On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:58:37 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:14:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. ****
cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair,
expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are
terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows
to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel
drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts
are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one
you'd have a more balanced view.


Mr Razor Blade is a fool. Pretty well all BMWs have had stability control
for 20 years or more. And traction control. And multi-link rear
suspension. So tail happy went out in the 80s.

Interesting he considers RWD ****e. That must be why all racing cars are
FWD.

Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly stunts.
FWD is easier to control.

front wheel drive was invented for wummin drivers ......

Whereas you prefer a car deliberately made harder to control?

--
Women do not snore, burp, sweat, or fart.
Therefore, they must "bitch" or they will blow up.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:21:36 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

front wheel drive was invented for wummin drivers ......

It gives better packaging therefore more interior space against overall
size of the vehicle. But not a consideration in these days of bloated
vehicles.

Was interested to see an Austin 1800 parked alongside a new Jag the other
day. The 1800 can seat 5 of the largest adults with room to spare. The Jag
much less - despite being bigger.

Saw my friend's Mondeo - was astonished at how squashed I was in the passenger seat. Legs cramped tightly together. Mainly because of a pointless huge centre console which came right back between the seats. Why? What could possibly be in there? The next thing I noticed was I couldn't see through the windscreen because it had heating elements in it. I'm surprised that's allowed by law.

--
Women do not snore, burp, sweat, or fart.
Therefore, they must "bitch" or they will blow up.

On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.


NT

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:16:26 +0100, wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

But the FWD ones are very easy to correct. It's done without even thinking about it. Why deliberately make a car you have to learn how to handle?

--
"The most dangerous thing in the world is to try to leap a chasm in two jumps" -- David Lloyd George, former UK Prime Minister

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:16:26 +0100, wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling.

Most people have a fast subconscious and a slow conscious mind. FWD is corrected naturally and very quickly. RWD needs you to think about it, by which time it's too late.

Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

What century do you live in? Modern cars have computers that will correct human error using brakes, suspension, throttle, etc, sometimes in ways not possible by using the car's controls (eg braking one side only or stiffening the suspension unevenly.)

--
"The most dangerous thing in the world is to try to leap a chasm in two jumps" -- David Lloyd George, former UK Prime Minister

On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:22:31 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:16:26 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever..

But the FWD ones are very easy to correct. It's done without even thinking about it. Why deliberately make a car you have to learn how to handle?

ALL cars one needs to learn how to handle. If you haven't you're a hazard to yourself.

Reminds me of the wallies that stick some old tech trailer on the back of their car then swing it round bends like it's something modern. Darwin is hovering, but they're oblivious to their own death nearby.


NT

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:34:08 +0100, wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:22:31 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:16:26 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

But the FWD ones are very easy to correct. It's done without even thinking about it. Why deliberately make a car you have to learn how to handle?

ALL cars one needs to learn how to handle. If you haven't you're a hazard to yourself.

Bull****. A FWD car that's starting to slide going round a corner too fast, you instinctively do less of what you were doing (braking, accelerating, etc). RWD requires more thought.

Reminds me of the wallies that stick some old tech trailer on the back of their car then swing it round bends like it's something modern. Darwin is hovering, but they're oblivious to their own death nearby.

I borrow my neighbour's old trailer sometimes. I never bother with the lights, mainly because my last car had a faulty tow socket, which for some reason the garage passed the MOT without fixing it many times. One day I stopped at the side of the road to pop into the post office. A nosey woman came up to me and said "You didn't indicate!" I said "I did!" She said "Your trailer didn't!" I said "It's not my trailer!" She got confused and walked off. Wrong reg plate on it anyway, so she probably reported my neighbour :-)

--
Keyboard error - press any key to continue...

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:34:08 +0100, wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:22:31 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:16:26 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

But the FWD ones are very easy to correct. It's done without even thinking about it. Why deliberately make a car you have to learn how to handle?

ALL cars one needs to learn how to handle. If you haven't you're a hazard to yourself.

I've got a license. If you think there's something that isn't in the test that should be, contact the DVLA, not me.

--
You keep believing, I'll keep evolving

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:34:08 +0100, wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:22:31 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:16:26 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

But the FWD ones are very easy to correct. It's done without even thinking about it. Why deliberately make a car you have to learn how to handle?

ALL cars one needs to learn how to handle. If you haven't you're a hazard to yourself.

Reminds me of the wallies that stick some old tech trailer on the back of their car then swing it round bends like it's something modern. Darwin is hovering, but they're oblivious to their own death nearby.

A caravan might tip your car, but a trailer won't. The most they'll do is take out a cyclist, but nobody would care.

--
Keyboard error - press any key to continue...

On 30/06/17 22:16, wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

except dinky toys



NT



--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 01:33:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 30/06/17 22:16, wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

except dinky toys

Wrong. https://youtu.be/By58jZbu88I

--
Hey diddle diddle the cat took a piddle,
All over the bedside clock.
The little dog laughed to see such fun.
Then died of electric shock.

On Friday, 30 June 2017 23:02:49 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:34:08 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:22:31 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:16:26 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

But the FWD ones are very easy to correct. It's done without even thinking about it. Why deliberately make a car you have to learn how to handle?

ALL cars one needs to learn how to handle. If you haven't you're a hazard to yourself.

Bull****. A FWD car that's starting to slide going round a corner too fast, you instinctively do less of what you were doing (braking, accelerating, etc). RWD requires more thought.

Reminds me of the wallies that stick some old tech trailer on the back of their car then swing it round bends like it's something modern. Darwin is hovering, but they're oblivious to their own death nearby.

I borrow my neighbour's old trailer sometimes. I never bother with the lights, mainly because my last car had a faulty tow socket, which for some reason the garage passed the MOT without fixing it many times. One day I stopped at the side of the road to pop into the post office. A nosey woman came up to me and said "You didn't indicate!" I said "I did!" She said "Your trailer didn't!" I said "It's not my trailer!" She got confused and walked off. Wrong reg plate on it anyway, so she probably reported my neighbour :-)

I've got a license. If you think there's something that isn't in the test that should be, contact the DVLA, not me.

A caravan might tip your car, but a trailer won't. The most they'll do is take out a cyclist, but nobody would care.

oh dear.

On 30/06/2017 01:26, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:14:31 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 22:21:14 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:01:42 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

Because they're idiots. Look at BMW drivers for example. ****
cars, stupid designs, terrible handling, expensive to repair,
expensive to buy.

There speaks someone who's never owned one.

Because I'm bright enough not to. The front lights on them are
terrible, and bordering on illegal. I've seen enough BMW on car shows
to know they're tail happy (mainly because they insist on rear wheel
drive, which is ****e). They're ugly as hell to look at. The parts
are very expensive (I have a few friends stupid enough to own them).

Like any car they have their strengths & weaknesses. If you had one
you'd have a more balanced view.


Mr Razor Blade is a fool. Pretty well all BMWs have had stability control
for 20 years or more. And traction control. And multi-link rear
suspension. So tail happy went out in the 80s.

Interesting he considers RWD ****e. That must be why all racing cars are
FWD.

Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly stunts.
FWD is easier to control.

Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that right.

SteveW

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back in,
its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have zero
interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD. RWD
is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering input. FWD
- especially on something like a mini - is about throwing in some lock
and then controlling the corner using the throttle *alone*.



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

Think you need to make that 'small to medium sized' road cars.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size car.

Yes. Although with modern crash protection the packaging advantage isn't
as marked.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.

Entirely depends. Most of the weight over the front wheels does not give
best grip to all wheels. It may give better traction under some
circumstances.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that right.

With clever suspension design you can make the handling much as you want
under normal driving.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:31:34 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

front wheel drive was invented for wummin drivers ......

It gives better packaging therefore more interior space against overall
size of the vehicle. But not a consideration in these days of bloated
vehicles.

Was interested to see an Austin 1800 parked alongside a new Jag the
other
day. The 1800 can seat 5 of the largest adults with room to spare. The
Jag
much less - despite being bigger.

rwd solves all the problems of fwd .....and yes it is all style these
days
no practicality........

What problems of FWD?

engine rotates the wrong way in relation to the exhaust.....cv joint
problems driving steered wheels......cars still have transmission tunnels
for strength no gain.....wind up engine/gearbox/diff all those gears
......long gear change linkages instead of direct gear change into gearbox
......etc

"The Peeler" wrote in message
web.com...
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:09:41 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James
Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH the sick idiot's usual sick idiotic drivel

I would use this to flush you ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ufqN8he4D8

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 17:22:28 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:31:34 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

front wheel drive was invented for wummin drivers ......

It gives better packaging therefore more interior space against overall
size of the vehicle. But not a consideration in these days of bloated
vehicles.

Was interested to see an Austin 1800 parked alongside a new Jag the
other
day. The 1800 can seat 5 of the largest adults with room to spare. The
Jag
much less - despite being bigger.

rwd solves all the problems of fwd .....and yes it is all style these
days
no practicality........

What problems of FWD?

engine rotates the wrong way in relation to the exhaust

So?

.....cv joint problems driving steered wheels......

I can only remember having to get one replaced once in my 20 years of driving.

cars still have transmission tunnels
for strength no gain.....

No they don't. The footwell at the back of my car is completely flat all the way across.

wind up engine/gearbox/diff all those gears
.....long gear change linkages instead of direct gear change into gearbox
.....etc

But no great big long rod to drive the back wheels. I had a rear wheel drive van that needed that sorted.

--
Some believe that the world converting to the metric system would greatly simplify our measures. But look what would really happen to our old cliches:
A miss is as good as 1.6 kilometres.
Put your best 0.3 of a meter forward.
Spare the 5.03 metres and spoil the child.
Twenty-eight grams of prevention is worth 453 grams of cure.
Give a man 2.54 centimetres and he'll take 1.61 kilometres.
Peter Piper picked 8.8 litres of pickled peppers.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back in,
its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have zero
interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD. RWD
is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering input. FWD
- especially on something like a mini - is about throwing in some lock
and then controlling the corner using the throttle *alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to control?

--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 13:07:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

Think you need to make that 'small to medium sized' road cars.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size car.

Yes. Although with modern crash protection the packaging advantage isn't
as marked.

The most annoying crash protection feature is the rounded bonnet (to flip pedestrians up instead of smashing them). What this means is you can't see the front end of your car - so when trying to pull out of a junction, you often see people a metre further back than they need to be.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.

Entirely depends. Most of the weight over the front wheels does not give
best grip to all wheels. It may give better traction under some
circumstances.

The engine is heavy, it's over the front wheels. More grip on FWD cars.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that right.

With clever suspension design you can make the handling much as you want
under normal driving.

So why don't they all do that?

--
Two Muslims have crashed a speedboat into the Thames barrier in London.
Police think it might be the start of Ram-a-dam.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 17:12:54 +0100, Huge wrote:

On 2017-07-01, Steve Walker wrote:
On 30/06/2017 01:26, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly stunts.
FWD is easier to control.

... for dickheads like you.

You're the dickhead if you learned a skill only required on badly designed cars.

Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.

3) (and far and away the biggest reason); They're cheaper to build.

Really? I thought the mechanics of driving and steering the same wheels was expensive.

--
CO2 emissions aren't a problem. CO2 is supposed to be there. It feeds plants for ****s sake! If greenies want plants to be healthy, we need MORE CO2! They pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better!

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 17:12:54 +0100, Huge
wrote:

On 2017-07-01, Steve Walker wrote:
On 30/06/2017 01:26, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly stunts.
FWD is easier to control.

... for dickheads like you.

You're the dickhead if you learned a skill only required on badly designed
cars.

Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size
car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.

3) (and far and away the biggest reason); They're cheaper to build.

Really? I thought the mechanics of driving and steering the same wheels
was expensive.

Certainly to get a decent life with a FWD,

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 13:07:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

Think you need to make that 'small to medium sized' road cars.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size
car.

Yes. Although with modern crash protection the packaging advantage isn't
as marked.

The most annoying crash protection feature is the rounded bonnet (to flip
pedestrians up instead of smashing them). What this means is you can't
see the front end of your car - so when trying to pull out of a junction,
you often see people a metre further back than they need to be.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.

Entirely depends. Most of the weight over the front wheels does not give
best grip to all wheels. It may give better traction under some
circumstances.

The engine is heavy, it's over the front wheels. More grip on FWD cars.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that right.

With clever suspension design you can make the handling much as you want
under normal driving.

So why don't they all do that?

Because that sort of suspension costs more.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size
car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back in,
its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have zero
interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD. RWD
is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering input. FWD
- especially on something like a mini - is about throwing in some lock
and then controlling the corner using the throttle *alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to
control?

yes keep it targeted to wummin drivers .....

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 05:29:02 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size
car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back in,
its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have zero
interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD. RWD
is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering input. FWD
- especially on something like a mini - is about throwing in some lock
and then controlling the corner using the throttle *alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to
control?

yes keep it targeted to wummin drivers .....

No, most drivers. Hardly anyone knows how to and can control a RWD skid in the fraction of a second required.

--
My younger sister was having one of her first gynecological appointments and she had some questions for the doctor.
"Doctor" she asked, "I can't ask my parents, They would kill me but my boyfriend wants to have anal sex. I don't know what to tell him, I mean I don't know anything about it. Can I get pregnant?"
The kindly old doctor smiled whimsically and replied "Of course, you can my dear. Where do you think lawyers come from?"

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 05:29:02 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft
allows for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the
same size car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD
car is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but
only people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get
that right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back
in, its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have
zero interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD.
RWD is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering
input. FWD - especially on something like a mini - is about throwing
in some lock and then controlling the corner using the throttle
*alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to
control?

yes keep it targeted to wummin drivers .....

No, most drivers. Hardly anyone knows how to and can control a RWD skid
in the fraction of a second required.


In the days I used to rally, I drove an Anglia. Someone in a souped up
Mini asked me what I had under the bonnet since he couldn't keep up with me
round corners. I just knew how to drive - and control skids.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 18:30:45 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 05:29:02 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft
allows for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the
same size car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD
car is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but
only people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get
that right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back
in, its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have
zero interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD.
RWD is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering
input. FWD - especially on something like a mini - is about throwing
in some lock and then controlling the corner using the throttle
*alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to
control?

yes keep it targeted to wummin drivers .....

No, most drivers. Hardly anyone knows how to and can control a RWD skid
in the fraction of a second required.

In the days I used to rally, I drove an Anglia. Someone in a souped up
Mini asked me what I had under the bonnet since he couldn't keep up with me
round corners. I just knew how to drive - and control skids.

AFAIK road drivers are only taught that in Finland (mainly because of how much snow and ice they get).

Practising controlling skids on public roads usually results in high insurance premiums.

--
I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 03:37:12 +0100, wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 23:02:49 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:34:08 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:22:31 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:16:26 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

But the FWD ones are very easy to correct. It's done without even thinking about it. Why deliberately make a car you have to learn how to handle?

ALL cars one needs to learn how to handle. If you haven't you're a hazard to yourself.

Bull****. A FWD car that's starting to slide going round a corner too fast, you instinctively do less of what you were doing (braking, accelerating, etc). RWD requires more thought.

Reminds me of the wallies that stick some old tech trailer on the back of their car then swing it round bends like it's something modern. Darwin is hovering, but they're oblivious to their own death nearby.

I borrow my neighbour's old trailer sometimes. I never bother with the lights, mainly because my last car had a faulty tow socket, which for some reason the garage passed the MOT without fixing it many times. One day I stopped at the side of the road to pop into the post office. A nosey woman came up to me and said "You didn't indicate!" I said "I did!" She said "Your trailer didn't!" I said "It's not my trailer!" She got confused and walked off. Wrong reg plate on it anyway, so she probably reported my neighbour :-)

I've got a license. If you think there's something that isn't in the test that should be, contact the DVLA, not me.

A caravan might tip your car, but a trailer won't. The most they'll do is take out a cyclist, but nobody would care.

oh dear.

To which part, and why?

--
Father walks into his son's room and starts talking.
"Son, masturbating will cause you to go blind."
"But dad, I'm over here!"

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:45:59 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:51:24 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 26 June 2017 17:33:42 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:41:47 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

I'm saying if you want to use your phone after 4 years, it should be openable, by you.

if you want a phone to last longer than 4 years then get one that can be opened don;t buy one that can't that's the key.
if no one brought phones that couldn't be opened up then they would be made would they.

But people don't know they can't be opened until they need to open them.

People arenl;t interested in opening their phone those days are long gone.

Most people can change a battery in any device. Imagine a clock or TV remote which you had to throw away or take to a specialist just to change the battery, it's pathetic.

Why would someone expect a phone to be sealed?

Because people know they are,

Funny how I can't drop an Iphone in water and expect it to work.

people rarely get TVs repaired , look for TV repair men in the local paper and that might give you a clue.
Few peole get their shoes rehealed either.
Few get their shoes polished either. When was the last time yuo saw someone get their trainsers resouled or cleaned.

I'm talking about a new battery, not a repair. It's more like changing the tyres on your car.

Anyone manufacturing a phone you can't open yourself is artificially limiting it's life to 4 years, which is against the consumer goods act.

It's not against the consumer goods act, if it were then they'd be banned wouldn't they.

You have too much faith in the law.

it's NOT a law.

Yes it is. It's illegal to make something which does not last a reasonable amount of time.

It's only a civil offence, people have to take them to court.

So when have Apple been taken to court for sealing their phones. ?

Apple users aren't that bright.

Just like you don't get the police round your door when you download Metallica. They have to sue you for damages.

Are you sure it's the police and not the local mental health support.

Mental health for what? Downloading or listening to heavy metal?

Anyway that's a totally differnt law.

yes, it's cost samsung quite a bit.
Maybe the saving on testing or spending money on a betteryh battery didnlt pay off this time, better luck next time perhaps.

It probably saved them a fortune actually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714461

The recall is thought to have cost $5.3bn (£4.3bn) and was hugely damaging for the South Korean firm's reputation.

They don't need to recall all of them. Probably some bull**** EU health and softy law.

Only an idiot would buy a phone that is being recalled for safety isssues.
Why pay full price for a faulty product.

The ones on sale won't be the recalls will they?

Then they'll be repeating this saving on the samsun 8 then is that what you're saying, we'll wait and see if they start expolding.

But other than terrosists I don't really see a market for exploding phones do you ?

The chances of the exploding happening were quite low. They took the risk, they lost.

samsung lost, yes they did.

And they probably wouldn't have. That's like saying I'm an idiot for not buying a lottery ticket because I could have been a millionaire.

They lost a factory too didn't they, well part of one.

Dunno, don't care.

I'd buy the Samsung and change the battery.

Why buy a faulty battery spendign yuor own money on it, why not buy a fulling working phone instead of gettign one with a faulty battery in it ?

The ones on sale won't be the recalls will they?

--
Father walks into his son's room and starts talking.
"Son, masturbating will cause you to go blind."
"But dad, I'm over here!"

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 05:29:02 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size
car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD
car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that
right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back in,
its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have
zero
interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD. RWD
is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering input.
FWD
- especially on something like a mini - is about throwing in some lock
and then controlling the corner using the throttle *alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to
control?

yes keep it targeted to wummin drivers .....

No, most drivers. Hardly anyone knows how to and can control a RWD skid
in the fraction of a second required.

must be why the likes of costco and michelin won't put your two new tyres on
the front ....

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 20:36:29 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 05:29:02 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size
car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD
car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that
right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back in,
its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have
zero
interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD. RWD
is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering input.
FWD
- especially on something like a mini - is about throwing in some lock
and then controlling the corner using the throttle *alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to
control?

yes keep it targeted to wummin drivers .....

No, most drivers. Hardly anyone knows how to and can control a RWD skid
in the fraction of a second required.

must be why the likes of costco and michelin won't put your two new tyres on
the front ....

On a RWD car I presume you mean.

I go to tyre shops that will put them where I ask. I normally replace ONE tyre once it's bald enough to fail an MOT or have a pig moan about it, or it's got a puncture. I have no desire to replace tyres which are fine.

--
Maybe . . .
Flying saucers are real and the Air Force doesn't exist.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 20:36:29 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 05:29:02 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft
allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size
car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD
car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but
only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that
right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back
in,
its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have
zero
interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD.
RWD
is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering input.
FWD
- especially on something like a mini - is about throwing in some
lock
and then controlling the corner using the throttle *alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to
control?

yes keep it targeted to wummin drivers .....

No, most drivers. Hardly anyone knows how to and can control a RWD skid
in the fraction of a second required.

must be why the likes of costco and michelin won't put your two new tyres
on
the front ....

On a RWD car I presume you mean.

don't think it matters to them .... they just think it is better to stop the
rear end sliding...don't get it myself ......


I go to tyre shops that will put them where I ask. I normally replace ONE
tyre once it's bald enough to fail an MOT or have a pig moan about it, or
it's got a puncture. I have no desire to replace tyres which are fine.

I love black circles if it is a non-distress purchase .....

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 20:47:05 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 20:36:29 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 05:29:02 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ...
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:54:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 01/07/17 12:43, Steve Walker wrote:
Road cars are mainly FWD for two reasons as far as I know.

1) The transverse engine and gearbox, plus lack of a propshaft
allows
for a far smaller tunnel and hence more cabin space in the same size
car.

2) FWD tends to retain grip when a RWD car might have let go.


Not quite.

The flip side to the latter is that once either has let go, the RWD
car
is more controllable - they can be steered on the throttle - but
only
people experienced in doing that (not me) are likely to get that
right.

The FWD was all about safety with incompetent drivers. Under power on
loss of grip a FWD will tend to understeer, but lifting the throttle
generally restores equilibrium. A RWD car will lose the rear, and
although the reduction in throttle is likely to bring the tail back
in,
its not an easy situation to bring under control.

That is, the propensity to lose grip is the same, its the behaviour
having lost it that makes the FWD more suitable for people who have
zero
interest in driving, to drive.

In fact its far easier to steer an FWD on the throttle than a RWD.
RWD
is a matter of controlling drift with throttle *and* steering input.
FWD
- especially on something like a mini - is about throwing in some
lock
and then controlling the corner using the throttle *alone*.

Exactly, but why deliberately make a car that requires more skill to
control?

yes keep it targeted to wummin drivers .....

No, most drivers. Hardly anyone knows how to and can control a RWD skid
in the fraction of a second required.

must be why the likes of costco and michelin won't put your two new tyres
on
the front ....

On a RWD car I presume you mean.

don't think it matters to them .... they just think it is better to stop the
rear end sliding...don't get it myself ......

On a FWD car, shouldn't the front tyres be the best ones? They drive and steer.

So are you saying that Costco will insist on wasting your money by swapping all the tyres round? Glad I don't go there.

I go to tyre shops that will put them where I ask. I normally replace ONE
tyre once it's bald enough to fail an MOT or have a pig moan about it, or
it's got a puncture. I have no desire to replace tyres which are fine.

I love black circles if it is a non-distress purchase .....

Huh?

--
If you eat a judge's uniform you might contract a lawsuit.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:48:17 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:27:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I'd buy the Samsung and change the battery.

--
I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

I think the above two lines sums it up.

If the battery is a decent proportion of the cost of the phone, it must be a **** phone.

--
Seen on a tap in a Finnish washroom:
To stop the drip, turn cock to right.

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 18:59:42 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 June 2017 11:56:26 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The Microsoft Surfaces can't be opened without destroying them and
they
sell anyway, presumably because most arent aware that they arent
repairable.

Most aren;t intrested in getting them repaired they either work or
they don't when they stop working you replace them. They are as
disposable as shoes and underwear which peolpe also used to repair.

I'm not convinced about that with cracked screens,
particularly with the expensive high end smartphones.

you've not seen people use smartphones with cracked screens ?

They clearly arent as disposable as shoes and
underwear which people also used to repair.

How many peole expect their undear to last 4+ years ?

Irrelevant to whether high end smartphones are actually as
disposable as shoes and underware that people used to repair.

And since this **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on your even sillier ****.

aka Wodney's talking crap and has lost the plot, again.

On 30/06/2017 22:16, wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:34:12 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Funny how almost every road car is FWD. RWD is for doing silly
stunts. FWD is easier to control.

until the Mini (real one) turned up, every car was RWD.

Herdly. Citroen made FWD cars in the UK long before the Mini.
Alvis made a FWD in the UK in the 1930s. And of course others word wide.

Just how a car handles is down to a lot more than just which end is driven.

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever.

My wife's FWD car misbehaves safely.

If I push it into a corner a bit fast it understeers. I then have to
lift off, which transfers the weight forward and it understeers less.

Boring but safe.

My RWD car will go around the same corner with twice the G. I can put
the power down on the exit much sooner - but when it goes, it really
goes. I have to concentrate when pushing it. And if I have to brake in a
corner - brown trousers time.

OTOH, it's easy to drive beyond what is the limit for hers. Horses for
courses.

Andy

On Friday, 7 July 2017 20:30:22 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/06/2017 22:16, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary exception. Ever..

My wife's FWD car misbehaves safely.

If I push it into a corner a bit fast it understeers. I then have to
lift off, which transfers the weight forward and it understeers less.

Boring but safe.

but that's not pushing it to its limits.

My RWD car will go around the same corner with twice the G. I can put
the power down on the exit much sooner - but when it goes, it really
goes. I have to concentrate when pushing it. And if I have to brake in a
corner - brown trousers time.

FWD or RWD should behave the same when braking on a corner, at least when all other things are equal.

OTOH, it's easy to drive beyond what is the limit for hers. Horses for
courses.

Andy

If you push either beyond its limit you'll find that upto a limited point the rwd can get round the corner in a partial skid, the fwd won't. I certainly am not recommending doing so though.

It's probably fair to say FWD is easier for folk with no training, precisely because engine torque reduces cornering grip so significantly that all they need do is lift off and suddenly it corners - and lifting off is what people instinctively do.

If you're trying to get maximum cornering you shouldn't be on the throttle at all on a corner, in which case fwd vs rwd is pretty much irrelevant.


NT

wrote in message
...

On Friday, 7 July 2017 20:30:22 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/06/2017 22:16, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 June 2017 22:09:08 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

I've had many many cars in my life, and all the FWD ones are way
easier to control. If you go a bit too fast round a corner, the FWD
ones self correct. The RWD ones go more and more out of control until
you either spin round or collide with something.

Someone hasn't learnt how to correct errant car handling. Hint: all
cars mis-handle when pushed too far. Without a single solitary
exception. Ever.

My wife's FWD car misbehaves safely.

If I push it into a corner a bit fast it understeers. I then have to
lift off, which transfers the weight forward and it understeers less.

Boring but safe.

but that's not pushing it to its limits.

My RWD car will go around the same corner with twice the G. I can put
the power down on the exit much sooner - but when it goes, it really
goes. I have to concentrate when pushing it. And if I have to brake in a
corner - brown trousers time.

FWD or RWD should behave the same when braking on a corner, at least when
all other things are equal.

OTOH, it's easy to drive beyond what is the limit for hers. Horses for
courses.

Andy

If you push either beyond its limit you'll find that upto a limited point
the rwd can get round the corner in a partial skid, the fwd won't. I
certainly am not recommending doing so though.

It's probably fair to say FWD is easier for folk with no training,
precisely because engine torque reduces cornering grip so significantly
that all they need do is lift off and suddenly it corners - and lifting off
is what people instinctively do.

If you're trying to get maximum cornering you shouldn't be on the throttle
at all on a corner, in which case fwd vs rwd is pretty much irrelevant.

Better tell that to the rally drivers, they've been doing it wrong all this
time.

On 08/07/17 10:40, Richard wrote:
If you're trying to get maximum cornering you shouldn't be on the
throttle at all on a corner, in which case fwd vs rwd is pretty much
irrelevant.

Better tell that to the rally drivers, they've been doing it wrong all
this time.


Yes, an ususually incorrect statement wasnt it?

managing tyres that are slipping is how you get best corner speeds

both drives need throttle in the corner, its just that the effect os
different - it will increase slip on the front in FWD (understeer) and
increase slip on the rear in RWD.

Tintop racing features both sorts, and the general principle is FWD wers
out friont tyres faster, and RWD resrs, but has more traction due to
weight transfer under acceleration.

In say an F1 style car the fastest way round the corner is to still be
on the brakes as you turn in to reduce speed as you approach te apex
then inmmdeiately switch to power to get the best acceleration out.

The last thing you want is a constant radius constant throttle corner
really. Or coasting. Uhnloess its 1985 and you are Keke Rosberg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aHt3RLK6DA

I was at club corner, watching him coasting round that at 130mph+ in
neutral (or feet on the clutch and the brake?) blipping the throttle to
keep the turbos spooled up...

...before letting the clutch in and hammering the go pedal to the floor...

Memories...


--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius