MycroftWhich confirms exactly what I have said!
Any graph that shows an angle of greater than 45deg. supports my statement.
TRANSLATION.Originally posted by Thorin
Ok well it seems yet again Mycroft resolves to just insulting anyone who posts contrary to his statements.
Yes the first 3 posts were partcularly interesting I think.Originally posted by Thorin
Shame really, ruined what started out as an interesting thread.
Agreed, but I would say it's a bad thing only when it happens so that the car is compromised.Originally posted by SDB
Is weight transfer a bad thing then??
Well in many ways yes, in that it reduces your grip, but the ability to balance the weight transfer around the 4 contact patches is what gives a car it's handling characteristics.
A car that transfers weight across the rear axle more than the front, will oversteer more than one which transfers more at the front.
You are confusing COG with Roll Centre [RC] aren't you?Originally posted by SDB
If you have a higher centre of gravity at the rear of the car than the front, there will be more weight transfer at the rear.
I accept it can seem confusing at first, but it is quite straight forward once you get your head round it...Mycroft said:Agreed, but I would say it's a bad thing only when it happens so that the car is compromised.
Are you aware of the term 'Lift-off oversteer'?
You drive into a corner, at near your maximum, you hesitate and feather the throttle, and the rear wheels go light?
Now if we look at your 'idea' that a lighter load will have more grip lift off oversteer can't happen can it!
Your 'idea' states that lighter load = more grip... the rear wheels have a lighter load, but they sure as hell dont have more grip!
For lift off over-steer to occur, the rear wheels are made lighter [due to weight transfer] and they lose the grip at a greater rate than they lose weight, hence lift off oversteer.
This again supports what I and many others know, until a certain point is reached in the Grip vs Load the graph shows in favour to the driver/car.
Exactly as I have stated previously.
Nowadays, engineers are able to plot the c/g height along the entire length of the car like a wavy line. There is still a single centre of gravity (so I completely know what you're getting at), but this plot allows them to analyse the inherant characteristics of the chassis more accurately as the c/g being loaded up in a corner also creates a number of other "forces" that are rarely described in steady state physics.You are confusing COG with Roll Centre [RC] aren't you?
Never seen any car with more than Centre of Gravity!
Do we have a Left Side COG and a Right Side COG as well, or perhap a COG centred on the rear indicator just above the boot lock!
Isn't that a new paradox?Originally posted by SDB
I accept it can seem confusing at first, but it is quite straight forward once you get your head round it...
Firstly, everything I have said indicates that a tyre produces more grip the more load you put on it. Clearly this means that it produces less grip if you take load away from it. [It does!]
When you transfer load from rear to front (as with lift-off oversteer) you take a load of grip away from the rear tyres, but the car still weighs exactly the same [But it weighs less at the rear!] and therefore still needs to be resisted when turning, which the rear tyres are no longer as equiped to do.
This is (unfortunately) pure drivel, and doesn't really warrant a response. I will however endulge you purely for the benefit of others and to state exactly what *I* know, not what you perport me to know.We both know that one effect 'outpaces' the other, and so yet again, this points to the fact, that up to a certin point, tyres get more grip for the weigh imparted, at a point on that graph where a line at 45degrees passes thru that curved line, we know, that that point is the sweet spot, the point where the tyre and weight match perfectly, we both know also that there are at least 3 of those 'graphs' in every real world situation jostling for that sweet spot, in Formula racing much time is spent by tyre engineers trying to find a compound/carcass that is closes to that crossover on all three charts, that will win them the race.
I bought milliken YEARS ago. It is basic reading for anyone interested in vehicle dynamics. Its *main* focus is on theoretical steady state physics which is used as a starting point for inexperienced chassis engineers to gain a base point understanding of vehicle dynamics.Spend some money, buy the Milliken books, they are worth every penny.
Again we see lack of experience (in-fact probably zero) and a complete belief that everything you have read makes up the entire world of vehicle dynamics, plus your ability to draw hugely inaccurate conclusions from limited knowledge.This line you describe is not some kind of elongated centre of gravity, that is just a joke, that line that starts high at the back and finishes some few feet in front of the car is actually the Longitudinal Roll Axis... COG? utter rot!
Are you really that simple? Do you really think it was the word "torque" I was searching for? It is the term for the torque acting on the tortion of the chassis (caused by the difference in cog height at front and rear) that I was searching for. Perhaps you could enlighten us, it is bound to be in one of your books.''Examples of these include a kind of twisting force (sorry I can't think of the name for it) which is created by a disparity between the c/g height at front an rear....''
Buy the books!!!