Any thoughts on how the RX-8 will handle in the snow?

Owners on the 350Z forum stated that the 350Z is the worst handling car in the snow.

I would like your thoughts on how you expect the RX-8 to handle in the snow.

With traction control, a few sandbags and Blizzaks the RX-8 will be fine in snow and ice. Turn off the traction control and much fun will be had :D

My 1st gen RX-7 was great in snow and I expect the same from the 8. Had my RX for 4 years at Univ. of Colorado -- skiing, etc and never once had a problem -- the 2 guys piled in the hatch all the way to Vail probably helped the traction:D

That's good to hear because it will be my only car!

yeah, it does have DSC, and the 350Z has a 6% difference in mass between the front and back wheels (by load), which is like 400lbs or something (i calc'd it a long time ago)

with the 8's better balance, and DSC, and TSC and lighter mass, with the right tyres (a narrower tyre would help a lot here), it shouldn't be too bad.

Odd, I drove a 350Z in light snow in some hilly conditions and didn't have a lick of trouble with it even with the summer tires on it. I thought it did real well.

My Miata on the other hand is a complete mess in snow and ice with the summer tires. But when you put 4 snow tires on it(Blizzack WS50s), it's the best car I've ever driven in plowed snow or ice.

I'd suspect that the RX-8 will be just fine as long as you put snows on it. (Finding 18" snow tires may be another question however ;-).

I plan on getting 17" -- narrower Blizzaks - these things are magic - make your RWD car drive like 4WD in the snow and ice. My RWD Volvo with Blizzaks goes as well as my Explorer in 4WD -- no Blizzaks and you just sit and spin.

My RX-8 with DSC will handle much better in the snow than my 2nd gen RX-7 and that is what is important to me. Torsen LSDs and [edit] DSC are a perfect combination. Of course people who currently drive fwd/awd cars might have a different perspective.

I believe the 350z has a viscous LSD and it should also have DSC and EBD although under different names. Viscous LSDs and [edit] DSC are not the same match that Torsen LSDs and [edit] DSC are. The wider tires and 53:47 front/rear weight ratio of the 350z may have been designed for better acceleration but would probably be a detriment in the snow. I think that the 350z probably handles better than my RX-7 in the snow but perhaps the people on their forum that were complaining were used to driving fwd/awd cars?

What's EBD? My guess would be Electronic Blizzard Detector, but that's just a guess.

Originally posted by ggreen29
What's EBD? My guess would be Electronic Blizzard Detector, but that's just a guess.

Hi Ggreen29,

EBD is electronic brakeforce distribution. I originally thought that it was how the DSC (dynamic stability control) distributed brakeforce to the wheel/tire that was slipping but I found out that wasn't the case. :D ( I edited my above post)

It appears that EBD determines how much braking force to apply to the front or rear brakes to provide optimum stopping performance. The front brakes apply more force since they are larger and more weight is on the front during braking. EBD determines how much force to apply to the rear brakes so that neither lock up.

The RX-8's DSC will work perfectly with it's Torsen in the snow. :)

Brian

Originally posted by RXhusker
With traction control, a few sandbags and Blizzaks the RX-8 will be fine in snow and ice.I'm sure the DSC and traction control will help a great deal, but I would suspect that sandbags will be counterproductive.

This question comes up every year on the Miata mailing list, and the general consensus is that sandbags in the trunk of a Miata do more to upset the handling than they do to assist the traction. Since the Miata's 50-50 weight balance is the same as the RX-8, I would expect similar results. Sandbags are more useful when the car is naturally nose-heavy.

Originally posted by eccles
Sandbags are more useful when the car is naturally nose-heavy.

Have a friend that would put sand and a printer's tabletop (thick steel for type setting, IIRC) into his wife's Olds Cutlass (late '70s RWD). Watching him physically pick up that 200+ lb tabletop and manuver it into the trunk was an amazing sight!

Originally posted by eccles
I'm sure the DSC and traction control will help a great deal, but I would suspect that sandbags will be counterproductive.

This question comes up every year on the Miata mailing list, and the general consensus is that sandbags in the trunk of a Miata do more to upset the handling than they do to assist the traction. Since the Miata's 50-50 weight balance is the same as the RX-8, I would expect similar results. Sandbags are more useful when the car is naturally nose-heavy.

You are probably right for the RX-8 -- but they sure do make a big difference in my Volvo -- getting some weight down on the rear wheels really seems to help.

Originally posted by eccles
I'm sure the DSC and traction control will help a great deal, but I would suspect that sandbags will be counterproductive.

This question comes up every year on the Miata mailing list, and the general consensus is that sandbags in the trunk of a Miata do more to upset the handling than they do to assist the traction. Since the Miata's 50-50 weight balance is the same as the RX-8, I would expect similar results. Sandbags are more useful when the car is naturally nose-heavy.

Using sandbags has nothing to do with the weight distribution. Of course they don't help on the Miata: It is Front Wheel Drive. The extra weight is to provide more traction by producing greater downforce on the Drive Wheels. The RX-8 is Rear Wheel Drive and will certainly benefit from extra weight in the back.

i thought miata was rear wheel drive.....:confused:

Oops. My mistake. I knew better than to say that. Don't know what I was thinking. :eek: Please disregard my comments. However, I still stand behind the statement that weight in the back is to add traction to the drive wheels and not to change weight distribution.

I'm not about to get a third car, and I'm sure not gonna drive my (so far) rust free '85 RX-7 in the Winter, so I'll be driving the RX-8. I'll miss the all-wheel drive of my WRX, but I also think the RX-8 will handle well in the snow. I don't recall having any trouble the two winters I drove my '79 1st gen. rx-7, (with four of the cheapest, ugliest, radial snow tires ever seen) but I didn't have the commute in heavy traffic back then.

The 50-50 weight bias and limited slip should make the handling pretty neutral, and with 215/55-17 Blizzaks anyway; the traction pretty good. I hope I don't regret not getting the DSC and traction control though.

I certainly empathize with Fëakhelek's comment in another thread about the salt used on the roads in some states though. I am guilty of coming into work in the morning, rantin' and a ravin' about MnDot's road crews indiscriminately dumping a quarter-inch of salt on on the roads, just because the Weather Guessing Service mentioned they had a feeling, conditions could be right for the possibility of snow. (two years ago, St. Paul ran out of salt from their ludicrous overuse early in the season, and had to buy some from Minneapolis. I laughed.)

I think cars in general have better corrosion resistance than they did fifteen years ago, and although I (or the car) won't be liking it, I'll be driving in that salt crap. The key to minimizing rust is to rinse often, (especially underneath) don't let the carpet get soaked with salty water from your feet, and try to keep bare metal from being exposed to the brine. (yeah, good luck, as the sand and salt chunks conspire to erode the paint) And although I don't generally believe in bras (for cars as well as...uhhh, sorry) because people tend to leave them on at all times, causing more damage to the paint, I may consider putting one on the RX-8.

Originally posted by Fëakhelek
Oops. My mistake. I knew better than to say that. Don't know what I was thinking. :eek: Please disregard my comments. However, I still stand behind the statement that weight in the back is to add traction to the drive wheels and not to change weight distribution.

Unless you are adding/removing weight at the car's center of gravity it WILL change the weight distribution, there is nothing you can do about that...

i believe Feakhelek means to say the principle reason for adding the mass over the wheels is to increase the force upon them, as opposed to balancing the car in a different way :) (i'm positive that) he's not disputing the fact that it would unbalance the car and add a whole lot of mass...

You're right It makes more sense to read his statement that way, don't mind me :)

Adding extra weight via sandbags will not change the acceleration potential of the car in the winter. The sandbags will (marginally) increase contact pressure,[better to use narrower tires in the snow] and if you get stuck, the sandbags can provide a traction material for extracting yourself.

Question: Are Blizzaks snow tires or winter tires (or is that a redundant question)?

How are they on dry pavement on those 40 out of 45 days it doesn't snow in the winter (at least in my neck of the woods)?

I sent Mazda an email asking them about the RX-8 in the snow.

His answer:

Hello Anthony,

Mazda has not done any driving test on the snow. The driveability of the vehicle in the snow has so many factors that goes into it, Mazda does not make opinions on the driveability. Usually, we leave it upto many automobile magazines to test drive our vehicle and make their own opinions.


Regards,

*******
Specialist, Customer Assistance E-Business

Originally posted by ACRX8
...Mazda has not done any driving test on the snow... Well, whether they were testing drivability or survivability or whatever, some of the earliest spy shots show an RX8 being driven in snow.

---jps

Originally posted by jonalan
Question: Are Blizzaks snow tires or winter tires (or is that a redundant question)?

How are they on dry pavement on those 40 out of 45 days it doesn't snow in the winter (at least in my neck of the woods)?

Blizzaks are snow tires, they have the mountain and snowflake symbol on them. They are speciffically designed to handle snow and ice. The WS50s on my Miata are optimized for ice, since we get more ice in KC than snow. There are other snow tires that are optimized for snow. They should not be confused with all season tires.

As to how they do in the dry; the WS50s stink in the dry. Oh well...

Originally posted by jonalan
Question: Are Blizzaks snow tires or winter tires (or is that a redundant question)?

I would classify Blizzaks (and their close competitors) as winter tires, not snow tires. Snows, to me, are tires with deep lugs (tread) to be used in deeper snow. Winter tires, a relatively new development, rely on "microcells" in the rubber compound itself to provide better grip on ice and packed snow. They work better on dry pavement than snows, but wear faster than even your summer tires, so only keep them on your car during the worst weather months.

Originally posted by ACRX8
I sent Mazda an email asking them about the RX-8 in the snow.

His answer:

Hello Anthony,

Mazda has not done any driving test on the snow. The driveability of the vehicle in the snow has so many factors that goes into it, Mazda does not make opinions on the driveability. Usually, we leave it upto many automobile magazines to test drive our vehicle and make their own opinions.


Regards,

*******
Specialist, Customer Assistance E-Business

Hm, if *that* actually had been true.... Hehe, I can allready hear the outraged cries of customers in scandinavia! (Myself included!) :D :p :D

But of course this reseller is wrong, as all cars that goes on sale in europe *must* be tested on snow. (And photos/video of this testing has been shown...)

Just goes to show how much the general american knows of the outside world :D (No offence)

Originally posted by xeos

Just goes to show how much the general american knows of the outside world :D (No offence)

You can't just say something like that and then make it all nice by typing: No offence. Some "stupid" american might get upset.

******* is a customer service person at MNAO. i'm surprised he didn't know about the testing in europe but then they just go with the info given to them and are not actively seeking all available info like we are. maybe i should email him some of those pics as he has helped me on several occassions and i would hate to have people thinking he didn't know what he was talking about.:)

Originally posted by Cylo


You can't just say something like that and then make it all nice by typing: No offence. Some "stupid" american might get upset.

"Aaw - Can't we all be friends!?" Homer Simpson

I just had to coment that salesperson.... :D
But he is probably right, since american spec and european sepc RX-8's isn't *exactly* the same.

again ******** is not a sales person, he is a customer service person who works for mazda north american operations.

Originally posted by xeos


"Aaw - Can't we all be friends!?" Homer Simpson

I just had to coment that salesperson.... :D
But he is probably right, since american spec and european sepc RX-8's isn't *exactly* the same.

Nice reversal... and yes we can be friends, just don't try and hug me or kiss me on the lips or anything -- I am not down with that freaky European friendly affection stuff.

Originally posted by zoom44
again ******* is not a sales person, he is a customer service person who works for mazda north american operations.

Ok, didn't see your last post there zoom44 :)

sorry to be snippy about it, but i had trouble getting to someone at my dealer who could get my car ordered. after trying another dealer in town (who was worse) i got really frustrated and called mazda and that guy answered. he made phone calls to people and got the right person at the dealer to call me back and they had got my order done right away. so i sort of feel like i owe the guy even though he was just doing his job.

Originally posted by Fëakhelek
Oops. My mistake. I knew better than to say that. Don't know what I was thinking. :eek: Please disregard my comments. However, I still stand behind the statement that weight in the back is to add traction to the drive wheels and not to change weight distribution. Granted. But the general consensus from the Miata folks is that adding sandbags is not a good idea because the extra weight over the rear wheels doesn't add a whole lot of traction, but does introduce some undesirable handling characteristcs, with the end result being a less drivable car under those conditions.

Originally posted by eccles
Granted. But the general consensus from the Miata folks is that adding sandbags is not a good idea because the extra weight over the rear wheels doesn't add a whole lot of traction, but does introduce some undesirable handling characteristcs, with the end result being a less drivable car under those conditions.

It also depends on the specific conditions. If you are in a "Texas Blizzard" :D with a half inch of snow and trying to drive as close as possible to the speed you normally would then I would not recommend weight in the back. If however you are a Yankee in Pennsylvania driving through a foot of snow on top of the previous day's foot that has been packed down to an inch thick then you aren't worried about handling characteristics. You are worried about whether you will make it up the next hill or if you will slide down it backward with your wheels spinning.

For as much as people talk about how great FWD is in snow, the only advantage is having the engine weight over the front wheels. BTW, that's another thing I have an opinion on. I would much rather have a RWD car in the snow. I don't like FWD first because in my 4cyl car there really isn't that much advantage from extra weight over the front wheels and second because when the front wheels do slip then you have lost traction and steering. If I'm going to apply torque to 2 wheels I'd rather they not be the ones I steer with.

I really don't want to drive my RX-8 in the snow, but I think that with limited slip (not sure how DSC will help), and ABS I think I would be better off than I am in my FWD Probe without any of those features.

Originally posted by Fëakhelek


It also depends on the specific conditions. If you are in a "Texas Blizzard" :D with a half inch of snow and trying to drive as close as possible to the speed you normally would then I would not recommend weight in the back. If however you are a Yankee in Pennsylvania driving through a foot of snow on top of the previous day's foot that has been packed down to an inch thick then you aren't worried about handling characteristics. You are worried about whether you will make it up the next hill or if you will slide down it backward with your wheels spinning.

For as much as people talk about how great FWD is in snow, the only advantage is having the engine weight over the front wheels. BTW, that's another thing I have an opinion on. I would much rather have a RWD car in the snow. I don't like FWD first because in my 4cyl car there really isn't that much advantage from extra weight over the front wheels and second because when the front wheels do slip then you have lost traction and steering. If I'm going to apply torque to 2 wheels I'd rather they not be the ones I steer with.

I really don't want to drive my RX-8 in the snow, but I think that with limited slip (not sure how DSC will help), and ABS I think I would be better off than I am in my FWD Probe without any of those features.

I also live in PA outside of Philly. FWD is better in the snow than RWD because it is easer to pull than push. I hope the RX-8 can handle moderate snow - it will be my only car. :D

The Rx-8 has loads of ground clearance [the lowest point is the catalytic converter] at least 5" under cat.

Also you could fit your fist between the top of the tire and the wheelarch.

Add some 215/50 17 winter tires, and you are good to go.

Problem in snow and ice is stopping and that will be a problem considering the width of the tyres and lightweight of the car. I think it will be very difficult to drive.

rael

again, with thinner tyres, and maybe dedicated winters (if the weather gets that bad), the light weight of the car will be a plus... you'd outbrake any SUV you can think of.

less weight = more likely to stop sooner (theres another word for it too!)
________
Stock picks (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

I just did the worst snow [worst as in worst weather] driving in my 99 Miata that I have ever done and although I was plowing more than anything else, as I hear it brushing up against the underside of the car, I still think the Miata is better than people give it credit for in the snow. I don't use sandbags, just 4 14" Blizzaks.

I think when it comes down to it it is about 60% car and 40% driver experience in snowy conditions. I have about a 30 mile drive to work in the mornings, so when I get there and someone calls it and says the weather is too bad for them to come it, I always wanna say, hey you know if I made it in in the Miata.....

Less weight doesn't mean shorter stopping.

he's saying less momentum... and ceteras paribus (i know my latin spelling is awful... if that's right, just a lucky guess :p), you will stop sooner with less momentum.

The issue is not momentum but inertia. I was watching a program on the French channel here in Ottawa and they showed three vehicles trying to stop on ice at the same speed. The small car stopped in just under a 100 feet at 60KPH while the SUV stopped at almost 200 feet. At 100KPH the SUB was in the next county compared to the small car.

I drive a miata in the winter and with decent snow tires I have not been stuck yet. I expect the 8 will handle the snow as well as the Miata. The secret is in the tires. As far as putting weight in the trunk the concensous is that the advantage of the extra weight over the wheels to start the car is countered by the disadvantage of making the car spin more easily as there is now more weight in the back.

I can't even believe that people are arguing this point. First of all FWD is better, in EVERY circumstance, than RWD...period. Second of all, putting weight in the back of a RWD car will indeed help also in every circumstance. Third, we aren't comparing the stopping distance of small cars to big cars. We are comparing the stopping distance to a small RWD car to a 4WD SUV- again in every circumstance, with all other things equal, the SUV or any 4WD vehicle will stop sooner than any RWD vehicle. I can't wait for the RX-8 to come out just as much as the next guy, but we can't be ignoring the fact that it won't be a gem in the snow. Snow tires and driving safe is all you can do and it should be manageable but to say that you would rather drive a RWD car over a FWD car is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
I can't even believe that people are arguing this point. First of all FWD is better, in EVERY circumstance, than RWD...period. Second of all, putting weight in the back of a RWD car will indeed help also in every circumstance. Third, we aren't comparing the stopping distance of small cars to big cars. We are comparing the stopping distance to a small RWD car to a 4WD SUV- again in every circumstance, with all other things equal, the SUV or any 4WD vehicle will stop sooner than any RWD vehicle. I can't wait for the RX-8 to come out just as much as the next guy, but we can't be ignoring the fact that it won't be a gem in the snow. Snow tires and driving safe is all you can do and it should be manageable but to say that you would rather drive a RWD car over a FWD car is ridiculous.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.. I'll just reply to say..

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHA.

Thanks for the laugh.

Sweet response there Hercules. I hope that you know more about cars than you do about the English language since stupidest isn't a word. And obviously by your statement you have no knowledge about cars either...

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
Sweet response there Hercules. I hope that you know more about cars than you do about the English language since stupidest isn't a word. And obviously by your statement you have no knowledge about cars either... Allow me to retort...

First, by going after the grammar skills I have (which will later be discussed), I can only see that your arguement holds no water. Sadly it seems that the internet discussions that go on all over the world when scoffed at (as I did yours, saying FWD cars are better than RWD ANY DAY, and AWD SUVs will brake quicker than RWD.. but I digress..), they turn first to defending their claim.

That is not the case with you, you didn't defend your claim. You stated what you did and left it at that. It's going to be made fun of (for the main reason that it's simply untrue and rather foolish to say). So you turned to the best alternative method, and that's to make fun of my grammer and spelling.

Which brings me to that point.. 'stupidest' *is* a word. So sadly even your grammar correction (and your poor retort) is wrong as well.

So here ya go, for my proof of claim: Stupidest is a word. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stupid)

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
...We are comparing the stopping distance to a small RWD car to a 4WD SUV- again in every circumstance, with all other things equal, the SUV or any 4WD vehicle will stop sooner than any RWD vehicle...
Hi Goldenhue22,

I don't think I understand your point. Why do you think a 4WD SUV will stop sooner than any RWD vehicle? Wouldn't the heavier SUV be at a disadvantage?

Thanks, Brian

Originally posted by Buger

Hi Goldenhue22,

I don't think I understand your point. Why do you think a 4WD SUV will stop sooner than any RWD vehicle? Wouldn't the heavier SUV be at a disadvantage?

Thanks, Brian :D

I was just coming back with and dumb remark to your dumb response. And I didn't put any "info" in my post because it is common sense. 2+2=4. But to Buger first. I was saying in snowy conditions a 4WD vehicle will stop faster than a RWD vehicle because of the much better traction. Obviously in dry conditions a RWD car will stop sooner.

To you Hercules here are some web pages for you:

1) This is from www.rearwheeldrive.org

Traction in Snow and Ice. When not under hard acceleration front drive cars have more weight over the front wheels. This gives more traction for acceleration in very slippery conditions. This is the biggest perceived advantage to a front drive car. However, today's rear wheel drive cars with traction control and independent suspension do very good in the snow. For areas that have extreme amounts of winter weather this may be enough to justify a front wheel drive car.

2) According to AAA's website: Front-wheel- drive vehicles generally handle better than rear-wheel-drive vehicles on slippery roads because the weight of the engine is on the drive wheels. The back end of rear-wheel-drive cars tends to lose traction and slide side-to-side during turns on icy roads because there is little weight on the drive wheels. Many vehicles today are equipped with four, or all-wheel dive, which helps maintain traction in difficult conditions.

Hmmmm, Hercules biased opinion or AAA...whom does the bell toll?

Which brings me to another common sense statement that putting sand in the trunk of a RWD car WILL, I repeat WILL, give more traction. It is impossible for it to make it worse. Again...according to AAA, "Front-wheel- drive vehicles generally handle better than rear-wheel-drive vehicles on slippery roads because the weight of the engine is on the drive wheels." Apply that same concept for putting sand bags in the trunk of a RWD car and you have more weight pressing down on the drive-wheels and thus better traction. This is complete common sense and only someone that is completely and utterly biased wouldn't agree.

im sorry i just scanned through this thread really fast, 4 pages .. grr. but so in summery Without any winter tire, and w/ just LSD. The RX-8 should be fine on snow w/ a few sandbags?? Im from Edmonton/alberta where it snows quite alot and the city seems to be too poor to actually shavel everything but the highway.. kind of ..

theonly reason i ask is because i heard the IS300 ( RWD) slips pretty bad in snow ( w/o snow tire that is).

sorry if its a stupid question :( just quite important since .. well the road is mostly covered w/ snow if not half the year, and i wont ever had a chance to get a beater since i live on Campus and only 1 parking spot

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
I was just coming back with and dumb remark to your dumb response. And I didn't put any "info" in my post because it is common sense. 2+2=4. But to Buger first. I was saying in snowy conditions a 4WD vehicle will stop faster than a RWD vehicle because of the much better traction. Obviously in dry conditions a RWD car will stop sooner.

To you Hercules here are some web pages for you:

1) This is from www.rearwheeldrive.org

Traction in Snow and Ice. When not under hard acceleration front drive cars have more weight over the front wheels. This gives more traction for acceleration in very slippery conditions. This is the biggest perceived advantage to a front drive car. However, today's rear wheel drive cars with traction control and independent suspension do very good in the snow. For areas that have extreme amounts of winter weather this may be enough to justify a front wheel drive car.

2) According to AAA's website: Front-wheel- drive vehicles generally handle better than rear-wheel-drive vehicles on slippery roads because the weight of the engine is on the drive wheels. The back end of rear-wheel-drive cars tends to lose traction and slide side-to-side during turns on icy roads because there is little weight on the drive wheels. Many vehicles today are equipped with four, or all-wheel dive, which helps maintain traction in difficult conditions.

Hmmmm, Hercules biased opinion or AAA...whom does the bell toll?
On braking, both cars have 4 wheel disc brakes. The AWD has NOTHING to do when braking. Tires of course do make a difference.

Second, I apologise as to my laughing, I kinda caught the thread in mid-discussion and as a result felt you meant that FWD cars are better than RWD cars period. It was a laughable matter that I think you'd agree on :)

However I am still right on the braking and you are wrong :) The fact that the SUV has nothing to do with braking. Both cars use four wheels to brake, and presumably both cars use the electronic aids.

In braking the car that brakes better on dry, will brake better always. AWD has nothing to do with that.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
But to Buger first. I was saying in snowy conditions a 4WD vehicle will stop faster than a RWD vehicle because of the much better traction. Obviously in dry conditions a RWD car will stop sooner.

I assumed that you were talking about snowy conditions but I still don't understand why any AWD or 4WD SUV will stop quicker than any RWD vehicle.

In snowy conditions, the AWD or 4WD vehicles distribute the torque better for acceleration but do nothing to help braking yes? Regardless of whether the vehicle is a 4WD Pathfinder, a FWD Mazda6, or a RWD RX-8, there is still 4WB (4 wheel braking) yes?

Originally posted by Buger


I assumed that you were talking about snowy conditions but I still don't understand why any AWD or 4WD SUV will stop quicker than any RWD vehicle.

In snowy conditions, the AWD or 4WD vehicles distribute the torque better for acceleration but do nothing to help braking yes? Regardless of whether the vehicle is a 4WD Pathfinder, a FWD Mazda6, or a RWD RX-8, there is still 4WB (4 wheel braking) yes? You mirrored me for once! :)

Originally posted by dying_here
im sorry i just scanned through this thread really fast, 4 pages .. grr. but so in summery Without any winter tire, and w/ just LSD. The RX-8 should be fine on snow w/ a few sandbags?? Im from Edmonton/alberta where it snows quite alot and the city seems to be too poor to actually shavel everything but the highway.. kind of ..

theonly reason i ask is because i heard the IS300 ( RWD) slips pretty bad in snow ( w/o snow tire that is).

sorry if its a stupid question :( just quite important since .. well the road is mostly covered w/ snow if not half the year, and i wont ever had a chance to get a beater since i live on Campus and only 1 parking spot

Hi Dying_Here,

I don't think the RX-8 with DSC and snow tires will have any problems in the snow (even without sandbags). If the left or right rear wheel of the RX-8 does not have traction, the DSC will be able to apply brake force to the wheel that is slipping. Torque will be applied to overcome the brake force to still turn that wheel and twice as much torque can be applied to the other wheel.

I believe the IS300 may not be quite as good in the snow because most of the weight is in the front (54/46) although the drive wheels are in the back.

Brian

Originally posted by Hercules
You mirrored me for once! :)

I started my post before I saw yours but I just type slower. :)

wat about w/o the DSC?? just the GS trim and without snow tires

Even if all wheels do some sort of braking they don't do the same amount of braking due to traction. While the front 2 wheels, in a RWD car, will be scrapping for the pavement, errr snow, it won't find it and whoops you keep on going. Actually, you'll most likely skid off the road first into a tree or something else so you may stop faster just due to Newton's second law. A 4WD vehicle provides MUCH more traction and STABILITY in braking especially in slippery conditions, mainly because the wheels aren't just *trying* to brake they do brake. Make your arguement to FWD vehicles, you'll lose everytime to a 4WD car.

Originally posted by Hercules
However I am still right on the braking and you are wrong :) The fact that the SUV has nothing to do with braking. Both cars use four wheels to brake, and presumably both cars use the electronic aids.Indeed, with all other things being equal, 2WD, FWD, 4WD, LSD, all make absolutely no difference to braking ability. Anyone who says otherwise has no grasp of the principles.

But fresh snow is one of only two situations where ABS is actually a disadvantage; the other being loose gravel or dirt. Under those conditions, a locked wheel will build up a wedge of loose material in front of it, which will actually help it stop better than a wheel which is not allowed to lock.

(On my friend's Porsche Boxster, disabling the Traction Control also disabled the ABS. I wonder if the RX-8's DSC override will also cut the ABS. I doubt it.)

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
While the front 2 wheels, in a RWD car, will be scrapping for the pavement, errr snow, it won't find it and whoops you keep on going.Sorry, I appear to have mislaid my Cretin/English dictionary. Can someone please translate that for me?

Goldenhue where in the world do you live and how many years have you been driving in the snow? I have almost thirty years up here in snowy Canada, with much of that in Northern Ontario.

In dealing with FWD, RWD or AWD they only have to do with acceleration. The operative word being Drive, not Stop. There are two important things to consider. First is where the motor is relative to the drive wheels. An old VW Beatle, which was RWD will accel. as well as any FWD car because the motor was over the drive wheels . AWD has 4 wheels working to move the car forward so regardless of where the traction is it will find it.

In a RWD car with the motor in the front adding sand to the trunk will increase the traction to the drive wheels but may have other bad concequences such as changing the weight distribution and messing up the cornering and other properties of the car. I prefer the handling of my Miata (RWD) to that of my Intrepid (FWD) or even my wife's Jeep (AWD) in winter. That is not to say that the FWD and AWD cars don't accellerate faster, just that I prefer the handling of the car.

My Miata has a 50/50 weight dist. That means that the weight over the drive wheels would be the same regardless if it was FWD or RWD. In a Focus or something that has FWD and say a 60/40 weight dist. there would be more weight over the front wheels so it could accelerate a bit better.

When it comes to stopping it all has to do with the weight of the car. When you slam on the brakes the weight of the car shifts to the front wheels which is why they are biased to brake harder then the back wheels. All cars have about the same size contact patch to the ground on the four tires but the weight of the cars is different. Simple physics will tell you that it take longer to stop a heavier object moving at a given speed then a lighter object traveling at the same speed. As I mentioned in my previous post they showed it on tv just a couple of night ago here, the AWD SUV stopped about 4 times further then the FWD civic or whatever it was on the same surface.

As far as putting weight in the trunk of a RWD car, if you brake hard and the car is just slightly out of line, the rear end will swing around faster then you can say "ouch" and now you are going sideways. That is why I would rather keep my 50/50 weight dist of the Miata and loose some acceleration in favour of better handling.

When dealing with cornering, on snow, I like to have the two front wheels work at turning the car and the two back wheels work at moving the car forward. With a FWD car the torque of the motor pulling the car works against the friction of the wheels trying to turn the car which is why FWD cars understeer so badly. With AWD, they usually bias the cars as RWD so that while the front wheels turn under power a bit, it is not as bad as a FWD car.

Take any performance driving school and they will show you that a tire has only so much grip. That grip can be distributed to start, stop or turn the car. Sort of like the equation

START + STOP + Turn = Grip.

The value of Grip is preset by the size and condition of the tires. So if you increase the value of Stop, you have to decrease the value of turn by the same amount in order for the equation to work.

Finally there is the skill of the driver to consider. The reason most mfg. are going to FWD is because people don't know how to drive well enough to get out of trouble with a RWD car. When a person starts to loose control of a car the usual reaction is to take the foot off the gas and press on the brake. In a FWD car this will usually save the person from an accident, but not always. In a RWD car the proper reaction to correct the loss of control may actually be to step on the gas. Can you say oversteer? :D It all depends on the circumstances.

How will the RX8 handle in snow? I don't know but I can't wait to find out.

Simple physics say your are wrong.

Everyone has seen F=ma, so F=m(-a) (deceleration), the force is the coefficient of friction (static/dynamic) by the normal force (mass*gravity +- downforce/lift)=mass*acceleration

F/m= acceleration; (coefficient*mass*gravity)/(mass) The masses cancel out, so the determinant of stopping power is gravity(not really changable) and the coefficient of tire/ground friction.

So an 18 wheeler (truck/lorry) can stop just as well as a Miata, if starting from the same speed, with the same tires and adequate brakes on the truck. Actually since there is so much more aerodynamic drag on the truck, the truck would stop before the Miata (assuming the truck did not jackknife)

Originally posted by MikeW
Simple physics say your are wrong.

Everyone has seen F=ma, so F=m-a (deceleration), the force is the coefficient of friction (static/dynamic) by the normal force (mass*gravity +- downforce/lift)=mass*acceleration

F/m= acceleration The masses cancel out, so the determinant of stopping power is gravity(not really changable) and the coefficient of tire/ground friction.

So an 18 wheeler can stop just as well as a Miata, if the same tires and adequate brakes on the truck. Actually since there is some much more aerodynamic drag on the truck, the truck would stop before the miata (assuming the truck did not jackknife) F=ma is true whether you're talking about acceleration or deceleration (which is merely acceleration in the opposite direction. At NO time does F ever equal m-a!

You are correct that F/m=acceleration. And granted, the tractive force is to some extent proportional to the mass of the vehicle, but to say that the two masses cancel each other out is patently ludicrous.

An 18 wheeler can stop as well as a Miata? ROFL! Only if it's fitted with retro-rockets. Even with 18 of the world's stickiest racing slicks, there's no way that a semi is ever going to outbrake a regular passenger car, let alone a Miata.

Originally posted by MikeW
[B]Simple physics say your are wrong.

Everyone has seen F=ma, so F=m-a (deceleration),

I have got to believe that Mike meant to say that F=ma, so F=m*(-a) (deceleration):confused: not that F=m (MINUS) a :confused:

Granted it has been 15 years since my studies in aerospace engineering (Univ. of Colorado) but I seem to recall that even physics this "simple" still hold to the basic laws of the universe including Newton's Second Law of Motion.

On the other hand -- maybe that is one very heavy Miata :p

Actually it may have been better to compare the semi with that rather portly "sporty" car the 350Z :eek: :p :D

Originally posted by Midnight Flyer
The issue is not momentum but inertia.

momentum and inertia and kinetic energy = all the same thing. :) just thought i'd let ya know we were both saying the same thing...

as for MikeW's post, the F on the tyres to road surface is changeable in the real world, with heat tread pattern and whatever... but SUPPOSE it was exactly the same anyways for the Miata and Lorry, the grip is still changeable: normal force is constant with vehicle mass, but you have to remember that there can be a higher specific force (pressure) one the tyres of the Miata (or the Lorry) if there is less rubber to mass (with correctly set tyre pressures)... this would also impact braking on something like a snowy or icy road... especially if there was some amount of snow or slush to cut through.

Originally posted by wakeech


momentum and inertia and kinetic energy = all the same thing. :) just thought i'd let ya know we were both saying the same thing...



actually wakeech i have inertia whether i am moving or not- momentum is only when you are moving.

I tried to communicate with the guy but I failed...

MikeW tries to do his profundus maximus thing again ...

We all have to just laugh already... :D

Mike, I'll try to remember that when the 18 wheeler is filling up my rear view mirror. I am sure it will make me feel much better before I try to do a James Bond and go under the trailer. I have sat in a tow truck with a van on the hook and while it may not be as big as an 18 wheeler, when we got cut off it took a lot more time/distance to slow that sucker then my Miata.

The thing to remember in this discussion is that while the tires/brakes on most vehicles are designed to stop the car from 60-0 in about 120 feet, we are not talking about on dry pavement here but rather on snow/ice.

If anyone thinks that an SUV on snow/ice can stop as quickly as my Miata, we can run a simple test.

As I mentioned, on a auto enthusiast program that was shown on TV here last week they showed the test that they did. Three cars, small, midsize and SUV stopping from 60 KPH and 100 KPH and the SUV always went about 4 time further then the small car.

If we use the formula F=M*A, with A being either a + number for acceleration and a - number for deceleration the Mass of the object plays a significant roll in the equation. Sorry if my physics are off but I have been 30 years out of high school. The Force required to move a 1000kg object (my Miata) with an A of say 10 M/S/S is 10,000 Newton Meters ??. The amount of Force required to move the 10,000 kg object (18 wheeler) with the same A would be 100,000 Newton Meters. To slow the same two objects down in the same distance, the force would have to be 10 times more for the larger object. And frankly I don't think that his 18 tires has that much stopping power. He only has 4.5 times the number of wheels I have.

AWD just means you can drive deaper into the ditch.

Originally posted by zoom44


actually wakeech i have inertia whether i am moving or not- momentum is only when you are moving.

*smacks head really hard* duh... sorry, it's only my empty head which doesn't have interia... :D

Originally posted by wakeech


*smacks head really hard* duh... sorry, it's only my empty head which doesn't have interia... :D

hey it's not like it's everday i get to tell you that you were wrong about something....


....every other maybe:p ;)