Originally Posted By: rpn453
Is it best, or just more forgiving? You'd have to compare the cars with and without the electronic variability to know for sure, and I don't know if that's been done.
You can bet your asteroids the companies have done those tests. The AWD systems on modern performance cars are really, really complex in their operation, taking input from a variety of sensors to keep the power going to the right place at the right time to make the car do what the computers think the driver wants.
Note the implicit caveat in that last line.
But I digress.
As for faster vs. more forgiving, to a certain extent, those are the same thing. But I really do mean faster. In some situations, you don't need any power at the front wheels; in others, you might want a lot. Variable systems can achieve both, or anything in between. Fixed torque splits are compromises most of the time.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Traction control and stability control seem like equally good concepts, yet they tend to kill the fun and the cars are almost always slower with them activated.
Not any more. Fast cars are now fast enough that even race drivers can't make them go faster with the electronic nannies off.
I do agree that they can kill the fun, but it has to be recognized that just like with AWD systems, traction and stability control systems come in various shapes and sizes. Some are quite permissive, and others strike you down if you do anything but drive the speed limit. Some even have various modes, from Mother-In-Law to Designated-Driver.
I'm not sure this is a good comparison, though. A really good AWD system with a great degree of freedom to send the torque to individual wheels can be a tremendous asset in any situation, continuously optimizing grip to get the absolute most out of the chassis at all times. If such a system does kill the fun, it's because there is too much grip; in other words, the car is too good. Traction and stability control systems don't have as big a benefit, and are more likely to be buzzkills.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Really, if the reaction time of the electronic system is as quick as that of a mechanical system, they should perform just as predictably. Maybe they are that quick now.
Some are.
But again, I don't think this is a good comparison. Mechanical systems can't be intelligent like electronic systems can.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
But I'm a luddite, so the GT-R and Veyron do not interest me. My perception has been that the reviews typically suggest that other cars with simpler drivetrains are actually more enjoyable to drive, and I tend to believe that based on every experience I've had with electronic drivetrain involvement. I have no desire to own a car where I can just mash the pedals and let the electronics sort things out. I'd rather squeeze them and ride the edge myself.
Now here, I have to agree 100%.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
I was initially thinking more about the earlier Ford systems. I've heard they can react strangely. If the system can be made to be entirely seamless and predictable, and still allow as much four-wheel spin as desired, then I'd be able to tolerate it.
A lot of AWD systems on modern performance cars can do this. The hard part is finding such a system on a car that is otherwise relatively simple and straightforward...
Is it best, or just more forgiving? You'd have to compare the cars with and without the electronic variability to know for sure, and I don't know if that's been done.
You can bet your asteroids the companies have done those tests. The AWD systems on modern performance cars are really, really complex in their operation, taking input from a variety of sensors to keep the power going to the right place at the right time to make the car do what the computers think the driver wants.
Note the implicit caveat in that last line.
As for faster vs. more forgiving, to a certain extent, those are the same thing. But I really do mean faster. In some situations, you don't need any power at the front wheels; in others, you might want a lot. Variable systems can achieve both, or anything in between. Fixed torque splits are compromises most of the time.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Traction control and stability control seem like equally good concepts, yet they tend to kill the fun and the cars are almost always slower with them activated.
Not any more. Fast cars are now fast enough that even race drivers can't make them go faster with the electronic nannies off.
I do agree that they can kill the fun, but it has to be recognized that just like with AWD systems, traction and stability control systems come in various shapes and sizes. Some are quite permissive, and others strike you down if you do anything but drive the speed limit. Some even have various modes, from Mother-In-Law to Designated-Driver.
I'm not sure this is a good comparison, though. A really good AWD system with a great degree of freedom to send the torque to individual wheels can be a tremendous asset in any situation, continuously optimizing grip to get the absolute most out of the chassis at all times. If such a system does kill the fun, it's because there is too much grip; in other words, the car is too good. Traction and stability control systems don't have as big a benefit, and are more likely to be buzzkills.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Really, if the reaction time of the electronic system is as quick as that of a mechanical system, they should perform just as predictably. Maybe they are that quick now.
Some are.
But again, I don't think this is a good comparison. Mechanical systems can't be intelligent like electronic systems can.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
But I'm a luddite, so the GT-R and Veyron do not interest me. My perception has been that the reviews typically suggest that other cars with simpler drivetrains are actually more enjoyable to drive, and I tend to believe that based on every experience I've had with electronic drivetrain involvement. I have no desire to own a car where I can just mash the pedals and let the electronics sort things out. I'd rather squeeze them and ride the edge myself.
Now here, I have to agree 100%.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
I was initially thinking more about the earlier Ford systems. I've heard they can react strangely. If the system can be made to be entirely seamless and predictable, and still allow as much four-wheel spin as desired, then I'd be able to tolerate it.
A lot of AWD systems on modern performance cars can do this. The hard part is finding such a system on a car that is otherwise relatively simple and straightforward...