Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


Ratio of wheelbase to track width.

Ratio of wheelbase to track width.

Ratio of wheelbase to track width.

How to decide the ratio of wheelbase to track wWidth?
Like what should be the track width for a particular wheelbase (say 54" wheelbase), or what should be the wheelbase for a particular track width? Considering the fact that the vehicle is a Baja ATV (max. allowed wheelbase: 108", max. allowed track width: 64".)

RE: Ratio of wheelbase to track width.

If cornering is involved, generally the wider the track the better, especially on pavement.
Unless CG is at ground level, in which case it doesn't matter, or the vehicle must pass between trees or rocks of a known minimum spacing.

The great Jim Hall biased the radical but kind of goofy 2H toward narrowness , perhaps for better aerodynamics, and John Surtees' debut was not able (or perhaps willing?) to lap as quickly as Hall had in the 2G or ever get closer than 4 seconds or so to the pole position in any race.

RE: Ratio of wheelbase to track width.

As always, "it depends".

Wider track width is better for maximizing cornering G-force without rolling over. Narrow track width is better for fitting between obstacles. If the criterion involves negotiating a slalom, the increased cornering G's allowed by a wide track width may be negated by the vehicle having to go much further side to side in order to negotiate the slalom.

Long wheelbase is better for ride quality and stability in general, worse for tight-parking-lot maneuvering, worse for the above-mentioned slalom course. If the overall length of the vehicle is defined, it's usually not wrong to make the wheelbase as long as you can within reason, because weight hanging out beyond the axles is generally bad. But urban transit buses have relatively short wheelbases and long overhangs (with the engine usually hanging out way beyond the rear axle!), because maneuverability in tight quarters takes priority over how quickly the bus can negotiate an autocross course.

I'm not aware of any "ratio" that is "optimum" between the track width and the wheelbase. Production vehicles cover a pretty wide range.

RE: Ratio of wheelbase to track width.

For a Baja ATV, I would consider the smallest track and wheelbase possible considering:

Having the smallest track possible will help in maneuvering side-to-side and having the shortest wheelbase will help going over the top of hills (if the axles are close together, the car has less chance of having the center portion of the frame touching the ground).

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close