Ed-vancedEngines wrote:Hey Mr Billy,
I will concede about the no aquat/no rise line at times called the neutral line, if you will think about that the theoretical neutral line must then need to be moved according to the amount of torque/power than is in the car.
The position of the no squat/no rise line is not affected by the forces involved. It becomes meaningless, however, as soon as the front tires leave the strip surface.
Ed-vancedEngines wrote:I will not concede that we do not need any additional force pressing against the rear tires than what the car would have at rest though.
Don't know how you could conclude that I had said this. If the car is accelerating, there will be an inertial force which will increase rear tire loading.
Ed-vancedEngines wrote:We do need a quick and not too hard of a hit in planting the tires...
What do you mean by "a hit"? As I just said, if the car is accelerating forward, rear tire loading is increased over static. Are you referring to the rear of the car accelerating downward? All this does is provide an oscillatory loading of the rear tires. The loading is reduced as the rear is accelerated down and then increased as the rear reaches its lowest point. It's very questionable that the net result would ever be beneficial. Certainly, a rising rear would appear to be better, for shock absorber action and friction quickly dampen these oscillatory loadings.
Ed-vancedEngines wrote:The only car that can work with the instant center actually placed in the middle of the theoretical neutral line...
Don't understand "in the middle." If the instant center falls anywhere on the no squat/no rise line, the car will neither squat nor rise.
Ed-vancedEngines wrote:Now by all of the expert theories that car would have surely been squatting on the launch but was not.
In the first place, engineers do not work with "theories." Theories are in the domain of scientists. It is only after they've done their thing and used the "scientific method" to transform their theory into established science that the engineer is allowed to enter the picture.
Your comments here cause me to believe that we're not talking about the same line. The no squat/no rise line passes through the rear tire patch, when viewed from the side, and the intersection of two other lines: one a horizontal line through the center of gravity and the other a vertical line through the front tire patch. The instant center is determined by finding the intersection of lines through the upper and lower links.
Ed-vancedEngines wrote:May I ask you something please that I can not understand?
You seem to be an older person. If you were with the RamCharger Team you must be an older person. I keep wondering why you are using terminology that was started by Chris Alston many many years since the RamCharger Team quit racing. The anti-squat and Anti-rise and Percentage of rise theories began with the Alston Engineering Chassis Clinics.
Yes, I'm long of tooth. You appear to be familiar with God's Word, so I'll simply say that I'm beyond the alloted "three score and ten" and every day is now by God's grace.
I was taught of the "no squat/no rise line" during my graduate studies. I don't know if Alston is claiming to be the originator of such matters, but that would be like Al Gore claiming that he invented the Internet. For that matter, any competent engineer of the nineteenth century, given the problem of a buggy driven by the rear wheels, would have come up with the same line. As the Spirit guided Solomon to write, there's nothing new under the sun.
(It appears that Chrysler refers to the line as the "no squat/no rise" line, while Ford and GM refer to it as the "100% anti-squat" line. Same thing.)