What’s the Difference Between All-Wheel Drive and Four-Wheel Drive?

iStock/PeopleImages
iStock/PeopleImages

As the weather turns nasty, you may start to think more about your car’s transmission—particularly, its ability to get you up and down muddy, snowy, or icy roads. While you may know that two-wheel drive isn’t the best option for driving in harsh weather, other terms are more confusing. Like, for instance, all-wheel drive versus four-wheel drive. Don’t all cars have four wheels (at least when it comes to sedans, SUVs, and other consumer vehicles)? As Jalopnik explains, the difference between all-wheel drive (AWD) and four-wheel drive (4WD) is more than just semantics—and which type you need depends heavily on the kind of driving you do on a regular basis.

When a car manufacturer specifies something as two-, four-, or all-wheel drive, the company is referring to the tires that receive power from the engine. With two-wheel drive, the engine powers either the front axle or the back axle of the car, meaning that the engine is moving only the front tires or the back tires. The other axle is just rolling along. When four-wheel drive (sometimes referred to as 4x4) is engaged, meanwhile, the engine rotates all four wheels. This helps give the car extra traction on slippery surfaces like sand, ice, and gravel—so that even if one set of wheels can’t get traction on a slippery surface, the other wheels might be able to.

The key word there is “engaged.” Traditionally, four-wheel drive means that your car can drive with all four wheels, but you have to manually choose that option. The rest of the time, you’re in two-wheel drive mode. As Ray Magliozzi of NPR’s "Car Talk" once explained to a listener, four-wheel drive is “designed to be engaged when you're already stuck, or in a specific situation where you know you might get stuck—like in snow, sand, or mud. It’s not designed for normal road use, and must be disengaged before you drive on dry, paved roads.”

In all-wheel drive, meanwhile, the car figures out what kind of traction you need all on its own. It has sensors that figure out how much power should go to each wheel to give you the best traction without any input on your part. This is a useful feature for driving in a variety of different conditions, while a dedicated four-wheel drive mode might be better for serious off-roading.

Be warned: There are downsides to all that extra traction. A car’s engine has to work harder to power all four wheels. Those engines are also heavier, which itself takes more power to move. As a result, four-wheel or all-wheel drive cars usually use significantly more fuel than your typical two-wheel drive model.

There are other caveats to this explanation: Full-time four-wheel drive cars do exist, but they differ slightly from all-wheel drive vehicles because of how the two axles of the car move in relation to each other. In four-wheel drive, the front and rear wheels are locked together so they spin at the same rate; in all-wheel drive, the wheels aren’t locked like this—different amounts of power go to the different wheels as needed.

All this said, even if you live somewhere with snowy winters, it doesn’t necessarily mean you should spring for all-wheel drive. If you’re driving a lot in inclement weather—say, if you live in South Dakota or Wyoming rather than sunny Southern California—winter tires may actually be a lot more important than which wheels the engine is powering. Need proof? Watch the video comparison here.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

Who Has Jurisdiction for Crimes Committed in Space?

iStock/nedelcupaul
iStock/nedelcupaul

It's 2050. Humans have mastered commercial space travel. Hundreds of people pay thousands of dollars to be sent into orbit in a spaceship. Maybe some decide to help colonize Mars.

Then, trouble. A jilted spouse. A smuggled firearm. Perhaps a struggle followed by suffocation. A space traveler is found dead on board a ship or on the Red Planet. Who has jurisdiction over such crimes? Is there such a thing as a cosmic Hercule Poirot? Could someone fall through the cracks and get away with space murder?

To date, no one has been victim of a space crime. But because no one nation can lay claim to ownership of space, the idea of a criminal offense committed outside of our atmosphere is something people have already given some thought to.

According to NASA engineer and instructor Robert Frost, the language of law for galactic felonies would be the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. In Article VIII of the treaty, nations engaging in space exploration agree that they will bear responsibility for the actions of personnel aboard their craft. In other words, if a privatized shuttle from China sees a fight break out among crew members, leaving one injured, China would be the entity responsible for handling legal repercussions.

That varies slightly with the International Space Station, or ISS, which is home to a number of personnel from different nations. In the case of the ISS, an intergovernmental agreement signed in 1998 mandates that the home country of the offender will handle any investigation or prosecution. If the victim is a national of another country, that country will have the right to inquire as to the criminal status of the offender and seek to have jurisdiction over the matter if they feel justice isn't being meted out.

In most cases, space crime sprees would be treated the same as if an offender was traveling in a foreign country or in international waters. If you're a U.S. citizen and decide to bludgeon someone at sea or on the Moon, the various international agreements and national laws would determine how you get prosecuted. (Assuming, of course, you returned to Earth to answer the charges.)

Space crimes pose another intriguing wrinkle. In terra firma investigations, authorities can secure crime scenes, question witnesses, and preserve evidence. Aboard a spaceship or on a distant planet, these procedures would be difficult to perform, and almost impossible to do in a timely fashion. Even if a criminal investigator is on Mars, low gravity will affect blood spatter and bodies may even decay at a different rate than they do on Earth. While an American may be found liable for murder, proving it was malicious and not the result of the dangerous environment would give any prosecutor a headache. A defense attorney, on the other hand, would have a field day questioning defective spacesuits or toxic exposure to strange space chemicals.

Then again, prosecutors may not have to concern themselves with evidence. Thanks to airlocks and restrictive suits, the movement of space travelers is highly monitored. It would be hard to make any plausible deniability about one's whereabouts.

The closest thing to space crime that law enforcement has yet encountered may be crimes committed in Antarctica, the frigid and isolated continent that's unaffiliated with any country but operates under the Antarctic Treaty signed by 54 nations. The agreement declares that the suspect is likely under their home country's jurisdiction. In some cases, the country owning the research station where the alleged crime took place steps in. In 2018, a Russian researcher at Bellingshausen Station on King George Island went after his victim with a knife in the station's dining room. He was charged in Russia, though reports indicate the case has since been dropped. And in 2000, an Australian astrophysicist suspected of being fatally poisoned had an autopsy performed in New Zealand. The exam showed he had ingested methanol, but it remains unknown whether he did so accidentally or whether someone gave it to him. New Zealand police were unable to determine the source.

A person committing murder in space would certainly be held responsible. But whether they'd ever be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt remains very much up in—and beyond—the air.

Why Do Dogs Eat Grass?

iStock/K_Thalhofer
iStock/K_Thalhofer

If something is edible (or even if it's not), many dogs will gladly make a meal of it. But if you see your pet grazing on your front lawn like cattle, it may be driven by something more than its undiscerning appetite. Eating grass frantically can be a sign that a dog is sick.

It's not unusual to see a dog vomit after consuming grass, prompting some pet owners to wonder if their dog ate the grass to soothe its own upset stomach or if the grass is what caused its symptoms in the first place. According Dr. Jerry Klein, chief veterinary officer for the American Kennel Club, this behavior is sometimes a response to symptoms that were already present. "When dogs go outside and gobble grass really quickly, there's usually a reason, an instinctual behavior to try to induce some kind of gastrointestinal reaction," he tells Mental Floss. "When they realize they're nauseous or something else, the only thing they know how to do is to force themselves to vomit. Some dogs that eat grass chomp it down without really chewing it, and often times may vomit something up and that's how they treat themselves."

Despite it being a common issue for pet owners, little research has been done into why dogs eat grass. It's likely that stomach problems only explain this behavior part of the time. In other situations, a dog may eat grass for the same reason it eats your shoes or the groceries you left on the kitchen counter: Because it's hungry, anxious, or bored.

So how can you tell when your dog is munching grass for pleasure and when it's trying to induce itself to vomit? Pay attention to the way it eats. Dogs are omnivorous, meaning they eat both plants and animals, so just eating grass alone normally won't be enough to make it sick. But if a dog is gorging on grass faster than it can chew it, that may be an indication that something is wrong. Whole blades of grass can irritate a dog's throat and stomach lining, potentially causing them to throw up if they swallow a lot of them in a short amount of time.

No matter the reason for your dog's grass-eating habits, Klein says that they aren't a major issue. The behavior shouldn't be encouraged, as grass in public places can potentially carry harmful chemicals like pesticides, so stop your dog if you see it grazing. But if it shows no signs of illness or discomfort afterward, there's no need to rush it to the vet. "If I see a dog eating grass, I'm not going to panic. I would try to stop it and then monitor it to see how it acts in the next 15 to 20 minutes. Look at how the dog's acting, its body shape and movement, and the feeling you get from the dog."

One condition related to vomiting that would warrant a trip to the vet is something called bloat. This happens when a dog's stomach fills with air, causing it to retch without actually throwing anything up. This is a medical emergency and can be deadly if left untreated.

A dog who vomits after eating grass and looks happy afterward, on the other hand, is probably not a cause for concern—though you may argue otherwise when you're steam-cleaning your carpet.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, send it to bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER