190 replies to this topic

[Chubby_Deuce]

Quote

Originally posted by desmo
Isn't the CR fixed in the series? Would higher effective octane rating even make any real difference?

I was under the impression that it's free to be changed, and only the common fuel has caused everyone to come up with a similar solution.

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire
I suspect the story was originally "related to rocket fuel" and got scrambled a bit in the blabbing thru the garage area. By "related to rocket fuel" I would expect some kind of gel with a decent oxygenate native to it or blended in. Palmitic acid, cetyl alcohol, like napalm and so forth.

OK, but how much of a performance gain are we talking about?

Quote

I also exect it got in not thru the fuel lines (where it would gum things up as Engineguy says) but on the air side. Maybe they just "painted" the inside the intake manifold with it.

Yes ... the report I read stated that an inspector stuck his hand in the intake manifold and when he removed his hand, it was coated with the 'illegal substance.'

[desmo]

Thanks. It's damn hard to nail down the tech regs in for Nextel Cup, all I can find are second hand paraphrases and those are frequently dated and/or contradictory.

[McGuire]

You don't need to read the rulebook. Darby has already read it all the way through, and he and his people will look at your car and tell you if it is ok. This service is provided free of charge. You don't have a race car? Then mind your own business.

I try to imagine a conversation between John Darby and Ron Dennis. "Ron, why are you trying to tell me what you think the rulebook means? Who do you think wrote it, son? Why don't you focus on your field of expertise, and I'll stick to mine. Would you like a Dr. Pepper?"

Really it all comes down to the oft-quoted Section 12-4-A... "actions detrimental to stock car racing." That pretty much covers everything. Mikey knew he was on the wrong side of that one.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by dosco


OK, but how much of a performance gain are we talking about?

Well, cheating in this manner is a rather imprecise process as you cam imagine, but to give you an idea of what is on the table to be had, the restrictor plate reduces power from around 850 to 440 hp. Anything you can do to replace that oxygen is instant hp.

[dosco]

Quote

Originally posted by McGuire


Well, cheating in this manner is a rather imprecise process as you cam imagine, but to give you an idea of what is on the table to be had, the restrictor plate reduces power from around 850 to 440 hp. Anything you can do to replace that oxygen is instant hp.

OK, but how much HP could one expect to recoup as a function of "oxygenated gel" cooking off in the intake?

50HP?

100 HP?

[phantom II]

Way back when, Garlitz told Dick Anderson that if methanol is added to the fuel any magnesium that it comes into contact with, will form a white gell like goo as found on the Toyota manifold. You can run higher CRs and more advance for more HP with meth..

Quote

Originally posted by dosco


OK, but how much HP could one expect to recoup as a function of "oxygenated gel" cooking off in the intake?

50HP?

100 HP?

[desmo]

If you're using enough methanol to matter wouldn't that destroy your mileage per tank?

And Mg manifolds in NASCAR? I'd expect NASCAR to mandate Bronze Age formula bronze or at best elemental iron

[Fat Boy]

Quote

Originally posted by dosco


OK, but how much HP could one expect to recoup as a function of "oxygenated gel" cooking off in the intake?

50HP?

100 HP?

From what I understand, engine builers work all year to find 2-3 HP on a restrictor plate engine. The gel wouldn't have to do much. If it was worth 5 HP, then it was worth a year and a half of development.

When you look at it in those terms it puts it more into perspective.

OTOH, I have a friend in NASCAR that says if anyone is running consistently at the front of the pack, then they're cheating. I think it's generally more aero/mechanical type stuff. This guy's teammate ran into a minor controversy at Daytona last year. He says that it's really a game. You try and pull stuff and the tech guys try and find it. If you never get caught with anything, it's because you're not doing anything. If you're not doing anything, then the tech guys don't respect you. It's a weird deal that only makes sense to the NASCAR insiders.

Cheating on engines is kinda chicken-****. Especially if you're just doping the fuel. It's not clever at all. Because of that, I think they really hit them hard. I had a guy that I was racing against for years and had a fair bit of respect for him. In my last year of racing against him, I found he was cheating engines. It definitely changed how I look at the guy now. I certainly don't see him as the competitor I once did.

[zac510]

They mightn't have intended to run this stuff in the race either - ie they just wanted to qualify.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by dosco


OK, but how much HP could one expect to recoup as a function of "oxygenated gel" cooking off in the intake?

50HP?

100 HP?

I wouldn't think so.

Really I have no idea. It would be difficult if not impossible to jet the carb accurately for it, for one thing. But in qualifying at Daytona 10 hp is big, and it is certainly worth that.

On the other hand, I have to believe you wouldn't even think of doing something like this unless you were in trouble on hp, so maybe it's more.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by Fat Boy


OTOH, I have a friend in NASCAR that says if anyone is running consistently at the front of the pack, then they're cheating. I think it's generally more aero/mechanical type stuff. This guy's teammate ran into a minor controversy at Daytona last year. He says that it's really a game. You try and pull stuff and the tech guys try and find it. If you never get caught with anything, it's because you're not doing anything. If you're not doing anything, then the tech guys don't respect you. It's a weird deal that only makes sense to the NASCAR insiders.

Yep, that is how it is more or less. However, we are talking about very fine distinctions in minor adjustments and dimensions etc. so it is hard to call it "cheating" exactly. If the car is 1/16" on the go side of the gauge you are ok; if you are 1/16" on the no side you are cheating. So it often comes down to getting around the system of measurement. Last year Chad Knaus got busted with an offset rear trailing arm bolt. For that one they suspended him and escorted him off the property.

I think I am getting bored with NASCAR.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by Fat Boy



I had a guy that I was racing against for years and had a fair bit of respect for him. In my last year of racing against him, I found he was cheating engines. It definitely changed how I look at the guy now. I certainly don't see him as the competitor I once did.

And when it soaks in how much of that monkey business goes on (in the paddock and elslewhere) it kind of sours you on the whole deal.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And if it's who I am thinking it is, it made me re-evaluate my entire ranking of who beat who by extrapolation and a guy I thought was very very very good might have been just average.

[desmo]

Since legalizing TC, I've hardly heard as much as a whisper of cheating the tech regs in F1.

I wonder why?

[rhm]

Quote

Originally posted by desmo
Since legalizing TC, I've hardly heard as much as a whisper of cheating the tech regs in F1.

I wonder why?

Appart from the long-winded flexi-wing saga of 2006? Unless you meant engine regs ofc.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Quote

Originally posted by desmo
Since legalizing TC, I've hardly heard as much as a whisper of cheating the tech regs in F1.

I wonder why?

Can't exactly throw a fit and accuse your rivals of running illegal electronics these days.

[desmo]

Quote

Originally posted by rhm


Appart from the long-winded flexi-wing saga of 2006? Unless you meant engine regs ofc.

Oooh. I'd forgot that.

[Lukin]

And the BAR fuel tank.

[cosworth bdg]

Quote

Originally posted by desmo
Since legalizing TC, I've hardly heard as much as a whisper of cheating the tech regs in F1.

I wonder why?

Let us see how many cheats surface in MELBOURNE 2007 .

[Dallas84]

Quote

Originally posted by cosworth bdg
Let us see how many cheats surface in MELBOURNE 2007 .

Depending on who you talk to you have Super Aguri and Scuderia Toro Rosso for a start

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by desmo
Since legalizing TC, I've hardly heard as much as a whisper of cheating the tech regs in F1.

I wonder why?

Because its bad publicity, which is bad for the "sport" - good PR is the name of the game. Controversy is fine, but any mention of cheating is bad PR, and therefore taboo.

These days, teams don't protest - its just "a quiet word" from a team about something they don't like, and then it gets changed without any rules having been broken, and no bad PR. If nothing is done, then someone like Sir Frank Williams will say - Oh well, it seems we might have to develop those flexy wings"; rather than protest them, if his quiet words are ignored, then he might speak softly to the Press, and go out and join in with the rule benders. When Flavio got upset last year, he immediately appologised, because he had broken a modern F1 taboo.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You didn't watch last year did you?

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
You didn't watch last year did you?

Yes. And on TV, F1 sure was a friendly place.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yeah, for 90 minutes

[mariner]

Cheating in racing is like tax accounting!

If you didnt have to pay tax there would not be tax accountants nor would there be any discussion about "tax avoidance" versus "tax evasion". What is the diference? - whether you go to jail or not.

Similarly in racing the more rules the more cheating, because with everything so close cheating becomes more tempting.

I can't recall anybody ever being caught cheating in the old Can Am series as there where very few rules anyway. The Chaparral sucker car was banned between seasons but it passed scrutineering each time.

If this argument is true then with more and more money hemmed in by more and more rules, F1 is set for a lot more NASCAR style fuss.

Without just singling out Toyota they, as a company, were quite clearly prepared to cheat in rallying and the design was so sophisticated it was clear that they knew it was wrong even before they designed it.

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by mariner
Without just singling out Toyota they, as a company, were quite clearly prepared to cheat in rallying and the design was so sophisticated it was clear that they knew it was wrong even before they designed it.

You have just singled them out ... maybe you should also list the other company - or more - some might even had had more than the single transgression of Toyota's?

[gas28man]

I know plenty of good cheats for y'all to ponder. All or most of these have been confirmed used in stock car racing at one time or other.

In the very old days, we're talking the '60s, when the rules limited carburetor cfms, guys would go get a lawn mower carburetor, mount it remotely up under the dash somewhere, and run a line to the manifold for additional air flow.

Another cool trick, not really a cheat but some good old fashioned junkyard engineering, I knew a midget racer who, in the early '70s developed the flat-six Corvair motor for his midget car. In itself, the motor was no better or worse than any other of the time (VWs, Offys, etc.), but he engineered it for REVERSE ROTATION!! And to make it work, he had to flip over the quickchange rear. But to drive it, you mashed the gas through the corners because the torque of the reverse rotation would stick the left side of the car to the dirt. He said it took him half a season just to learn how to drive it, but then he dominated. He would pass 3 and 4 cars a lap, exclusively in the corners. As a result, the Corvair motor is now banned from midget racing by most sanctioning bodies, though nobody ever did figure out that it wasn't the Corvair motor per se that made it fast, but that reverse rotation trick.

From NASCAR, in the late 70s and thru the early 80s, from about the time they transitioned from big block to small block engines, there was an engine shop in Michigan that was building, for some top-flight teams, something that became known as the "big block small block." Another piece of whizbang engineering, the guy had engineered a small-block Chevy engine so that the front two cylinders were of legal bore for the maximum 358ci (6.0L), but the back six cylinders were bored out to where the engine totalled in the neighborhood of 430ci (7.0L). When inspectors would pump-check the engines after a race, they would always pull the spark plug on the No. 1 cylinder (or the crew would already have it pulled for them). This went on for a long time with the perps not getting caught. I believe when Petty got his 198th or 199th win at Rockingham in the early 80s, and there was the controversy about his engine being oversize was when someone in the post race tech line got wind of it and checked the volume on a rear cylinder.

Someone higher up the thread suggested drivers getting in the car with a perfomance enhancer on their person. This has happened, usually only in qualifying, and generally only at restrictor plate tracks where all the cars run a magnahelic gauge (measures air pressure at the air cleaner), mounted to the steering column. Driver jumps in with a small squeeze bottle in his breast pocket. On his warmup qualifying lap he pulls the hose out of the back of the magnahelic gauge and inserts his bottle of whatever, runs his 2 laps, then puts everything back in order on the cooldown lap, and departs with the bottle.

At restrictor plate tracks, the stock cars like to get those rear decklids down out of the air. One team mounted a whole bunch of ballast in a false trunk floor for ARCA qualifying some years back. Unfortunately, they were unprepared for how bumpy the track was, and when the car came in after qualifying, the false floor had buckled from the jouncing around, and the extra lead was hanging down out of the back of the car. They were put on the trailer, and that driver has never been back to race in the series.

I also heard that someone in a NASCAR race found some form of liquid ballast that they would put in the frame rails. This is illegal because it transfers weight to the rear under acceleration and to the front under deceleration. The stuff was highly toxic (mercury?), and wouldn't you know it, the car using it got T-boned in a wreck at Michigan, creating a toxic spill in the infield that cost a whole bunch to clean up. Never heard about anyone getting fined or sanctioned behind it, though. Perhaps the fact of a toxic waste site at the track was deemed bad publicity best kept out of the papers.

I got lots more, but that's what I remember for now.

[Breadmaster]

nice one gas28man! welcome to the thread....

[Melbourne Park]

Quote

Originally posted by gas28man
Another cool trick, not really a cheat but some good old fashioned junkyard engineering, I knew a midget racer who, in the early '70s developed the flat-six Corvair motor for his midget car. In itself, the motor was no better or worse than any other of the time (VWs, Offys, etc.), but he engineered it for REVERSE ROTATION!! And to make it work, he had to flip over the quickchange rear. But to drive it, you mashed the gas through the corners because the torque of the reverse rotation would stick the left side of the car to the dirt. He said it took him half a season just to learn how to drive it, but then he dominated. He would pass 3 and 4 cars a lap, exclusively in the corners. As a result, the Corvair motor is now banned from midget racing by most sanctioning bodies, though nobody ever did figure out that it wasn't the Corvair motor per se that made it fast, but that reverse rotation trick.

I don't understand how the motor running clockwise instead of counter (or vice versa) could enhance the handling ...

[Greg Locock]

If you've got a car with a soft suspension and a V8 (Range Rover for instance), try blipping the throttle in neutral. The car rolls, as the crankshaft accelerates rotationally it exerts an equal and opposite torque on the block, and so on the car. (Conservation of angular momentum)

So, as the engine changes speed you'll get some load transfer. Of course as it decelerates you'll get the opposite.

As for the original story, well I'll say it is a fancy explanation, and it could be true, alternatively there may be other explanations - the corvair engine was a nice engine in its own right.

[gas28man]

It's the torque of the engine. When you corner with a normally rotating engine, when you get on the gas, there's not just normal inertial weight transfer working to put all the weight on the right side (rear) of the car; there's also the rotational torque of the engine, which is yanking the left side frame rail off the track, and basically compounding the inertial effects.

If you get the engine rotating in the other direction, however, when you stand on the gas in the corner, it plants the left side of the car, actually decreasing some of the inertial effects of normal weight transfer in the corners.

It also helped that the Corvair six, being a horizontally-opposed (or flat, or boxer) engine had a low center of gravity.

In a lightweight, high horsepower vehicle like a midget, my friend said it actually brought body roll to near zero, and the harder you gassed it, the better it handled in the corners, while all of his competitors were either braking, coasting or feathering the gas just to get around the corner.

You can't do reverse rotation with every engine. Flat engines work well with it, but in-line fours and sixes might work too, I suppose. I would think it would cause problems for an engine in V alignment, however.

This may also be a lost technology because I believe the guy died a year or two ago of a stroke.

[McGuire]

The reverse-rotation trick has been done off and on at least since the '30s and Ford V8 midgets. On a Chevy V8 it is easy to do by replacing the timing chain and sprockets with two gears, which reverses the cam rotation. Then you use a standard-rotation camshaft instead of a reverse-rotation (aka "marine") cam and it all works out except for a few details like the water pump. The Corvair was born with reverse rotation as were a few others, Honda for one. Some big diesels too.

[Melbourne Park]

Thanks, it makes sense, I guess the tracks all go around in the same direction. In the State of Victoria - Australia, the horses run round the tracks counter clockwise, while in NSW they run around clockwise. I guess in the USA the dirt tracks all go around the same. Surprising that no one else used the engine torque for such a significant handling benefit.

I've never been near a dirt track ... Black Jack Brabham came from that form of racing in Australia to become a WDC in F1, he was never afraid to hand the tail out!

[gas28man]

I just remembered a couple more cheats that I know for sure happened.

I was standing near the inspection line at Michigan International Speedway in 1989, when Dale Earnhardt was at the peak of his career. In those days, they weighed the cars on big, single, outdoor pad scales, not the four individual wheel scales they use today. I watched as Earnhardt's crew rolled his Chevy up onto the scale, and Chocolate Myers, the gasman and biggest guy on the crew (6-5, 240, easily) stayed there with his left foot planted on the scale under the back, left corner of the car. The inspector was watching the scale from the right front, and couldn't see Myers' foot. Earnhardt's car was just 2 pounds over the minimum.

Earnhardt had never won at Michigan to that point. It was one track where he'd never really had much success. Despite the Myers' help, he sucked in the race the next day. Went a lap down fairly early, and was never a factor.

Then there were the more, ehem, ham-handed attempts:

At a short-track race where my team was competing, all the teams in our series were mandated to buy their tires from a single manufacturer, whose tires were brought in and stored in a trailer in the garage area. Certain teams, if they were watching things like die lots, would go up in the trailer and try to pick the tires they wanted to assure they assembled sets from the same lot. One particular team tried to sneak a set of tires they had brought to the track (presumably soaked in softener or doctored in some way) in the side door of the trailer, while their tire specialist came in the back door with the tire seller to pick out those very four tires. They got caught red handed. But I don't remember there being particularly harsh sanctions placed on them.

There was also a frequently talked-about incident in the early 1990s when ARCA champion Tim Steele decided to try his hand in the ASA series. At one particular ASA event (Milwaukee?), one of the frame rails in his car exploded, apparently from nitrous being stored in it. He was barred from ever competing in the ASA again.

One team I know of was only a part-time competitor in an American stock car series with a 358 ci (6.0L) maximum engine size. They were going to be running at a race close to their engine-builder's shop, and he was hoping to boost his status and demand for his engines with a good showing, so he brought them an engine that was 406 ci (6.6L). The engine man knew it would sound different, so he tried to mask it with a little exhaust tuning, and wound up with a car that, at speed, sounded like it constantly was running way too rich, a kind of blubbering sound. The car qualified well, ran up front all day, but had to make sure he finished outside the top five, since those were the ones whose engines got checked. After the race, I remember hearing one spectator say, "How come that car was so fast when he sounded so slow?"

Another time, the team I worked with had a chassis setup was pretty messed up, and no matter what we did, we couldn't meet one of the rules which said we had to have a certain percentage of left-side-vs.-right-side weight, so in desperation, right before tech, we shoved a loose weight bar under the driver's seat. It was discovered almost immediately, but as I recall, they let us slide with a warning because we were no threat to win at the time.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by gas28man


I also heard that someone in a NASCAR race found some form of liquid ballast that they would put in the frame rails.

Far more common form of phony ballast was duck shot (steel shotgun ammo). The cars were weighed before the race but not after, so they would load 100-200 lbs of it into the frame and roll cage for tech inspection, then the driver would pull down low on the backstretch during the pace laps and dump it. One of the chief devotees of this stunt later became chief NASCAR technical inspector.

In theory all the duck shot would roll down into the infield, but soon there were a half-dozen cars doing it and it was pretty hard to miss what was going on so they quit. But still, that was a lot of BBs. Until a few years ago, you could still find old duck shot in the grass along the backstretch at some tracks.

[McGuire]

The Corvair was designed with reverse rotation so that standard GM driveline gears and components could be used with the behind-the-rear-axle engine location.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by gas28man


At restrictor plate tracks, the stock cars like to get those rear decklids down out of the air. One team mounted a whole bunch of ballast in a false trunk floor for ARCA qualifying some years back.

I think I remember something like that.

In drag racing in the early-mid 60's there was a similar trick, pulled by the Chrysler factory Super Stock teams among others. They would remove the deck lid, turn it upside down and fill the space between the inner and outer panels with molten lead, placing some illegal hidden ballast high and to the rear. Then they finagled the torsion rods so the trunk opened more or less normally.

The Ramchargers and the Golden Commandos were some of the cheatingest bastards there ever were in any form of racing. Part of it was driven simply by trying to outsmart and outcheat each other. The Ramchargers were were the white-collar crew -- engineers and junior executives -- while the Golden Commandos were mainly blue-collar guys, mechanics and technicians at the Highland Park engineering garage and dyno lab, which produced a friendly rivalry. And of course there was a Dodge vs. Plymouth thing too.

[Greg Locock]

OK, so can someone confirm (or deny) that the engine would have to be accelerating for load transfer to occur? I've had far too many beers to figure it out.

[McGuire]

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
OK, so can someone confirm (or deny) that the engine would have to be accelerating for load transfer to occur? I've had far too many beers to figure it out.

Sure, got a moment?

[phantom II]

When exploiting or probing the performance envelope of propeller driven aircraft, understanding the properties of the propeller at various RPMs and torque settings is paramount if you wish to down your opponent in combat.There are four main factors that fall in to the category of 'P' factor( Propeller factor) of which torque is one of them. This and asymmetric thrust from the disc due to high angle of attacks on the wing, gyroscopic precession with both pos. and neg. G loads and wash at various speeds and attitudes that vary their effects all play a part in performance. P47s could roll with the effects of torque alone if airspeed got too slow. At cruise, even the lowest power aircraft has various trim methods incorporated into its design to compensate for torque such as crankshaft off center, different incidence from one wing to the other, washout, offset vertical fin, etc.
With high powered airplanes, a great deal of rudder and aileron deflection is required to climb especially laden with full ordnance. All this at constant RPM,
I think there was a dragster that mounted the engine east west to give him more traction, but with high G acceleration, the crankshaft became imbalanced.
I remember seeing Mark Donahue in his 917 accelerate out of slow turns. The whole car would roll to the right and almost lift the front wheel. I wonder what corresponding chassis adjustments were made???

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
OK, so can someone confirm (or deny) that the engine would have to be accelerating for load transfer to occur? I've had far too many beers to figure it out.

[Engineguy]

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
OK, so can someone confirm (or deny) that the engine would have to be accelerating for load transfer to occur? I've had far too many beers to figure it out.

Deny.

A car/engine running at constant 200 mph at Bonneville (i.e. it has quit accelerating) is still providing the (max HP) torque required to plow through the air at 200 mph. The drivetrain is loaded, hence the same reaction forces are present in the drivetrain... so one rear tire will be more heavily loaded against the ground than the other. Whether the engine is fighting momentem or air, the forces are still there. The only time the axle reaction will be greater than the 200 mph example above is when you're accelerating in a lower gear, i.e. three times as great if first gear ratio is 3:1. Of course that doesn't happen in a midget/sprint car originally discussed since they are direct drive.

All the above assumes a live rear axle. A car with independent rear suspension cannot transfer the "rotate the ring gear around the pinion axis" reaction to the tire. I'm thinking a Corvette will go straight on the salt a little better than a Camaro will.

The reaction that lifts the left side of an engine when you rev it in neutral IS a result of the resistance to accelerating the crankshaft and flywheel, and this reaction will transfer through the chassis to the springs when accelerating the car (regardless of suspension type)... but it is very very very very minor compared to the ring gear reaction above (and it's to the opposite tire if I'm thinking right).

[Greg Locock]

Well, now I'm sober again.

Front view of symmetrical car running on straight road, not accelerating.

There is no net torque on the car produced by the engine/driveline. That is, the torque that is generated in th engine is reacted through the engine mounts, is recated in an equal and opposite fashion at the diff/rear axle, if nothing is accelerating.

So... no load transfer without acceleration.

[Engineguy]

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Well, now I'm sober again.

Front view of symmetrical car running on straight road, not accelerating.

There is no net torque on the car produced by the engine/driveline. That is, the torque that is generated in th engine is reacted through the engine mounts, is recated in an equal and opposite fashion at the diff/rear axle, if nothing is accelerating.

So... no load transfer without acceleration.

True, if the the diff is mounted to the frame as with independent suspension, but with a live axle (NASCAR, midgets, sprints, trucks, Mustangs, etc.) it's not. As long as the wheels are providing thrust, be it for acceleration or just to overcome aero drag, there will be a load transfered through the ring and pinion gearset in a live axle... since that gearset interface is off to the left of the pinion axis the pinion teeth are pushing downward on the left side of the rear axle. Mr. Olley covers it in his "supposedly unpublished" (there were copies within GM) writings (they're a bit scortched around the edges , but they survived my 1984 house fire).

Tires ARE providing thrust during constant speed driving, not just during acceleration.

[Greg Locock]

i'm not sure about that - imagine a car with a single front wheel and a live rear axle. If there is no acceleration then the vertical forces at the contact patch are fixed.

[imaginesix]

I say you're both wrong.

There is a torque reaction at the tires as long as power is going to the wheels like Engineguy says, just like the tail rotor on a helicopter is always counteracting the torque of the main rotor, even when it's at constant speed. Where I think he's wrong is that there is just as much lateral load transfer on a solid axle as on an independent suspension driveline, the only difference is that the load is braced to the ground at the rear tires directly in the first instance, but it goes through the chassis and springs in the second case, where it is counteracted by all four wheels.

I can't wait to find out how right/wrong I am!

[phantom II]

So I pull my trusty aircraft upward until it reaches zero airspeed. If I don't reduce torque momentarily before the plane changes direction to a 'tail slide' which requires full power, I will not be able to control the rotation about the longitudinal axis which in this case is on the vertical plane. A helicopter requires a tail rotor to prevent rotation and not to mention the before mentioned trim required to the aircraft at constant speed and altitude and power setting to prevent a roll.
Back to the car. If you had two pinions driven by the flywheel on either side on the horizontal plane with sprockets for chains and the chains drive the rear solid axle with a mobius on the right chain and massive frontal drag or a steep hill so that the engine remains at full torque, I reckon the right rear will be loaded due to torque. If you lift your foot of the gas, the left front wheel will make contact with the road again. No?
Supposing I attempt a take off in a P47 up the side of a mountain at a gradient that prevents acceleration. I'm going to have a devil of a time keeping the right wheel on the ground on a 2 point take off roll. In the air, I'm going to need plenty airspeed to prevent a roll

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Well, now I'm sober again.

Front view of symmetrical car running on straight road, not accelerating.

There is no net torque on the car produced by the engine/driveline. That is, the torque that is generated in th engine is reacted through the engine mounts, is recated in an equal and opposite fashion at the diff/rear axle, if nothing is accelerating.

So... no load transfer without acceleration.

[Engineguy]

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
i'm not sure about that - imagine a car with a single front wheel and a live rear axle. If there is no acceleration then the vertical forces at the contact patch are fixed.

Put a live axle car up on a lift, put it in gear, and run up to a fixed rpm. The rear axle will sit level as the wheels merrily spin with no load on them. Now, maintaining the same rpm, apply some brake drag to simulate the load aero drag puts on the axle shafts. Now that the axle shafts don't want to turn, the driveshaft/pinion gear will try to rotate the rear axle around the pinion axis... the left side of the rear axle will drop and "top out" the suspension and/or the right side of the rear axle will lift, compressing the spring. Same deal if aero drag is loading the axle shafts instead of the brakes... only instead of the suspension travel limits preventing further rotation of the axle about the pinion axis, the ground under the left tire does it. And yes, if you had a single center mounted front wheel the chassis would be tilted to the right as you cruise down the road. tire thrust is tire thrust, whether it's overcoming inertia (during acceleration) or overcoming aero drag at constant high speed. I know it's easier to picture driveline load during acceleration, but the same load is there when you're pushing air.

[Greg Locock]

IRS vs live rear axle is part of the difference. A live rear axle uses the ground to react the front view torque induced in the propshaft, back to the front wheels, whereas an IRS uses the body to react the propshaft torque between the diff and the engine.


But I am mighty puzzled by the three wheeler

[Engineguy]

Quote

Originally posted by Greg Locock
But I am mighty puzzled by the three wheeler

It's just like putting a higher rate spring at the left rear. In a car you just cross-jack some load into the right front so that the load on the front right is greater than the left front and the load on the left rear is greater than the right rear... the car will remain more or less level though (depending mostly on the front spring rates vs. rear spring rates). If there is just one center front wheel though, the chassis will just tilt to the right until the left rear spring gets to a length where its force equals the right rear spring's force. The force exerted by the driveshaft on the live axle will have the same effect.