From:	Jeremy Roberson <ROBERSON@***.EDU>
Subject:	Body & Armor
Date:	Thu, 29 Apr 1993 12:37:20 -0700

Mike, as far as I can tell, the engine stats are good. I still contend that
your definition of Multifuel is not supported by the RBB, but as I don't have
one handy I'm hardly in a position to argue. Any takers?

For that same reason, I can't check the figures you posted on body and armor.
They seem kinda weird; 2% and 7%? But I do have a theory on what constitutes
Body and what constitutes Armor.

Body is the basic frame of the car. It is the structural integrity of the
vehicle, the skeleton upon which everything else rests. Body can be increased
by thickening and/or hardening the frame or by replacing it with stronger
materials entirely.


Armor is the skin of the vehicle. It also increases mass but doesn't directly
increase the body. It is meant to stop damage before body comes into play.

Bear with me, I'm making this up as I go along.
Imagine a high-armor, low body vehicle, like and egg in a tank. The armor will
prevent damage from destroying the low-body thing inside (the egg).

Imagine a high-Body, low armor vehicle. Sure, lots of explosions bypass the
armor and get a chance at the insides, but the vehicle is still stable.

Getting back to the body=skeleton part, how about this: Components can be
destroyed once the damage has penetrated, but the actual vehicle itself is
salvageable.


J Roberson
(Still rambling)