Re: DS2 Another armour\mobility idea

This is right. European cars are generally much 'quicker' than American 
cars (and around twice as expensive) despite much smaller engines
largely 
because of  (i) higher power/weight ratios, (ii) high manual gearage (my

family saloon car is only doing 3K revs at 80 mph in fifth gear), and 
complex stiff suspension designed for stability rather than comfort (you

feel every bump).

A further limitation come into play. You can make the AFV go fast over 
rough terrain but the crew inside get exhausted to the point of military

ineffectiveness by being banged around. Formula 1 drivers are supremely
fit 
athletes and Mansell still had to be lifted out of the car sometimes at
the 
end of a race. The heavier the vehicle the more it smooths this out, so
I 
have read that oddly heavier AFVs can often maintain higher cross
country 
speeds than light ones.

The point is that top speed in straight lines on flat surfaces and 
'quickness' (i.e. ability to maintain high speeds in realistic operating

conditions) are not the same thing.

John

>Hi,
>
>Actually, without the massive amount of weight, the bulldozer could go
>much faster, but it would also need a totally different transmission.
Most
>heavy vehicles have their speed limited mainly by their transmission,
>which is geared very low to account for both their large weight and
>their need to have loads of power.
>
>The reason that you will never get to the speeds of a NASCAR is that
>they have ten times the power and less weight. Even if you were dropped
>from a Hercules at 20000 feet, the NASCAR would still be faster,
>although you would stop much faster ;)
>
>Simply put, the acceleration of a car is determined mostly by it's
>power to weight ratio, whereas its top speed is determined by its
>gear ratio (transmission) as well as suspension and braking (for
>safety reasons). A vehicle may be unable to reach its theoretical
>top speed if the power is insufficient to overcome friction, but IMO
>that is not particularly relevant to DS.
>
>I think that mobility should be described by engine output, vehicle
>mass and mobility class. I'll try to come up with some sensible