Best weight distribution front/rear

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Greg Locock
Greg Locock
225
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Best weight distribution front/rear

Post

Engine location is a bit of a binary choice, in front of the cabin or behind (or beneath in the case of my Commer and at least one Toyota minivan).

As in all things with car design it is a compromise. The market or fashion decided stupid-cars were going to be mid engined 2 seaters, and so that's what you get.

Incidentally when designing a stupid-car, handling is not really a high priority. It tends to be good because of tire sizes and low cg, and customer acceptance of poor ride.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
592
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Best weight distribution front/rear

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:10 pm
... Naturally, at higher speeds the aero effects become greater and especially at high speeds in yaw ....
well ....
aero DF at higher speeds has increased the tyre forces so much that these (tyre forces) are actually what becomes great

we could also say that the aero lateral force tends to reduce (or worse) post-apex and with understeer any time
(ok current floor ground effect might be somewhat different eg with roll ? - but better or not ??)

I don't think an F1-weight F1-power wheel-less winged vehicle could lap Silverstone as fast as F1 does

PhillipM
PhillipM
329
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Over the road from Boothy...

Re: Best weight distribution front/rear

Post

Honda Porsche fan wrote:
Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:44 am
Which engine placement location in the car would be the best/optimal place for best handling or has the least negative drawbacks? A front engine car, mid/rear engine car or rear engine car?

Why did designers choose the 42/58 front to rear weight distribution for...

1990 Acura/Honda NSX
1993-1998 McLaren F1 road car
1995 Ferrari F50
2019 McLaren GT

?

Honda used the CRAY supercomputer to aid in the design of the NSX's frame to find where to stiffen it.

There's no one answer because it depends entirely on your drive system and the conditions you want to run in. There's a reason rear engined, rear heavy Porches, Beetles, etc, used to do so well on rallies and safaris and that's because the traction advantage overruled every other concern.

60/40 or 40/60 might not make much difference for an F1 car with it's aero on a tarmac surface on slicks, whereas that might be the difference between even being able to get going on a RWD rally or safari car.

Honda Porsche fan
Honda Porsche fan
3
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:44 am

Re: Best weight distribution front/rear

Post

Greg Locock wrote:
Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:31 am
Engine location is a bit of a binary choice, in front of the cabin or behind (or beneath in the case of my Commer and at least one Toyota minivan).

As in all things with car design it is a compromise. The market or fashion decided stupid-cars were going to be mid engined 2 seaters, and so that's what you get.

Incidentally when designing a stupid-car, handling is not really a high priority. It tends to be good because of tire sizes and low cg, and customer acceptance of poor ride.
Which cars on the market are considered stupid-cars and what cars are not ?

Greg Locock
Greg Locock
225
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Best weight distribution front/rear

Post

It was a bad pun on supercar. I've worked on a couple and unless you are designing an innovative system on them, then they are rather dreary to engineer compared with a B class car. I'd make an exception for Koeniggsegg.