my next idea , is a syestem that is built into the car , that shifts a set weight (40kg?) to equale out the distribution of the car , you put a driver in a car ( he weighs 75kg ) and he is sitting 10-20cm to the side of the center line , of the car , thus making the car unbalanced , this 40kg weight shifts to the other side of the car to counter balance the driver , there is sensors on all four wheels , to show the weight , when you get in the car , weight sensors on the seat , tell the car your weight , and the car adjust to make the best ballance , for left to right weight distibution .


. WOULD THIS WORK ?

put the driver in the middle.

You could do this without adding ballast to the car by shifting large chunks of the car's mass relative to the tyres. You could even move the wheels - a couple of mm would equate to moving your 40 kg mass 50mm in a 1 ton car.

Why only side to side? Shift front/rear as well.

Why only static? Shift while driving - move weight to the left for LH corners etc.

and where will the pasenger go ?

shifting the weight while the car is in motion would be hard , it would have to keep up with the speed of the car , if you have multiple drivers , thats a lot of work , (endurace racing) to be shifting the car around , yes front to back could work , it might get to complex to do that , front to back should be ok anyway from the driver placement , but i thought left to right would be a big differance

Pillion.

Why bother with the added weight, the momentum of the weight while shifting and the sacrificed ride height, when you can corner weight? My suggestion would be to design a dynamic corner weighting system to help with static balance, dynamic balance and combat undesirable wedging effects.

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/...corner-weights/

The reality is that the driver is not the only thing that upsets weight distribution. In a static scenario, the cumulative weight of thousands of components will just about never exactly equate to a perfect balance. It's often a case of packaging restrictions. In a dynamic race situation, you've even got petrol consumption to think of.

http://www.aviationfans.com/images/543252.jpg

Wasn't active ballast used in the DTM at one time?

You didn't mention a passenger! If you've got a passenger you don't need ballast - the passenger is the ballast!
Just put a fence down the centre of the car, put a 40 kg medicine ball loose on the passenger side, let if find it's own position.

As I am now, design the car to be balanced in the first instance with the driver in situ.

When are you going to go seriously fast with a passenger?

Yup.

Would the benefit out weigh the weight penatly?

Regarding passengers, observe the McLaren F1.

Meh, hate 3 seaters.

The Comparo has the passenger tucked in behind a bit limiting offset.

rally cars , targa cars etc

most ace cars run to a weight limit any way , build the car 40kg under the limit , then fit this syestem , F1 cars run a far bit of ballist , placing it in the car where ever they want for optimim balance .

maybe , not sure , they tryed a lot of things with those dam cool cars

I doubt the F1 reg's would permit a moveable ballast weight.

Make the passenger the movable ballast. Like these guys do..

Ha! Welcome, nice first post

But I choose not to like you now because it will save time later

You wont be using your car for those events, I was basing it's primary use as Pose Avenue and occasional track days - as per standard for that ilk of 'supercar'.

If your really that keen just make 2 battery boxes and move the battery around to suit, me I just drive faster around left handers and slower around rights - balances out in the end.

Which side are you sitting, and do you drive the same way with a passenger? Only asking...

LHD based comment.

Thank you!

I like your expedient approach; so in a similar time-saving vein I'll now liken you to Hitler, you toothbrush-mustached nazi

Grumbles, are you sure you haven't met Cheapy?

Yes it was.



Also the F1 active ride cars of 92-93 used the advanced active suspensions, for amongst other many other functions, to control the balance both forward-rear and left - right ( Patrick Head mentioned that the AR cars would roll into the corner like a motorcycle).
That's one of the reasons Williams suffered in 94 with the FW16 A spec (particularly the early ones).


I should mention that Indycar allows weight jackers.

Yeah it was terrible all those pole positions and fastest laps they got from day 1.



So does Atlas F1.





If he did he would know I don't have a mo - but the rest is true!

Those early cars had terrible drive-ability (but also the best engine on the grid by far).
Both Hill and Prost attested to that.
By Imola they changed the wheelbase and shifted more weight to rear, and this wasn't even the B spec.






?!?!

Just because he only corners in one direction doesn't necessarily mean he is a weight jacker.

so this syestem will work , and could work to great efect , in a high performance car ?

Not sure about "great effect". If it was just to get static balance correct at the start of a journey or race, I doubt the weight penalty would be justified unless you were moving some mass that was already there (battery or engine or entire chassis/body).

The more advanced concept of moving the CG dynamically to optimise weight distribution for various manoeuvres has a lot of potential and deserves/requires some careful analysis.

What do you actually mean by "work"? As a feature to help sell the car it may work. Driving even a reasonable modern family saloon anywhere near the edge of it's performance envelope on a twisty road involves travelling very quickly and by definition no real margin for error, how much faster is a supercar?
If you aren't near the edge of the envelope would the system be noticeable by a skilled driver never mind a mediocre one?
On a trackday you could be driving close to the limit if you are any good but trackdays are about fun rather than speed so is it really worth the bother?

What do you think about the increased lateral grip obtainable using inside weight bias? Oval track cars can be set up with as much as 70% static weight on the inside tyres - there is a definite advantage in ultimate grip level. If weight could be shifted dynamically to suit the corner, would a significant performance gain be possible? My preferred implementation would be to shift the wheels and suspension relative to the rest of the car - that would produce the maximum weight transfer with minimum displacement of the system. The dynamics would be quite complex and would certainly need electronic control and possibly four wheel steer (also electronically controlled.)

Only in a racing category where the car is significantly underweight and must carry a big chunk of ballast anyway to make the legal minimum.

No and since we are talking about a high performance car rather than a restricted weight race car I would rather a 40kg lighter.

The question is, can you move the weight far enough sideways to unload the outer tire, and load the inner tire, enough that you can get an increase in grip enough to offset the extra mass you have to accelerate. Once you know the tire load sensitivity and the car's dimensions etc you can work that out. Even then you may not be ahead.

If you move the entire car sideways relative to its contact patches (and assume the suspension and unsprung bits have no mass), you need to move the car 10% of its track to achieve 60/40 weight distribution.

The Mercedes F400 Carving http://host.users.cg.yu/gz/ae_Mercedes_F400_Carving_01.jpg achieves better grip by optimising camber but has a further benefit in moving the contact patches to the outside of the corner, thus favourably biasing weight distribution.

its the same question to most supercars , how often are the owners going to take there car to over 400kph ? or corner there 1 million car with back hung out drifting ? , so with that in mind , my ideas for my dream supercar is optimum performance up to 300kph , maxamise the cornering of the car , aspecs that your average driver could acheave on a track . just look at the kornizig on top gear , fast car but no balance , some drivers weigh in at 60kgs some at 100kgs , thats a 40kg differance , have you lifted a 40kg weight ? , the 100kg driver would have a big unbalance problem ,


has any one ever weighed there car on inderviduale scales ? someone could try this and see what realy happens .

The 40kg extra due to the heavier driver, sitting 40 cm from the centreline of the car, will change the weight distribution less than 1%, assuming a 1.6 ton car with 1.6m track width.

The point is shifting 40 kgs anywhere isn't going to resolve inherent handling problems of any car.



Why would we want facts to get in the way of a good story?

As I said, it may have marketing potential for a supercar but pointless otherwise for a road car. With a proper racing car cornerweights are a tuning tool.
It is normal to set a competition car up on scales.

FWIW; Interesting thing the other day I weighed a big thing, at first I thought it was too big to put on the scale I had so I weighed both ends individually and got 45kgs + 50kgs then I realised I could get it on the scales all at once, 80kgs.

15kgs difference, not a small amount.

Yes the thing was level, no the scale wasn't tilted/jamming etc....

The scale was one with a large bed, scaled by a slide and hanging weights like you used to see on train stations for parcel weights.

Three possibilities.
1. Non linear (faulty) scales - unlikely.
2. When you weighed one "end" the scales were actually contacting the "big thing" a small distance from the end whereas the other end was contacting the ground at the very end.
3. The scale end was lower than the "ground support" end - tilting the object towards the scales and moving the CG laterally toward the scales.

how do you know this ?

Statics.

Don't comb your hair so fast then.

I get 1.2195...% for a 40 kg driver, which is a tad light on.

I make it 50.6%/49.4%.

Does that make it a potayto or a potarto?

...or, pneumatically controlled axles that telescope in and out in response to weight transfer...I see this in cartoons sometimes while the car is going around a switch back way up high. It actually works.

I am for driver in the center, car as light as possible.

Cheapracer, try weiging again but with the end on the scale and the other end supported on knife edge supports equidistant from each end then swap over with the distances maintained.