Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#141

Post by denimnerd42 »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #108

I live in a rural mountainous area. FWD cars have a huge advantage over anything RWD: traction going up hill. Nothings funnier than watching delivery trucks going up a giant hill backwards because it's the only way they can maintain traction.

This is not my experience. I have a house in the mountains with a steep-ish driveway and the only way to make it up the driveway when it snows 4-6" is by going backwards. I frequently have to reverse up my driveway in order to get enough traction. The weight shift just kills FWD traction. I'm sure RWD could have other issues, proper AWD is clearly the way to go.

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#142

Post by speedgoose »

nicenewtemp84 wrote: post #97
mrinterweb wrote: post #59

Rear-wheel-drive vehicles have traction problems on slick roads. Losing traction on your front wheels is terrifying. I've had this happen before as I have had the opposite fishtailing with front-wheel-drive. Losing rear-wheel traction is something that can be compensated, but I don't think you can do much when you lose front-wheel traction.

In FWD, you let off and it starts to steer. In RWD, once it's out of shape, you better know what you're doing to keep it in line. Fwd is 10x easier for average drivers.

It’s very true for old cars but a recent car will have the electronics fix everything very quickly.

As an average driver I can floor a modern electric RWD car while turning and despite the strong torque, nothing bad happens.

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#144

Post by secabeen »

explorer83 wrote: post #65
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a FWD and AWD variant of the same car in my driveway and call bullshit. Why is it so hard to believe that a product that advertises 30-50% improvement in traction results in a lesser improvement than doubling the area over which tractive force is applied? I used to drink the snow tire kool-aid until I bought a set for the FWD car of and realized that better straight line stopping distance and cornering ability…

You're not wrong in the sense that snow tires are designed first to stop you. Not to start you. But if you call snow tires on a FWD "kool-aid" I completely disagree with you there. unless maybe you bought "true" all seasons (tires where some of the tread is like a winter tire), which are still relatively new and have a lot of tread depth. Those can probably get you by OK to where you would think true snow tires aren'…

I've seen the true all seasons more and more. Both my and my mom's car have standard tires from the manufacturer, yet both also have the M+S designation that indicates a Mud and Snow tire. Are these tires of the form you describe?

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#145

Post by davchana »

lukevp wrote: post #82
0_____0 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Norway, this is basic driver education. The drivers' license there requires "slippery road" training, which involves a more basic version of what you're describing.

In the land of the free, you can drive with a parent at 15 and get a license at 16 with zero required classes or real world driving test, with just your parent’s signature, a 70% pass rate on a written test and $25. That’s how I got my license in TX at least. I think this is a bad thing, fwiw. The standards of driver safety training here are incredibly low.

Age wise you are correct, and in California you still need a driving test (although not a super strict one).

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#146

Post by davchana »

Cyberdogs7 wrote: post #117
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It varies by state, but most of them require either a driving exam or a piece of paper from a drivers education class. Texas is something of an exception in it's general lassie faire posture.

Funny enough, after moving back to Texas from out of the country in which my Texas drivers license expired by 6 months, I was required to take both a written AND a practical driving test. Keep in mind I was nearly 40 years old and had a valid Texas license since I was 16.

Same thing for anybody moving to US (or California at least). No matter what foreign country license you have, if you are moving to California permanently, (not tourist), you need to get a California Licence & foreign license will not give you any discount in process.

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#147

Post by davchana »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #135
Cyberdogs7 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough, after moving back to Texas from out of the country in which my Texas drivers license expired by 6 months, I was required to take both a written AND a practical driving test. Keep in mind I was nearly 40 years old and had a valid Texas license since I was 16.

I was out of country for 9 years, and when I moved to California from China, they didn’t make me take the driving test since I had a California license before (7 years out date), but I was surprised.

Yes, once you get California Licence, the only time you would drive test again is if you upgrade, can't read charts, health issues, law enforcement reports.

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#148

Post by davchana »

Dalewyn wrote: post #90
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It varies by state, but most of them require either a driving exam or a piece of paper from a drivers education class. Texas is something of an exception in it's general lassie faire posture.

Naw, it's not the exception. Got my license in California, instructor skipped the freeway part of the drive test which is mandatory. Moved to Oregon, new licensees require both a written and a drive test but the DMV skipped them both because I already had an out-of-state (California) license. Driver licenses are literally stupid easy to get here in the US.

In California Highway driving for cars is required for special drives only i.e. can't read charts, or tickets.

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#149

Post by Someone »

lukevp wrote: post #82
0_____0 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Norway, this is basic driver education. The drivers' license there requires "slippery road" training, which involves a more basic version of what you're describing.

In the land of the free, you can drive with a parent at 15 and get a license at 16 with zero required classes or real world driving test, with just your parent’s signature, a 70% pass rate on a written test and $25. That’s how I got my license in TX at least. I think this is a bad thing, fwiw. The standards of driver safety training here are incredibly low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_licenses_in_the_Uni... says you can get a learner’s permit at 14 years old that doesn’t appear to have restrictions in Alaska, Arkansas, and one with restrictions (e.g. only daytime driving, limited # of passengers, only driving to school) in Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

It seems there’s a strong correlation between population density and minimum age one can get a driver’s license.

Re: Rear-wheel-drive cars are back and we have EVs to thank

#150

Post by secabeen »

Auracle wrote: post #128
SECProto wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't get why everyone obsesses over stopping and turning and shills snow tires. Most accidents are caused by failure to stop and failure to turn, not failure to accelerate. > There's a reason that everyone and their brother buys an AWD vehicle and far fewer people buy snow tires. You clearly live in a very different place than me - very few passenger vehicles are available with AWD (subarus, trucks, some SUVs).…

I live in Minnesota and very few people buy snow tires, and most balk at it. They don't realize the difference it makes. I regularly drive in conditions in my damned Camaro where the only other vehicles on the road are trucks, with some of them not being on the road anymore.

Interestingly, I'm finding more and more standard vehicles with tires with the M+S designation on the sidewall that makes them legally Snow Tires. I don't expect these have the same performance in the midwest snow as purpose-built snow tires, but they should qualify from a legal sense for chain restrictions and the like.
Post reply on HN