SlotForum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
This is a very interesting thread as it raises some rather conflicting questions about chassis design.

There is little doubt that maximum stiffening of the motor/transmission section is absolutely essential to full realisation of any motor's power.

It has equally been proved that obtaining the 'correct' amount of chassis flex between the guide and the back wheels is the NEXT step towards improved performance on track.

Those are two separate concepts and, for success, must to be achieved in the order written - motor/transmission stiffness first, followed by chassis improvements.

However, it becomes a little complicated when we look at what is necesary to achieve this when comparing front motored cars with rear/mid motored cars. In a front motored car, the LONG transmission line has to contend with most of the length of the chassis, whereas a rear/mid motored car has a much shorter chassis length to contend with in eliminating flex between motor and axle. This makes the combination of stiff transmission with slightly flexible chassis MUCH easier to achieve in a rear/motored motored car because the entire motor/transmission/axle combination can easily be incorporated as a pod. This leaves the remainder of the atual chassis freely available for any mods the designer desires to experiment with in achieving the right degree of flex.

Side winders are clearly the best way to optimise these two conflicting needs and that is one (not the only) reason why sidewinders are exclusively used for ultimate high speed racing performance.

Having said all that and returning to Swiss's car and its undeniable superiority over standard: it's clear that chassis flex can never be anything but disadvantageous in a front motored car because flex wrecks the needed rigidity between motor and drive axle. Therfore a rigid chassis is the best possible improvement for this particular configuration - and Swiss has proved this pretty conclusively.
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top