Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register




    Results 1 to 20 of 33

    Hybrid View

    1. #1
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      New Derry, PA
      Posts
      1,265
      Country Flag: United States
      The reaction occurs wherever there is a limit to freedom of motion. The rubber will absorb some of the torque as we know, but that is still where the reaction load is fed into the chassis. The reverse rotation thing was tried for awhile in circle track racing (spinning the ENGINE the opposite way, mostly open wheel cars), with some success. In those light cars, the engine (block) torque reaction did quite a bit to counteract chassis roll in the corners. I believe reverse rotation been banned just about everywhere though...


      Ray Kaufman - Wyotech Chassis Fab and High Performance Instructor. Words of Wisdom from an old master... at Asylum Custom Interiors website


    2. #2
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by exwestracer View Post
      The reaction occurs wherever there is a limit to freedom of motion. The rubber will absorb some of the torque as we know, but that is still where the reaction load is fed into the chassis. The reverse rotation thing was tried for awhile in circle track racing (spinning the ENGINE the opposite way, mostly open wheel cars), with some success. In those light cars, the engine (block) torque reaction did quite a bit to counteract chassis roll in the corners. I believe reverse rotation been banned just about everywhere though...
      Got to thinking about this a bit. It appears that in this situation the intent is to equalize front tire loading rather than rear to mitigate a push on corner exit when the front is also going light. Rear tire loading would be made somewhat more unequal and would also be generating a yaw moment that would oppose the push without having to put the axle itself into loose steer. Sound even close?


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      New Derry, PA
      Posts
      1,265
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
      Got to thinking about this a bit. It appears that in this situation the intent is to equalize front tire loading rather than rear to mitigate a push on corner exit when the front is also going light. Rear tire loading would be made somewhat more unequal and would also be generating a yaw moment that would oppose the push without having to put the axle itself into loose steer. Sound even close?


      Norm
      That's it in a nutshell, Norm. If the driver didn't have to rely on "hitting the stagger" to get the car off the corner, he was more in control of his own fate... I believe Mr. Yunick got the ball rolling on reverse rotation LONG before anyone else even heard about it.

      Ray Kaufman - Wyotech Chassis Fab and High Performance Instructor. Words of Wisdom from an old master... at Asylum Custom Interiors website




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com