John McKenzie wrote:
> 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 whole salt thing is not about just traction as a google will show
and there is sfa traction to be bad on hard salt apart from some
motivational requirements .
>
> The fact it's on salt might be a big factor there though.
Very much . hard solt needs help compacting or the vibration level
goes through the roof at speed.
>
>
>> 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)
>
|
