Would rules still allow mid-front engine cars?

[autogyro]

4WD is only better for performance in certain circumstances.
Even for full off road racing in sand or mud it is only better for heavy vehicles, a light RWD buggy is much better.
4WD gives a benefit in rallying mainly on 'loose' surfaces, on grippy surfaces it is only better if the regulations restrict the tyres on two wheeled drive cars.
In F1 mechanical 4WD was found to be far to heavy in mechanical form. The light weight of an F1 car is the holly grail and RWD even with current regulated tyres is much better than 4WD.
For 99.9 percent of road use 4WD is irelevent.
Blobby 4WD monsters are simply gas guzzling bs unless you happen to be a farmer or site builder.
For little blonde women on school runs they are a sick joke.
Certainly manufacturers can follow rally development and build awesome 4WD road cars but the performance on ordinary roads can easily be 'out' designed with a two wheeled drive car using the right tyres if you seriously want that level of performance on the road.

In F1 KERS would be much more easily controlled if it were to operate on all four wheels.
However energy harvesting on four wheels need not be mechanical and would be more efficient and lighter than mechanical 4WD KERS.
Motor generator/'s on the front axle harvesting braking and being used for drive only in corners to increase corner exit and improve handling (understeer.oversteer) would be the way to go.
Even so with the huge downforce durrently allowed the differences would still depend mainly on aero design.

On road cars the use of KERS does not give huge benefits unless the car is a hard driven performance type.

[olefud]

.
For 99.9 percent of road use 4WD is irelevent.
Blobby 4WD monsters are simply gas guzzling bs unless you happen to be a farmer or site builder.
For little blonde women on school runs they are a sick joke.
Certainly manufacturers can follow rally development and build awesome 4WD road cars but the performance on ordinary roads can easily be 'out' designed with a two wheeled drive car using the right tyres if you seriously want that level of performance on the road.

I don’t disagree. However, there was supposedly a study that concluded that a driven tire had less rolling resistance than one merely along for the ride. This could be an advantage for all-wheel as opposed to 4- wheel drive.

[PlatinumZealot]

Front engine is disastrous to safety with the type of aerodynamics F1 has.

[aussiegman]

In my eyes, massive design and performance disadvantage, and thats kind of been proved by every car manufacturer ever

In terms of converting the mechanical energy into kinetic, it is much more efficient having the engine pushing from the back, i'e rearwheel drive. Of course 4wd mixes that up a little lol

How do you figure? And I that were the case why do consumer cars tend to be FWD in a market where efficiency is a big selling point .

These are VERY broad statements when talking configurations. Also consumer cars and race cars are very different things!!

Firstly there are four (4) primary 2WD layouts.

1) Mid-engined RWD
2) Rear-engined RWD
3) Front engined RWD
4) Front engined FWD

All rear wheel drive systems have a "performance" advantage over FWD due to effective "weight shift" under acceleration over the driving wheels proving extra traction.

Front engined rear wheel drive has an "efficiency" disadvantage over FWD and mid/rear engine layouts due to increased component weight, increased rotating assembly mass (tailshafts) and increased transmission distances resulting in higher drivetrain losses.

FWD and Mid-Rear engine cars have higher driveline "efficiency" than front engine RWD due to the engine and transaxle usually being mated together removing the weigh and losses of the tailshaft, reducing the overall power loss..

FWD have a performance disadvantage over all RWD systems as the effective "weight shift" under acceleration moves weight off the driving wheels (the front wheels) and moves it to the rear undriven wheels.

4WD has increase in traction over both systems, both through torque vectoring under slip conditions and can take advantage of the effective "weight transfer" under both acceleration and deceleration events.

4WD has an efficiency disadvantage due to increased weight and increased drivetrain losses.

[xxChrisxx]

How do you figure? And I that were the case why do consumer cars tend to be FWD in a market where efficiency is a big selling point .

Efficiency isn't the driver for the switch from RWD to FWD.

1. Cost - it's much cheaper to produce a FWD engine & transaxle combo.
2. Cabin space, no transmission tunnel = room in the back.
3. Safety - most people are poor drivers and FWD handle more predictably in the hand of the unskilled driver. Most problems are solved by lifting off, which is the instincive reaction when facing a issue.

When you have a skilled driver, RWD will virtually always be quicker and almost more safe, less perilous understeer.

It's more 'efficient' or effective becuase you are doing task sepeation. A tyre works best when it's asked to work laterally, or londitudinally and less well when asked to do both. Also you get rear weight transfer under acceleration.

Just don't put one in the snow without a concrete block in the boot.


EDIT: Just seen he Richard posed almost exactly the same as above first. I'm not copying, I promise!