View Single Post
Old 05-20-2021, 05:14 PM   #2 (permalink)
redpoint5
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,430

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - CBR600 - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - Dodge/Cummins - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 26.68 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)

Model Y - '24 Tesla Y LR AWD
Thanks: 4,206
Thanked 4,387 Times in 3,361 Posts
I like the unconventional thinking.

My thought is they would have implemented such a system with fuel tanks if the benefits outweighed the costs.

Packaging is extremely important in vehicle design, so no volume is wasted. That means no dead spaces where weight can actively shift.

The main issue is that it's not needed. By my observation, 90% of drivers are afraid to take a corner fast enough to even feel lateral G forces (the bane of my existence). If people are already too uncomfortable to drive their vehicles anywhere approaching the limits, why would they value a higher performing vehicle?

Active suspension has more versatility because it can deal with shifting CG as well as uneven terrain.

A moving battery introduces safety and reliability challenges. If it can move, then how will it survive in a collision vs being rigidly contained. How about the stress of the wires and coolant hoses that must articulate to accommodate the battery position.

Finally, it would be tricky to implement as the shifts need to occur prior to cornering. If the shift occurs during cornering it simply places more force on the tires.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!

Last edited by redpoint5; 05-20-2021 at 05:58 PM..
  Reply With Quote