Mark,
Yes, I know we're splitting hairs. To me this is just a mental exercise.
I've got no thoughts of running lighter wheels on the front or rear of my HS
Civic to try to gain some sort of "edge." This has just been a bit of
diversionary fun. Don't worry, I'm not taking this seriously at all, it's
just interesting.
Hope you had a decent drive back home. Sorry that your weekend in Peru was
cut short.
William Loring
> From: TeamZ3@aol.com
> Reply-To: TeamZ3@aol.com
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:51:16 EDT
> To: bloring@tirerack.com
> Cc: autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Lightweight sub-atomic hair particles
>
> In a message dated 7/31/00 10:35:04 AM Central Daylight Time,
> bloring@tirerack.com writes:
>
> << 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?
>>>
>
> No.
>
> for all practical purposes, and all else being equal, the drive and non-drive
> wheel inertia is the same. The numbers we're talking about here are small,
> and the diff resulting in direct vs indirect influence is only a fraction of
> that, ie way smaller still.
>
> Relatively speaking, I don't why you should worry about splitting sub-atomic
> hair particles; I'd worry more about driving the car to it's current
> potential...and possibly take a few physics classes to boot.
>
> Sipe
>
>
|