That sounds good but I don't think it holds up. The question at issue is
the difference between rotational motion (created by the torque exerted
on the tire) and the linear motion of the vehicle, a byproduct of which
is the rotational inertia of the free wheel. Much like heat as a
byproduct of a chemical reaction, inertia of the non-drive wheels is a
byproduct of the linear motion of the vehicle. Hence my contention...
Jon FP 73
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:31:37 -0600 William Loring <bloring@tirerack.com>
writes:
> Okay, but here's something I thought of over the weekend... The drive
> wheels
> are being rotated by the axle or driveshaft, at the center of
> rotation of
> the wheel. It's lever arm is only as long as the radius of the
> rotating
> parts in the engine, in this case, I'd say the crankshaft... right?
>
> The non-drive wheels are being rotated by the ground, at the largest
> diameter of the wheel/tire. This is generally a longer lever arm
> than any
> rotating part in the engine, isn't it? So all other considerations
> aside for
> the moment, isn't the non-drive wheel "easier" to rotate than the
> drive
> wheel, because it has a longer lever arm? Am I making any sense at
> all?
>
> I won't make any claims to be an engineer, which should be quite
> obvious to
> anyone who really is one. So, tell me why I'm wrong!
>
>
> William (this pocket protector stuff is kinda fun!) Loring
>
>
>
> > From: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com
> > Reply-To: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com
> > Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:43:59 -0400
> > To: autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Lightweight wheels, drive only?
> >
> > "Kevin Stevens" <kevin_stevens@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Disregarding wheelspin, the drive and non-drive wheels have to
> >> accelerate rotationally and linearly at exactly the same rate.
> >
> > Yup, that's exactly right - unless you can yank the front wheels
> clear of
> > the ground, as the ground is the "drive belt" driving the
> non-drive wheels.
> >
> > DG
> >
> >
>
>
|