Lupin_IV
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,876
- Location
- about 10 miles north of Carlisle, PA
- Car(s)
- '84 Pontiac Parisienne, '93 Chevy Caprice
RR is more economical than FF (fewer joints).
Where weight becomes a hinderance is after repeated stops.
So there are a lot of factors involved in reducing stopping distance, awesomeness being one of them, weight not.
RR is more economical than FF
Hang on, weight is not a factor in stopping distances? I guess Newton was wrong about his law of momentum.
I always figured all the stuff he came up with was just a result of being concussed by falling fruit....and other "scientists" thought they'd see how far they could run with it afterwards.
You just reiterated what i said
but poorly.
If mass increases stopping distance, how does it decrease it?
Weight definitely increases stopping distance, but it also lowers it at the same time (more traction), so it's not cut and dry.
excellent post, the one thing to add is that the main reason for "awesomeness" is brake bais (i.e. having all tires break traction at the same time) many cars are setup with extreme bias towards the front tires, which although sounds safer (under-steer instead of over-steer) is actually many times less safe on good road conditions because it leads to much much longer braking distances. This can work okay on front heavy FWD cars, but even with that, on crap tires or a loose surface like dirt or snow the stopping distance suffers greatly. The thing i find strangest of all is that most car companies haven't figured out how to program ABS to fix all this, it seems completely possible, yet over and over again they fail to take the time to improve such a important aspect of vehicle safety.
The average driver sucks.