To tell the truth, I didn't know how rare that was at the time in race cars. So I gave you the point, the fact that you hadn't made it clear notwithstanding.
Since front-drive is inherently unsatisfactory not many cars of that layout were built and of those, none was a success. Walter Christie cam nearest to success as his cars were built at a time when the whole business of racing car design was in its early stages
The two obvious problems are (1) that a car has four small areas of contact with the ground with which it has to drive and steer or brake and steer. Concentrating the traction and steering loads on the front and leaving the rear wheels underused seems perverse.
(2) under acceleration the load on the front wheels reduces and that on the rear increases (for any car with a centre of gravity above the road surface) - so, just when you want the most grip for best traction, front-drive reduces it.
Before someone leaps down my throat and points to the majority of current production I shall say that low-powered low-performance cars can be built that work reasonably well but any current fwd car with any performance has to have traction control and probably electronic stability aids to be controllable. Sensible four-wheel-drive cars have a 40:60 front:rear torque (power) bias
British touring car racing had to handicap 4WD and rear drive cars to stop them running rings round the front-drivers (and wrecking the advertising revenue). 4WD was then banned and rear-drive cars had to carry ballast and I expect they are now banned.
