NEWS: Lutz Offers Details on the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro
#121
Let's say for sake of argument its only 20-lbs total weight. To add even that slight amount of weight to the top of the car is silly if you are concerned with how the vehicle handles. It certainly raises the level of the center of mass, albeit so slightly, but enough to say a non t-top version would handle better.
#126
If you are, then you can assume. But I know from firsthand experience that engineers aren't good at assuming what other engineers will do, especially when the latter set of engineers are working under the direction of non-engineers.
#127
No. However my research for my thesis in Technical Writing my senior year in college was on chassis and suspension theory, design and fabrication.
Wrong. We're talking basic laws of physics here. The center of mass of the vehicle is based upon where the weight is on the vehicle and the relationship to zero, or in this case the ground (track) level. Placing additional weight above the center of mass raises it (the vehicle's mass) higher in the plane. This creates instability in the vehicle, both from a handling and traction standpoint. (i.e. it will hurt 1/4 mile performance as well.) It’s why vehicles like SUVs are less stabile, and why people place additional weight above the rear wheels to improve traction.
While we're not talking about a substancial amount of weight here; however there is a measureable difference.
While we're not talking about a substancial amount of weight here; however there is a measureable difference.
#128
No, see, I'm not arguing about the physics. You're right about the physics.
I'm saying that you can't assume that because you don't know what else they would change about the car at the same time. For instance, maybe they'd add weight somewhere else. Who knows? Maybe bigger brake rotors, which add unsprung rotating mass. You're an engineer, so I'll assume you know how bad that can be for handling.
I'm saying that you can't assume that because you don't know what else they would change about the car at the same time. For instance, maybe they'd add weight somewhere else. Who knows? Maybe bigger brake rotors, which add unsprung rotating mass. You're an engineer, so I'll assume you know how bad that can be for handling.
#132
nope.. they are adding B-pillars to lose weight. Period. They understand that weight is the enemy in all aspects and they wouldn't have choosen to do this unless they could do it without dramatically changing the exterior. So, i am not worried.
#133
Sorry, I do remember the part where you said Im not guessing. I fixed it.
I dont understand your logic sometimes. You tell Scott that youll continue to raise hell about Camaro being a possible pig but when other people complain we re whining...
CLK 350 there are probably others...
LOL!
I guess since I've known this info for over a year, I've long since gotten over it....I don't like it either, but whatcha' gonna' do?
Issues of weight, safety, sound and weatherseals aren't worth the trade offs to me.
That being said, are there any coupes being produced today that don't have a B-pillar?
Issues of weight, safety, sound and weatherseals aren't worth the trade offs to me.
That being said, are there any coupes being produced today that don't have a B-pillar?
LOL!
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 10-02-2007 at 04:18 PM.
#134
But if you want to call me a whiner too, I'm ok with it.
Just don't call me a kool-aid drinking cheerleader, and we're cool.
Bob
PS....I'd still pay the weight penalty for T-tops, and don't give a damn about B-pillars, but I'm also quite aware that I'm not getting T-tops. Just in case anybody is confused.
#135
An extra set of roll down windows is not going to be a deal breaker for me. Apparently it is for you. In fact, I DARE YOU to buy that mustang and refrain from ever buying a camaro.
Last edited by FactoryZ; 10-02-2007 at 09:43 PM.