|
|
| Search | Car Forums | Gallery | Articles | Helper | Air Dried Fresh Beef Dog Food | IgorSushko.com | Corporate |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
the only way the weight distribution can change is if you physically move it, i.e. putting the engine in the back. the distribution does not change, you get thrown back in your seat because of inertia and thrown forward when you brake b/c of momentum. the forces of acceleration are absorbed by the springs and shocks on the car and transferred into the road, but at no point does the weight of the car change from front to back or vice-versa...
|
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
So you mean to tell me when you nail it and the car squats it is not actually taking weight off of the front tires and placing more on the rear ones...(diagonal line from top left to bottom right). And you do get thrown forward because of momentum, but that momentum is placing more weight on the front tires....
EDIT: And what happens when you take a sharp turn, momentum forces body roll which places more weight on the outside wheels.
__________________
1999 Plymouth Breeze 1995 Ford Probe GT - R.I.P. 1987 Dodge Daytona Shelby Z WTB 98+ Formula/TA or Z28
|
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
they are supporting more of the cars weight, but the distribution is not changing. again, the only way to change the distribution is to physically move components of the car. if you took the engine in a Z28 and moved it back in the body four inches from stock, than the weight distribution would change, but not just by accelerating. apparently im not good at trying to convey this point...
|
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
OK, well I can see your getting irritated and I'm not trying to be involved in an argument, but I just have one last point to TRY to make... You admited that it is "supporting more of the cars weight" right... so, for ex. if each set of wheels were supporting 100 pounds, and you accel. , which you said would cause the rear wheels to support more weight, ex. 20 more pounds, that take 20 off the front and placing it on the rear, cause the front to have 80 and the rear to have 120. I dunno, I've never done testing on this or heard from a physics pro, but I just see it playing out in my head this way. And I agree with everything else you had to say though.
__________________
1999 Plymouth Breeze 1995 Ford Probe GT - R.I.P. 1987 Dodge Daytona Shelby Z WTB 98+ Formula/TA or Z28
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
You are right... the MASS of the vehicle can never change, weight can most certainly...if your camaro was on the moon it'd be what, 500+lb. So weight is the FORCE of gravity on an object, each wheel has a portion of the total force of gravity of the car acting on it in the downward direction. The forces acting on any of the wheels can change due to other factors i.e. acceleration and/or braking.
Example: You weight 150lb. If you are in an elevator accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s squared (the same as the acceleration due to gravity) and were standing on a scale, it would read 300lb. Did your weight change? According to how we measure it, yes. Has your MASS changed, well, did you gain a belly and boobs during the ascent. See my point. This is the very beginning of relativity, but it applies here. |
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
thats what im saying, the physical weight distribution (mass) doesnt change, but the total amount of weight that the different wheels supports changes. im lookin at it from a physics stand-point and you guys are talkin in general, which is where we are getting confused. i think we are actually saying the same thing just with different words. the original question was does the weight distribution of the car change, not the weight distribution of the car over the wheels (atleast thats what i took it to mean)
and im not getting aggrivated, i love this stuff. arguing a point and supporting it... im just admitting that i suck at explaining points that work in my head and not in others, its an engineering thing... |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
Just don't confuse Mass and Weight... like I said, weight can change, you weigh less on top of Mt. Everrest than at Sea level. You mean the Mass distribution cannot change. If you want to do an ill-ass burn out, sometimes one or two homies will lift up the back end...Y... to make it weight less, cause you want less traction, which is friction, which is equal to the weight times the friction coefficient between the two surfaces. Thus the back weighs less. Weight is a very subjective quantity. We too often use it to mean mass.
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
Ok, think about this, if your car weight was 3500# then 1%=35#. If you have 57% on the front then you need to get 7X35(#) either off the front or on the back half. Light cars still win races.
You need to move 245# off the front. A full charged 27F battery is 49+ # move the battery to the trunk. Then you need 200+/- more, headers, no exhaust system, delete heater/HVAC, use lightweight wheels/tires. Use fiberglass hood, delete hinges/latches. Old super stock is to use a large fuel cell, mounted as high as possible with the 'just right' amount of gas in it so the car doesn't surpass 50/50 but the amount of weight will really help the transfer when it launches. It will make a differance.... BTW, always get the weight of the car and figure your front/rear with you sitting in the drivers seat. If you can get to a 'CAT' scale at a truck stop they can do this sort of weighing for you.... |
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
whoa, i feel like im physics class again. i understand both points here, kinda sorta, but lemmi say this, in a strait line, goose it and you lift the front wheels up, so all the weight is pressing on the rear tires, but that dont mean the front end is weightless, so that is extream, lets say that you accelerate, and the scales your tires are sitting on, say that the weight distribution went from 54/46 to 30/70, but the front wheels are still down, now try to take a turn, is the front end suddenly easier to whip around, acting as it was lighter than it was before???? no, it still acts as it is, with the 54/46 weight distribution. its because you have to look at the forces at each direction. while accelerating, yes the front to back weight distribution my change according to the scales, the side to side distribution dosnt. dunno if that made any sense.
__________________
Chevrolet Camaro - I enjoy beating the hell out of people http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=68052 |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
I was just trying to point out that MASS distribution stays the same, but apparent weight can change... with something as easy as someone lifting the back of your car (back weighs less now). Weight is the force that the car exerts on the ground perpendicular to it, right... when it is sitting it is pushing on the ground with a force of 3400lb downward. Any outside forces aka lifting the back or accelerating or turning (which is an acceleration) can change this force, the "weight". So any acceleration, forward or linear, or curved (centripital) will exert a force(s) on the car, which may have a downward effect, thus changing the apparent wieght.
|
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
yeah thats all true, but while the forces do indeed change the apparent weight of the vehicle the distribution of that weight dosnt change, and therefore dosnt effect the handling of the car. also keep in mind that the weight transferr is not 100% even if you pulled the front wheels off the ground durring acceleration, then you would not have 100% of the weight on the back wheels, it might be 90% or so, the weight distribution on the front end just dont really change is all.
__________________
Chevrolet Camaro - I enjoy beating the hell out of people http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=68052 |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
I mean in motion, if you slam on the gas there is a force that pushes you back in your seat, right, so it also pushes on the back wheels. If there is any downward component to this force, it will push down on the back wheels amking them heavier. If the car was on a scale(s) and I pushed down hard on the back, the reading for it would go up, it would appear heavier. All "weight" is defined as is the reading off the scale, so if it reads more, it IS heavy.
Matter is made up of MASS, not weight, weight is NOTHING more than te reading from a scale. Your car would "weigh" less on Mt. Everrest than home. Weight can change fairly easily. MASS and MASS distribution does not change. Weight distribution does. Ok, weight in the back is proportional to traction i.e. 0 weight on the rear tires 0 traction. So weight distribution affects tractions, ok. So another guy and I push down hard on the back of your car, it gets more traction, Y, because there is more weight. Weight is the force the car exerts on the ground, that is all. You car's MASS would still be however many slugs (the standard unit for mass I'm pretty sure) it was before I pushed down. If there was no graity, you car would have NO weight, NO traction, but still contain the same amount of matter i.e. MASS. Sorry, physics/math major, just trying to clear this up as it is very very often misconstrued that's to our common misuse of the word "weight". |
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
well, not to be a dick, but mass and weight have no bearing on traction, its the co-efficient of friction that gives you traction.
__________________
Chevrolet Camaro - I enjoy beating the hell out of people http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=68052 |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
well, regardless, i think we can all agree that mass and weight have nothing to do with chicks being hot...
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: weight distribution on the F-bodies?
Honestly, I can be a dick back... I'll try not to.
Ok, FRICTION which is a FORCE is derived from TWO quantities, it is the NORMAL FORCE multiplied by the COEFFICIENT of FRICTION between the two surface. The NORMAL FORCE is the FORCE PERPENDICULAR to the motion and the frction (friction is a force in the opposite direction of the motion hence it opposes motion). The NORMAL FORCE is PERPENDICULAR to BOTH. When a body is sitting on the ground at rest (like a car) the NORMAL FORCE is equal to its weight... the weight is the only force perpendicular to the attempted motion (forward, backward, whatever) so the friction you must overcome to move the car is equal to the coefficient*weight... period. And Mass and weight relate by the very easy equation W=Mg. W=weight, M=Mass, g=gravitational field strength (acceleration due to gravity). How in Your Right Mind can you say MASS and Weight do not affect traction... Y do you think guys put sadbags in the back of their Camaros in the winter? Y do you think it is harder to push a massive obeject accross the floor than a small one. Point example... you can push a bicycle easier than a car, right, this is obvious. The coefficent for the two is exactly the same, that between Rubber and Pavement. So Y is the car harder to push, becasue it has more MASS, which gives it more WEIGHT (W=Mg) which makes there more friction. I don't get Y you dont understand, Heavier objects make more friction, it sounds logical becasue it is. Does a Semi ever spin out??? |
|
![]() |
POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD |
![]() |
|
|