* You see them in the ditches on the side of the road after they pass you.

Yup, they're usually the first one to the scene of the accident.

On 12/07/2017 09:47 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
You haven't driven on the 400 series highways in Ontario, obviously.
It takes a foot of snow to slow down some of these clowns

The Mac and Jack Speedway?

He who is Clare Snyder said on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:06:19 -0500:

And yet you feel qualiified to state that front wheel drive has no
advantage??????

It's basic physics.

He who is notbob said on 7 Dec 2017 21:06:26 GMT:

BTW, the brand-new chains we bought in Reno (just in case) are still
in their original canvas bag, unused. I can't give 'em away! 8|

Everything depends but what you said makes sense.

They don't often stop EVERYONE on US 80 but when they do, that's it.
There's nothing you can do but get off the highway where they tell you to.

Most of the time they just look to see that you have 4WD and that's it.
If you have 2WD, they force you to have chains.

That's what they do "most" of the time. Not always. But most of the time.
So I carry chains.

It's no big deal. You put them on when they tell you to.
Usually it's a sloppy mess - but that's the tradeoff of not having 4Wd all
the time where it never snows outside of a ski trip.

4WD in the non-snow areas costs more in every single way possible.
* More weight
* More expense in repairs
* More friction
* More initial cost
* Lower gas mileage
* Harder to work on

There is no advantage whatsoever to 4WD outside of a ski trip to Tahoe,
here in California.

On 12/07/2017 09:39 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
They outlawed studs here way back in about '72

They're legal here from 1 Oct to 31 May. There are a lot fewer cars and
more miles of semi-maintained roads so the state figures the minimal
road surface damage is better than sweeping up debris all winter.
Besides, even in the city most of the roads are chip seal so they're not
expecting a long life.

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:31:46 PM UTC-5, harry newton wrote:
He who is Clare Snyder said on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:06:19 -0500:

And yet you feel qualiified to state that front wheel drive has no
advantage??????

It's basic physics.

Basic physics is that the holding force of tires on any surface is proportional to the weight upon those tires, ie FWD has better traction and it's not limited to only when you're in 6"+ of snow.

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:28:55 -0700, rbowman wrote:

On 12/07/2017 09:47 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
You haven't driven on the 400 series highways in Ontario, obviously.
It takes a foot of snow to slow down some of these clowns

The Mac and Jack Speedway?
untill it becomes the 4 nothing 1 parkinglot.- 9 lanes wide in both
directions across the top of hogtown.

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 02:31:41 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Clare Snyder said on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:06:19 -0500:

And yet you feel qualiified to state that front wheel drive has no
advantage??????

It's basic physics.


All the physics contradicts your opinions

On 12/6/2017 6:25 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:55:08 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Ed Pawlowski said on Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:12:49 -0500:

I bought an AWD a couple of years ago. I had a couple of hills on the
way to work and passed cars sliding all over. When you put it into snow
mode you get 50-50. The traction control though will vary it as needed
from 90-10 to 10-90. In Eco or regular mode it is 40-60.

I've since retired and have no plans to drive on a snowy day again.
Nothing that can't wait for the roads to be cleared.

If you live in snow country, then these traction schemes make sense.
If you don't live in snow country, chains are a lot cheaper in every way.
And better.

They're just not as convenient.
I'll NEVER drive with chains on a front wheel drive vehicle. I've had
enough chains break on RWD vehicles - and they do a lot of damage.
They are OK for getting out of a tough spot, but you HAVE to remove
them before hitting the highway.; Since I've goneback to dedicated
snows, I've not had a situation where having chains would have been
any advantager (and I'm in "snow country")

I've driven FWD cars with chains for decades. Good quality, correctly
installed chains do not break. Incorrectly installed they will break and
cause a lot of damage to the axle and CV joint.

Chains are often legally required in western states when it's snowing or
icy. Occasionally, but not often, it's chains required for all vehicles
(R3), even 4WD with snow tires--I've experienced that twice, once on
Mount Hood, and once in Yosemite, and since I had chains for my 4WD
vehicle I was okay, but many people were stranded, believing that they
would never have to put on chains. R3 is very rare on major roads,
they'll close the road rather than institute R3.

R1: Chains are required - snow tread tires allowed.

R2: Chains are required on all vehicles except four wheel drive vehicles
with snow tires on all four wheels.

R3: Chains are required - all vehicles - no exceptions.

The California Highway Patrol will often institute chain controls even
when such controls are not technically necessary, but they do it in
order to slow people down in bad weather.

He who is Clare Snyder said on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:02:30 -0500:

All the physics contradicts your opinions

Let's not argue. There's nothing to be gained.

You think FWD handles better than RWD.
Fine.

So be it.
Far be it for me to convince you otherwise.

Be happy with FWD.
I'm happy with RWD.

That should be enough for both of us.

He who is trader_4 said on Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:42:12 -0800 (PST):

It's basic physics.

Basic physics is that the holding force of tires on any surface is proportional to the weight upon those tires, ie FWD has better traction and it's not limited to only when you're in 6"+ of snow.

If you're trying to imply that FWD has better "handling" in all conditions
*other* than when crawling along in deep snow, then we're just done.

On 12/08/2017 07:42 AM, sms wrote:
The California Highway Patrol will often institute chain controls even
when such controls are not technically necessary, but they do it in
order to slow people down in bad weather.

For 18-wheelers the CHP insists you hang every chain you have when a set
of single rails would get you where you're going.

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 9:52:13 AM UTC-5, harry newton wrote:
He who is trader_4 said on Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:42:12 -0800 (PST):

It's basic physics.

Basic physics is that the holding force of tires on any surface is proportional to the weight upon those tires, ie FWD has better traction and it's not limited to only when you're in 6"+ of snow.

If you're trying to imply that FWD has better "handling" in all conditions
*other* than when crawling along in deep snow, then we're just done.

Not at all. I'm just replying to your claim that FWD only offers
better traction when snow is 6"+ deep. Because of the increased
weight on the drive wheels, FWD had better traction in all conditions.
I agree that RWD offers some
handling benefits. It's the reason some performance oriented manufacturers,
eg MB, BMW, stuck with it instead of moving to FWD when most of the
other manufacturers did. It's like I said earlier and I think Clare
said similar, that the vast majority of drivers in everyday conditions
won't notice it, make use of it, etc. I see it easily, comparing my
MB that spins the rear wheels easily on any slick surface, vs FWD
cars that hold traction. If you want to push the limits of handling,
on a track, the MB cars would do better. In everyday driving though,
people don't see it.

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 06:42:53 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 12/6/2017 6:25 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:55:08 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Ed Pawlowski said on Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:12:49 -0500:

I bought an AWD a couple of years ago. I had a couple of hills on the
way to work and passed cars sliding all over. When you put it into snow
mode you get 50-50. The traction control though will vary it as needed
from 90-10 to 10-90. In Eco or regular mode it is 40-60.

I've since retired and have no plans to drive on a snowy day again.
Nothing that can't wait for the roads to be cleared.

If you live in snow country, then these traction schemes make sense.
If you don't live in snow country, chains are a lot cheaper in every way.
And better.

They're just not as convenient.
I'll NEVER drive with chains on a front wheel drive vehicle. I've had
enough chains break on RWD vehicles - and they do a lot of damage.
They are OK for getting out of a tough spot, but you HAVE to remove
them before hitting the highway.; Since I've goneback to dedicated
snows, I've not had a situation where having chains would have been
any advantager (and I'm in "snow country")

I've driven FWD cars with chains for decades. Good quality, correctly
installed chains do not break. Incorrectly installed they will break and
cause a lot of damage to the axle and CV joint.

Chains are often legally required in western states when it's snowing or
icy. Occasionally, but not often, it's chains required for all vehicles
(R3), even 4WD with snow tires--I've experienced that twice, once on
Mount Hood, and once in Yosemite, and since I had chains for my 4WD
vehicle I was okay, but many people were stranded, believing that they
would never have to put on chains. R3 is very rare on major roads,
they'll close the road rather than institute R3.

R1: Chains are required - snow tread tires allowed.

R2: Chains are required on all vehicles except four wheel drive vehicles
with snow tires on all four wheels.

R3: Chains are required - all vehicles - no exceptions.

The California Highway Patrol will often institute chain controls even
when such controls are not technically necessary, but they do it in
order to slow people down in bad weather.

Herein the "flatlands" chains are seldom required, particularlyu with
good snow tires. Used to runsniows ion the military tires on the old
powerwagon - useless in snow without them andtop speed of about 45MPH
anyway - - .

Ran chains on the Dart in '72 on the way west a few times - broke them
a couple times too. No damage to the car, If the snow tires had been
new instead of almost worn ort the chains would not have been required
except through the Judith Gap, where "no chains, no go" was in effect
(even though we were the first car following the plough)

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:52:04 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Clare Snyder said on Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:02:30 -0500:

All the physics contradicts your opinions

Let's not argue. There's nothing to be gained.

You think FWD handles better than RWD.
Fine.

So be it.
Far be it for me to convince you otherwise.

Be happy with FWD.
I'm happy with RWD.

That should be enough for both of us.
My arguement is "different" not "better" or "worse". I drive both and
am comfortable with both. I certainly don't drive the FWD Taurus the
same as I drivethe RWD Ranger - yet either one will get me where I
need to go in any weather.

Gopod snow tires make either one quite capable. The truck has a LOT
more ground clearance - which helps in some conditions.

He who is Clare Snyder said on Fri, 08 Dec 2017 13:33:52 -0500:

My arguement is "different" not "better" or "worse".

We agree that they both "handle", and that this handling is "different".
Of that there is no doubt.

You know the old adage, that when you lose control with one around a curve,
the main difference is which quarterpanel hits the guard rail - the front
or the rear.

I drive both and am comfortable with both.

I hate the feel of FWD when you press the accelerator in a curve, as it
takes the steering out of your hands (at least it does in rental cars).

But maybe others enjoy that. I don't know. I never will own FWD and I don't
have all that much more to go so life's too short (what's left anyway) to
argue about it.

If you love FWD, I'm happy for you.
I'm not going to change your mind.

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 02:03:21 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Clare Snyder said on Fri, 08 Dec 2017 13:33:52 -0500:

My arguement is "different" not "better" or "worse".

We agree that they both "handle", and that this handling is "different".
Of that there is no doubt.

You know the old adage, that when you lose control with one around a curve,
the main difference is which quarterpanel hits the guard rail - the front
or the rear.

I drive both and am comfortable with both.

I hate the feel of FWD when you press the accelerator in a curve, as it
takes the steering out of your hands (at least it does in rental cars).


torque steer on FWD vehicles is basicvally a non-issue today - and was
not a problen on the renault or the Peugeot either. A wee bit on the
Mini - but torque on the mini was basicaslly only in your imagination
anyway. The only car I've ever driven that was faster in 3rd than
in4th - if that tells you anything!!

If you love FWD, I'm happy for you.
I'm not going to change your mind.

rbowman posted for all of us...



On 12/06/2017 07:25 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:55:08 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is Ed Pawlowski said on Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:12:49 -0500:

I bought an AWD a couple of years ago. I had a couple of hills on the
way to work and passed cars sliding all over. When you put it into snow
mode you get 50-50. The traction control though will vary it as needed
from 90-10 to 10-90. In Eco or regular mode it is 40-60.

I've since retired and have no plans to drive on a snowy day again.
Nothing that can't wait for the roads to be cleared.

If you live in snow country, then these traction schemes make sense.
If you don't live in snow country, chains are a lot cheaper in every way.
And better.

They're just not as convenient.
I'll NEVER drive with chains on a front wheel drive vehicle. I've had
enough chains break on RWD vehicles - and they do a lot of damage.
They are OK for getting out of a tough spot, but you HAVE to remove
them before hitting the highway.; Since I've goneback to dedicated
snows, I've not had a situation where having chains would have been
any advantager (and I'm in "snow country")


I had my fill of chains driving an 18-wheeler. I put the studs on
Thanksgiving weekend and take them off sometime in the spring. We seldom
get deep snow but the roads tend to get snow packed and icy and stay
that way.

When I was young and (I still am) dumb an older fellow said to mount snows
on Thanksgiving and take them off on tax day.

--
Tekkie