John_H wrote:
>
> John McKenzie wrote:
> >John_H wrote:
> >>
> >> Weight is completely irrelevant to car's top speed... it only affects
> >> the time it takes to reach it (and most of that from a standing
> >> start).
> >
> >increased rolling resistance, tyre hystersis (spelling) to some lesser
> >extent though from greater weight?
>
> Very minor, if not insignificant, component IMO.
That's what I always thought, but Bernd explained that rolling
resistance accounts for about an even half when it's all taken into
account. Anyone? Bernd?
Cars, and other
> vehicles, used for speed record attempts invariably use the narrowest
> tyres possible (which results in an increased loading on the contact
> patch).
The fact it's on salt might be a big factor there though.
> IIRC Donald Campbell's Bluebird (which broke the then land speed
> record on Lake Eyre circa 1960's) weighed more than 5 tonnes. It
> managed around 650kph (with a very long run up).
That sounds about right from an article I read some years ago (before I
was old enough to drive)
--
John McKenzie
tosspam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
vice.president@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
president@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
uce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
admin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
world's #1 sardine whisperer root@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$USER@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$LOGNAME@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-h1024@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fraudinfo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
