[Maynard]

Sad that this basic truth needs so much restatement, but I think we are fighting against the ignorance of the market and misleading claims for AWD on A/S tires ('hey, we never put it in writing - those are mistaken ASSUMPTIONS' say the lawyers). Basic truth is that winter tires are way more effective than AWD, and A/S tires are only good for getting those last few drives in before the snow falls.

But it is also sad that this article uses such tortured language that is easily misunderstood to say 'AWD doesn't help traction'. The obvious fallacy of this statement leads people to assume that there is no truth at all to the argument, and they can just keep driving on their craptastic A/S's (or perhaps leave their summer tires on all year long). This is only true from the most wonky physics definition of 'traction' to refer to contact-patch traction coefficients ('traction' is what exists at each tire surface, not the functional ability to make the car do what we want it to). The article so 'clearly' states "All-wheel drive...doesn’t improve traction, or create traction, it just maximizes the traction you have" - true, but to be precise, AWD "maximizes" that forward traction by doubling it (which most of us would consider a significant improvement). AWD also improves handling around corners, but much less substantially - the front wheels help pull you thru a turn and offset some of the understeer. I find it amusing that the posters above who try to reference race cars ignored the total dominance of AWD when racing is on slick surfaces (e.g. Rallying) - the WRC guys can tell you how useful AWD can be in both acceleration and turning. In fact, I doubt we would ever be having this debate if the Audi Quattro had not so handily destroyed anything RWD that it competed against (that made it racecar gear, with a corresponding shift from calling it "4WD" to that cool new tech 'AWD'). So stop working this straw man, put snow tires on your BMW and enjoy the ultimate driving machine all 4 seasons.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by 230iZTR

AWD gets you better traction to get you going from a stop. Season-apporopriate tires and good driving technique give you traction to keep you going once you're rolling, regardless of drivetrain configuration. The article appears to back that. A physics textbook would back that. Driving in Tahoe seems to anecdotally back that.

Technically, and consistent with the discussion, a slight restatement which should be true for all conditions with traction greater than zero:

AWD makes better use of the available traction from the tires to get you going from a stop.

I don't see how "driving technique" either adds or reduces traction. Traction is what it is based on the tire capability and surface conditions. Driving technique can either use this existing availability wisely or exceed it, but doesn't change it.

[M Smurf]

Thanks to the aggressive marketing campagaining of the auto industry promoting the fallacy that AWD is the answer to the woes of winter transportation, no non-AWD vehicles can be found within 1k miles! Insert 2 thumbs down as I pass the F150s sitting in a ditch

[harma24]

Originally Posted by M Smurf

Thanks to the aggressive marketing campagaining of the auto industry promoting the fallacy that AWD is the answer to the woes of winter transportation, no non-AWD vehicles can be found within 1k miles! Insert 2 thumbs down as I pass the F150s sitting in a ditch

AWD undoubtedly does help (accelerate) in the winter. It's not the F150's fault the driver was not educated enough to realize that it's winter tires, not AWD, which help you corner / decelerate.

[jzeiler4]

Here in North Alabama we don't really get snow but rather a freezing rain that turns to ice followed by a layer of snow. It is funny to watch all the four wheel drive operators trying to stop at red lights. All vehicles are 4WD when it comes to stopping. I choose xDrive for my M240 because FWD was not an option and I have been driving FWD vehicles for the last 50 years.

[Maynard]

Originally Posted by jzeiler4

Here in North Alabama we don't really get snow but rather a freezing rain that turns to ice followed by a layer of snow. It is funny to watch all the four wheel drive operators trying to stop at red lights. All vehicles are 4WD when it comes to stopping. I choose xDrive for my M240 because FWD was not an option and I have been driving FWD vehicles for the last 50 years.

This is what you want then (or the newest v.10 coming soon): https://www.nokiantires.com/studded-...kkapeliitta-9/

I'm on these and they are truly something else for traction; no more worries about black ice. I've run them up over 80 without feeling like they were too squirmy on dry pavement (to me no worse than ordinary snows), and the semi-retractable studs haven't eaten up my driveway. They are kind of noisy, but for me it is just another performance sound, not as annoying as a fart can/open intake and a hell of a lot more effective. I used to wonder about all those trucks in the ditch too, until somebody clued me to how expensive tires for trucks are - probably half of them trying to run down to the cords to save money, or on Costco supercheapos.

[E46ZHP2]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

This prompts a few comments:

First, we need to disabuse ourselves of the concept of "better". "Better" or "worse" are purely human subjective constructs. Thing A may be different than Thing B, but whether any one thing is "better" than another is a subjective evaluation by a particular person, depending on their personal priorities, and not an objective reality that applies to all. There is no inherent "better" of anything in regard to anything.

This thread started in relation to winter tires. AWD with winter tires has the greatest capability. RWD with winter tires follows for winter conditions. AWD is only effective if and when the four wheels it powers can deliver the power to the ground, which is a function of traction, which solely comes from tires. All seasons are far less capable, so AWD with all seasons is a lower capability combination.

Lastly, high performance cars use AWD to divide the torque that would otherwise exceed the traction capability of fewer than all four tires. That is the benefit and purpose...to most efficiently translate engine power via more powered tires with traction to acceleration of the vehicle. Have a M5, or even an M2 or other high performance vehicle? Then, it may be more efficient at WOT conditions. For most typical 2 Series vehicles in the vast majority of use cases, which do not include WOT takeoffs, this benefit will never be realized.

When it comes to performance measures 0-60/60-0, battery range, etc. There ARE objective measurements that prove one is better than another, not just "different". My statement was that "From a performance standpoint, AWD is better". Unless you feel that inferior performance results are better. Perhaps in a disabused human construct kind of way?

The point is that for us in the general population (not F1 racing), with all other variables being equal (tires, location, conditions) an AWD car delivers better performance. Some Real World Evidence that is relevant to this cohort... the 0-60 time for an X-drive m240 is better than the RWD version. Not only is it different, it's better.

I thought that article was poorly written, and thus I may have gotten off topic about tires. One should have the right tires for the conditions, no matter how many wheels are spinning. I have run dedicated summers and snows as long as I can remember (fwd, rwd, awd). Why? Because they deliver the best results possible.

[jzeiler4]

Originally Posted by Maynard

This is what you want then (or the newest v.10 coming soon): https://www.nokiantires.com/studded-...kkapeliitta-9/

Thanks but for the one or two days every five years that we get this kind of weather, I'll just stay home.
I know a guy in NC that put studded tires on his BMW K1200LT motorcycle so he could ride to work in the snow!!!

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by E46ZHP2

When it comes to performance measures 0-60/60-0, battery range, etc. There ARE objective measurements that prove one is better than another, not just "different". My statement was that "From a performance standpoint, AWD is better". Unless you feel that inferior performance results are better. Perhaps in a disabused human construct kind of way?

The point is that for us in the general population (not F1 racing), with all other variables being equal (tires, location, conditions) an AWD car delivers better performance. Some Real World Evidence that is relevant to this cohort... the 0-60 time for an X-drive m240 is better than the RWD version. Not only is it different, it's better.

I thought that article was poorly written, and thus I may have gotten off topic about tires. One should have the right tires for the conditions, no matter how many wheels are spinning. I have run dedicated summers and snows as long as I can remember (fwd, rwd, awd). Why? Because they deliver the best results possible.

The fallacy in the argument is the implication that faster is "better". You may feel that way as you perceive being faster as providing you a greater benefit. You may have balanced the trade-offs necessary to achieve being faster and decided they are worthwhile. For others, faster is not better as it is not relevant to how they drive as they feel no benefit from arriving at 60 mph some decimal place of a second sooner, and/or it includes offsetting factors such as more cost to purchase, most cost to maintain, WOT launches needed to benefit from being measurably faster wears out their tires sooner, the AWD equipment weight up front changes the steering feel. In that someone-else's overall assessment, being faster may not be "better" as it is not relevant or worth those trade-offs. Therefore, the difference of being faster is inherently subjective, despite the reality of the difference being measurable. It may be perceived as better to some, worse to others, but in neither case, objectively universally true.

The same logic can apply to your other examples, such as battery range. The benefit for some of longer range between charges may be irrelevant if one uses the car exclusively for local errands and recharges each night at home and never uses the existing range capacity. As well, longer range includes offsets of cost (especially of advanced technology in early phases), weight, packaging of a larger battery. The range may be measureable as longer, but it may or may not actually be better or worse for any given person as not worth the trade-offs.

No attribute exists in a vacuum and the pros/cons or relevance lead only to a personal assessment that will never be universal and can never create an objective, inherent "better" nor "worse".