Landings

[cut the b.s.]

I've thought about it long and hard and don't think it's true. Think about it. Think about the weight of the brake discs, wheels, tyres, driveshafts and so on which are all turning at high RPM already and already creating forces. I somehow doubt a crankshaft weighing a few kg is going to profound nose down effect that people are suggesting. The 205 had extensive aero work done on it for the Evo 2 and I think this indicates where the problem lay.

Keep thinking Daniel, I think you are wrong this time, I remember reading one of their engineers comments on this, I'll try to find the reference for it over the holidays, the engine rotation was certainly thought to be the culprit, the revs going up or down severly would alter the angle, from memory the planned balance shafts to elimate the problem but I'm not sure if this happened on the E2 or was planned, I'll see what I can find on this

[Daniel]

Keep thinking Daniel, I think you are wrong this time, I remember reading one of their engineers comments on this, I'll try to find the reference for it over the holidays, the engine rotation was certainly thought to be the culprit, the revs going up or down severly would alter the angle, from memory the planned balance shafts to elimate the problem but I'm not sure if this happened on the E2 or was planned, I'll see what I can find on this

As I said. Think about the physics. At the end of the day the crank weighs a few kg's. Think of how much energy is being put through the diffs, wheels, driveshafts and so on. All parts that you can't reverse the rotation of.

The main things that help a car fly are weight distribution and good aerodynamics. Remember Petter's flight (very 205 T16 Evo 1 like!) in Finland after losing the rear wing.

Plus it's all BS because a standard rotation engine rotates anti-clockwise right? Well the engine is mounted with the flywheel facing the left side of the car when viewed from the back so according to your theory gassing it will make the crank want to stay still and the car will want to go clockwise which in a 205 would raise the nose which is what you want.

Dirt bike. Flywheel on the left when viewed from behind


205 T16


As you can see the flywheel is on the left of the car on both the bike and the 205 T16 therefore the gyroscopic effect in both the bike and car is acting in the same way.

I never stop thinking. I do remember something about the Evo having it's engine flipped but tbh I think that was more to do with it's roots as a RHD road car and the fact that the group A and WRC versions are LHD so packaging is easier if you rotate the engine.

[Daniel]

For those not familiar with the dirty great bit Evo2 kit on the 205 here it is


Here's a video to show you just how well the car worked on jumps. Don't be fooled by the bodywork. The 405 T16 is just a rebodied 205 T16.

Go to about 1:30 and you'll see what effect a dirty great big wing has on a car!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciagqfd9s04

[Daniel]

Mitsubishi Evo 2 Engine bay with flywheel facing right.


Evo 6 with flywheel facing left



I guess there is some sort of gyroscopic effect involved but I suspect the main reason for rotating the engine was more in regards to packaging for the steering, brakes and so on as the car was built to be RHD but was rallied in LHD form.

[Livewireshock]

It is not a matter of pure mass. It is about the forces imparted on those masses. Because the crankshaft is directly connected to the pistons, the forces are immense & with the highest energy that can possibly be. Unlike the wheels & everything else behind the engine as energy is lost in the gearbox & drive train.

So you must keep in mind the force applied to the crank from the pistons compared to force applied to the wheels from the drive train.

Daniel, a crankshaft may only weigh a few kilos but the torque it is producing & the centrifugal force would allow it to spin the engine, if the crank was kept still. But because the engine is fixed on it's mounts, when the car is airborne, the whole vehicle now wants to rotate around the crank.

Think about a helicopter when the tail rotor has failed. The torque rotation is extremely dangerous & uncontrollable and in small helicopter, using a crank much smaller than a rally cars. Another example, look at the big massive drag bikes, the rider has to physically lean off to the opposite side of the inline crankshafts rotation, just to keep the vehicle travelling in a straight line & if the wheels left the ground it results in a big accident as the bike is spun off from underneath the rider.

[Daniel]

It is not a matter of pure mass. It is about the forces imparted on those masses. Because the crankshaft is directly connected to the pistons, the forces are immense & with the highest energy that can possibly be. Unlike the wheels & everything else behind the engine as energy is lost in the gearbox & drive train.

So you must keep in mind the force applied to the crank from the pistons compared to force applied to the wheels from the drive train.

Daniel, a crankshaft may only weigh a few kilos but the torque it is producing & the centrifugal force would allow it to spin the engine, if the crank was kept still. But because the engine is fixed on it's mounts, when the car is airborne, the whole vehicle now wants to rotate around the crank.

Think about a helicopter when the tail rotor has failed. The torque rotation is extremely dangerous & uncontrollable and in small helicopter, using a crank much smaller than a rally cars. Another example, look at the big massive drag bikes, the rider has to physically lean off to the opposite side of the inline crankshafts rotation, just to keep the vehicle travelling in a straight line & if the wheels left the ground it results in a big accident as the bike is spun off from underneath the rider.

I wasn't saying it would have little effect I merely said that if it was operating in the opposite direction to the rest of the spinning bits on the car that the disadvantage would be somewhat cancelled out.

Anyway we've established that unless for some strange reason Peugeot decided to put a reverse rotation engine in the Evo1 205 (why would they?) that the statement at least for the 205 is seemingly no more than a myth and the better jumping of the Evo 2 was better explained by the huuuuuge aero kit.

[jonkka]

Could be extremely wrong but the main problem with the 205 T16 Evo1 was the weight distribution and this wasn't cured but the symptoms were by the aero kit.

Crap. If Audi was able to get their front-engined quattro down to almost fifty-fifty weight balance with S1 by mid-1985, do you really think that Peugeot's purpose-built 205T16 would not have been at ideal distribution a little more than year before? I don't have access to literature now but Peugeot's only weight distribution problem was not front-rear but slight left-right imbalance (because engine sat little bit on the one side, due to transfer box).

[Daniel]

Crap. If Audi was able to get their front-engined quattro down to almost fifty-fifty weight balance with S1 by mid-1985, do you really think that Peugeot's purpose-built 205T16 would not have been at ideal distribution a little more than year before? I don't have access to literature now but Peugeot's only weight distribution problem was not front-rear but slight left-right imbalance (because engine sat little bit on the one side, due to transfer box).

Someone else must have been posting as me yesterday. I meant the main problem was the aero

[Bazza2541]

Mitsubishi Evo 2 Engine bay with flywheel facing right.


Evo 6 with flywheel facing left



I guess there is some sort of gyroscopic effect involved but I suspect the main reason for rotating the engine was more in regards to packaging for the steering, brakes and so on as the car was built to be RHD but was rallied in LHD form.

Balls!
Mitsubishi were selling the LHD only TEL in the US from 1989, and they also got the reversed engine along with the EVO, so brakes/packaging whatever was not the problem.

Could it possibly be that the great Daniel does not know every little thing about rallying after all?

And FYI the Aero package was the smallest part of the 205 T16 EVO 2 upgrades.

[Daniel]

Could it be that your gherkin attacked my lollipop!

The fact of the matter is that the 205 had it's engine the "right" way around from the start....