|
|
Post by tinhorn on Jun 26, 2014 9:44:59 GMT -5
There are apparently some basic principles I'll need to follow in bolting together a reverse trike. I've found a few of them and CG positioning seems important. Question is, while I'm staring at parts and pieces, squinting my eyes, and making engine noises with my lips, how do I determine the CG that would result from changes to 1) wheelbase length, and 2) seat position (height and location)? Heck, how do I guess at CG at all?!
|
|
|
|
Post by tinhorn on Jun 26, 2014 13:19:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJ98092 on Jun 26, 2014 13:35:32 GMT -5
Heres a simple one to view. But a bit more involved than just "EYE BALLING IT". www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Center-of-Gravity Figuring the "Moment" of each item you will add to the chassis is a challenge but must be calculated EACH AND EVERY TIME a piece is added or removed. It really is not too hard. But add in the roll center figures and it gets much harder. Its all "doable" but it takes time and lots of paper or a CAD program. |
|
|
|
Post by tinhorn on Jun 28, 2014 22:48:33 GMT -5
Lots of info to digest. If I was able to perform all the necessary calculations, where would my optimum CG be? For my Eyeball Engineering it sounds as though it should be as low as possible, and as close to the front axle as possible.
So if I had to make a choice, would lower or more forward CG be desirable? For example, I could increase the wheelbase and lower the seat, or I could move the seat forward but higher. Which would be preferable--low CG or forward CG? (Wheelbase and seat position are about the only variables I can mess with.)
And has anyone calculated an optimum wheelbase/track ratio? Seems I read that a perfect triangle is most stable but I can't find the reference now. Four-wheel racers seem to prefer the "golden ratio" of 1.67. Is there an optimal "tadpole ratio"?
|
|
