| From: | loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Vehicle Acceleration (was: Fat Bottomed Girls) |
| Date: | Thu, 29 May 2003 19:51:10 +0100 |
>The downforce coud be provided through moving parts on the car beeing
>controlled by a computer or for optimum performance by a rigger, so a
>2060 car beeing built for maximum speed will propably be as
>streamlined as its needs to be at this given moment.
Most of the downforce on a modern car comes from the shape of the body, The
illustrations of the Westwind 2000 for example show that same flat bottom
and rounded top. That creates downforce and while they are more streamlined
I don't agree on the whole moving parts thing.
The most important thing about downforce is that it is what keeps a car on
the road, the last thing you need is for a motor to burn out and leave you
without it.
Corner, component failure, crash! Boom!
You can build in safeties and redundancies but they add weight, a car
bought today doesn't have much in the way of performance improvements over
a car bought twenty years ago, in fact in a lot of cases the reverse is
true. Stronger safety cages, larger bodies to accommodate these features,
the larger engines and the various computer controlled gubbins they include
their power to weight ratio tends to be lower than the old version.
Look at the VW Golf GTi for example IIRC the first had a 1.6 engine, the
new a 2 litre and yet the old one corners better, is quicker off the line
and generally a better car for its purpose. Judging from that one almost
expects 2060s vehicles to perform to about the standards of the cars of the
early 20th (1920s or there abouts)
:D
It doesn't matter whether you are the machine or not, if a component is
going to suddenly fail you won't get any warning.
The vacuum cleaner works to provide additional downforce but it will always
hammer the streamlining.
IMHO As long as we're using the same basic technology (surface travel on
wheels, internal combustion engines) then the same rules and limitations
apply, you can shave the margins but unless the rules change (we discover
that aerodynamics aren't as important as new technology x) then we won't
make huge leaps.
They managed to get Spitfires flying supersonic during World War II but
none of them survived, it wasn't until the flying tail (an invention
claimed by the Americans, which they stole for the X-1 (?) from the British
equivalent and which we stole from the Germans (The Fokher (sp?) biplanes
of World War I had flying tails)) came onto the scene after they discovered
that the shockwave locked up the elevators.
Now you've probably noticed that I sort of lost my way there but...
--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."
www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
