Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
Clev: your assumptions are equally strange. Do you think a solid axle is banging around under the rear of that AWD? Really? Does a rearward weight bias spell instant highway death?
I can see what he's getting at with the rear MOTOR (engine  ) rear battery layout, and it makes perfect sense to me, and I think it's worth pursuing. As I've explained in the XL1 thread, added weight at the rear of a vehicle is much more manageable than added weight at the front. He is thinking he wants the batteries right next door to the motor for "cleaner" wiring. But I seriously doubt that as this thing goes forward (if it does at all) that the final solution will be all the batteries in one spot. There will be some in the back and some in the front. That should even out any *overblown* handling concerns, but then it negates the "clean" power cable theory. |
And that's exactly the point. He insists that the motor, transmission and batteries are all at the rear of the car. Do you think that having 300+ pounds of motor/transmission and 1,000+ pounds of battery hanging over and behind the rear axle, with an empty compartment up front, isn't going to screw with the handling of a car that wasn't already designed that way? And I might add that his whole stated reason for doing it wasn't for handling, but for efficiency. Having your steering tires completely unloaded and your drive tires heavily loaded does nothing for efficiency.
Quote:
|
I wonder if Winfield's IP is the same as that of the guy who was going to mod his old Jeep to get 50 mpg? Same sort of, "I'm gonna do this but I don't have any idea how"? I feel like, if ya have to ask, it ain't gonna happen anyway.
|
Which is why I compared it to an HHO thread. "Hai guyz, I'm gonna buy a 4,350 pound car and put everything behind the rear axle because I'm doing it for the mpgs. Hey, why are you picking on me?"