|

12-12-2014, 11:41 AM
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Yuma, AZ
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
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
Last edited by MAP; 12-12-2014 at 12:06 PM.
|

12-12-2014, 05:00 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 743
Thanks: 2
Thanked 15 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAP
Indeed!
Some other quick thoughts:
Cost in production might come down similarly due to this packaging efficiency and reduced redundancy of parts -
Best,
MAP
|
Ok you lost me there... Are you talking about building a custom car or manufacturing a line of cars lol
|

12-12-2014, 05:16 PM
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Yuma, AZ
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Apologies admittedly for a curve ball on that last post.
It's just a thoroughly ingrained habit with me to think about how to make the next 100,000 just much as making the next 1. It's my job in a very different field, actually. Please feel free to dismiss it as idle daydreaming!
Best,
MAP
Last edited by MAP; 12-13-2014 at 10:28 AM.
|

12-15-2014, 12:35 PM
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Yuma, AZ
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hi Folks,
I'm starting to suspect my post had the effect of halting further thread progress, and this absolutely wasn't my intention. I'll just add this point to my penultimate post and then invite everyone to carry on: as to steering neutrality, if an engine/tranny/suspension rear assembly can be made on a FWD line and per FWD methods, then with admittedly added cost, the steering function could be conserved. If so, then yaw dampening could be made constant irrespective of speed within reasonable limits, and it could be programmed to provide a direct dampening effect as well. The result would be highly predictable and stable handling with a tendency toward oversteer at low speeds, and understeer at high speeds. Maybe +/- 5 deg of rear-steer is all that's needed.
Again, please ignore and my apologies if this is unwanted input; I don't want to detract in the slightest from Mark's amazing work described in this thread.
Best,
MAP
|

12-15-2014, 12:43 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northville, MI
Posts: 474
Thanks: 3
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAP
Hi Folks,
I'm starting to suspect my post had the effect of halting further thread progress, and this absolutely wasn't my intention. I'll just add this point to my penultimate post and then invite everyone to carry on: as to steering neutrality, if an engine/tranny/suspension rear assembly can be made on a FWD line and per FWD methods, then with admittedly added cost, the steering function could be conserved. If so, then yaw dampening could be made constant irrespective of speed within reasonable limits, and it could be programmed to provide a direct dampening effect as well. The result would be highly predictable and stable handling with a tendency toward oversteer at low speeds, and understeer at high speeds. Maybe +/- 5 deg of rear-steer is all that's needed.
Again, please ignore and my apologies if this is unwanted input; I don't want to detract in the slightest from Mark's amazing work described in this thread.
Best,
MAP
|
Porsche is doing this already. Porsche credits the active rear steering in the 991 GT3 with ~ 15s improvement in 'Ring time. The development of the system though is quite pricey....
|

12-15-2014, 01:45 PM
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Yuma, AZ
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
IMO GM is very good at finding simple, clever, low-cost solutions to complex problems. Best - MAP
|

12-15-2014, 02:52 PM
|
 |
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Douglasville, Ga.
Posts: 2,876
Thanks: 94
Thanked 37 Times in 20 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdahlg68
Porsche is doing this already. Porsche credits the active rear steering in the 991 GT3 with ~ 15s improvement in 'Ring time. The development of the system though is quite pricey.... 
|
At 130+ large, it ought to do more than that. You should be able to toss your W-2s in that sucker and come back the next morning and find a refund check, even if you didn't have one coming.
__________________
Jim
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM.
|