Re: diet pills...

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

>Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 15:31:17 EDT
>From: QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>
>
>In a message dated 98-04-07 15:17:11 EDT, you write:
>
><< My point was, with everything the same i.e. tires, suspension, weight 
> distribution, driver etc (essentialy same car with some weights added 
> to keep the weight distribution and center of gravity the same).  
> Weight is an issue.  Don't you think?
>  
> Later. >>
>Everything the same, weight is an issue.  Reality dictates, that everything is
>not the same.  Weight is a compromise, both ways.  Distribution of that weight
>is less of one.  As is evidenced by the article that started this whole
>discussion.  Finding cars under 3000lbs is not the norm (including the M3).
>So, 'all things the same', given 3 standards from the mean to fall somewhere
>between 3-400lbs, wouldn't 50/50 weight distribution be an 'easier' compromise
>than actual weight?  The case in point with a 2900lb aluminum A8, and a steel
>740 'only' 300lbs heavier.  Subjectively and objectively, it seems that
>'distribution' beats the absolute number.  
>
>Can we compromise distribution at the expense of the absolute?  Also the case
>in point in the article.  Seems a lot of other things got compromised too.  
>
>Your theoretical 'sameness' so noted.

extremes to one side, weight is more of an issue than distribution imho.  very
interesting article about this whole topic in the april issue of 'performance
car' and quoting gordon murray extensively.  also a very interesting comparo of
the mgf and the lotus elise, with the same running gear and engines, just the
weight difference.

no prizes for guessing the better machine.

btw, scott, which has the worst f/r weight distribution.  the 911 or the ur-q,
or the rs2?

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q