|From:||R Andrew Hayden <rahayden@*****.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>|
|Subject:||A Possible solution. Please read and respond|
|Date:||Thu, 11 Feb 93 05:52:05 CET|
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this. Something came
up and I wasn't able to devote the time I need to to this.
In any case, I'm here now.
The problem is now relational vs. modular systems of design and
construction. I think I have a solution that we can use. Please
post what you think.
_IF_ we can design an equation where size is related to engine
power (not max speed, MPG, or anythign else), then I think we could
use a relational system. Cruising speed, Redline Speed, and Fuel
economy would be based on a Vehicle Wt v. Engine Power ratio, so
we would have to come up with proper equations for those too.
I see far too many problems with a relational chassis system. To
allow a nebular grouping of sizes invites chaos and munchkinism.
Furthermore, any accessory that is based in any extent on body
size would be difficult to design an equation for, and invite
oodles of calculations. One example I can think of is armor.
I propose that we drop the concept of a relational chassis, and use
a relational engine system. What that means, though, is that we
need to come up BADLY with equations. The ones we need are:
Engine power yields Engine NPU and Engine weight for both gas and
Cruising Speed: Vehicle Weight vs. Engine Power
Redline Speed: Vehicle Weight vs. Engine Power
Economy: Vehicle Weight vs. Engine Power
Once these equations are done, than we can continue.
For our chassis, we can use the table that was posted last week.
Please post your comments ASAP so we can continue on to the next
[> Robert Hayden <] [> ____ Come out, Come out <]
[> <] [> \ /__ Wherever you are! <]
[> rahayden@*****.weeg.uiowa.edu <] [> \/ /
[> aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <] [> \/