As we know the Locost and others are graet fun on the back end flying all over and loss of traction, this is the thinking by me and a 4x4, i am sure
it is the same of others who try a 4x4 build, i am trying to do a sierra version as i believe this has the 40% front and 60% rear drive so fairly
good divide.
I always buld what i want, just to see, if it doesnt it doesnt work, but i tried and enjoyed the build. But this time i am considering it a bit
more.
All best
wolly
Many people argue that the extra weight isnt worth the grip, especially when you think that 4x4s often dont handle well anyway. Quite like the idea
myself, if you have enough power to need it!
Why not build a bike engined locost and but a cossy engine in the Umm?
Surely the best type would be a haldex system like fitted to an s3, except get it to work so the front only drives when the rear spins?
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
Many people argue that the extra weight isnt worth the grip, especially when you think that 4x4s often dont handle well anyway. Quite like the idea myself, if you have enough power to need it!
Why not build a bike engined locost and but a cossy engine in the Umm?
quote:
Surely the best type would be a haldex system like fitted to an s3, except get it to work so the front only drives when the rear spins?
its been proved in production cars that traction control provide the same control , so unless its really muddy like a rally stage then i cant see an
advantage in 4x4 . it wont be as much fun building a car with 4x4 tho.....
also using a haldex system wont allow for lurid 4 wheel powerslides either !!!
quote:
Originally posted by Volvorsport
its been proved in production cars that traction control provide the same control , so unless its really muddy like a rally stage then i cant see an advantage in 4x4 . it wont be as much fun building a car with 4x4 tho.....
also using a haldex system wont allow for lurid 4 wheel powerslides either !!!
It would if you've got enough power! I can do it my my a3 in the wet/ice
so it was YOU around lincoln then......
quote:
Originally posted by Volvorsport
It would if you've got enough power! I can do it my my a3 in the wet/ice
so it was YOU around lincoln then......
Ah now we have the power slide bit, if the locost is so light, even with a 4x4 set up then with the power ( 200bhp + ) you get with the correct engine
then you will get power slide when you want, and in the dry better grip?
Why wont it it be as much fun to build a 4x4?
Production cars are a different matter, yes?
Its the idea for me, not many have done it, BUT it can be done, time is the thing and gaining knowledge of how to build to me.
wolly
hi we used 4x4 sierra and 2.3 scorpio honda throttle bodies and made 200 horse go on you know you want to
quote:
its been proved in production cars that traction control provide the same control ,
let me clarify then......
4wd was thought to improve control because of the torque split , but if you apply traction control which stops the wheelspin and reduces the torque at
the wheel its the same effect .
4x4 in production cars were no faster because of th 4x4 compared to a well setup traction control system .
it may feel safer , but is it any quicker .
200 hp with 4x4 and extra weight against 200 hp with traction control and no weight penalty ?
and like i said , only in a muddy gravel stage where the wheels are permanently in slip will th 4x4 come to the front
everything else being equal of course , build the car , itll be more fun than a std one with traction control
Bets thing to do is to see who has actualy completed the built and take it for a spin along with a standard one to see if there is any difference, it
seems that a lot of folk say it will not be any benefit, but has any body actualy driven a Locost or similar buld, haynes in a 4x4 version?
I see your point about prodcution cars but i am sure they would be a different in the way the handle etc.
For me the 4x4 is not for more speed but to get a better handling car, grip in the corners etc and off the mark.
What is the extra cost involved to make it so much more expensive therefore not worth doing, to not be worth doing i would say in the thousands more
to build than a RWD, if its in the hundreds then it no loss.
The whole point of Seven style cars is delicate very precise single seater handling, with this in mind 4x4,heavy over sized engines and big wheels are counter productive.
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
The whole point of Seven style cars is delicate very precise single seater handling, with this in mind 4x4,heavy over sized engines and big wheels are counter productive.
quote:
The whole point of Seven style cars is delicate very precise single seater handling, with this in mind 4x4,heavy over sized engines and big wheels are counter productive.
It's certainly not neccessary and I wouldn't even say it would lead to a superior Seven. Just a different one. I am doing it for the
technical challenge, the 'because I can' attitude, and because I like the driving dynamics of a 4WD better than RWD. Give me Scooby, Evo,
GTR etc etc any day over M3, Supra, muscle car, etc etc.
Referring to your title question - better traction in some conditions - yeah of course. Maybe 4WD would have saved a few Sevens that have been binned,
but I wouldn't say any of that is reason enough to go to the trouble of making your toy car 4WD - you need the above first. Traction, safety, etc
are other pros, but there are plenty of cons too.
Hi
I always thought that the theoretical perfect car was mid engined and rwd and the perfect wieght distribuition was between 40/60 to 45/55 ? .
Most race cars in the world are rwd, most purists would argue that the wheels that steer shouldnt have drive. You hardly see any 4 wheel drive cars on
the track.
In the wet though you,d have the edge.
Nick M
You don't see many Dax rush 4 x 4 (Quadra) about !! Not sure if its the concept or the price thou.
Anyway its your build if you want and feel you can.. why not make it 4x4
Well I'm not a purist and I believe that the vast majority of our cars meet a fraction of their potential. That may be because of our skill
levels, setup of engine/suspension/brakes etc. A car that doesn't meet someone elses version of the ideal car isn't necessarily crap
it's what our cars are - different
My GTM was huuuuuuuuuge amounts of fun
It was mid engined RWD and dare I say it used the whole drivetrain from a Metro GTI.....yup the running gear from a Metro boys and girls.
My Minari is front wheel drive and uses the running gear from an Alfa 33/Sud. Those of us old enough will know what a hoot the Sud was to
drive......and yup it's more fun in a Minari. Oh and another taboo subject, the driven wheels are doing the steering as well.
I say go for it, make it what you want it to be and have fun in it
Steve
quote:
Originally posted by nickm
Hi
I always thought that the theoretical perfect car was mid engined and rwd and the perfect wieght distribuition was between 40/60 to 45/55 ? .
Most race cars in the world are rwd, most purists would argue that the wheels that steer shouldnt have drive. You hardly see any 4 wheel drive cars on the track.
In the wet though you,d have the edge.
Nick M