h a l f b a k e r yThis product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
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,
|
|
|
|
Unsprung weight would likely make this handle extremely poorly. |
|
|
Good point. But my chiropractor would probably love the extra business! |
|
|
Wouldn't the rear wheels be a better choice..? |
|
|
The additional rotating weight would increase gyroscopic effects which would impair cornering, more-so for front wheels than back. However, it would certainly lower the centre of gravity. |
|
|
This could be an interesting concept for the back wheel of a bike, although I suspect it would be susceptible to wheelies. If there was a set of reverse gearing though, it would supress the normal rotational force associated with acceleration. |
|
|
1) You are still carrying the weight of the engine (now two engines) together with 2 transmissions etc.
2) You are now carrying this weight as unsprung mass. This is a bad thing.
3) The size of engines with enough power would result in some huge wheels. The whole vehicle would definitely end up heavier.
4) Air con, power steering, brake servos etc. are all normally driven direct from the engine (not electrically) so links to these would be a problem.
5) It has already been done with motorcycles, most noteably with a five cylinder gnome rotary engine. The motorcycles had no suspension (circa 1920) so suspension and handling were not significant ideas.
Not so much half baked as a pile of dough on the floor. |
|
|
Twizz, a quaisiturbine engine generates immense amounts of power for very small sizes. It could easily be mounted within a decent sized wheel. The wieght won't be much of an issue, problem is powering the wheel motors. |
|
| |