Rick,
yes, but at the time the F1 and Indy cars were front-engine, RWD, were not
most cars? So the engineering problems with FWD had not been worked out.
Before the cars went FWD, a better solution came along: mid-engine, RWD.
ALso, I suspect that those early F1 and Indy cars had a much better weight
distribution than the average saloon or sports cars, so they would not heve
benefitted as much from FWD.
When we talk about the average saloon (sorry: sedan) or sports car, I
really doubt that the weight distribution is 50/50 - look at MGAs and Bs --
the engine is basically between the fron wheels -- there is nothing with
equivalent weight at the back of the car. But I have not looked up the
figures for this, so perhaps I am wrong.
I won't dispute that mid engine cars have a lower rotational moment of
inertia. As to which was the reason and which was a side-effect of going
for mid-engine design, this is a particularly pointless discussion -- both
(weight on rear tyres and moment of interia) were advantages gained, so
both were important. I doubt the engineering team who designed the first
mid-engine cars really worried about which was a side-effect.
> 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.
True, but just how do you design 2 cars like this? The point is that mid
engine ALLOWS the designer to put more weight on the back wheels.
Simon
---
Simon Matthews MailTo:simon_matthews@avanticorp.com
'57 MGA
|