Theo,
It seems to me that spring compression is a pretty straightforward way to
determine the weight loading at each wheel, at least under "steady-state"
conditions; i.e., constant acceleration or deceleration. But then I'm just
a simple boy from the Oregon woods.
Thanks for the gesture of rapprochement, but for the time being I think
I'll hold out for a complete capitulation. ;-)
As far as the CG, maybe we can talk someone into driving their Tiger off a
cliff. We could film it and determine the point about which it rotates. ;-)
Brgds,
Bob
At 03:15 PM 2/21/00 -0700, Theo Smit wrote:
>Hmmm.
>
>I think we're arguing the same point, but from different directions, and I'll
>have to restrict my earlier disagreement to just your statement that the
>torque arm makes the car dive under braking. The torque reaction on the rear
>axle due to either braking or backing up quickly is the same, and it has the
>effect of reducing the load on the rear tires (because it's compressing the
>suspension). This effectively does transfer more load to the front of the car,
>but with the torque arm, the rear of the car is prevented from rising. Thus,
>'anti-dive' geometry at the rear axle typically increases the weight transfer
>during braking.
>
>Time to hit the computer, methinks. If someone can supply CG height and spring
>rates (at the wheels), we can attach some real numbers to this discussion.
>
>Regards,
>Theo
Robert L. Palmer
UCSD, Dept. of AMES
619-822-1037 (o)
760-599-9927 (h)
rpalmer@ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|