h a l f b a k e r yKeep out of reach of children.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Heavy weight on a rail attached to the underside of a vehicle. Normally, the weight is stowed near the vehicle's natural center of mass, so as not to negatively effect handling. When an electronic level detects that the vehicle is climbing a hill, the weight slides forward to offset the loss of traction
on
the drive tires. Useful for driving in extremely wet and/or icy conditions, I'm not talking about your average +/- 15 degree inclines. I'm talking the big hills, like 30 degrees or more. During dry/warm seasons, the kit can be easily disconnected and stored in your garage.
Centrifugal tires
http://www.halfbake...fugal-center_20Tire
Use these for extra grip, but with teeth in the center spokes [Brian the Painter, Jan 11 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Why not just pump water, or even fuel, between ballast tanks?
When not required, drain tanks.
|
|
| |
Ships and aircraft adjust their trim by such methods.
|
|
| |
Finding space for two 50 litre polypropylene tanks in the front of
the vehicle might be tricky - possibly, they would fit behind the
bumper (fender). |
|
| |
Most likely the amount of weight necessary would have a
deleterious effect on braking, especially going downhill,
but bun regardless. |
|
| |
The added weight helps studded tires bite into packed snow and ice. When going downhill, shift the weight back to center of mass and it should aid in the braking process, I think. Thanks for the bun.
|
|
| |
8th, that would be a good idea, but would require modification of the vehicle. The idea behind my post is that it's a kit that can be installed on just about any vehicle with just a few bolts/clamps. |
|
| |
The additional traction provided by the added weight
isn't going to help braking enough to offset the extra
amount of work the brakes and tires have to do in
order to slow you down, particularly in icy conditions. |
|
| |
Any weight you add to a vehicle affects handling.
Primary ride, for instance, would suffer at one end of
the vehicle or the other by moving the weight
around. |
|
| |
Shift into a lower gear, pump the brakes a little, you'll be fine. And yes, D.U. would be awesome for this. |
|
| |
Take it from the vehicle architecture engineer.
Weight is what we do. |
|
| |
I used to switch back and forth between left and right fuel tanks on my 1971 Ford F250 truck, just for grins, to keep it trimmed.
|
|
| |
Once you open that hornets nest of vehicle modification, it's all fair game.
|
|
| |
But this idea is too simple. Why not move the passenger compartment and controls forwards and back in response to changing parameters? And with all the computer sensors available, after [21] has had lunch it should shift ever so slightly again. |
|
| |
There's a reason folks in northern locales tend to load the beds
of their pickups with sandbags during winter, Ray. |
|
| |
That has to do with traction, not handling or braking,
both of which will be negatively affected by the
extra weight of the sandbags. |
|
| |
Set the entire body of the vehicle on 4 arms that
start parallel to the ground pointing back Then when
traction is needed, they rotate and lift the vehicle
up and fwd. Make some side to side pivots in case
you need to do a little sprint car driving. |
|
| |
You can't steer or stop at all if you don't have traction because
your vehicle is too lightweight to push the studs into the ice. Any steering/breaking success is better than the utter failure to achieve either one which is experienced without the added weight.
Perhaps if architectural engineers designed vehicles with that fact
in mind, folks wouldn't have to resort to such measures. I drive a
Dodge Grand Caravan for work, this ain't some little Fiat. |
|
| |
I could have uses this at work today. We got snow
stomped big time. All was well upon arrival, but at
the end of the day my truck was under half a foot of
super slippery snow and my job site was at the
bottom of a long hill. It took my half an hour to travel
one kilometer. (and a quarter tank of gas) There is
just no substitute for 4wd which is seized on my
truck, but when it worked it worked well. |
|
| |
One day there will be auto-gyroscopic precession stabilization/traction control for vehicles.
|
|
| |
2 fries you better crack a smile, them there arr
fightin' words! |
|
| |
That won't keep it from happening... |
|
| |
Brian, that's what happened to us yesterday. Spinning your wheels trying in vain to get up a slippery slope will indeed burn through fuel like nothing else. |
|
| |
Oh no not in vain at all! Once my ice tires ripped
away the overburden the gravel/pavement was
exposed and some smoke helped propel me(at 45
degrees) straight up the hill. It was so loud and for so
long that neighbours came out to watch/laugh/high
five. It was Epic. Also my brother wasn't sure if this
was actually happening and still hasn't said a word
about it. |
|
| |
That is sheer brilliance. Truly a lightbulb moment if ever I saw
one. |
|
| |
//You can't steer or stop at all if you don't have traction because your vehicle is too lightweight to push the studs into the ice. Any steering/breaking success is better than the utter failure to achieve either one which is experienced without the added weight. Perhaps if architectural engineers designed vehicles with that fact in mind, folks wouldn't have to resort to such measures. //
|
|
| |
So, your answer is to reduce fuel economy and destroy handling all year by wanting more weight permanently installed on the vehicle for the benefit of a month or two of more traction?
|
|
| |
//I drive a Dodge Grand Caravan for work, this ain't some little Fiat.//
|
|
| |
If I drove either one of those I wouldn't admit to it. Anway, physics demands compromise, and the fuel economy penalty isn't worth it. Otherwise I'd love if if it came with wings as well. If you need more traction, invest in some snow tires, chains, get an awd or simply add some weight. |
|
| |
I remember some boys adventure story from the 40s where they struggled to get up a hill, and the tech genius in the gang suggested reversing up instead. The explanation offered was that low gear was lower than 1st. This would also have been a RWD car I assume. |
|
| |
// all year by wanting more weight permanently installed on the
vehicle for the benefit of a month or two of more traction?//
|
|
| |
I refer you to the last sentence of my post, and also the last
sentence in my first annotation. I thought I was pretty clear that
this is not a permanent installation.
|
|
| |
//or simply add some weight//
|
|
| |
That's the whole idea that YOU keep criticising, ya jackass. |
|
| |
I promise you reversinguphill in a rear wheel is the
most futile event of my life. Reversing uphill in a
front wheel drive transfers all the engines weight
over the tires and lots of the rears weight as well.
Works like a charm. |
|
| |
Maybe a set of jet engines might help. |
|
| |
Sorry, I tend to skim when I read some ideas, I did
miss the detachable bit. |
|
| |
It's nothing we haven't all done. |
|
| |
Rayford is a pretty nice guy, for a pilot. |
|
| |
I would wonder about ground clearance - most FWD cars these days are ridiculously low. Would the thingy drag in the snow? |
|
| |
It could be in the form of a snow plow. |
|
| |
We do fight for every millimeter. |
|
| |
In their assult on the Point d'Hoc in 1944, the US Rangers
deployed a device developed by D.M.W.D. called the Rocket
Grapnel.
|
|
| |
This was, unsurprisingly, a rocket attached to a grapnel hook and
trailing a climbing rope. It did come as something of a surprise
to the Germans; who in turn had developed a system for
mounting 21cm Nebelwerfer launchers on the sides of vehicles
for short range bombardment.
|
|
| |
If a vehicle had rocket grapnel launchers mounted on the sides,
and a facility for attaching the traling line to a front-mounted
winch drum, then it could haul itself up very steep hills even in
conditions of very poor traction. Plus, when it got to the top, the
rope and grapnel could be retreived for re-use; just install a new
rocket motor. |
|
| |
JAPU... Jet Assisted Pull-Up. Nice.
|
|
| |
Regarding ground clearance, a 1.5 inch thick, 2-3 ft square plate
of sufficiently dense material ought to provide enough weight,
and has the added benefit if doubling as a skid plate. |
|
| |
The centrifugal tire can be modified to have claws
that only come out when under torque or when
sufficient G-force is applied. They would make a
great add on to your Idea. (which is awesome) |
|
| |
Ford's Model T had to be driven up steep hills in
reverse because the fuel pickup was in the front of
the fuel tank, not for any advantage of traction.
Unless the tank was completely full or the hill not
very steep, the engine became starved for fuel. |
|
| |