Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Is it totally necessary to have a perfectly balanced car?
Balance plays a part but dont forget these cars have had 100`s of hours of R&D spent on them, everything is at its optimum (within reason) when the cars are released.
|
Good point, Lee. Let's look at a 'real world' alternative example.
Check the chassis layout of an old original RWD, LHD VW Beetle. The majority of it is longitudinally symmetrical. Fore and aft weiight distribution is less so, however the relatively light magnesium alloy cased engine sits over the rear axle and is largely balanced by the fuel tank and spare wheel over the relatively heavy front axle beam arrangement. Even the starter motor and battery are placed so as to offset the mass of the driver.
If you were to measure the corner weights of this old car as opposed to a modern FWD Golf you'd probably find the old bug is (on paper) much more balanced than its descendent. However, give them equal power to weight ratio, braking ability and identically restricted top speeds then lob them down a track or rally stage and the Golf is likely to show a clean pair of heels to the wheezy old fella.
Why? Because the Golf can take advantage of various design advances in suspension geometry, will enjoy a lower centre of gravity, lower polar moment of inertia and so on. Things evolve, develop and move on, designers will compromise on one aspect to exploit others so whatever looks good on paper to an idealistic and fanatical old duffer simply doesn't translate to reality after a sufficient time has elapsed.
The Lazer was a good car, 'was' being the operative word. Pretty much any
compromised modern design, shaft or belt will, given equal circumstances, run rings around it. Just my opinion.