Author Topic: Buddfab vs. Nebulous 4:  (Read 28691 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anvil*

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Buddfab vs. Nebulous 4:
« Reply #60 on: July 23, 2010, 07:03:10 PM »
Though my own sketches lean towards EZ Hook and Buddfab shapes, my key safety concern is not one of shape but of lift. At no point of a run do I need the extra clearance to lean through much of a turn, but I do need feedback to tell if I'm overloading or going light on my wheels. Some downforce OK, but lift can get real bad real fast. Going a little light means I'm too dependent on the aerodynamics to keep me straight, any more and it's how does the thing work out as a lifting body.

I still haven't got half of the motor figured out yet, but there are plans to monitor downforce on both ends (load cells) and an added red light to the cockpit to warn if the suspension unloads beyond a certain point (limit switches). I don't feel my opinion of final shape is good enough to assure my safety.

Offline Dr Goggles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3120
  • The Jarman-Stewart "Spirit of Sunshine" Bellytank
    • "Australian Bellytank" , http://thespiritofsunshine.blogspot.com/
Re: Buddfab vs. Nebulous 4:
« Reply #61 on: July 23, 2010, 07:26:55 PM »
I get the feeling that a lot of people make the simple mistake of regarding car shapes in profile. With a production car this is a valid exercise as there are wide flat sections on the hood,turret and trunk. That ain't so on many liners , lakesters and tanks. There may be a force generated perpendicular to the surface  of the bodywork but that surface has only very small areas which are parallel to the track. So the amount of this force expressed as "lift" on the car is smaller than anticipated.....

looks like a good aerofoil......


but has no horizontal surface...



This of course has no bearing on the straight line stability and much of what Ak explains above. Interesting what Ak mentions about the brake bias on the liner....we have only rears  :roll:
Few understand what I'm trying to do but they vastly outnumber those who understand why...................

http://thespiritofsunshine.blogspot.com/

Current Australian E/GL record holder at 215.041mph

THE LUCKIEST MAN IN SLOW BUSINESS.

Offline Seldom Seen Slim

  • Nancy and me and the pit bike
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13169
  • Nancy -- 201.913 mph record on a production ZX15!
    • Nancy and Jon's personal website.
Re: Buddfab vs. Nebulous 4:
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2010, 11:09:01 AM »
My Apples use "Shift-Command-4" for screen shot.
Jon E. Wennerberg
 a/k/a Seldom Seen Slim
 Skandia, Michigan
 (that's way up north)
2 Club member x2
Owner of landracing.com

Offline Anvil*

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Buddfab vs. Nebulous 4:
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2010, 01:38:10 PM »
I get the feeling that a lot of people make the simple mistake of regarding car shapes in profile. With a production car this is a valid exercise as there are wide flat sections on the hood,turret and trunk. That ain't so on many liners , lakesters and tanks. There may be a force generated perpendicular to the surface  of the bodywork but that surface has only very small areas which are parallel to the track. So the amount of this force expressed as "lift" on the car is smaller than anticipated.....
It goes without saying I'll know more with experience. I'm starting at the thimble-drone end of the motor spectrum, it will be relatively light, has to fit me in section-area, and speeds are approaching 200. It will start out with a mule-motor until it (and myself) have made enough passes before looking for speed, by then I'll have data.