I really admire these drivers in a Fiat Abbarth at that time. How could they
win anything at all with that car? Rear engine is NOT a very good solution
:o) unless it is in a Formula 1 car
--
B.T.
--
B.T.
Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either.
Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.
Andre
> >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either.
> Err.. huh?
> Andre
(Maybe the original note came to us through time from the 50's)
>> >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either.
>> Err.. huh?
>> Andre
>Seconded: Err....huh?
>(Maybe the original note came to us through time from the 50's)
Andre
SB
> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:07:01 +0100, "Jan Verschueren"
> >> >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either.
> >> Err.. huh?
> >> Andre
> >Seconded: Err....huh?
> >(Maybe the original note came to us through time from the 50's)
> Hehe.. nah.. knowing Jan there must be some joke hidden in his post..
> Andre
I know, the technical definition has to do with where the engine is in
relation to the axles, but that always seemed pretty picky to me.
> SB
> > >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:07:01 +0100, "Jan Verschueren"
> > >> >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either.
> > >> Err.. huh?
> > >> Andre
> > >Seconded: Err....huh?
> > >(Maybe the original note came to us through time from the 50's)
> > Hehe.. nah.. knowing Jan there must be some joke hidden in his post..
> > Andre
F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in terms
of weight distribution.
Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn
>I know, the technical definition has to do with where the engine is in
>relation to the axles, but that always seemed pretty picky to me.
Andre
>F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in terms
>of weight distribution.
Andre
> >"Andre Warringa" wrote...
> >> Err.. huh?
> >F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in
terms
> >of weight distribution.
> Uh-oh.. there -is- a discussion about the definition :))
Car guys will fight about anything :)
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:57:47 +0100, "Jan Verschueren"
> >"Andre Warringa" wrote...
> >> Err.. huh?
> >F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in terms
> >of weight distribution.
> Uh-oh.. there -is- a discussion about the definition :))
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
http://www.teammirage.com
"A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke"
--Groucho Marx--
...and, also because mid-engined cars like F1 (I've never heard modern F1
referred to as rear-engined before!?!) have a lower polar moment of inertia.
Dumbed-down, this means they change direction better, because the mass is
concentrated closer to the centre (centre = mid).
GMF
SB
<snip>
Fellow hairdresser's-car pilot Remco will no doubt confirm... ;-)
As another fellow MR2 driver I can tell you that Toyota says it means
Midship Runabout, go figure! Technically it IS a midengined car of course -
if only just <g>
Bye,
Leo (not a hairdresser)