We're already hurting ;-)
Jon FP 73
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:08:41 -0700 "Kevin Stevens"
<Kevin_Stevens@Bigfoot.com> writes:
> <private>
>
> God, will someone take the slide rules away from these guys before
> they hurt
> themselves?
>
> KeS
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > You made some good points. It will require more energy to "spin
> up" the
> > non drive wheels than the drive wheels due to inefficiencies. As
> you
> > said, the flexing of the body won't be significant unless your
> driving a
> > Mustang without subframe connectors.
> >
> > Additional inefficiencies will come from the deformation of the
> tires.
> > For the sake of this discussion lets consider the drive axle the
> source
> > of the energy, and all 4 tires/wheels are the same weight and
> size.
> > Consider only the portion of energy needed spin the tires/wheels
> from 0
> > to 60 mph, the simple analysis says energy to "spin up" 4
> tires/wheels
> > will be 4 times the energy to spin up one tire/wheel. I'm sure
> someone
> > can look up an equation for stored energy in a flywheel
> (tire/wheel).
> > The drive wheels are driven directly from the axle so there won't
> be any
> > inefficiencies for the drive wheels. The other wheels will get
> their
> > energy from the drive wheels, thru the inefficiencies of the drive
> > tires, and thru the inefficiencies of the non drive tires. The
> > associated rolling resistances will manifest itself as heat (lost
> > energy) in the tires.
> >
> > I would now conclude that the lighter wheels should be put on the
> non
> > drive end if all you're interested in is acceleration.
> >
> > Bob Mosso
> >
> >
>
|