Yes it should be measured as everything else associated with aero
stability. I hope I don't have to do the technical explanation of a
weathervane.............
S
At 08:32 AM 7/17/04 -0500, Keith Turk wrote:
>This whole conversation is interesting... but what I learned last year is
>that each car is different...and has it's own desires... some cars like
>weight on the rear... some like it on the front...
>
>Dave's right on the point that Ground speed equates to air speed over the
>car and any body going through the air is defined as an airfoil.... some
>produce lift and some don't... some even produce downforce... ( geez the
>nerve of them body's )
>
>The goal is to have a car that's relatively neutral or free of drag or
>unwanted downforce... and again... Dave's right.. to know that you have to
>measure it... or guess and make ASSumptions....
>
>The key here is Unwanted downforce as some might be desirable in your
>situation.... like with the Berkeley... it's a light car... we might want
>more or less downforce as we go down course and the air travels ever faster
>over the car.
>
>Starting points in my mind have to be what's generally accepted as
>reasonable ballast for a given class of car...
>
>Stock car body's seem to favor even weight.... longer cars seem to like
>more on the rear... mine is at 66% on the back wheels.... ( I started
>putting it in the trailer backwards as result too )
>
>K
|