turns out the old Honda s600 little sporty cars had a differential and
half shafts in the rear, but then little sealed chain drives from the
end of the half shaft to the rear wheel on either side. ???? just to
reduce unsprung weight?? only reason i can think of.

z <gzuckier (AT) snail-mail (DOT) net> wrote in news:0105b3d0-b4b5-418e-a18d-
fdc0933e5c0a (AT) s12g2000yqi (DOT) googlegroups.com:



To create an independent rear suspension that also drove the rear wheels. I
can only guess Honda used this design because it used technology Honda
understood.

Here's a pic of that rear end:
<http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/honda_chains.jpg>


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Tegger <invalid (AT) invalid (DOT) inv> wrote in
news:Xns9C26AF5F1C519tegger (AT) 208 (DOT) 90.168.18:

Classic Car", and the thing sounds like a proper full blown sports car -
at 30Mph <g>. Lovely engine sound.

z wrote:

When you see Honda products that incorporate seemingly illogical or
unconventional methods, it's be cause Honda does not like to pay patent
royalties. So, they solve the problem by other "original" means.

"Honda, we make "It" different."


--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

"fred" <fred (AT) bedrock (DOT) rock> wrote

the S800. Stratospheric rpms as I recall. I autocrossed a Sunbeam Tiger
(modified) at the time with the Tokyo Sports Car Club, but the S series
Hondas were in a different class than the 4.2 ltr V8 Tiger.

TomP wrote:
oh brother. where do people like you come from? have you never
considered the fact that maybe, just maybe, there was /technical/ merit
to that design?




access to usenet apparently never fixed one either.

jim beam wrote:

Yes, there is always technical merit with a particular design.

But what I said is not untrue.



--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

TomP wrote:
always??? gm, ford, microsoft, etc. can prove you wrong on that one
eight days a week.



no, you we're just guessing.

z wrote:
ok, since nobody else is telling you, i shall.

one of the key components to vehicle performance is weight. lack of it.
drive trains, because of torque requirements, are typically very
heavy. so, if you reduce the torque requirements, you can reduce some
of the weight of the transmission componentry. all you need then is to
have the torque output at the driving wheels, and you're set. [if you
notice, the chain drives are reduction gears, so rpm drops, and torque
increases. it's also worth noting that chains are more mechanically
efficient than gears.]

this approach is not unique. in heavy off-road vehicles for instance,
torque requirements can very high and variable, thus reliability comes
from using relatively low torque componentry through the main drive
line, then [planetary] hub reduction gears for final drive. planetary
hubs are not terribly efficient, but they are very robust. efficiency
is not #1 concern when you're axle deep in mud.

so, going back to the honda, since the vehicle already has a high
revving engine, there is no reason not to take advantage of this and use
a reduction gear at the end of the train, taking advantage of lighter
componentry up to that point. mechanically, it's not a bad system. why
is it not more commonly used? cost, complexity, low revving engines,
limited suspension options. and the highly conservative mind-set of the
typical mechanic.