Landings

Turning the engine round to alter the way a car flies - never heard so much nonsense in all my life. The only way a transverse engine could cause a car to rotate in mid air would be if it had a very heavy flywheel that was being accellerated & if this caused the car to rotate the wrong way then all you'd have to do would be to decellerate instead and it would rotate the opposite way. If the wheels aren't on the ground & the engine is running at constant rpm the torque output is minimal therefore the torque reaction between engine & body is minimal. Therefore no rotation.

The reason a helicopter spins out of control when the tail rotor fails is because the torque of the engine is working against the aerodynamic drag of the main rotor. It's Newton's third law of motion.

In fact because of the flywheel size, mass and velocity in some ocassions it may have same or even bigger inpact on car than all four wheels put together. I mean gyroscopic effect of course.
I really don't know if gyroscopic effect of an engine flywheel and it's impact on a car itself was studied, but I have a strong feeling that this may be an issue at some point of development , where the count goes for every gramm of unsrung mass or one additional hampster power is a considerable achievement.

Just to give you some info of what ammount of energy we're talking here..
If you remove couple of kilos from flywheel, in average it would be just like you've lightened the body of the car by 70kg at first gear, 35 on second, et cetera.. And all you did, is reduced flywheel's interia..

How much do the following components on a car weigh?

Wheel x2, driveshaftx2, brake disc x2, hub x2, tyre x2 and 2x mousse? A lot more than a flywheel and the wheels are much bigger than a flywheel also. Then double this as there are of course two axles.

I somehow doubt that gyroscopic effect is investigated in development. The amount of time a car spends on the time in the air is minimal even somewhere like Finland and you can make a car fly better by getting good weight distribution and aerodynamics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

How much do the following components on a car weigh?

Wheel x2, driveshaftx2, brake disc x2, hub x2, tyre x2 and 2x mousse? A lot more than a flywheel and the wheels are much bigger than a flywheel also. Then double this as there are of course two axles.

I somehow doubt that gyroscopic effect is investigated in development. The amount of time a car spends on the time in the air is minimal even somewhere like Finland and you can make a car fly better by getting good weight distribution and aerodynamics.

---

tyre - around 8kg
composite disk - 4.2kg (dunno the wight of a stock disk, around 6kg I guess)
alloy wheel - 7kg
stock flywheel - around 8kg, 10inch diameter
dunno the weight of hubs and driveshafts, so let's say that the rotating mass of a wheel is around 20 kg. 21inch outside diameter

Agree here with you, Daniel, there's no use to dig into that gyroscope thing, unless you done the rest, you have 3 months in spare, you spent just a half of budget and you're bored to death. :D

Then times that by 4 as there are 4 of each of these things. Do WRCars use composite/ceramic discs? If not then add even more weight :)

I couldn’t find anything on the internet about the 205 having gyroscopic effect issues on jumps and the overwhelming evidence shows that the engine was rotating in a way that would use this effect to the advantage of the car. Yet funnily enough the thing still nosedived. Also can't find any evidence of this being an issue for the Evo either. Sounds like an urban rally myth :)

As they would say in Mythbusters. Plausable but unlikely.

It's funny how the people who insisted that the 205 T16 Evo 1 had gyroscopic effect problems seem to have disappeared into the wilderness leaving the OP somewhat confused. Why don't people look for evidence before posting things like that? :confused: I hear the flux capacitor on the Ford Focus WRC causes handling problems on tarmac which caused Marcus to crash in Ireland! Or at least someone told me that and didn't back it up with facts or evidence *snigger*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

It's funny how the people who insisted that the 205 T16 Evo 1 had gyroscopic effect problems seem to have disappeared into the wilderness leaving the OP somewhat confused. Why don't people look for evidence before posting things like that? :confused: I hear the flux capacitor on the Ford Focus WRC causes handling problems on tarmac which caused Marcus to crash in Ireland! Or at least someone told me that and didn't back it up with facts or evidence *snigger*

---

I posted it as a question. You on the other hand seem to think that you have a right to impose your opinions on others regardless.
It turns out that the engine reversal on the EVO's was primarily to do with the dreaded crankwalk issues, but did have an effect on landings. It also turned out that the engine 'reversal' on the T16 was done at a later date to help their rally raid cars with nose down landings over dunes. As to facts and figures, try Ralli-Art for the Mitsubishi things and whereever you like for the T16 stuff.
As the old saying goes there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I didn't impose anything. I simply stated my opinion. Should I just agree to make it less painful for everyone who has to read this crap?

What you've just said about the 205 T16's goes directly against your theory because the 205 T16 engine is pointing in the "right" direction to have the effect that you speak of. I don't deny that there is an effect because we all know there is. But I simply don't think it's as big as the effect of aerodynamics.

There's no need to use that sort of language. You were the first one to get uppity with the whole "Perhaps the great Daniel doesn't know everything". All I did was use facts as best I could to explain my viewpoint and all you did was get more and more hostile.

Thanks for the pointers. I'm sure Jean-Claude Vaucard will have no problem speaking to me about gyroscopic effect :laugh: :rolleyes: When I asked you to back your argument up I didn't say "Point me to where I can find the answer" because I'm not the one trying to prove that this effect is as big as stated by Carlo and cut the b.s. That's their job and I think I've done more than enough to show that at least in the 205 it doesn't appear to have been the cause of it's nose down attitude over jumps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I didn't impose anything. I simply stated my opinion. Should I just agree to make it less painful for everyone who has to read this crap?

---

Yes you should. You post the majority of this 'crap', so please do make it less painful on the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bazza2541

Yes you should. You post the majority of this 'crap', so please do make it less painful on the rest of us.

---

Whatever..... I hope the OP got the information he/she needed.