Such cool data!!
I had a prof that would always tell us, "If you can't express it with a number, you don't know anything!"

What are you using to record all this?

Need to add another dial on the dash........for traction management.

:popcorn2:

http://www.race-technology.com/dash2_pro_2_31358.html

It will pull in the GM CAN data (All the information from the ECM). It has built in accelerometers, GPS and open channels for analog inputs. You can also link a GoPro to it to sync video and data.

The other thing I really like is you can program it for all the warnings you want and add math to the warning channels. For example if oil pressure is below 20 psi and RPM is above 2000 set warning lights.

Once you get used to using data it is hard to go back.

Mark

I've always wondered about onboard accelerometers for measuring lateral-g's. It seems to me that the roll angle of a car will amplify the measurement. If the sensor rolls by even just 3deg, that is still +0.05 apparent accel.

Is this an issue in data collection? Thanks!

I've been thinking about this dash for my car. I'm assuming the hookup is pretty simple given that it plugs into the OBDII port - right?

It uses the internal Accels and GPS to give data. Not sure of the full logic but I do know the GPS is also used to help cancel roll effects.

Mark

Hi Mark
I love your builds and wondered if would mind sharing some part numbers or information (year and model)on the source of your radiator mounts, brake booster and master cylinder.

Thanks Mark

Hi Mark,

I came across this thread yesterday and haven't had the time to digest it all just yet (!) but some simple math tells me that a rear-engine design with something like a 40/60% F/R weight distribution might do wonders for forward acceleration. I know this is a huge transformation, but at the rate you're going, I might imagine you're not many iterations away from something even this bold. Assuming mu(s) is 1.4 from the braking data, then your attainment of 0.85(ish) g's long. accel. is right at the theoretical limit given your weight distribution and ignoring transient effects from anti-squat (I'm assuming WB is 108" and the COM height is 21".) Go 40/60%, and you could attain 1.15g's.

Best,
MAP

Braking would improve too.

Indeed!

Some other quick thoughts:

1. Total vehicle mass might be reduced by about 5%, other things being equal (which they rarely are...!) Cost in production might come down similarly due to this packaging efficiency and reduced redundancy of parts - rather like FWD, in reverse. The rear engine/tranny/suspension cradle might even go down the same production lines as existing FWD platforms. The '80's Fiero comes to mind inside the GM camp...

2. Izz would probably come down even more -maybe 20% or so. This, plus shifting the yaw center farther back, should result in a much snappier steering response (but I'm guessing this isn't critical for the kind of driving Mark might be most interested in?)

3. The desire for rear traction, and the desire for steering neutrality, could finally converge under the hotrodder's favorite theme of narrow tires up front, and wide in the rear. RWD with a front-heavy bias tends to demand conflicting, opposing width parities.

4. From above, it would be easier to package really wide tires when they don't have to turn the vehicle as opposed to when they do.

5. Crash worthiness may be a big issue, however...

Anyway, I'm probably missing a bunch, but that's what I get off the top of my head (?)

Best,
MAP