Re: DS2 Another armour\mobility idea

You're correct in saying that an "engine" (Internal combustion/Turbine
etc) 
has a certain torque and mobility output, however these are 1. not set
in 
stone, and 2. are not a 1 to 1 correlation to how fast a vehicle can 
go.  Finally, 3. acceleration is directly related to mass, if energy is 
constant.  Less mass, more acceleration per unit time.	More mass, less 
acceleration per unit time.

1.  I can make your "indymobile" perform a _whole_ lot better (okay
faster, 
less efficient in almost every other aspect though) through 
modifications...  Ripping/changing the exhaust, "turbo" charging or 
four-barrel carbs if they're not already on the engine, "Nitro" or other

fast cooling system, reboring your cylinders, etc.  All of these will 
directly change the performance and output of your engine.  However,
this 
may, or may not, change your top speed or acceleration.  This is where 2

comes in.

2.  Gearing is everything.  If you're gearing is low, like a bull-dozer,
or 
Jeep in 4 wheel low, you're going to top out at  speeds of 35 mph (or 
lower, I think, for a bulldozer).  But you can literally climb walls
(ok, 
low walls), tow insane loads, or push large heavy masses of dirt and 
stone.	Instead of speed, your gearing has given you raw power.  On the 
flip side, geared the other way, and you can't accelerate much weight 
quickly, but your top speeds can be huge...  My jeep can do 90 with the
top 
up, and me juicing it the right way (it helps to have a downslope, and 
won't work on an upslope) in 4-wheel high gear.

3.  Law of physics.  This doesn't necessarily affect top speed, but the 
ability to reach it faster does equate to greater distances travelled 
faster, more maneuverability, etc.

Real world examples...
To stay with your racing example...  "Stock" car racing is taking a
"stock" 
car, like say a ford Torus, and modifying it without adding anything 
(Much... there are certain rules for this, and lot's of limitations, as
I 
understand it's mainly safety gear)...	In order to make them perform 
better, they cut as much weight as possible...	There are no back seats,
or 
passenger seat, etc.

Mazda Miata vs. their Protege Model...	Same, exact engine.  Protege was

the 4-door frame (and about 500 pounts heavier).  The Miata, designed to

hot-rod, was beating Porshe 911's in most all tests that they were
pitted 
against each other in.	The Protege doesn't hold a candle (although can 
beat a ill driven Mustang 5.0 in a quater mile...  I made 50 bucks when
I 
was 18 (and stupid) and drag racing).

There _are_ factors that would restrict top speeds, for instance, to
little 
weight can affect handling making a car less able to grip the road
(usually 
because weight was removed that changed the center of gravity placing it
to 
high for the vehicle...) or safely do high to mid speed maneuvers.  The 
infamous SUV roll-overs as an example.

Another fun one is wind resistance...  My Jeep as an example.  You could

drop all the weight you wanted, changed the gearing to all kinds of fun,

but you're not liable to make my flying brick fly much faster without 
changing the aerodynamics.

And I won't touch electric motors, which "don't need" gearing (even I
find 
that hard to swallow after a point) and just spin at whatever RPM's are 
needed.

Alright, enough real-world stuff...
To bring this back to the original thread.  It is perfectly right, in 
reality, using physical motive systems as they exist today, to say that
a 
lightly armored vehicle can have better speeds and acceleration than the

same vehicle with more armor.  The gearing would have to change, but
this 
isn't that difficult and should be no more expensive in either
direction, 
and in fact could be a fairly simple field modification if a vehicle is 
built right.  Even with GEV or full flight vehicles, this would still be
an 
issue...  Thrust to weight ratio's make or break modern military
aircraft, 
and are a way of measuring potential maneuverability of an aircraft.

Rand.

>This just feels...wrong. I'm not able to see how you can have something
>that's nominally "slow tracked" be cooking along at just about the same
>speed as "fast tracked". The way I understand engines (and I'll be the
>first to admit I'm no mechanic ;-) is that they have a certain torque
and
>mobility output and whatnot (the "whatnot" part is my non-mechanic
lack-
>of-jargon portion of the understanding ;-), and you can't make 'em go
>faster than they are designed to go. I mean, a bulldozer is not going
to
>go much faster than it already does if you strip off all the heavy
weight
>attached to it. My Indymobile is not going to keep up with Nascar
vehicles
>no matter how much I strip off the car (I can get up to 90 mph on a 7%
>grade and 7 miles of uncontested road in front of me - 95 if there's a
>stiff wind at my back ;-). I think the "mobility" factor is a limit to
>how much an engine on a particular vehicle can move said vehicle.
>
>Sorry, Rob, the idea just doesn't feel right.	:-/
>
>Mk