Isn`t the double clutch thingy heavy as sin?
Packaging compromises
Started by
sosidge
, Feb 16 2012 17:38
56 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#52
kikiturbo2
-
- 869 posts
- Joined: December 04
Member
Posted 26 June 2012 - 16:09
if porsche specs are to be believed, the difference is 20 kg..
#53
MatsNorway
-
- 2,822 posts
- Joined: December 09
Member
Posted 02 July 2012 - 13:30
All that talk about handling aside. The issue i think many has with a RR or MR layout is that its not as naturally handling as a FR.
It behaves differently going of the throttle, and if they are like in car sims i would never race a RR or MR over a FR layout. i don`t want the rear to slide when i go off the throttle. Its expensive going rear first into barriers with a Porsche.
It behaves differently going of the throttle, and if they are like in car sims i would never race a RR or MR over a FR layout. i don`t want the rear to slide when i go off the throttle. Its expensive going rear first into barriers with a Porsche.
#54
Magoo
-
- 3,717 posts
- Joined: October 10
Member
Posted 02 July 2012 - 14:06
Have you seen this? A wonderful animation that tracks the evolution of the F1 package from 1950 to present day, very cool:
One minute history of the F1 car
One minute history of the F1 car
#55
MatsNorway
-
- 2,822 posts
- Joined: December 09
Member
Posted 02 July 2012 - 21:00
Have you seen this? A wonderful animation that tracks the evolution of the F1 package from 1950 to present day, very cool:
One minute history of the F1 car
Great stuff. Minus the model rotating. I guess its more fancy.
The big question is.. why is there no caymans in racing? same but slightly older engines? than the 911 but better layout.
I know there was a cayman racing at nurgburg ring 2-3 years ago but haven`t seen anyone else.
#56
Paolo
-
- 1,677 posts
- Joined: May 00
Member
Posted 03 July 2012 - 15:18
Given the choice between a car that was had the ideal weight distribution and was overweight, or one that had a non-ideal weight distribution and was on-weight, which would you choose?
And given the choice between a car with a low centre of gravity with the masses spread far from the CG, and a car with a higher CG but the masses grouped much more closely to it, which would you choose?
The first question is a no-brainer: B. You could start from B and go to A by adding ballast. Which is a no-no.
The second question has not a truly definite answer, but a low CoG is usually more important than a low polar inertia. Also, there's not such a thing as "too low a CoG", while there is definitely such a thing as "too small a polar inertia".
Edited by Paolo, 03 July 2012 - 15:20.
#57
kikiturbo2
-
- 869 posts
- Joined: December 04
Member
Posted 04 July 2012 - 05:46
I would add,... "depending on application" 
For example, rally cars, while keeping CoG as low as possible, still use forward biased weight distribution, because they can not make it more rear biased without affecting the polar moment.. and for them, polar moment is more important than weight distribution..
For example, rally cars, while keeping CoG as low as possible, still use forward biased weight distribution, because they can not make it more rear biased without affecting the polar moment.. and for them, polar moment is more important than weight distribution..
