Landings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zico

The principle you describe is used by motocross riders to help with their bike positioning in mid-air and landing, so there may well be some truth in it. I may be wrong but I would have thought the hugely increased overall mass/crank torque ratio a rallycar has over a motocrosser means it should have a minimal effect.

---

I'm ex-moto-crosser.
We did this "gas it hard" thing to raise the nose, tap the rear brake to lower the nose thing, and it really worked.
But all of the bikes I rode were REAR WHEEL DRIVE.
Not been in the air in my 4x4 Cossie, so can't say if it would really help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zico

I always thought Mitsu (as well as Ford with the Escort Cosworth) adopted a transverse engine mounting solely for weight distribution purposes.. If thats what you meant?

---

Misterbitchy was making traverse engined Galants and Lancer in FWD form, making the 4wd is an add on to the exsisting FWD gearbox (on the road car which the Homologation is based on) .

The Escort Cossie engine is North/South, same as the Sierra where Ford got the floor from to make the Escort Cos. (Floor shortened to reduce Escort Cos wheelbadse to 100.5" from Sierra nad Sapphire's 102.7"

Re original qusetion of landing on rear wheels first:


Now you know they're looking to make what? with those silly wings everybody tacks on???
Downforce!!!

Well all that is airflow PUSHING THE WING (and the bootlid and the rest of that end of the car) downwards.

So it seems the wings work, they push down.

Bazza is correct, both the Pug and the Evo 4 onwards had engine rotation changes that enabled them to fly better and land better.

The advent of large rear wings on todays cars ,just as before with the Quattro has also assisted in a tail down attitude on landing.

As decribed by many,changes to the vehicles attitude is often induced by the driver / rider through the use of brakes, throttle, balance and the timing of these applications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzz Lightyear

big rear boot spoilers.

---

Wouldn't that make the cars understeer badly?
Or would they counter this with suspension and diff settings?
Anyhow the cars don't seem to push at all.
BTW thanks for the explanations, everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carlo

Bazza is correct, both the Pug and the Evo 4 onwards had engine rotation changes that enabled them to fly better and land better.

The advent of large rear wings on todays cars ,just as before with the Quattro has also assisted in a tail down attitude on landing.

As decribed by many,changes to the vehicles attitude is often induced by the driver / rider through the use of brakes, throttle, balance and the timing of these applications

---

Do you have any links/evidence to back this up? I've never heard this about the Evo2 T16 and google brings up nothing at all. Possibly an urban rally myth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Do you have any links/evidence to back this up? I've never heard this about the Evo2 T16 and google brings up nothing at all. Possibly an urban rally myth?

---

I think it must be.. ??

There is theory behind it no doubt..... but in practice I don't think it makes as much of a difference as is being made out (in cars). 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rani

Wouldn't that make the cars understeer badly?
Or would they counter this with suspension and diff settings?
Anyhow the cars don't seem to push at all.
BTW thanks for the explanations, everyone.

---

It's all about aerodynamics - usually production based race car has spoiler in front and a wing in back and while spoiler creates downforce by cutting the flow under the body, wing creates downforce because of it's shape. BUT, aerodynamic work differently if you compare an object close to the ground and in mid-air. Spoiler wont work on a car that is flying, while rear wing will do. So this may lead to a situation, when some car may land on it's back in common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zico

I think it must be.. ??

---

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 in mind that crank rotates about 4 times faster than wheels at final gear :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

---

To further confuse the issue.. Re- The Mitsi Evo IV, it is true they rotated it 180 Deg.. http://www.lancer-evo.net/community/...pic.php?t=7135

"The engine was still transverse, but mounted 180 degrees opposite to that of the Evolution III which, much of the annoyance of the competition specialists, meant accommodating a larger transfer box - it was bigger, heavier and more expensive to produce."

Annoyed... Bigger, heavier and more expensive... then why did they do it?

While Wiki states..
"The engine and transaxle was rotated 180° to better balance the weight and eliminate torque steer."


Hmmm...