Loading...
|
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by RedSN
Not sure about the behind CL spec - assume it is somewhere arrears of the engine mounts ? How much of a diff does that make if say the current engine/trans CG is say 14" behind compared to your calc? A nice mulitcoloured graph along with a youtube type video explanation would be awesome, lol
LOL, about the same.
Problem is it's only 1" setback on a 100" wheelbase. That's 1%.
Your wheel loads (Ra and Rb) are a ratio of the mass location and the overall wheelbase (L)
W=575lbs
L=100"
a=14"
b=86"
Add 1" to 'a' to get your new reaction values and compare with the originals.
-Don____________
AWESOME DON!! So it will be even less effective with the new (50lbs lighter) cyl heads and the wheelbase extended by 1.5"LOL, about the same.
Problem is it's only 1" setback on a 100" wheelbase. That's 1%.
Your wheel loads (Ra and Rb) are a ratio of the mass location and the overall wheelbase (L)
W=575lbs
L=100"
a=14"
b=86"
Add 1" to 'a' to get your new reaction values and compare with the originals.
I've never heard of moving the k-member either. Just made it up. Maybe that's what the MM piece achieves so you retain factory mounting position...
I'm no math surgeon, and have no idea what I'm doing most of the time. So take my suggestions lightly lol
Just emailed Jack at MM; let's see what he comes back with.
Looks like your largest gains are gonna come from the new cyl heads followed by wt reduction and improved geometry of MM K member n bits. Now if you wanna cut the firewall n dash out and really put the engine where it belongs, gains your looking for will follow.
From Jack Hiddley at Maximum Motorsports:
1) Moving the engine/tranmsission back 1" changes the weight distribution 0.2% on your car. I've used your cars mass of 3,741lbs and assumed that the engine/trans weighs 600lbs. The formula that you linked isn't the correct one. The correct math can be found at the link below in chapter 2.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...-h-8083-1a.pdf
Conversely moving the wheels forward 0.75" will shift the front weight distribution 0.39% towards the rear. Moving the front wheels forward has more affect on the weight change and has other benefits.
With the MM k-member and either FCA, you will be able to get a little bit more camber. With the MM k-member and nonoffset FCAs, you will be able to get several more degrees of caster and a little bit more camber.
The MM k-member adds Ackermann steering when used with the nonoffset FCAs. When used with the reverse offset FCAs it removes Ackermann. In either case, the k-member raises the FCA pivots so this raises the roll center height back up which is good on a car that is lowered so much.
pretty much what Don said??
sort of but its a different number and calculation based on centre of gravity as the basis; not the direct weight on the wheels. Aircraft calculations are done via wheel weights but the differentials are calculated using moment arms and mass.
Seems to mean the engine setback alone is worth a lot more than a 27 lb shift according to this calculation : 0.2% weight bias change is pretty significant, actually, 0.39% change with 0.75" wheelbase is a big deal.
This means the whole enchilada of alum heads, 1" engine setback and 1.5" wheelbase extension will yield something close to a 1% shift, if not more. Along with 1.5" front track increase, way bigger front tires and wheels, and the higher potential caster and camber settings, the final improvements should be pretty significant.
An SLA with 10" wheels n 275's up front would make it a monster.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
