Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Serum
more accurate?
Accuracy has got anything to do with it? it's just an extra number that's added. It's not that your calculator is looking at gears resistance.
|
OK, I didn't really want to get into it, but here goes:
All the ratios for the transmissions and diffs have two values; input tooth count and output tooth count. I don't have provisions for adding other tooth counts for one entry because then the code to handle this wouldn't be the same for the rest of the "normal" ratios. Anyway, dividing the two tooth counts values results in a (usually) long decimal number. This precision is kept until the displayed result. If I just fudge in a number for the Savage to maintain a two tooth count scheme, I will be introducing some variance. Granted, it's not much, but it's there.
For example, the savage first gear tooth counts are 44 and 18, which is a 2.44444 (repeats 4) :1 ratio. The savage output ratio tooth counts are 31 and 30, which is a 1.03333 (repeats 3) :1 ratio. Now, to keep my two-number scheme, I would have to multiply these two values to get a "virtual" ratio count, which would be 2.5259 (repeats 259). That would them turn the 18T gear into a 17.4195 (and so on) tooth gear. This doesn't even make sense; how can you have less than half a tooth?? But that's what I would have to do to account for both ratios with one set of tooth counts. Even then, it's not accurate since the numbers repeat, not even mentioning any rounding errors. Once you take this already inaccurate number and use it with the other ratios and formulas, the result can be off by a substantial margin.
Ugg. So, in the end, creating another ratio section was more accurate and makes sense.
Edit By the way, when I said "engine" on the last post, I meant the
code engine, not the BL motor. That probably caused some confusion. :)