Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*suspension\/traction\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*suspension\/traction\s+question\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. suspension/traction question (score: 1): Author: "John Burk" <joyseydevil@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:36:31 -0400; If you are dealing with cornering , when the tires bounce off the ground the car moves sideways , that's easy - With foreword acceleration the downward pressure on the contact patch always averages 1; /html/land-speed/2003-10/msg00660.html (7,708 bytes)
2. Re: suspension/traction question (score: 1): Author: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:08:17 -0400; If you could yet a track that was perfectly smooth and level and zero wind along with zero slip at any power output then it is a perception.. For anything else it ought to help... A solid suspension; /html/land-speed/2003-10/msg00666.html (7,522 bytes)
3. RE: suspension/traction question (score: 1): Author: "Russel Mack" <rtmack@concentric.net>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:31:56 -0500; yeah, I agree with Dave, and he gave a nice, simple illustration. Let me add that I "did the math" on this a couple of years ago (would you believe I can't remember where I put it?) Anyway, I rememb; /html/land-speed/2003-10/msg00668.html (8,943 bytes)
4. Re: suspension/traction question (score: 1): Author: Bryan Savage <basavage@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:52:55 -0700; This discussion is interesting and very relevant given the recent course conditions. An affordable rear suspension may not be any better than a solid one at 5 "/millisecond (300mph) but for the firs; /html/land-speed/2003-10/msg00672.html (7,929 bytes)
5. Re: suspension/traction question (score: 1): Author: "John Burk" <joyseydevil@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:27:19 -0400; Hi Dave - There's no question that tires at Bonneville get there share of air time , less of it with springs pushing them down - My question is , with the down force always averaging 1 g and unsprung; /html/land-speed/2003-10/msg00678.html (8,178 bytes)
6. RE: suspension/traction question (score: 1): Author: "Russel Mack" <rtmack@concentric.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:03:39 -0500; sorry to butt in here, but I think you are making an assumption that just doesn't work. First of all, it's not intuitively obvious to me that the impact when the vehicle returns to the salt will be; /html/land-speed/2003-10/msg00682.html (9,778 bytes)
7. Re: suspension/traction question (score: 1): Author: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:25:17 -0400; Why would the down force always average 1 g other than standing still?? I would think the down force is relative to the surface condition, the aero loading either + or - depending on aero devices and; /html/land-speed/2003-10/msg00688.html (9,006 bytes)
8. RE: suspension/traction question (score: 1): Author: "Albaugh, Neil" <albaugh_neil@ti.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:33:19 -0500; The flaw in that argument is that tire traction is non-linear; bounce & rebound do not average to 1 G. Think of what happens to an early Mustang off the line at the drag strip. Lots of tire smoke as; /html/land-speed/2003-10/msg00697.html (8,741 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]