Grib & List,
All valid points. Just like why we drive different brands of trucks, etc.
One other major problem that is exclusive to liners, at least the ones I
glue together, is the fact that the 5-speed fits right into the companion
flange of the quick change with the 3" coupler from a constant velocity
joint and two u-joints. If I was to allow the rear end to move up and down,
the whole engine and rear end assembly would have to pivot from the front on
a cradle or something like that. Talk about unsprung weight.
I considered an independant rear end but the wheel flanges are only 22"
apart and the custom quick change is 11" wide. Not much room for u-joints
and hub carriers.
I think that rear engined streamliners are unique in this respect and I
have no experience with anything else at Bonneville.
Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: "rgribble" <rgribble@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Nafzger" <nafzger@vtc.net>; "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>;
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Rear suspension
> Howard, Keith & List,
> Howard I understand your logic and this is not a disagreement, just a
> thought to ponder.
> If we set aside for now the reaction time of a sprung vs. solid
suspension,
> consider perhaps the following;
> If we assume that the function of the suspension (or at least part of the
> job) is to keep each wheel in somewhat equal contact with the ground. Then
> if forever what reason (aero or whatever), with a solid suspension, one or
> two wheels develop lift, it could be safe to assume there is less traction
> on that wheel(s) or at least unequal traction. If it happens that wheel is
a
> drive wheel then there is the propensity for wheel spin, or at least
greater
> effort to drive the car?
> .
> I think that because the movement of a spring is proportional to the
> pressure exerted upon it, it quite probably would move in 1/100th of a
> second. The action of a shock is more derivative and integral functions,
> therefore taking longer depending on the purpose it was built for. You
could
> then assume the shock could dampen the reaction time of the spring. The
> people that make spring and shock dyno's could certainly tell us the
answers
> to this proposal and I will attempt to find out their input and also post
> it.
> I know that with the DA systems they use in NASCAR, there is a lot of
> interest in the relationship of shock movement vs. distance from road
> surface for each wheel. Some are sampling 1000 time a second. I'm told
this
> is to determine the tire contact patch area. I can ask some of the team
> engineers just what they are looking for and why. When I find out I'll
post
> the answers
> Grib
> "Do what others Won't and you'll do what others Can't for the rest of your
> life"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nafzger" <nafzger@vtc.net>
> To: "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 7:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Rear suspension
>
>
> > Keith,
> > God knows I'm no expert on this and I have spent a lot of time
anguishing
> > over this problem on the two liners I have built.
> > I made them both with rigid suspension for three basic reasons.
> > 1. Less complex and therefore probably more reliable.
> > 2. Lighter and cheaper.
> > 3. I can't figure out how to make a suspension that will respond to a 3
> foot
> > wide dip in the salt.
> > Keep me honest on this guys. 60 MPH =88 ft/sec. therefore 240MPH =
> > 352ft/sec. Therefore 1/100 of a second = 3.52ft.
> > No suspension I am aware of will even begin to move in that time period.
> It
> > will skip right over the depression anyway so I just did not mess with
it.
> > If I'm screwed up in my logic, let me know and I'll admit liners may be
> > different in some ways but we have been very successful with rigid cars.
> > P.S. The engine builder and I have both agreed to not go up there and
> > embarrass ourselves anymore. Way too many engine problems.
> > Howard
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>
> > To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:28 AM
> > Subject: Rear suspension
> >
> >
> > > Okay along the lines of the Trans mounting system.... I wanna do the
> > rear
> > > suspension issues....
> > >
> > > My thoughts are that a fancy rear suspension to make the car leave the
> > line
> > > is a Moot point at Bonneville... ( may help you at Maxton or El
Mirage )
> > but
> > > once the car is through the gears it's settled down and the only real
> > > advantage of a suspension at all is to maintain the contact patch with
> the
> > > ground....over minor bumps...
> > >
> > > Joe Timney and I have beat this up at length and I have several idea's
> on
> > > the correct course of action for me.... But I'm curious to hear
others
> > > thoughts on what they run and WHY?....
> > >
> > > In other words... what are your theory's..
> > >
> > > Keith ( Mayf.... what you doing Hiding out... I love your questions...
> > > always pointed .... which may not be pleasing to all ... however they
> are
> > > always honest and well thought out )
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
/// or go to http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
///
|