My brother is convinced this concept can be made to work in a streamliner
with the right design. Driving the front wheels and steering the rear allows
a less complicated compact design that keeps the maximum weight over the
drive wheels, keeps the cg ahead of the lateral center of pressure, reduces
the wetted area and requires the least compromises in streamlining. The tech
committee won't even let us try it with a test mule so I guess we will never
know.
Jim in Palmdale, where it has been 90 Deg. at 10 AM and 70 Deg. at 3 PM
with 30 MPH gusts .
----- Original Message -----
From: john robinson <john@engr.wisc.edu>
To: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Fuel and Gas Class
> well, my thoughts were that the car is very narrow, 27 inches or so, with
a
> long tapered tail that was not just empty space....
>
> At 01:55 PM 5/24/00 , you wrote:
> >I am losing something here the big speed secret and obvious advantage of
> >rear steer is ????????????????????????????????????
> >Dahlgren
> >
> >john robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > Howdy,
> > > well now lets see..............
> > > ifn you take a long narrow streamliner with the front wheel
drive
> > > non steering, and put the driver behind the engine, and then behind
him the
> > > staggered rear steering wheels with only about 8 inches track, you
would
> > > use a mustang steering rack(#1) between the two rear wheels, and then
take
> > > two mustang steering racks and weld them together so the driver input
would
> > > go forwards, then backwards to the actual steering rack (#1),( which
would
> > > reverse the steering, the steered wheels would turn left as the driver
> > > turned his wheel right, making the car GO right. )
> > > The kicker is that there is a delay between what the driver
feels,
> > > and his input, which can produce a pilot induced oscillation as he
tries to
> > > catch up to the actual motion of the car. This motion is considered to
be
> > > at about 1 Hz (the driver makes a correction, the car SLOWLY begins to
> > > respond, the driver inputs additional steering,because he "feels" that
the
> > > car is not responding correctly, then he finds the car to be
correcting too
> > > quickly and he reverses his inputs, always chasing the vehicle, and
causing
> > > finally an out of control situation. This can be seen when watching a
> > > single engined taildragger pilot learning to taxi the airplane for the
> > > first time.
> > > However, I believe a disciplined driver CAN control a
vehicle
> > > designed with rear steer. I think that if the driver is in the middle
of
> > > the car, rather than the end, he would feel less steering input from
the
> > > motion of the car, thereby would not feel the need to input
corrections,
> > > and would not begin the PIO described above.
> > > Wasn't the car Beckett drove a sports car of some sort? a
short
> > > wheel base, wide track, mid engine something? I think this would be
very
> > > difficult to try to rear steer, VERY little visual input available to
the
> > > driver for corrections, which is why I thought the driver positioned
in the
> > > middle of a streamliner would be advantageous, lots of car left in
front of
> > > him for visual reference, and less "feel" inputed to his butt than if
he
> > > were in the tail of the car.
> > > The reference to Thrust' $2 million computer was to the body
> > > positioning for aerodynamics, rather than controlling the actual
steering,
> > > this is information from the magazine articles I have seen.
> > >
> > > At 12:06 PM 5/24/00 , you wrote:
> > > >Now there is a Kernal of knowledge from Left Field.... Hey John...
tell us
> > > >about this.... sounds interesting.. K
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: John Beckett <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>
> > > >To: john robinson <john@engr.wisc.edu>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 12:08 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Fuel and Gas Class
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > I think what Dan was trying to say is the rear steer has been
tried
> > > > > before mostly unsuccessfully. I know cause I was one that tried
it. The
> > > >only
> > > > > high speed success that I am aware off was the Thrust project, but
they
> > > >had
> > > > > a $2,000,000. computer making the necessary corrections for the
> > "pilot".
> > > >If
> > > > > you asked Andy Green today about rear steer I don't think he would
> > offer
> > > >any
> > > > > encouragement for the concept.
> > > > > Another point I would like to make however, is that none of
the
> > > > > governing bodies need to worry about adding rules to ban rear
steer
> > > > > vehicles. It just doesn't work at speed and I don't believe you'll
ever
> > > >get
> > > > > it going fast enough to get into trouble. And if you do somehow
> > manage to
> > > > > make it work, well God bless you, innovation is what it's all
about.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Beckett, LSR #79
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "john robinson" <john@engr.wisc.edu>
> > > > > To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:57 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Fuel and Gas Class
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Howdy,
> > > > > > ohhhh yeah, Definitions section IV-2 Automobile.(some
> > snipping) ....at
> > > > > > least 4 wheels not aligned....(snip).. steering assured by at
> > least (2)
> > > > > > front wheels, .(snip) .....One pair must be on the same
transverse
> > > > > centerline.
> > > > > > OK, then the Special Construction Category statement "Innovation
is
> > > > > > unlimited." is governed by the definitions sec IV?
> > > > > > John still looking at rear steer concept Robinson
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 08:22 AM 5/24/00 , you wrote:
> > > > > > John,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also look at the portion defining automobile which indicates
that at
> > > >least
> > > > > > two wheels must be on the same axle. There is a statement that
> > requires
> > > > > the
> > > > > > steering to be by the front wheels as our friends with the rear
> > steer MR
> > > > > > found out a few years ago. Sorry I am unable to quote chapter
and
> > verse
> > > >on
> > > > > > this one as my books are in my race day brief case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan (you can lose pistons without NOS too) Warner
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: john robinson <john@engr.wisc.edu>
> > > > > > To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 5:42 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Fuel and Gas Class
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > howdy,
> > > > > > > Andy Green did it like that, only cost 30 million $ or so and
took
> > > > > what,
> > > > > > > 6-7 years..........
> > > > > > > I think you >can< run in line wheels, just need to have four
of
> > > >them(or
> > > > > > > more) ifn I remember the rule book on this one....looking it
> > up now,
> > > > > aha!
> > > > > > > ...."must have at least four wheels, but they need not be
> > arranged in
> > > >a
> > > > > > > rectangular configuration" , Streamliner section V page
> > 41....is what
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > '00 rules say...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 10:13 AM 5/23/00 , you wrote:
> > > > > > > Should still work, maybe? Per the rule book the wheels must
be
> > > >offset,
> > > > > > > cannot be inline. See Al teagues car. Otherwise isnit it
> > classified
> > > >as
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > "ahem" motorcycle or some such? But, adding the stagger
control to
> > > >the
> > > > > > rear
> > > > > > > does indeed work same as front stagger. Wow, what a
concept!!!
> > > > > Shouldn't
> > > > > > > take more'n ten years to sort it out...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mayf
> > > > > > > At 02:39 PM 5/23/00 EDT, V4GR@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > >Won't work in Jacks car. Front wheels are inline. Have to
switch
> > > > > system
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >rear wheels. Should work than. Rich Fox
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > L.E. Mayfield
> > > > > > > 124 Maximillion Drive
> > > > > > > Madison, Al. 35758-8171
> > > > > > > ph: 1-256-837-1051
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://home.hiwaay.net/~lemay
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > lemay@hiwaay.net
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sunbeam Tiger, B9471136
> > > > > > > Sunbeam Alpine Bonneville Land Speed Racer,
> > > > > > > '66 Hydroplane Drag Boat (390 FE)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John Robinson, Mechanician
> > > > > > Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin
> > > > > > 1513 University Ave.
> > > > > > Madison, Wi. 53706
> > > > > > 608-262-3606
> > > > > > FAX 608-265-2316
> > > > > > Current World Land Speed Record Holder
> > > > > > Bonneville Salt Flats
> > > > > > H/GCC 92 cu.in. 1980 Dodge Colt
> > > > > > 131.333 MPH set 1995
> > > > > > 136.666 MPH set 1996
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > John Robinson, Mechanician
> > > Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin
> > > 1513 University Ave.
> > > Madison, Wi. 53706
> > > 608-262-3606
> > > FAX 608-265-2316
> > > Current World Land Speed Record Holder
> > > Bonneville Salt Flats
> > > H/GCC 92 cu.in. 1980 Dodge Colt
> > > 131.333 MPH set 1995
> > > 136.666 MPH set 1996
>
>
> John Robinson, Mechanician
> Mechanical Engineering University of Wisconsin
> 1513 University Ave.
> Madison, Wi. 53706
> 608-262-3606
> FAX 608-265-2316
> Current World Land Speed Record Holder
> Bonneville Salt Flats
> H/GCC 92 cu.in. 1980 Dodge Colt
> 131.333 MPH set 1995
> 136.666 MPH set 1996
>
>
|