|
|
Post by tinhorn on Jul 8, 2014 20:50:32 GMT -5
Seems all the designs I see place the occupants feet behind the front axle, even though the vehicle's CG ought to be as close to the axle as possible. (My butt is a lot heavier than my feet.) Are there any designs that put feet ahead of axle? Speaking of which, wouldn't this 1970 concept car make an awesome RT?  |
|
|
|
Post by Liteway on Jul 8, 2014 23:34:28 GMT -5
Checkout the danwyke postings under new members. Cool trike. It places the driver further ahead of the theoretical front axle line than most. Looks like it would have traction problems though.
I was hoping we would hear more about how it was working out for him, but he quit posting.
Most of the currently active builds on the site also have the feet placement forward of the axle line.
I disagree with your premise. If CG is too close to the front axle with rear drive, traction will be limited.
I have seen 67/33 quoted as the best balance for trikes. Maybe so for front drive. With rear drive you have to compromise depending on the amount of power you wish to get to the ground. IMO, more than 55% or so forward with a high powered trike means you are just wasting horsepower.
At 53/47, and 98hp mine is at its traction limits. It has a 175 rear which could be wider to cope with more power, but on this 550 lb trike it is probably just as effective as a 215 on 750 lb trike with similar weight distribution.
Modestly powered rear drivers (like ECO EXO R) would seem to require less compromise and offer the best handling. That is the general layout I originally had in mind but got carried away with the engine choice. No regrets though, an overpowered chassis is not so smart but can still be lots of fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJ98092 on Jul 10, 2014 11:51:44 GMT -5
Also if you put too much weight forward then you also have a "STOPPIE" problem of lifting the tail in a panic stop. Also the tail may swing out and try to pass you if the two front tires do not get the same amount of grip.
|
|
|
|
Post by stretchmobileski on Jul 10, 2014 23:09:41 GMT -5
My build does.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinhorn on Jul 10, 2014 23:17:10 GMT -5
Most of what I'm learning about RTs is new to me. I thought I'd read that the closer to the front axle the weight is, the better. Of course, the power train is going to keep a lot of weight rearward. Sounds like a guy would be okay if 1/3 to 1/2 the vehicle weight was on the front wheels. (My gut is saying it would be good to balance the weight among all three tires as closely as possible.) I appreciate your input, guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinhorn on Jul 10, 2014 23:27:18 GMT -5
Indeed it does. It's been awhile since I visited your build thread. If you've got a minute, would you mind measuring the width of that Porsche steering rack? |
|
|
|
Post by stretchmobileski on Jul 11, 2014 21:49:57 GMT -5
Indeed it does. It's been awhile since I visited your build thread. If you've got a minute, would you mind measuring the width of that Porsche steering rack? Depending on what clevises you use width could vary. I have 23 1/2 " center to center of the clevises. I should be posting some new pictures soon. |
|
|
|
Post by srx660 on Aug 2, 2014 16:07:26 GMT -5
You might take a look at the Riley tri-magnum trike. It has the VW front axle located where the drivers knees are by design. I have heard that too much power causes the tri-magnum to weave on acceleration ( (think kawasaki 1000). www.rqriley.com/tri-mag.htmlI have been thinking about the trimagnum with a tubular IFS system to get rid of the VW tubes which would give me a flat floor in the interior. I also don't like the idea of climbing out of the seats and over the body to get out of the vehicle. I might try putting doors on one for easy egress. SRx660 |
|
