Okay, but here's something I thought of over the weekend... The drive wheels
are being rotated by the axle or driveshaft, at the center of rotation of
the wheel. It's lever arm is only as long as the radius of the rotating
parts in the engine, in this case, I'd say the crankshaft... right?
The non-drive wheels are being rotated by the ground, at the largest
diameter of the wheel/tire. This is generally a longer lever arm than any
rotating part in the engine, isn't it? So all other considerations aside for
the moment, isn't the non-drive wheel "easier" to rotate than the drive
wheel, because it has a longer lever arm? Am I making any sense at all?
I won't make any claims to be an engineer, which should be quite obvious to
anyone who really is one. So, tell me why I'm wrong!
William (this pocket protector stuff is kinda fun!) Loring
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:43:59 -0400
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Lightweight wheels, drive only?
> "Kevin Stevens" <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Disregarding wheelspin, the drive and non-drive wheels have to
>> accelerate rotationally and linearly at exactly the same rate.
> Yup, that's exactly right - unless you can yank the front wheels clear of
> the ground, as the ground is the "drive belt" driving the non-drive wheels.