This thread is titled just a little like a WWF call to a fight.
The point here is, people have a lot of confusion about the dynamics of cars, and especially three wheel cars.
The image you see is snapped off of a video on the 3wheelers face book page. This guy is showing how easy it is
to burn a donut into the pavement with this Morgan style delta-trike. (rear wheel drive, engine up front)
For the most part people like this guy think it's cool (presumably). But all I see is a failure of the vehicle to give
adequate and safe traction. If it is that easy to 'burn out', it's potentially deadly in odd weather conditions, and elsewhere.(gravel roads anyone?)
And everything gets worse with more power. Other things get worse with weight moved to the rear using this delta layout and RWD.
The fix? Weight over the traction. (only fixes the one issue)
The best fix? Two wheels forward, weight low and forward (55-70%), plus traction forward too.
Example of a technically specific term for this platform is 2F1R-FWD-F65%CGLTT (CG=CenterOfGravity,LTT=LowerThanTopOf-24in-Tires). A delta-trike or tadpole trike, even autocycle, just doesn't seem to hit the mark for me. BTW, LCT or Lower-Than-Center-Of-Tires would be a rare find in a daily driver.(have to include the driver/1-passenger weight in that measurement) And that description assumes the vehicle takes advantage of the width of the road, or somewhere over 5.5ft(1700mm). I prefer a 6ft minimum (1800mm) for US roads (track-width=>TW6ft). And a wheelbase length over 120% of the width, and not more than 240%. (wheelbase=>WB9ft). And full cabin, tandem seating.
2F1R-FWD-F65%CGLTT-TW6ft-WB9ft-FCTS, yes, an easier term would be nice. (The Bex Formula?, the Arak Assertion? lol)
But like the WWF, I get lots (lots) of push back from enthusiasts of other formats. But they sometimes value tire-burning fun
over and above safe, predictable dynamics. Other contentious values exist as well, but that one was one of them.
Everyone decides how much safety they want. But do they know how much they have?
The point here is, people have a lot of confusion about the dynamics of cars, and especially three wheel cars.
The image you see is snapped off of a video on the 3wheelers face book page. This guy is showing how easy it is
to burn a donut into the pavement with this Morgan style delta-trike. (rear wheel drive, engine up front)
For the most part people like this guy think it's cool (presumably). But all I see is a failure of the vehicle to give
adequate and safe traction. If it is that easy to 'burn out', it's potentially deadly in odd weather conditions, and elsewhere.(gravel roads anyone?)
And everything gets worse with more power. Other things get worse with weight moved to the rear using this delta layout and RWD.
The fix? Weight over the traction. (only fixes the one issue)
The best fix? Two wheels forward, weight low and forward (55-70%), plus traction forward too.
Example of a technically specific term for this platform is 2F1R-FWD-F65%CGLTT (CG=CenterOfGravity,LTT=LowerThanTopOf-24in-Tires). A delta-trike or tadpole trike, even autocycle, just doesn't seem to hit the mark for me. BTW, LCT or Lower-Than-Center-Of-Tires would be a rare find in a daily driver.(have to include the driver/1-passenger weight in that measurement) And that description assumes the vehicle takes advantage of the width of the road, or somewhere over 5.5ft(1700mm). I prefer a 6ft minimum (1800mm) for US roads (track-width=>TW6ft). And a wheelbase length over 120% of the width, and not more than 240%. (wheelbase=>WB9ft). And full cabin, tandem seating.
2F1R-FWD-F65%CGLTT-TW6ft-WB9ft-FCTS, yes, an easier term would be nice. (The Bex Formula?, the Arak Assertion? lol)
But like the WWF, I get lots (lots) of push back from enthusiasts of other formats. But they sometimes value tire-burning fun
over and above safe, predictable dynamics. Other contentious values exist as well, but that one was one of them.
Everyone decides how much safety they want. But do they know how much they have?
Last edited: