Originally posted by Pro4Capece
Again the difference in the resultant is minimal. For a belt driven car there must be belt tensioners. This reduces the leverage a belt can put on the diff.
The cosine times (angle of tension to the angle of the belt)= the Force Natural(real power at the wheels)
Untill someone makes a belt that doesn't require tensioners or swing arms, belts will have less acceleration and less top speed. Torque steer is relative to the chassis tweak, not the rotation of the shaft and gears.
Does anyone understand what I am saying, or is this a lost cause?
I'm sure there are a few people who understand what you're saying (i'm one
), but you appear to be so one-sided in your assesment that you are only stating facts that prove your point, yet there are other factors to consider.
Now I am not going to debate which is better, but I will add some facts that have been mis interperated, missed altogether, or just plain stated wrong.
Fact: Many belt cars don't use or need tensioners.
Fact: Ball bearings, as efficient as they are, still create friction, and shaft drive cars have more bearings.
Fact: Shaft drive's do suffer from torque steer, even though it is very minimal, and it is a result of an off-set longitudinally mounted motor.
Fact: Noise DOES equal friction! When two surfaces of differing hardness/strength/material are rubbing together, they create less friction than two surfaces of the same material. Think about that when looking at the drive train of a belt or shaft car.
Fact: friction losses in a shaft drive car are at their maximum at full speed, friction losses in a belt drive car are at their minimum at full speed, and vice versa under acceleration.
It's all well and good to try and blind people with science to "win" an argument, but this doesn't make your statement any more believable when they are biased.
Bottom line: any advantage gained in one area by one type of drivetrain is lost in another area.
Result= belt and shaft are equal