Can you make a vehicle so light that it no longer has enough weight to create a sufficient enough tire patch? I'd have to think so, but then it raises the question of when does weight become disadvantageous?
There has got to be some formula based on friction, vehicle mass, power, weight distribution, drivetrain layout, etc, to give you an ideal weight per vehicle, but has anyone ever made one?
I know, pretty useless for us because in any real vehicle lighter is always better,, but think space-age materials and vehicles that have the possibility to weigh next to nothing.
I dunno, just something I've been pondering for a while 
I Am Mike
4 wheels: '01 RAV4 (Formerly '93 Civic CX, '01 S2000, '10 GTI, '09 A4 Avant)
2 wheels: '12 Surly Cross-Check Custom | '14 Trek Madone 2.1 105 | '17 Norco Threshold SL Force 1 | '17 Norco Revolver 9.2 FS | '18 BMC Roadmachine 02 Two | '19 Norco Search XR Steel (Formerly '97 Honda VFR750F, '05 Giant TCR 2, '15 WeThePeople Atlas 24, '10 Scott Scale 29er XT, '11 Cervelo R3 Rival, '12 Ridley X-Fire Red)
No longer onyachin.
no, because the contact patch decreases at a lower rate than the mass the contact patch has to move
think of it as square inch of contact patch per pound
lighter weight would also let you use softer tire compounds and softer sidewalls
meh put downforce would always offset that. If you had enough dowwnforce then your contact patch would be that of a much heavier vehicle. And the only time when you would be needed that higher contact patch would be at the track where you have high enough speeds to use downforce.
2020 Ford Raptor
2009 Z06
1986.5 Porsche 928S
Less weight is good, to a point. Tire grip increases as tire loading - so it could, in theory, be possible to get the car so light that you cannot get the tires loaded to make the car handle properly (think: weight transfer). However, this could all be solved with proper aerodynamic design and downforce 
(09-25-2019, 03:18 PM)V1GiLaNtE Wrote: I think you need to see a mental health professional.
i also see a Top Gun Theme appearing with the OG's...OT as usual
theguywiththeSi Wrote:i also see a Top Gun Theme appearing with the OG's...OT as usual
...
My two feet.
In certain classes, ballast is used to help with traction in drag racing.
Because of suspension and tire limitations weight is strategically added to the chassis...often it is adjustable.
Obviously removal of this weight hinders performance.
-T
MIHS - hot cause we fly you ain't so you not
2004 Subaru WRX STi
1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass
take solar powered cars as an example.
they weigh hardly anything, but they can still take turns at phenomenal speeds. their tires are barely an inch wide, though, so the pressure of that contact patch is rather high (but with the benefit of low rolling resistance as well). a powerful contact patch can remain with properly sized tires. downforce, tire compound, suspension....those all make the weight issue way too hard to come to a conclusion on.
2010 Civic Si
2019 4Runner TRD Off-Road
--------------------------
Past: 03 Xterra SE 4x4 | 05 Impreza 2.5RS | 99.5 A4 Quattro 1.8T | 01 Accord EX | 90 Maxima GXE | 96 Explorer XLT
I think the solar racers are a good example of there being no such thing as too little weight. I looked at a few of their sites just to get an idea of how much they weigh-- some are under 500lbs w/ driver. They talk about the bare frame weighing as little as 35 lbs.
So let's say we took a Rotax kart, some of which weigh under 100 lbs, slapped the gear on a "car" sized frame and made a theoretical "car" that weighed under 100 lbs. No driver, remote controled. I think as long as the tires were appropriately sized (pretty much kart tires), the suspension was appropriatly soft, and the car never generated lift at any speed, it would outhandle anything out there. If it weighed 50lbs, even better, soften everything up more. If it weighed 1 lb, alien technology, some sort of odd nanotech foam tires, no suspension, AS LONG AS IT NEVER GENERATED LIFT, it would kick even the 100 lb car's ass. With so little weight to transfer, why transfer it? Turn in would be instant. Each tire would only have to put up with a side load of .5 lbs to pull a 2G turn.
Unrealistic and probably silly to consider. But I don't think there's any such thing as too little weight. There's obviously too little weight for a certian tire, a certian suspension setup, but's that's about it I'd think.
KPWSerpiente Wrote:In certain classes, ballast is used to help with traction in drag racing.
Because of suspension and tire limitations weight is strategically added to the chassis...often it is adjustable.
Obviously removal of this weight hinders performance.
-T
Had the car been designed better there would be no need for the weight. Less weight is ALWAYS the goal, sometimes you have to add more to make up for mistakes, that is just simple physics as Evan was trying to describe.
The cars are required to meet certain regulations to run in their respective classes.
I'm sorry if you feel that that means they were designed poorly Chad...you either didn't understand what I said or think that you know more about drag racing than the men who have been doing it for years.
Restrictions on tire composition and size, and restrictions on drivetrain and suspension components in some classes make adding ballast very benificial.
Now I realize that this doesn't really answer the question Mike posed in his thread...but it does answer the question he posed in the subject of this thread.
-T
MIHS - hot cause we fly you ain't so you not
2004 Subaru WRX STi
1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass
KPWSerpiente Wrote:I'm sorry if you feel that that means they were designed poorly Chad...you either didn't understand what I said or think that you know more about drag racing than the men who have been doing it for years.
maybe im insulting your intelligence saying this but i think Chad meant that the cars that benefit from that sort of thing in dragging benefit from it because they weren't engineered at the factory to maximize traction during a drag strip launch....not to say their overall design is flawed because they benefit from ballast. FWD cars immediately come to mind.
2010 Civic Si
2019 4Runner TRD Off-Road
--------------------------
Past: 03 Xterra SE 4x4 | 05 Impreza 2.5RS | 99.5 A4 Quattro 1.8T | 01 Accord EX | 90 Maxima GXE | 96 Explorer XLT
I'm not talking about FWD cars adding ballast.
-T
MIHS - hot cause we fly you ain't so you not
2004 Subaru WRX STi
1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass
KPWSerpiente Wrote:The cars are required to meet certain regulations to run in their respective classes.
I'm sorry if you feel that that means they were designed poorly Chad...you either didn't understand what I said or think that you know more about drag racing than the men who have been doing it for years.
Restrictions on tire composition and size, and restrictions on drivetrain and suspension components in some classes make adding ballast very benificial.
Now I realize that this doesn't really answer the question Mike posed in his thread...but it does answer the question he posed in the subject of this thread.
-T
Forget classes, forget restrictions, of course there comes times when you need to add weight to makes class, but, a lighter car, designed correctly WILL have an advantage.
okok you're both talking about different situations... the back and forth isn't solving anything... you're both equally valid.
I Am Mike
4 wheels: '01 RAV4 (Formerly '93 Civic CX, '01 S2000, '10 GTI, '09 A4 Avant)
2 wheels: '12 Surly Cross-Check Custom | '14 Trek Madone 2.1 105 | '17 Norco Threshold SL Force 1 | '17 Norco Revolver 9.2 FS | '18 BMC Roadmachine 02 Two | '19 Norco Search XR Steel (Formerly '97 Honda VFR750F, '05 Giant TCR 2, '15 WeThePeople Atlas 24, '10 Scott Scale 29er XT, '11 Cervelo R3 Rival, '12 Ridley X-Fire Red)
No longer onyachin.
|
