# Talk:Wheelbase

WikiProject Engineering
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Would somebody with better picture editing skills than I (probably the case) upload a better picture to illustrate the equations?

What's the name for the distance between the left and right wheels; the equivalent of track gauge for railways? Is it as important as wheelbase? Should it be discussed here, or in an article of its own? -- Karada 11:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

## Appropriately enough, width is called "Track"

↑Jump back a section

## TRACK

It seems the term "Wheelbase" is unfortunately widely misinterpreted to refer to the width, or lateral, (side to side), location of the tire/wheel assemblies.

"Track" is the correct term for this. The word Track has some obvious etymology and includes a salty joke about the ancient origins of the measured width of our modern day vehicles. (It involves horses posteriors.)

"Track" more specifically refers to the lateral distance between the centers of each tire as they contact the road, referred to as the tire "contact patch".

The front (steered wheels) of an automobile usually "steer" about a center that is more or less directly aligned with the center of the contact patch of the tire. However this is usually offset slightly, to improve safety and dynamics of the steered "handling" of the vehicle.

(I would like to provide original illustration: see automobile_TRACK.jpg, created by me...see details at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Automobile_TRACK.jpg)

See Also: Offset, Ackerman, Roll Center, Anti-Roll Bar, Alignment, Friction Circle, Steering Axis Inclination, Caster, Camber, Pivot Radius, Cornering Dynamics, G-forces, Center-of-Gravity, Yaw, Pitch, Roll, Tire, Suspension Systems, Weight Distribution, Thrust Angle

...and to further answer Karada's question, Yes, it is every bit as important as Wheelbase, and is it's own unique and complex topic and therefore deserves an article of its own, albeit closely linked/integrated with "Wheelbase". --Truthdowser 04:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

Wheelbase applies to locomotives too. I'm not going to NPOV it, but maybe the lead needs explaining. (otherwise it's good) Dunc_Harris| 21:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

## Measurement

Why is wheelbase measured in inches? Couldn't they measure it in something simpler like feet? Even worse, they also use millimeters. Couldn't they at least use centimeters?

Millimetres is the standard international unit of length for automobiles, It's small enough that fractions aren't needed. It's always best to use smaller units.(94.0.120.36 (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

↑Jump back a section

## Confusion of phsics about bicycles

According to the short section on bicycle wheelbases, many commerical bikes have too SHORT a wheelbase to perform stoppies and wheelies. If the wheelbase was short, performing such tricks should be easier. Shouldn't this say "too long"? Short bikes can flip easier compared to longer bikes. It would be easier to do a wheelie or stoppie however it will be harder to control it once you're on one tire as the slightest movement can throw you over board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.176.8.16 (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. The exact text is "The wheelbase on many commercially available bicycles and motorcycles is so short, relative to the height of their centers of mass, that they are able to perform stoppies and wheelies." That says to me that they can perform stoppies and wheelies because the wheelbase is short enough. Is there another interpretation? -AndrewDressel 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
↑Jump back a section

## Wheelbase illustration

I made this illustration very quickly, so no prob on copyright. Can someone upload it to the Wheelbase page?

Ashvindx 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

## down-thrust on the tow-hook

Article says: down-thrust on the tow-hook is about 100 pounds force (400 N). Many many sources on towing recommend tongue-weight (as it is called in industry) to be beween 9% and 15% of the weight of the trailer - so it makes really lightweight trailer to have 100 pounds of hitch-weight. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/towing/towing-capacity/information/tongue-weight.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.28.135 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

## oversteer and understeer are reversed+tow hook?

"Because of the effect the wheelbase has on the weight distribution of the vehicle, wheelbase dimensions are crucial to the balance and steering of the automobile. For example, a car with a much greater weight load on the rear tends to understeer due to the lack of the load (force) on the front tires and therefore the grip (friction) from them. This is why it is crucial, when towing a single-axle caravan, to distribute the caravan's weight so that down-thrust on the tow-hook is about 100 pounds force (400 N). Likewise, a car may oversteer or even "spin out" if there is too much force on the front tires and not enough on the rear tires." this isnt phrased well. a car that is heavier wont corner better. it reads as though its saying that having more weight can be a benifit in most road conditions. the only time when weight is usefull is if theres snow on the ground/dirt or anything besides pavement because if its not heavy enough it will ride on top of the snow/dirt instead of making contact with the ground. generally speaking in real life cars that have more weight in the rear are going to oversteer, not understeer. i dont see what having down thrust on the tow hook would help anything, or how its even relevant. the relevance needs to be explained better, what would happen if there wasnt enough weight on the tow hook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.165.150 (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section