For some reason or other I never got a bunch of these
emails from the CM list. I just saw Chuck's message
on one of Josh's replies and had a few comments below.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Voboril, Chuck
[snip]
>
> Just a few days ago, I was looking closely at a
> bunch of FF2000's and
> FF1600's side by side at a local shop.
>
> The FF2000 has:
> 1) Slightly less to about equal tire footprint
> per pound of weight.
> - 2) A higher C.G. ( Cortina motor in FF1600 is
> smaller and lighter, esp.
> on top even w/out Al. head)
> -4) More weight bias to rear
With all of the proposed extra weight to be added the
weight bias will change as will the center of gravity.
With the amount of extra weight being proposed the cg
will be much lower. Also optimum front to rear bias
for any vehicle is dependant on many factors so the
extra rear weight bias is potentially an advantage.
> 5) About equal width.
> -6) Significantly more mass
I don't understand what you mean here. The car will
weigh whatever minimum weight the proposal specifies.
Whether that weight is enough to balance the
performance advantage of more power and larger tires
is speculation. The larger engine with significantly
more torque and a better power to weight ratio even at
the proposed new weight, combined with larger rims and
tires is the biggest advantage.
> Is there any attribute that indicates a FF2000
> should be any
> quicker than a FF1600 in a transient oriented,
> non-downforce environment?
Yes, more torque and a better power to weight ratio
combined with larger rim widths and much wider tires.
> I have thought about the possibility of someone
> somehow
> getting more footprint with cantilever tires for
> a FF2000.
>
> 1) The cantilever approach would probably already
> be used on FF2000 cars if
> it really bought anything...
In road racing that is not necessarily the case since
maximum cornering force needs to be balanced with
aerodynamic and rolling resistance, both of which
would not be as much of a factor in Solo 2.
> 2) I strongly suspect that the cantilever approach
> to wider rubber loses its
> effectiveness quickly as the loading from static
> Mass and downforce of the
> car goes up.
> (Substituting rubber sidewall for metal makes for
> a pretty flexible rim)
> For example...Look at how much better Pro-Atlantic
> 15" rim dia tires work
> than 13"'s.
But the proposal removes the wings eliminating the
downforce and the FF2000 has much wider rims to start
with. Your statement above is pure speculation.
Without testing there is no way to accurately predict
how cantilever tires would affect the Solo2
performance of the bastardized FF2000 that the
proposal would create.
In another message from Tommy Saunders that I didn't
receive from the list but saw in other peoples replies
he mentions using restrictor plates. That wasn't part
of this proposal. If the question is can you make the
FF2000 competitive in CM by changing it, the answer is
probably yes, but you can already do that by
converting it in the way that Gary and others have
done. This proposal is a speculative way to make the
FF2000 competitive with no data or testing of any kind
to back it up. If it were to go through Don and I
would probably change our car. Does everyone else
want to change theirs? What about the cars that can't
be converted? Is it worth the risk that this would be
the new must have combination? I think the answer is
no.
Steve Elzinga
__________________________________
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/autox-cm
|