Ballasting, hmmmm. Would it not be prudent to keet the total cg of the car
ahead of the center of pressure? Obviously, as the folks who put it in the
back found out. Back to the old think like a dart.
mayf, the ignorant desert rat
Subject: Re: Placement of ballast
> Bill, previous review of the ballast issue apparently came up with the
> result that the old-timers at Bonneville went to lead ballast between
> the axles, such as in the frame rails of a '32 Ford, if they wanted
> ballast in a 200+ roadster for instance. Ballast behind the back axle
> was bad because it aggravated the pendulum effect if there was
> fish-tailing. Ballast ahead of the front axle was bad because it
> interfered with recovery if the car was getting out of shape. I gather
> that people sometimes put some ballast over the front axle, exactly why,
> I don't know. It's clear that ballasting is a deep subject, and the
> physics of it on a loose surface like Bonneville must be murky. Wrong
> ballasting could bite you! Everyone seems to agree that on a standing
> mile airport course like Maxton, traction is so good you don't want any
> ballast at all, just the lightest possible structurally-sound car
> assuming reasonable normal weight distribution and rear wheel drive.
> Cheers Bill
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
///
|