Acting on this, I just removed over 150 lbs from my ESP Camaro - first I lowered
the front 1/2", and sure enough it took 50lbs off the nose. Then I lowered the
rear 1/2" and took off 50 lbs there. So I went back and lowered the front
again, and now I've taken 100 lbs off the nose and 50 lbs off the rear, which
helps the weight distribution considerably! I'm stoked!!
Only problem I have now is that my Geez! cube mounting location is now
effectively *below* sea level here in San Jose, which screws up its tracking of
the GPS satellites, so it isn't plotting very accurately. It's either that or
the $#%@& TireRack.Com sticker is blocking the reception -- I sure hope it'll
work ok in Topeka (if we're allowed to use 'em!).
KeS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of Curt and Kim Bennett - Houston Region
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 20:56
> To: Randy Chase
> Cc: Iain Mannix; Autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Why ESP Ponycars Weigh So Much (more than M3s)B
>
>
> I just verified this on my car scales. Equally raising both corners
> increases the weight on the end that was raised. No surprise, Byron was
> right.
>
> -Curt
>
> Randy Chase wrote:
>
> > *warning....possible detailed techno-geek stuff follows*
> >
> > Iain Mannix wrote:
> >
> > > Raising/lowering/front/rear.
> > >
> > > Byron Short once used a big hammer to convince me that raising one end
> > > of a car would make that end heavier. It is true.
> >
> > In what way did his hammer convince you? 8-)
> >
> > You can do it with
> > > two bathroom scales and a sawhorse(or anything that is relatively
> > > heavy that will not allow the mass to shift). Put two legs of the
> > > sawhorse on one scale, call it the front. Put two legs of the
> > > sawhorse on the other scale, call it the rear. Sit two
> > > bricks/dictionarys/heavy things on the sawhorses over the legs.
> > > Observe "front and rear" weight.
> > >
> > > Take the brick off the top of the sawhorse on the "front" scale, put
> > > the brick *under* the legs of the sawhorse, raising the "front" three
> > > inches(or however tall the brick is).
> > >
> > > There are still the same things on the scales - one sawhorse, two
> > > bricks - but the weight will change; not total weight, but
> > > distribution. It really works.
> >
> > Ian, I respectfully suggest that this is an incorrect method of
> > demonstration. In one case, the scale is measuring roughly have the
> > weight of the sawhorse, and part of the weight of the bricks, because
> > the bricks load is shared by the sawhorse, and therefor distributed to
> > both scales. When you put the bricks under the sawhorse, the main change
> > comes from the one scale weighing 100% of the bricks, instead of have
> > the load shared.
> >
> > I also disagree with the basic point, but I am willing to be shown in
> > what way I am wrong. It has always been my grasp, that in order to do
> > less work while appearing you are carrying the same load (hehe) when
> > carrying sofas or other heavy furniture, you should raise your end. The
> > higher end weighs less.
> >
> > This seems simple when viewed simply. If one takes a long heavy object
> > and tilts it, eventually the higher end has almost no weight, and all
> > the wieght is on the lower end. Now a car is a little more different, in
> > that you didn't raise the entire car, you just changed it's location of
> > mass and center of gravity. The tires still rest on the ground. There is
> > also further complication because the higher end, though exhibiting
> > slightly less force downward, will be affecting by suspension changes
> > and the higher center of gravity.
> >
> > In any case, I was pretty sure that raising one end of a bar lightens
> > it's load on that end. I did a quick test on a scale that confirms this.
> > The higher end of the bar weighed less when I raised it.
> >
> > If I am missing something, please let me know what it is. I am not
> > trying to debate the point, just understand why something I have thought
> > for many years may be incorrect.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Randy Chase
>
>
|