[morphomeman]

The one comparable feature that nobody has mentioned is anti-lock braking (ABS). In the twenty-odd years that I have driven ABS-equipped cars, I can count on one hand the number of times that it has truly gotten me out of a jam. But in a couple of those cases, it saved me from serious harm.
The same might be said for AWD for most drivers. Sure, Caterham folks might manage to get out of some of these jams without ABS, or AWD, or power steering or whatever, but they represent an infinitesimally small fraction of the driving public and are likely (though not necessarily) more skilled drivers.
That said, we might want to argue over the difference between front-biased and rear-biased AWD. Most BMWs are rear-biased, which means that, most of the time, the car behaves more like RWD. Am I correct in thinking that the Mini-based models are FWD biased?

[Moflow]

Originally Posted by morphomeman

The one comparable feature that nobody has mentioned is anti-lock braking (ABS). In the twenty-odd years that I have driven ABS-equipped cars, I can count on one hand the number of times that it has truly gotten me out of a jam. But in a couple of those cases, it saved me from serious harm.
The same might be said for AWD for most drivers. Sure, Caterham folks might manage to get out of some of these jams without ABS, or AWD, or power steering or whatever, but they represent an infinitesimally small fraction of the driving public and are likely (though not necessarily) more skilled drivers.
That said, we might want to argue over the difference between front-biased and rear-biased AWD. Most BMWs are rear-biased, which means that, most of the time, the car behaves more like RWD. Am I correct in thinking that the Mini-based models are FWD biased?

You are correct, the Mini based chassis has the engine mounted transversely, which generally results in a front biased AWD system.

The problem I have with using ABS as a metaphor for AWD is that stopping a car is a safety issue 100 percent of the time. Not being able to accelerate is much less of a safety issue and when it does happen to be one (like passing on the highway) you're generally traveling at higher speeds where the benefits of AWD are reduced.

You're very unlikely to kill yourself or someone else because your car isn't moving when you want it to be moving. The same can't be said for vehicles in motion that need to be stopped.

[Throttlesteer14]

Originally Posted by Moflow

You are correct, the Mini based chassis has the engine mounted transversely, which generally results in a front biased AWD system.

The problem I have with using ABS as a metaphor for AWD is that stopping a car is a safety issue 100 percent of the time. Not being able to accelerate is much less of a safety issue and when it does happen to be one (like passing on the highway) you're generally traveling at higher speeds where the benefits of AWD are reduced.

The ability to accelerate is actually an important safety feature. Consider merging from a short freeway on-ramp or zipper lane. Cars brake much quicker than they accelerate. It behooves you to accelerate to slightly faster to the flow of traffic, find a reasonable merge gap, tap your brakes and change into the lane. The worst possible thing is to not have enough speed to take advantage of the merging opportunity and run out of room. I wouldn't apply this argument when comparing AWD and RWD, considering the nominal difference. But, acceleration is definitely a safety feature.

[morphomeman]

Having owned a Rabbit diesel many years ago, I KNOW THAT ACCELERATION IS A SAFETY ISSUE. That thing could not get out of its own way. I had similar experiences with rental Prii years ago. No can merge!

[Sportstick]

I see the validity to the argument that acceleration is a safety feature in some situations, but as stated, it is not comparable to the importance of braking in almost all situations. But, for logical consistency, I assume all who advocate AWD as a acceleration safety feature, first and foremost advocate for the proper tires as being exponentially more important. Four low traction tires can spin as uselessly as two.

[Moflow]

Originally Posted by morphomeman

Having owned a Rabbit diesel many years ago, I KNOW THAT ACCELERATION IS A SAFETY ISSUE. That thing could not get out of its own way. I had similar experiences with rental Prii years ago. No can merge!

It absolutely is. However, when you need to accelerate for the sake of safety (merging, passing, etc) rarely is traction the limiting factor. Having AWD in the rabbit or the Prius wouldn't have solved any of the problems you were having.

I'm not saying such a scenario doesn't exist, just that they are far less common than situations where you need ABS to prevent an accident.

[sandrik93]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

I see the validity to the argument that acceleration is a safety feature in some situations, but as stated, it is not comparable to the importance of braking in almost all situations. But, for logical consistency, I assume all who advocate AWD as a acceleration safety feature, first and foremost advocate for the proper tires as being exponentially more important. Four low traction tires can spin as uselessly as two.

Completely agree. Slid right through the intersection on red light trying to brake in rain on fairly slippery asphalt (rain + quality of the road). Switched to MPSS from the dreadful Cinturato run-flats. Attempted the same braking maneuver in rain at the same intersection (on the way to work). Got to dead stop way before the stopping line and tires are not even new. Tire make a huge difference.

[BimBimM2]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

I see the validity to the argument that acceleration is a safety feature in some situations, but as stated, it is not comparable to the importance of braking in almost all situations. But, for logical consistency, I assume all who advocate AWD as a acceleration safety feature, first and foremost advocate for the proper tires as being exponentially more important. Four low traction tires can spin as uselessly as two.

Having decent tires is baseline, no matter the drive. I think deviating too much to the "think of all the marketing hypnotized masses who may or may not be driving on shitty tires" is akin to "think of the children/dolphins/environment/purple people" argument, aka concern trolling fallacy; it is plausible, since you build a strong case around edge scenarios, but in the grand scheme of things it is irrelevant.

This is the inverse of a straw man argument; standard Bailey-Motte fallacy. And it is never done on purpose, that's the beauty of it!

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by BimBimM2

Having decent tires is baseline, no matter the drive. I think deviating too much to the "think of all the marketing hypnotized masses who may or may not be driving on shitty tires" is akin to "think of the children/dolphins/environment/purple people" argument, aka concern trolling fallacy; it is plausible, since you build a strong case around edge scenarios, but in the grand scheme of things it is irrelevant.

This is the inverse of a straw man argument; standard Bailey-Motte fallacy. And it is never done on purpose, that's the beauty of it!

Utterly fallacious. It may be baseline for you, or for some forum members. But, legions of mass market buyers assume the tires that come on their vehicle are just fine for all occasions, and for those who choose AWD, many do not think of or wish to be bothered by seasonal changes. This is the greatest harm...persuaded to buy a powertrain without full understanding and then being similarly persuaded they have done all they need for all conditions.

[Throttlesteer14]

I just don't see this grand conspiracy of car dealers trying to actively sway or hard sell customers to buy AWD over RWD models. I don't discount the fact people might think they need it in lieu of having proper rubber for their driving conditions. Most new cars come with crappy tires with the exception of a small few. Maybe uniformed people think AWD is more important than the quality of tire on their car. But, it's also possible they don't want to buy two sets of wheels with use-specific rubber.

In my case, I already have two sets of wheels/tires for my other car. I don't really have the room for yet another set of wheels. It rains a lot here, but only snows for a couple weeks out of the year. I have nearly brand-new, crap RF tires now and am struggling with replacing them with real rubber. I could sell the run-flats, even though there probably isn't a line of people hoping to buy them (especially without wheels). I also don't want to go through the pain of shipping them. A quality set of all-season tires on an AWD car isn't a bad compromise though.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer14

I just don't see this grand conspiracy of car dealers trying to actively sway or hard sell customers to buy AWD over RWD models. I don't discount the fact people might think they need it in lieu of having proper rubber for their driving conditions. Most new cars come with crappy tires with the exception of a small few. Maybe uniformed people think AWD is more important than the quality of tire on their car. But, it's also possible they don't want to buy two sets of wheels with use-specific rubber.

It is not the dealers. It's the OEMs. I spent 2+ decades inside one, and margin is the primary motivator. The dealers sell what they have in inventory, based on the OEM product plans designed to maximize margin. AWD is a high margin item. Day rates and gateline times at the plant for low margin configurations become disincentives to use an allocation for ordering outside the recommended specs. It is then the job of marketing to move the metal as produced, including the overall messaging strategy to educate/persuade/gain consideration. Once a dealer sells a unit, the overwhelming tendency is to reorder a similar unit, deeming that it has "high velocity" inventory turnover. And, so the cycle perpetuates itself as initially designed all the way back at OEM product planning and engineering 4 years earlier.

That is just how it has worked for over a century, despite the "conventional wisdom" among some here who haven't had their life careers inside the industry.

As we know from recent politics, the best con is when the mark doesn't realize what happened. The low information masses have the least amount of realization and the most reliance on emotion. A lot of jaws would drop here if you had the chance to sit behind focus group one-way glass the last decades and listen to what people really think.

However, if you wish to have a different opinion than based on the above, that's all well and good, of course!

[BimBimM2]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

Utterly fallacious. It may be baseline for you, or for some forum members. But, legions of mass market buyers assume the tires that come on their vehicle are just fine for all occasions, and for those who choose AWD, many do not think of or wish to be bothered by seasonal changes. This is the greatest harm...persuaded to buy a powertrain without full understanding and then being similarly persuaded they have done all they need for all conditions.

Conjecture.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by BimBimM2

Conjecture.

Professional experience. What do you do for a living?

[aerobod]

I think the Germans have the right approach when it comes to winter tyre mandatory use, all-seasons are now considered not suitable there for use in ice and snow: https://www.german-way.com/travel-an...inter-driving/. Makes the decision easy when owning a car there, winter tyres are a legal requirement, so buying them and storing them has to be factored into vehicle ownership. Quebec and any non-coastal areas of BC also have similar mandated winter tyre requirements.

[dradernh]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer14

It rains a lot here, but only snows for a couple weeks out of the year.

Do you know or have an idea if snow or rain in the Seattle region is what's caused BMW of Bellevue to place 287 AWDs and 8 RWDs on the lot? Is there something in the area that makes AWD a necessity or especially desirable?

[BimBimM2]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

Professional experience. What do you do for a living?

I do not doubt your position; I do think those are edge cases, at least. And that's why yours is, at best, a Bailey Motte defense.

People learn eventually. Users learn. So even if what you once knew as true may not be the case today.

Of course I don't doubt you have certainly seen the trends you speak of in your professional experience. This conversation is inspiring me to look up some stats on AWD and accidents and all that.

So data is important. More importantly clean data without biases is important. But for the sake of discussion, I don't think the safety factors of AWD can be invalidated by constantly defaulting to "but the TIRESSSS AND MARKETING HYPNOTIZED IDIOTS ON BAD TIRES" defense.

[BimBimM2]

Originally Posted by dradernh

Do you know or have an idea if snow or rain in the Seattle region is what's caused BMW of Bellevue to place 287 AWDs and 8 RWDs on the lot? Is there something in the area that makes AWD a necessity or especially desirable?

What would you think would be safer for the average soccer mom/dad driving their 350hp 3-series? RWD on crappy tires or AWD on crappy tires?

If Sportstick is correct, and higher margins are the main motivators behind pimping AWD, that still doesn't invalidate that in wet/snowy weather torquing 4 tires with intelligent TC/DSC is *safer* for the above user than only two tires being torqued.

It is an easy sell.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by BimBimM2

I don't think the safety factors of AWD can be invalidated by constantly defaulting to "but the TIRESSSS AND MARKETING HYPNOTIZED IDIOTS ON BAD TIRES" defense.

No one, including me, has attempted to invalidate the benefits of AWD, as it would be false. It has benefits, and like everything else, it has drawbacks.

I think I am observing the "straw man" defense of taking portions of what I said to construct a false entity, then easy to knock down.

I have been a proponent of AWD in circumstances in which is actually provides a benefit. See prior posts.

But, as a completely separate topic, the generalized population's perceptions about AWD are independent of the actual benefits. That has been the point I have been trying, not yet successfully, to make. And, that position is meaningful, as it then leads people to make potentially self-harming subsequent decisions when they place an overstated and undue level of faith in what AWD can actually do for them, such as assist with braking, stop their tires from skidding, etc. I'm not sure how else to explain this, but this is the heart of my concern.

[AleksanderSuave]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

,[/U][/I] the generalized population's perceptions about AWD are independent of the actual benefits.

I'd have to agree with that.

Yet I'd prefer that be the case, than to have the general public think that RWD is "just as good", knowing that the majority of people dont keep up on tire maintenance at all.

4 is still better than 2, as someone else has mentioned here.

And while I dont doubt your professional experience, Im speaking from a similar position. Less experience, as I imagine you're older than me, if you were studying focus groups on macpherson struts, but similar industry.

the difference is, by now, a lot of "car myth" has been publicly debunked. RWD bias/preference just happens to be one of those left behind by the previous generation.

[dradernh]

Originally Posted by BimBimM2

What would you think would be safer for the average soccer mom/dad driving their 350hp 3-series? RWD on crappy tires or AWD on crappy tires?

If Sportstick is correct, and higher margins are the main motivators behind pimping AWD, that still doesn't invalidate that in wet/snowy weather torquing 4 tires with intelligent TC/DSC is *safer* for the above user than only two tires being torqued.

It is an easy sell.

I'd like to see hard data showing AWD's advantage when DSC isn't enough. My guess is that if it exists at all, it's very small. By the time you're getting ready to wreck, AWD isn't going to save you. As always, my 2¢.

No sell is required in the north when AWD is pretty much all that's on the lot. BMW marketing has a ways to go in the South; I don't know the trendline, but I'd bet it's moving AWDs way at a decent clip.

[BimBimM2]

Originally Posted by dradernh

I'd like to see hard data showing AWD's advantage when DSC isn't enough. My guess is that if it exists at all, it's very small. By the time you're getting ready to wreck, AWD isn't going to save you. As always, my 2¢.

No sell is required in the north when AWD is pretty much all that's on the lot. BMW marketing has a ways to go in the South; I don't know the trendline, but I'd bet it's moving AWDs way at a decent clip.

Fair point data is a wonderful thing!

[aerobod]

If there is a difference in collision rates due to any given platform being safer than another, then the insurance rate for the same vehicle of similar value with the only difference being AWD, FWD or RWD should be reflected in lower insurance rates. The actual repair cost differences will be small, the main difference will be due to injury claim cost, if there is any meaningful difference.