Hey, Veeky Forums. A week or so ago you guys were super-helpful giving me a basic education about automotive stuff for a story I'm writing. I just never got a solid answer on one thing.
4-wheel steering. It's not common. Or popular, apparently. But if someone was modifying an older muscle car, would the addition of articulated rear wheels improve cornering and tighten the turning radius?
gtr vs corvette lol
yes. why would you need to ask this?
Check the name. I'm an idiot when it comes to car stuff. So I ask questions. "He who asks is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask is a brainless subhuman retard forever", or something like that.
In the real world 4WS just adds a bunch of weight and complexity and all you really get out of it is better maneuverability when parking.
So yeah it would improve the turning radius greatly. For actual cornering 4WS really wasn't that great until more recently with powerful computer powered systems like Porsche uses on cars like the 918.
Pretty much, although with an advanced computer-controlled system you get better high-speed stability as well.
There was also the passive rear-steering system on the Porsche 928, which wasn't aimed at low-speed manoeuvrability and went for more predictable high-speed handling and better stability instead.
I cant imagine that anything will be easy in this install. Why try the work that needs to be done will easily outweigh the limited benefits of 4 wheel steering
What limits the effectiveness of four-wheel steering?
4 wheel steering makes the vehicle unstable at high speeds. If I remember the cars use correctly, then adding 4 wheel steering would be a massive amount of weight added for little benefit.
Complexity of the system, unreliable with all the moving parts, may wear rear tires much quicker, looks retarded, is retarded, etc
You either go with RWS that turns in the opposite direction of the front wheels, resulting in a smaller turning radius but instability at high speeds, passive RWS that turns in the same direction as the front wheels under load (as seen in ) which results in better high speed stability but gives you no improvement in turning radius, or you go with a complicated computer-controlled system that turns in the opposite direction of the front wheels at low speeds and turns in the same direction at high speeds.
First would be a fair bit of work and instability at speed doesn't seem like something you'd want, second would be the easiest but has the smallest benefit, third would be very hard to DIY.
So somebody using the first system would have to have absolute 100% confidence in their skills as a driver in order to take a sharp turn at a hundred miles an hour. The second system would be more forgiving and easier to use but provide less benefit.
Thanks. I think I got it now.
I already told you no, 4 wheel steering is not an aftermarket product nor would it work on a solid axle.
Just don't include it because it's not at all something a practical street racer would use. It only works on independent rear suspension. Not on suspension the Olds has.
This, the first and third type require some form of independent suspension and the passive rear steering/under-load cornering stuff only works on complicated multi-link setups or semi-trailing arms.
Buick GS, 1970.
What I'm hearing is 'rebuild the entire suspension then add ridiculous over-engineered steering system that keeps the car from turning, as one person in my last thread put it, "like a battleship".
BUT you don't need to do anything retarded like 4WS to make a car handle. Just say "fully modernized aftermarket suspension." This kit, for example, replaces every front suspension component and every rear control arm. The axle is the only thing that's kept as that's what fits under the rear. Makes the car handle extremely well when paired with good tuning of the components and grippy tires.
Thanks.
I have some other questions, but they involve slightly more exotic Automotive Technologies that I don't think anyone on this board is familiar with. Unless someone here knows a lot about injection systems, fuel to air ratios, rotary electrical generators, and separating hydrogen from distilled water via electrolysis.
I knew it would not be a commercially available aftermarket product. It is something that the character in the story I am writing would have had to construct and machine himself.
I know a little about most of the things you mentioned. Most people here are familiar with fuel injection systems and air/fuel ratios too.
A friend of mine was telling me a while back about a system he wanted to set up in his Ford F-150 that would use electrolysis to separate hydrogen out of distilled water. It could use any kind of water, but distilled water worked the best and left fewer residual elements in the container. He intended to then pump the hydrogen into the engine. He wanted to set up a stroke pattern for each piston so that the first stroke would be an exhaust stroke, then conventional fuel, then an exhaust stroke, then a small pure hydrogen explosion. I wanted to know the feasibility of such a design. He insisted it would require a lot more electricity than a regular alternator could produce and intended to convert the entire drive train underneath his truck into an electrical turbine. This is some straight-up homemade Frankenstein Automotive Mad Science, but from what I can tell on paper it seems feasible.
Your friend is an idiot.
14.7:1 AFR, discussion ends there.
So essentially turn it into a two-stroke with alternating fuel types? Not sure what the benefits would be compared to straight up running hydrogen or conventional fuel, but two-strokes are a thing so it's probably not impossible. Definitely silly though.
And using the car's systems to provide power for electrolysis wouldn't be feasible. You'd effectively be trying to generate energy using the product of said energy, so you'd need 100% efficiency just to break even, which you're not gonna get.
Duly noted.
Thank you. I will be sure to let him know that his crackpot idea won't work.