Bill from talking to Ron last night... he had the bias to the rear for
traction... he said the whole car created downforce at speed... but he had
no way of substantiating that statement.... ( no data acq )
What I do know is that the car went around once for some reason or another
... the strongest suspicion from the driver is that he forgot the throttle
pedal works both ways.... and stayed in it to long after it got loose on a
rough track.... ( the fella was brutally honest about this so I believe
him ) The fact that the car didn't go dead straight while it was spinning
the tires is my biggest concern.... There is no shame in spinning a tire...
it's when the car starts to wiggle at big speeds due to poor balance or
springs.... ( seems like I remember this from 2001 speedweek at around 220
mph ) My major concern is that I'm going to be out on the big end using all
the Hp available ... ( See John Goodman for comments on hanging it out )
and have the car unbalanced.... just doesn't work for me as a starting
point.
Joe's work on the Camaro and my work in the past made the Camaro handle like
your passenger car even when it was spinning the tires no matter what the
speed...
Hence the knowledge that what we were doing was Right.... so there you
go...that's what I know about it.... after that it's all a guess...
K
----- Original Message -----
From: <ardunbill@webtv.net>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: Ballast yet again
> Are we to understand that the big weight bias to the rear was for
> traction, or was it to offset some aero upforce effect at high speed
> with that particular body? I assume under neutral aero conditions we
> don't want a rearward weight bias because if there would be any
> fishtailing, the tail-end weight would accentuate it and might increase
> the tendency to spin or swap ends. Bill
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|