On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:04:13 -0700 Simon Matthews
<simon_matthews@avanticorp.com> writes:
>Whoever pointed out that F1 and Indy cars are RWD is correct, but this
>misses the point -- they are also MID ENGINE cars, so there is more
>weight
>on the rear wheeels.
That doesn't explain the fact that until the advent of mid engined cars,
all F1 and Indy cars were still RWD.
As for more weight on the rear wheels, not neccessarily so. If two
cars, one front engined, one mid engined, weigh the same, and have
identical weight distributions, then both have the same weight on the
rear wheels.
Now, granted, most mid engined cars have weigh distributions in the
order of 35/65 front/rear, and front engined cars are more on the order
of 50/50 (the better class of cars anyway - read "MG"), the point is that
rear wheel weight is a function of weight distribution AND total weight.
Example, according to the owners manual, my GT, with one driver aboard,
and full tank, weighs in at the rear at 645 Kg (1423 lbs). That's just
about the total weight of a good F1 car which has a weight of about 750
Kg. So the GT has more weight on the ground than a Jordan. That sure
don't make it a better handling car!
The purpose of going Mid-engine was for a simple fact of lowering the
polar moment of intertia. Rear wheel weight was a side effect.
Rick Morrison
72 MGBGT
74 Midget
>I am also surprisred that no-one has mentioned the configuration that
>ALfa
>Romeo used for a while: engine at the front, gearbox at the rear. The
>idea
>was obviously to get better weight distribution.
>
>RWD may work better, but probably only if the weight distribution has
>a
>reasonable proportion of the weight on the back wheels.
>---
>Simon Matthews Avant! Corporation
> Phone: 510 413-8820
> Fax: 510 413-8080
> MailTo:simon_matthews@avanticorp.com
>
|