Porsche Takes Pole for 24 Hours of Le Mans, Nissan not so much

[Maxt]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


You just wanna post something about the ACR

Busted....

[Zhao Kan]

Originally posted by 962 kid


I think you may have misread whatever google article you sourced your P1 numbers from. Also, every hybrid LMP1 car competing was AWD and is in the 1000bhp range.

yup, shoulda wiki'ed it. i didn't misread it, it was printed wrong on the page I googled the specs. it said 5xx hp engine with a 2xx electric making 7xx, when in reality its 7xx with a 2xx electric. They also screwed up the p1's weight big time.

Still 2 totally different cars on different tires, making it a crappy comparison. We dont even know if one of the cars had heat cycled out old tires on it, which can account for seconds.

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

You do remember when you said this, right I gave you an example when it wasn't "theory", it was something experienced and documented by a pretty good driver (Randy Pobst)

You do not know why one car was faster than another in that comparison. At least I'm guessing you do not have telemetry for their results. For all you know the porsche is taking corners 3kph faster consistently, and hitting 2kph slower on the straights. Both have their own aero, and on a track like laguna (or anywhere actually), aero is huge. The P1 having a higher rated top speed tells me something too...... the 918 might have some crazy aero by comparison.

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

Seriously? Then why bother ever setting the car up to a drivers "style". All drivers should drive cars setup identical I guess in your mind. Rosberg's car is setup EXACTLY like Hamilton's? Stop being silly. You made a blanket statement about AWD that simply isn't correct. The truth is there are tracks where AWD is an advantage and there are times where because of driving style a person will find themselves faster in an AWD car.

F1 cars are not all clones of each other. They're completely different machines. Rosberg's car and hamilton's car may not even be the same, even with them being from the same manufacturer, plus they're both trying to find an edge over each other right now. so those things alone would be reason enough why tehy have different setups. But I know there have been F1 drivers that were driving for the same manufacturer, who both had their cars setup exactly the same way.

Also, as you probably know, even at the F1 level there are gaps between driver levels. Take Schumacher for example. I remember looking at his telemetry vs another driver (i think it was Barrichello driving for ferarri also at that time?). Anyway, schumacher would be on the brakes earlier for a corner, but he'd reduce his speed less abruptly, and then feed the throttle earlier. His steering corrections were all over the place too, while the other driver's steering corrections were non existent and completely smooth. The result was Schumacher was exiting the corner way faster.

Now you might say they both have different styles of driving, but I'd say one guy was taking that corner properly and the other should change how he was taking that corner. The steering data alone tells me schumacher is a better driver (or at least is less lazy and is willing to work harder mentally and physically for any advantage, or hasn't lost his A game... which eventually happens) and keeps his car closer to the edge of his tire grip. Also, there likely isn't a fast professional driver that is so rigid that he can only drive a car fast if it is setup a certain way. If they're changing setups it's moreso because they're looking for a better setup rather then a setup that the driver absolutely has to have to go fast. Take topgear's shitbox car with the F1 drivers. They all pretty much drove that car to exactly the same lap time and that thing is setup like ass from the factory.

On a race track there are different ways to take corners and different ways to drive, but there is only one fastest line and one fastest way to drive... and one setup that is fastest for a specific car. Just because a driver doesn't want to admit he's not the best driver or is too stubborn to (or can't) adapt doesn't mean you need to humour them and say there is nothing wrong with their driving and mask it with a lie of a term like 'driving style'.

[962 kid]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan


yup, shoulda wiki'ed it. i didn't misread it, it was printed wrong on the page I googled the specs. it said 5xx hp engine with a 2xx electric making 7xx, when in reality its 7xx with a 2xx electric. They also screwed up the p1's weight big time.

Still 2 totally different cars on different tires, making it a crappy comparison. We dont even know if one of the cars had heat cycled out old tires on it, which can account for seconds.

Yeah we do know. Its stated in the test that the p1 had new trofeo Rs and the 918 had new MPSC2, both supplied by tire rack. Factory staff were on hand to tweak pressures for both cars as well.

[SKR]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
On a race track there are different ways to take corners and different ways to drive, but there is only one fastest line and one fastest way to drive...

There are lots of race tracks where this isn't true.

[Team_Mclaren]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan




On a race track there are different ways to take corners and different ways to drive, but there is only one fastest line and one fastest way to drive... and one setup that is fastest for a specific car. Just because a driver doesn't want to admit he's not the best driver or is too stubborn to (or can't) adapt doesn't mean you need to humour them and say there is nothing wrong with their driving and mask it with a lie of a term like 'driving style'.

F1 Drivers seem to disagree

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/1...a-perfect-lap/

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
yup, shoulda wiki'ed it. i didn't misread it, it was printed wrong on the page I googled the specs.

Printed wrong? So your telling us your brain didn't clue in to the fact the lighter more powerful car will have the better ratio so you just regurgitated the mistake you read? Well ok then.

Still 2 totally different cars on different tires, making it a crappy comparison. We dont even know if one of the cars had heat cycled out old tires on it, which can account for seconds.

Please go watch the video for fucks sakes, or better yet read the article. Maybe do a little research on the Trofeo R's. As for it being a bad comparo, you should maybe let EVERY FUCKING AUTOMOTIVE JOURNALIST on the planet know, because for more than a year every last one of them clamoured to be the first to bring it the public

You do not know why one car was faster than another in that comparison. At least I'm guessing you do not have telemetry for their results. For all you know the porsche is taking corners 3kph faster consistently, and hitting 2kph slower on the straights. Both have their own aero, and on a track like laguna (or anywhere actually), aero is huge. The P1 having a higher rated top speed tells me something too...... the 918 might have some crazy aero by comparison.

Since I didn't drive the car I'll take Randy's highly qualified analysis.
" The second is that the P1 might have trouble applying 904 hp through two wheels, sticky as they may be. "The McLaren could not exit the four slow corners at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca the way the 918 could, a clear and present contrast,"

On a race track there are different ways to take corners and different ways to drive, but there is only one fastest line and one fastest way to drive... and one setup that is fastest for a specific car. Just because a driver doesn't want to admit he's not the best driver or is too stubborn to (or can't) adapt doesn't mean you need to humour them and say there is nothing wrong with their driving and mask it with a lie of a term like 'driving style'.

Come on, now you're just trolling.

Hamilton: Can you tweak this or that? It's how I like things setup and think it gives me an advantage to set things up to my driving style.
Team: Fuck you Lewis, if you were a good driver the setup wouldn't matter.

It's time to stop Zhao, this isn't going the way you think it is.

[Zhao Kan]

Originally posted by Team_Mclaren


F1 Drivers seem to disagree

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/1...a-perfect-lap/

That's incorrect. You just do not understand what he said.

There is one way around a track with a specific car that is always fastest... there has to be because there is never a tie if you get specific enough with the lap timer. Race driving is pretty much just math, and trying to get as close as possible to what the math says is fastest. It is literally impossible for a human to run that perfect lap because even a good driver like senna is still constantly making minute mistakes that cost time; but you can try to get as close to that as possible. Why drivers like Senna and Schumacher have tons of corrections in a corner is because they're feeling out where the edge of the grip is and are required to make corrections to keep the car under control. This is faster than another driver with a perfectly smooth steering arc in a corner (because he's only guessing where the edge of the grip is, and is staying so far away from the edge of adhesion he doesn't have to make a correction), but it's still giving up time because they have to scrub grip (aka speed aka losing time) making these corrections.

Someday it may be possible for a machine to run a perfect lap, but a human will never do it because of this... and a lot of other factors.

Even at the F1 level, drivers still have instructors and still get told what they're doing is slow or wrong. They even get told this while in a race, for stuff as 'simple' as where to brake for a corner. You'll that they are changing the rules because the amount of coaching in race has gotten retarded.

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
wall of text

I figured you had track experience and could understand concepts I'm talking about (like how you should never compare 2 totally different cars to prove a point), but I guess I was wrong about that.

I explained why the weight addition which is a handicap on 99% of the track is not worth the awd being an advantage on 1% of the track.

I explained possible reasons why the maclaren lost not related to awd/rwd. I'm willing to bet adding a wing that does something on the rear will make it far easier to put power down and correct the driver's complaints about it sucking at 'low speed' corners (laguna really only has 1 low speed corner). I'm guessing you watch top gear right? Remember when the koenigsegg crashed, the stig said it was a mess, and would be faster with a wing to put some more grip into the rear? remember when it went seconds faster after the manufacture took the advice?

All the LMP1 cars you listed put the entire power of the conventional engine to the rear wheels too. They are at best part time awd, and why you are seeing quasi LMP awd cars now is only because of the recovery system, which as far as I know (and someone can correct me) is used more like a push to pass HP boost rather then consistently getting used every second the car accelerates hard.

AWD has been legal in F1 for decades and has been tried many times. It has never stuck. One thing stood out to me. back in Jackie Stewart's day his team built 2 identical cars. one awd and one rwd. the only discernible difference was drive shaft, gearbox, and axles for the front. They drove the same race against each other, and the awd version finished 6 laps down from the rwd car. Why? because of every reason I already listed or a big chunk of them. No one in F1 wants a car that weighs 10-15% more then their competitors.

Many manufacturers tried it, and all promptly abandoned it. Even when tire grip was low and aero was non-existent or shit, it never caught on and wasn't viewed as an advantage.

I'm comfortable with my racing skill and knowledge to debate it to death. If you want to debate why awd is better, you should probably make the jump to explaining why in detail rather than just posting a link to 2 totally different non race cars battling it out (I was talking about racing too, not street cars, but it's largely a moot point).

[HiTempguy1]

You're wrong AWD is typically penalized in virtually any form of motorsports if being used in competition against 2wd vehicles.

Audi awd was banned (not even restricted IIRC) in the 80's from IMSA because they walked all over with awd.

You are right in regards to lower hp cars though, you can't utilize the advantages of awd at low power as well in an already high traction environment (read: paved race track). Additionally, some awd systems are designed strictly with what can essentially be considered straight line traction in low grip situations (daily driving in snow and ice). Using these systems to justify awd performance vs rwd performance would be silly.

All the fastest Time Attack cars? AWD.

I could go on. But you are wrong on this point. It's ok to admit it dude, it happens to the best of us from time to time

[Alpine Autowerks]

One of the driving instructors at Race City removed the AWD components from his 996 turbo. It was almost 2 seconds a lap slower.

I also recall a guy with a 964 C4 who used to pound out lap after lap complaining about the numb steering and how slow the car felt...he traded in for a C2 ...same thing 2 seconds slower.

With AWD you can get on the power sooner and off line so passing can be done in places impossible with RWD. You also get more stability in braking from the interconnection. Check out the Audis' in Trans Am in the 90's before they were banned. Also the turbine Indy cars in the 60's ...they were underpowered compared to the others...the builder felt the AWD was a bigger part of the performance advantage than the turbine.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
You're wrong

He knows he's wrong, he's just one of those nimrods who says something retarded, is too stupid to bother verifying the validity of anything he claims, then defiantly stands alone in a corner arguing "black is white".

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan


That's incorrect. You just do not understand what he said.

There is one way around a track with a specific car that is always fastest... there has to be because there is never a tie if you get specific enough with the lap timer. Race driving is pretty much just math, and trying to get as close as possible to what the math says is fastest. It is literally impossible for a human to run that perfect lap because even a good driver like senna is still constantly making minute mistakes that cost time; but you can try to get as close to that as possible. Why drivers like Senna and Schumacher have tons of corrections in a corner is because they're feeling out where the edge of the grip is and are required to make corrections to keep the car under control. This is faster than another driver with a perfectly smooth steering arc in a corner (because he's only guessing where the edge of the grip is, and is staying so far away from the edge of adhesion he doesn't have to make a correction), but it's still giving up time because they have to scrub grip (aka speed aka losing time) making these corrections.

Someday it may be possible for a machine to run a perfect lap, but a human will never do it because of this... and a lot of other factors.

Even at the F1 level, drivers still have instructors and still get told what they're doing is slow or wrong. They even get told this while in a race, for stuff as 'simple' as where to brake for a corner. You'll that they are changing the rules because the amount of coaching in race has gotten retarded.



I figured you had track experience and could understand concepts I'm talking about (like how you should never compare 2 totally different cars to prove a point), but I guess I was wrong about that.

I explained why the weight addition which is a handicap on 99% of the track is not worth the awd being an advantage on 1% of the track.

I explained possible reasons why the maclaren lost not related to awd/rwd. I'm willing to bet adding a wing that does something on the rear will make it far easier to put power down and correct the driver's complaints about it sucking at 'low speed' corners (laguna really only has 1 low speed corner). I'm guessing you watch top gear right? Remember when the koenigsegg crashed, the stig said it was a mess, and would be faster with a wing to put some more grip into the rear? remember when it went seconds faster after the manufacture took the advice?

All the LMP1 cars you listed put the entire power of the conventional engine to the rear wheels too. They are at best part time awd, and why you are seeing quasi LMP awd cars now is only because of the recovery system, which as far as I know (and someone can correct me) is used more like a push to pass HP boost rather then consistently getting used every second the car accelerates hard.

AWD has been legal in F1 for decades and has been tried many times. It has never stuck. One thing stood out to me. back in Jackie Stewart's day his team built 2 identical cars. one awd and one rwd. the only discernible difference was drive shaft, gearbox, and axles for the front. They drove the same race against each other, and the awd version finished 6 laps down from the rwd car. Why? because of every reason I already listed or a big chunk of them. No one in F1 wants a car that weighs 10-15% more then their competitors.

Many manufacturers tried it, and all promptly abandoned it. Even when tire grip was low and aero was non-existent or shit, it never caught on and wasn't viewed as an advantage.

I'm comfortable with my racing skill and knowledge to debate it to death. If you want to debate why awd is better, you should probably make the jump to explaining why in detail rather than just posting a link to 2 totally different non race cars battling it out (I was talking about racing too, not street cars, but it's largely a moot point).

Accuses me of writing a wall of text

You keep writing "well if this.......well if that.......I wasn't talking about this......I was talking about that"

You made a blanket statement, you didn't specify anything in regards to race cars vs street cars, you were flat out, unequivocally wrong and proved so. You then made a couple of completely bone headed statements and tried in futility to create a number of caveats to explain your illogical statements. "Ya, ya, ya but what if the tires were old, but what if you add a wing, the setup of a car doesn't matter".

I know you have a beef with me over the whole "Conroy" debacle, but don't let your hatred of me motivate this strange desire you have to keep digging this hole just to prove me wrong. Even to you it must be clear this argument isn't going your way, not unlike the "Conroy" argument actually. Come to think of it you did the same thing in that thread, in the face of overwhelming evidence you're wrong you continued to dig a ditch. Ok makes sense now.

[Zhao Kan]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
You're wrong AWD is typically penalized in virtually any form of motorsports if being used in competition against 2wd vehicles.

Audi awd was banned (not even restricted IIRC) in the 80's from IMSA because they walked all over with awd.

You are right in regards to lower hp cars though, you can't utilize the advantages of awd at low power as well in an already high traction environment (read: paved race track). Additionally, some awd systems are designed strictly with what can essentially be considered straight line traction in low grip situations (daily driving in snow and ice). Using these systems to justify awd performance vs rwd performance would be silly.

All the fastest Time Attack cars? AWD.

I could go on. But you are wrong on this point. It's ok to admit it dude, it happens to the best of us from time to time

penalized yes. Because if the weight is the same there is an advantage, but the point is the weight isn't the same when you decide to put awd or rwd in a car, and that was my original point. AWD adds weight, and adding weight is a negative for performance.

3200lbs, 250whp, awd vs 3200lbs 250whp, rwd, i'd put my money on the awd car. It has more crank hp to make the same whp, will have the same grip in the corners, and will have a slight advantage on corner exit putting the power down.

but 3200lbs, 250hp, awd vs 3000lbs 250hp rwd. I know where my money would be. The rwd car will have more whp, will have an advantage in cornering, wear and tear, and will have a better power to weight ratio.

until you run out of grip, I'd stick with rwd. Where you run out of grip depends on how much aero, tire, and compound you want to put on your car. Like I said, awd was not banned in F1, and virtually no one wanted to use it. F1 was and still is the peak of racing. If awd is so great why didn't it work in F1? RWD worked because more aero, and more tire, and better compounds bridged the gap that awd could have filled on grip on corner exit, and it did it without having to have a heavier car then the competition.




This is the actual reason 4WD was banned in F1 for decades. front wheels driving the car in open wheel was a failure, but this thing opened up a whole can of worms and made 4WD a dominator in F1.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
2+2=5

The added weight of an AWD system even in a car with lower horsepower is not always a disadvantage, which is what you originally claimed

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
AWD can suck it too, as you're just adding weight which handicaps you everywhere

Good God man stop already

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan


until you run out of grip

We're talking about cars. F1 isn't really cars, so much as jets that run on wheels.

You simply can't get the same aero out of a car as you can a F1. So yes, if you want to narrowly pick and choose the criteria for your argument that rwd is better than awd, you can indeed be correct. But that's not what we are talking about.

In general, probably about in 95% of racing conditions, awd is better. Same weight of car, same power, same tire, same blah blah blah. And it changes drastically once you start getting above ~450hp.

So keep arguing about F1 and what not. I question if there would be technical limitations to awd in F1 that would make it unfeasible or not make sense. And beyond that, F1 cars have low torque and RARELY are accelerating from low speeds beause #aero. AWD is a major benefit while accelerating from low speeds. Low speeds happen in heavier cars or on tighter courses, neither of which apply to F1 because again, they aren't "cars".

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
So yes, if you want to narrowly pick and choose the criteria for your argument that rwd is better than awd, you can indeed be correct. But that's not what we are talking about.

[Zhao Kan]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


We're talking about cars. F1 isn't really cars, so much as jets that run on wheels.

You simply can't get the same aero out of a car as you can a F1. So yes, if you want to narrowly pick and choose the criteria for your argument that rwd is better than awd, you can indeed be correct. But that's not what we are talking about.

In general, probably about in 95% of racing conditions, awd is better. Same weight of car, same power, same tire, same blah blah blah. And it changes drastically once you start getting above ~450hp.

So keep arguing about F1 and what not. I question if there would be technical limitations to awd in F1 that would make it unfeasible or not make sense. And beyond that, F1 cars have low torque and RARELY are accelerating from low speeds beause #aero. AWD is a major benefit while accelerating from low speeds. Low speeds happen in heavier cars or on tighter courses, neither of which apply to F1 because again, they aren't "cars".

Not to be a dick, but F1's are cars, and it's exactly in the context I was originally thinking of. The best purpose built car for speed says all wheels getting power is a handicap. That's GG to this argument.

If you want to say F1 race cars aren't exactly cars because they're at the peak of racing, then we really can't say that the 918 or maclaren are street cars now can we because they're even less a street car than F1 cars are race'car's?

Also, it's scalable. You seriously would fail at building a race car if you wanted to add 200lbs and have awd in your 100hp 2000lb race car on c91's with aero being legal. There is no benefit there... enjoy going slower. Just like you'd fail at building a race car if you wanted to put 3000hp into a 3000lb rwd race car on skinny 195wide r888s and no aero. enjoy doing burnout donuts every corner, and of course putting awd into that thing would make it faster, albeit still a mess. IMO the point is unless there are rules limiting what you can do to the car or you self handicap it, I can't think of a reason to have awd in a race car. Even with the limiting rules amateur racing has in the lower classes handicapping you from getting optimum tire grip, very few touch awd. Why do you think that is?

IMO change the tires on that maclaren and 918 to some supersoft slicks and see what happens. Maybe add a better wing on the rear of that maclaren too and see what happens. I'm betting the gap changes, and either way it proves nothing because they are 2 totally different cars in every single way...

Why awd in time attack dominates is because they're on bullshit tires in street cars. It's the same reason why awd dominates rally. They can build the ever loving god out of their engine, but they run out of grip very fast. The funny thing is, 15 year old RX7s were still front runners when I paid attention to time attack, probably because you can actually add a lot of tire under those things and they corner well.

[Mibz]

I didn't think we'd have a thread like this on Beyond ever again, but godamn. It's like 2006 all over again.

You guys are the best.

[962 kid]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan

The best purpose built car for speed says all wheels getting power is a handicap. That's GG to this argument.

Only a sith deals in absolutes

Originally posted by Zhao Kan

If you want to say F1 race cars aren't exactly cars because they're at the peak of racing, then we really can't say that the 918 or maclaren are street cars now can we because they're even less a street car than F1 cars are race'car's?

Wat.

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
You seriously would fail at building a race car if you wanted to add 200lbs and have awd in your 100hp 2000lb race car on c91's with aero being legal. There is no benefit there... enjoy going slower. Just like you'd fail at building a race car if you wanted to put 3000hp into a 3000lb rwd race car on skinny 195wide r888s and no aero.

That's a pretty slippery straw you've got there

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
IMO the point is unless there are rules limiting what you can do to the car or you self handicap it, I can't think of a reason to have awd in a race car.

So... almost any race series on the planet?

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
IMO change the tires on that maclaren and 918 to some supersoft slicks and see what happens. Maybe add a better wing on the rear of that maclaren too and see what happens. I'm betting the gap changes, and either way it proves nothing because they are 2 totally different cars in every single way...

The Mclaren makes so much downforce it actually lowers the wing at speeds over 150MPH so as not to damage the suspension.

Originally posted by Zhao Kan

Why awd in time attack dominates is because they're on bullshit tires in street cars. It's the same reason why awd dominates rally. They can build the ever loving god out of their engine, but they run out of grip very fast. The funny thing is, 15 year old RX7s were still front runners when I paid attention to time attack, probably because you can actually add a lot of tire under those things and they corner well.

Advan A050 is a low grip tire? Funny, when I visited a friend in Japan he said that they have 29 full sets of wheels and A050s for their time attack FD because they were only fastest for 4-6 laps. Odd for a low grip tire.

Also, for fun I compiled some results from WTAC for the past 6 years.

2015
Pro Class Winner - AWD
Pro Am Class Winner - AWD
Open Class Winner - FWD
Clubsprint Class Winner - FWD

2014
Pro Class Winner - AWD
Pro Am Class Winner - AWD
Open Class Winner - AWD
Clubsprint Class Winner - AWD

2013
Pro Class Winner - AWD
Pro Am Class Winner - AWD
Open Class Winner - AWD
Clubsprint Class Winner - AWD

2012
Pro Class Winner - AWD
Open Class Winner - AWD
Clubsprint Class Winner - AWD

2011
Pro Class Winner - AWD
Open Class Winner - AWD
Clubsprint Class Winner - AWD

2010
Pro Class Winner - AWD
Open Class Winner - AWD
Clubsprint Class Winner - AWD

Better tell those guys that they're doing it wrong because F1 cars are RWD. Also, tell the event organizers that they're dumb for having rules.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
AWD can suck it too, as you're just adding weight which handicaps you everywhere

This is the asinine statement that started this debate. With every subsequent post you've tried in vain to quantify this nonsense with hypotheticals "But this.....but that". However the statement has remained as asinine as it was originally.

The truth is that AWD is not a handicap everywhere, just as AWD is not an advantage everywhere. There are situations and circumstances AWD provides an advantage as there are situations and circumstances where AWD is a disadvantage.

Claiming anything other than that makes you one of two things
1) Someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing
2) An idiot of monumental proportion

Considering this isn't the first time you've been royally owned like this I'm pretty confident it's the latter.

[Zhao Kan]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


This is the asinine statement that started this debate. With every subsequent post you've tried in vain to quantify this nonsense with hypotheticals "But this.....but that". However the statement has remained as asinine as it was originally.

The truth is that AWD is not a handicap everywhere, just as AWD is not an advantage everywhere. There are situations and circumstances AWD provides an advantage as there are situations and circumstances where AWD is a disadvantage.

Claiming anything other than that makes you one of two things
1) Someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing
2) An idiot of monumental proportion

Considering this isn't the first time you've been royally owned like this I'm pretty confident it's the latter.

Why don't you post the entire quote.

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
AWD can suck it too, as you're just adding weight which handicaps you everywhere, for a slight advantage coming out of a corner (in theory). I never liked AWD either for racing.

I listed where awd is an advantage in that first post. Why don't you explain where it's an advantage and not and advantage ...because I dont think you can.

No one has explained anything, everyone's just basically posted the adult equiv of 'LOL, i can't believe YOU don't know what puberty is!' hoping no one else knows enough to call them on their bluff.

Then we get the cherry picked examples where a car that happened to beat an awd car beat a totally different car that happened to be a rwd car. But those are meaningless because there are 1000s of examples of the contrary as well.