Bob Palmer wrote:
>Oh yes Larry, back to your question about polar moment vis-a-vis the
>propensity to spin out.((SNIP)) I apologize for using your
>astute observation as an excuse to beat up on Friedman
That's OK by me. Anyway:
a) I don't know of a way to calculate PMoI
b) I don't see a _reasonable_ way to modify it (I'm not filling the bumpers
w/lead, for instance)
c) I am not certain we would _want_ to. Trade off nimble handling for
stability enough and 'voila', we're driving Buicks.Or something else. The
fastest I've ever driven, back in 1975, was in a 1958 Chrysler 300D. I
think it was 5200 on the tach, worked out to +/- 150mph. Car was more
stable than the Garage Queen at half that speed. But I sure wouldn't want
to drive that beast on a twisty road!!!
>I don't think an engineer would argue
Bob, I do not recommend starting sentences that way; you're leaving
yourself wide open. :-)
>But let's consider some
>examples; like Porshes for instance. I'll bet their polar moments are less
>than a Tiger's
Really? With the motor hung out the back? Hey, I'll have to believe you,
see (a) above.
I do recall that incomparable automotive journal, Consumer Reports,
slamming both the 914 and the Fiat X1/9 back in the mid 70's for exactly
this.
>If you want something easy to drive, don't buy a
>Porshe (excluding the 944 of course) or a Tiger. But driven properly, they
>can use their good maneuverability to advantage.
i.e., "If you can't drive it, park it".
BTW, almost got rear-ended last night while waiting to make a left turn.
Glad the new leather seats clean up easily! :-)
Lawrence R. Wright
Purchasing Analyst
Andrews Office Products, Division of USOP
PH 301-386-7923 FX 301-386-5333
lrw@aop.com
|