>>Okay, but here's something I thought of over the weekend... The drive
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<<
What's wrong with the logic can be summed up by saying, "how you do the work
has no effect on the amount of work done" In other words, the non drive
wheels need to spin up to a certain speed just like the drive wheels. If
both sets of wheels weigh the same then when they are at speed they will
have the same kinetic energy. So it must have taken the same amount of
energy to get them there (all other things being equal)