Rotating vs. Static weight -- a giggle
Thread Starter
Suzuka Master
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,388
Likes: 1
From: Ninth Gate & So Cal
Rotating vs. Static weight -- a giggle
I found this looking for Dodge Dart hood scoops (someone wants to cut a hole in the car somewhere):
Check the link if you ever had any doubts about losing weight in rotating components making much more difference than just going on a "diet" (or going for light batteries):
link: http://www.bigblockdart.com/rotating...tingweight.htm
Check the link if you ever had any doubts about losing weight in rotating components making much more difference than just going on a "diet" (or going for light batteries):
link: http://www.bigblockdart.com/rotating...tingweight.htm
Thread Starter
Suzuka Master
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,388
Likes: 1
From: Ninth Gate & So Cal
Torque reducing or reflected mass increased via gearing & other stuff
[
--------------
CASE 4 (losing 15lbs at the engine) Improvement Factor = 15 (last case first -- since you asked about this first)
You mean at Engine speed -- he(they) are referring to losing 15lbs at the engine. Shawn will be thrilled -- perhaps they will make a lightened flywheel for him. The flywheel is moving fastest (regardless of gear [well, mostly so]), so that's where the biggest gain is. It doesn't have to be the flywheel (but, they didn't exactly explain how homogenous the weight was and where it is removed). It is just a "rough" rule of where weight gets chopped off, and the resulting gains in equivalent HP. For example, the pulleys help by reducing the same type of weight at the engine (in addition, they slow down other heavy moving parts, like the alternator). (The pulley example is a little "off", since it also is reducing the power consumed by the accessories too...) Another example would be a lightened torque converter (that didn't break) or a super light crankshaft.
(Don't forget the analogy with wheels -- the weight you remove at the very outside of a wheel or tire is much more important than the weight at the inner diameters. (One wouldn't expect a super loss in rotational inertia by removing weight of the a 1/2" drive shaft; lose that weight sitting 1 foot out from center on a wheel, and your talking jackpot (same goes with a non-homogenous flywheel -- the weight removed from the outer portion of the disk will help the most.)
----------------
----------------
CASE 1: stock car -- no weight loss. Improvement factor = 0
(No kidding, no gain -- reference point for 3000lb car)
-----------------
-----------------
CASE 2: losing 15lbs of static/dead weight in the car. Improvement factor = 1
Just loosing weight in the car (like going on a diet or getting a light weight seats, lighter battery, etc.)
------------------
------------------
CASE 3: (Loosing 15lbs at axle speed. Improvement factor = 3)
Similar to removing weight of a driveshaft. There are some people who will relate the reduction of wheel weight/tire weight as being bounded at 3:1 to 6:1 depending on who does the math.
-------------------
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:1, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, you are really going to slow the mess down; that load (rotational inertia is really felt)
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:10, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, it wont be as hard to accelerate that weight. Since you have the equivalent to a lever, it is not that hard to move that weight. Think of gears like a lever and fulcrum. But, instead of the weight going up and down, it is going round-and-round. The principal is the same. If you add the weight and have tremendous mechanical advantage, a very great load on the slow speed side of the gearbox, doesn't effect the acceleration, as would a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio.
One could even look at the reverse side of a gearbox as reflected load. So, if I have a gear ratio of 1:4 and the output gear pulls on a string with a weight of 10lbs hanging from an attached pulley. The output pulley would need 4 turns of the input gear to make the output gear turn once. (You say, “So what! However, that 10lbs would appear like a 2.5lb load to the motor driving the input side of that 1:4 gearbox.)
Our gear ratios are:
1st 2.563 / 4.428 approx overall ratio 1:11
2nd 1.551 / 4.428 1:7
3rd 1.021 / 4.428 1:5
4th 0.653 / 4.428 1:3
5th 0.470 / 4.428 1:2
Using Final 4.428 ratio
So, the weight of the car and rotating mass looks like reflected load, and that’s another way to look at why you get good acceleration in lower gears, and less acceleration as you go from 1:11 to 1:2 (For you electronic people, a gear box is similar to a transformer in more ways than you could expect!) (This is just the opposite way to look at the reduction in torque from the engine to the wheels)
Originally posted by JRock
So how do I lose 15 pounds "@ Engine Weight" whatever that means?
So how do I lose 15 pounds "@ Engine Weight" whatever that means?
CASE 4 (losing 15lbs at the engine) Improvement Factor = 15 (last case first -- since you asked about this first)
You mean at Engine speed -- he(they) are referring to losing 15lbs at the engine. Shawn will be thrilled -- perhaps they will make a lightened flywheel for him. The flywheel is moving fastest (regardless of gear [well, mostly so]), so that's where the biggest gain is. It doesn't have to be the flywheel (but, they didn't exactly explain how homogenous the weight was and where it is removed). It is just a "rough" rule of where weight gets chopped off, and the resulting gains in equivalent HP. For example, the pulleys help by reducing the same type of weight at the engine (in addition, they slow down other heavy moving parts, like the alternator). (The pulley example is a little "off", since it also is reducing the power consumed by the accessories too...) Another example would be a lightened torque converter (that didn't break) or a super light crankshaft.
(Don't forget the analogy with wheels -- the weight you remove at the very outside of a wheel or tire is much more important than the weight at the inner diameters. (One wouldn't expect a super loss in rotational inertia by removing weight of the a 1/2" drive shaft; lose that weight sitting 1 foot out from center on a wheel, and your talking jackpot (same goes with a non-homogenous flywheel -- the weight removed from the outer portion of the disk will help the most.)
----------------
----------------
CASE 1: stock car -- no weight loss. Improvement factor = 0
(No kidding, no gain -- reference point for 3000lb car)
-----------------
-----------------
CASE 2: losing 15lbs of static/dead weight in the car. Improvement factor = 1
Just loosing weight in the car (like going on a diet or getting a light weight seats, lighter battery, etc.)
------------------
------------------
CASE 3: (Loosing 15lbs at axle speed. Improvement factor = 3)
Similar to removing weight of a driveshaft. There are some people who will relate the reduction of wheel weight/tire weight as being bounded at 3:1 to 6:1 depending on who does the math.
-------------------
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:1, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, you are really going to slow the mess down; that load (rotational inertia is really felt)
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:10, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, it wont be as hard to accelerate that weight. Since you have the equivalent to a lever, it is not that hard to move that weight. Think of gears like a lever and fulcrum. But, instead of the weight going up and down, it is going round-and-round. The principal is the same. If you add the weight and have tremendous mechanical advantage, a very great load on the slow speed side of the gearbox, doesn't effect the acceleration, as would a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio.
One could even look at the reverse side of a gearbox as reflected load. So, if I have a gear ratio of 1:4 and the output gear pulls on a string with a weight of 10lbs hanging from an attached pulley. The output pulley would need 4 turns of the input gear to make the output gear turn once. (You say, “So what! However, that 10lbs would appear like a 2.5lb load to the motor driving the input side of that 1:4 gearbox.)
Our gear ratios are:
1st 2.563 / 4.428 approx overall ratio 1:11
2nd 1.551 / 4.428 1:7
3rd 1.021 / 4.428 1:5
4th 0.653 / 4.428 1:3
5th 0.470 / 4.428 1:2
Using Final 4.428 ratio
So, the weight of the car and rotating mass looks like reflected load, and that’s another way to look at why you get good acceleration in lower gears, and less acceleration as you go from 1:11 to 1:2 (For you electronic people, a gear box is similar to a transformer in more ways than you could expect!) (This is just the opposite way to look at the reduction in torque from the engine to the wheels)
Cost Drivers!!!!
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 19,392
Likes: 1
From: burbs of philly
Re: Torque reducing or reflected mass increased via gearing & other stuff
Originally posted by EricL
[
--------------
CASE 4 (losing 15lbs at the engine) Improvement Factor = 15 (last case first -- since you asked about this first)
You mean at Engine speed -- he(they) are referring to losing 15lbs at the engine. Shawn will be thrilled -- perhaps they will make a lightened flywheel for him. The flywheel is moving fastest (regardless of gear [well, mostly so]), so that's where the biggest gain is. It doesn't have to be the flywheel (but, they didn't exactly explain how homogenous the weight was and where it is removed). It is just a "rough" rule of where weight gets chopped off, and the resulting gains in equivalent HP. For example, the pulleys help by reducing the same type of weight at the engine (in addition, they slow down other heavy moving parts, like the alternator). (The pulley example is a little "off", since it also is reducing the power consumed by the accessories too...) Another example would be a lightened torque converter (that didn't break) or a super light crankshaft.
(Don't forget the analogy with wheels -- the weight you remove at the very outside of a wheel or tire is much more important than the weight at the inner diameters. (One wouldn't expect a super loss in rotational inertia by removing weight of the a 1/2" drive shaft; lose that weight sitting 1 foot out from center on a wheel, and your talking jackpot (same goes with a non-homogenous flywheel -- the weight removed from the outer portion of the disk will help the most.)
----------------
----------------
CASE 1: stock car -- no weight loss. Improvement factor = 0
(No kidding, no gain -- reference point for 3000lb car)
-----------------
-----------------
CASE 2: losing 15lbs of static/dead weight in the car. Improvement factor = 1
Just loosing weight in the car (like going on a diet or getting a light weight seats, lighter battery, etc.)
------------------
------------------
CASE 3: (Loosing 15lbs at axle speed. Improvement factor = 3)
Similar to removing weight of a driveshaft. There are some people who will relate the reduction of wheel weight/tire weight as being bounded at 3:1 to 6:1 depending on who does the math.
-------------------
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:1, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, you are really going to slow the mess down; that load (rotational inertia is really felt)
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:10, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, it wont be as hard to accelerate that weight. Since you have the equivalent to a lever, it is not that hard to move that weight. Think of gears like a lever and fulcrum. But, instead of the weight going up and down, it is going round-and-round. The principal is the same. If you add the weight and have tremendous mechanical advantage, a very great load on the slow speed side of the gearbox, doesn't effect the acceleration, as would a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio.
One could even look at the reverse side of a gearbox as reflected load. So, if I have a gear ratio of 1:4 and the output gear pulls on a string with a weight of 10lbs hanging from an attached pulley. The output pulley would need 4 turns of the input gear to make the output gear turn once. (You say, “So what! However, that 10lbs would appear like a 2.5lb load to the motor driving the input side of that 1:4 gearbox.)
Our gear ratios are:
1st 2.563 / 4.428 approx overall ratio 1:11
2nd 1.551 / 4.428 1:7
3rd 1.021 / 4.428 1:5
4th 0.653 / 4.428 1:3
5th 0.470 / 4.428 1:2
Using Final 4.428 ratio
So, the weight of the car and rotating mass looks like reflected load, and that’s another way to look at why you get good acceleration in lower gears, and less acceleration as you go from 1:11 to 1:2 (For you electronic people, a gear box is similar to a transformer in more ways than you could expect!) (This is just the opposite way to look at the reduction in torque from the engine to the wheels)
[
--------------
CASE 4 (losing 15lbs at the engine) Improvement Factor = 15 (last case first -- since you asked about this first)
You mean at Engine speed -- he(they) are referring to losing 15lbs at the engine. Shawn will be thrilled -- perhaps they will make a lightened flywheel for him. The flywheel is moving fastest (regardless of gear [well, mostly so]), so that's where the biggest gain is. It doesn't have to be the flywheel (but, they didn't exactly explain how homogenous the weight was and where it is removed). It is just a "rough" rule of where weight gets chopped off, and the resulting gains in equivalent HP. For example, the pulleys help by reducing the same type of weight at the engine (in addition, they slow down other heavy moving parts, like the alternator). (The pulley example is a little "off", since it also is reducing the power consumed by the accessories too...) Another example would be a lightened torque converter (that didn't break) or a super light crankshaft.
(Don't forget the analogy with wheels -- the weight you remove at the very outside of a wheel or tire is much more important than the weight at the inner diameters. (One wouldn't expect a super loss in rotational inertia by removing weight of the a 1/2" drive shaft; lose that weight sitting 1 foot out from center on a wheel, and your talking jackpot (same goes with a non-homogenous flywheel -- the weight removed from the outer portion of the disk will help the most.)
----------------
----------------
CASE 1: stock car -- no weight loss. Improvement factor = 0
(No kidding, no gain -- reference point for 3000lb car)
-----------------
-----------------
CASE 2: losing 15lbs of static/dead weight in the car. Improvement factor = 1
Just loosing weight in the car (like going on a diet or getting a light weight seats, lighter battery, etc.)
------------------
------------------
CASE 3: (Loosing 15lbs at axle speed. Improvement factor = 3)
Similar to removing weight of a driveshaft. There are some people who will relate the reduction of wheel weight/tire weight as being bounded at 3:1 to 6:1 depending on who does the math.
-------------------
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:1, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, you are really going to slow the mess down; that load (rotational inertia is really felt)
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:10, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, it wont be as hard to accelerate that weight. Since you have the equivalent to a lever, it is not that hard to move that weight. Think of gears like a lever and fulcrum. But, instead of the weight going up and down, it is going round-and-round. The principal is the same. If you add the weight and have tremendous mechanical advantage, a very great load on the slow speed side of the gearbox, doesn't effect the acceleration, as would a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio.
One could even look at the reverse side of a gearbox as reflected load. So, if I have a gear ratio of 1:4 and the output gear pulls on a string with a weight of 10lbs hanging from an attached pulley. The output pulley would need 4 turns of the input gear to make the output gear turn once. (You say, “So what! However, that 10lbs would appear like a 2.5lb load to the motor driving the input side of that 1:4 gearbox.)
Our gear ratios are:
1st 2.563 / 4.428 approx overall ratio 1:11
2nd 1.551 / 4.428 1:7
3rd 1.021 / 4.428 1:5
4th 0.653 / 4.428 1:3
5th 0.470 / 4.428 1:2
Using Final 4.428 ratio
So, the weight of the car and rotating mass looks like reflected load, and that’s another way to look at why you get good acceleration in lower gears, and less acceleration as you go from 1:11 to 1:2 (For you electronic people, a gear box is similar to a transformer in more ways than you could expect!) (This is just the opposite way to look at the reduction in torque from the engine to the wheels)
Ugh, Eric, :shakehd: it's to early in the morning for posts like this
hehe I need to go and wake up.....then try and re-read this post and make some sense of it 
Community Architect
robb m.
robb m.
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 72,841
Likes: 660
From: ON
Eric, thanks once again...
I know that my Volks made significant difference with my CL-S...when Crippen and I got our headers on, we both raced, several times...I had my Volks and he had the stock rims...I won every time we raced....
Then, later that day we went and dyno'd and discovered that my IMRC module was not working and I was down more than 20HP to him...so my light rims, made up for that!
Before I put the turbo motor in my porsche, I did a lot of work to the NA motor...including s lighter flywheel and clutch...it made a MASSIVE difference...the car reved up and down a lot faster, making blipping the throttle on downshifts easier and really making the car feel a lot snappier....
Would doing things like getting ti rods and a light crank really make enough difference to justify the cost...I'm not sure about that one...
I know that my Volks made significant difference with my CL-S...when Crippen and I got our headers on, we both raced, several times...I had my Volks and he had the stock rims...I won every time we raced....
Then, later that day we went and dyno'd and discovered that my IMRC module was not working and I was down more than 20HP to him...so my light rims, made up for that!
Before I put the turbo motor in my porsche, I did a lot of work to the NA motor...including s lighter flywheel and clutch...it made a MASSIVE difference...the car reved up and down a lot faster, making blipping the throttle on downshifts easier and really making the car feel a lot snappier....
Would doing things like getting ti rods and a light crank really make enough difference to justify the cost...I'm not sure about that one...
Racer
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Re: Torque reducing or reflected mass increased via gearing & other stuff
Originally posted by EricL
...(Don't forget the analogy with wheels -- the weight you remove at the very outside of a wheel or tire is much more important than the weight at the inner diameters...)
...(Don't forget the analogy with wheels -- the weight you remove at the very outside of a wheel or tire is much more important than the weight at the inner diameters...)
Trending Topics
Re: Torque reducing or reflected mass increased via gearing & other stuff
Originally posted by EricL
[
--------------
CASE 4 (losing 15lbs at the engine) Improvement Factor = 15 (last case first -- since you asked about this first)
You mean at Engine speed -- he(they) are referring to losing 15lbs at the engine. Shawn will be thrilled -- perhaps they will make a lightened flywheel for him. The flywheel is moving fastest (regardless of gear [well, mostly so]), so that's where the biggest gain is. It doesn't have to be the flywheel (but, they didn't exactly explain how homogenous the weight was and where it is removed). It is just a "rough" rule of where weight gets chopped off, and the resulting gains in equivalent HP. For example, the pulleys help by reducing the same type of weight at the engine (in addition, they slow down other heavy moving parts, like the alternator). (The pulley example is a little "off", since it also is reducing the power consumed by the accessories too...) Another example would be a lightened torque converter (that didn't break) or a super light crankshaft.
(Don't forget the analogy with wheels -- the weight you remove at the very outside of a wheel or tire is much more important than the weight at the inner diameters. (One wouldn't expect a super loss in rotational inertia by removing weight of the a 1/2" drive shaft; lose that weight sitting 1 foot out from center on a wheel, and your talking jackpot (same goes with a non-homogenous flywheel -- the weight removed from the outer portion of the disk will help the most.)
----------------
----------------
CASE 1: stock car -- no weight loss. Improvement factor = 0
(No kidding, no gain -- reference point for 3000lb car)
-----------------
-----------------
CASE 2: losing 15lbs of static/dead weight in the car. Improvement factor = 1
Just loosing weight in the car (like going on a diet or getting a light weight seats, lighter battery, etc.)
------------------
------------------
CASE 3: (Loosing 15lbs at axle speed. Improvement factor = 3)
Similar to removing weight of a driveshaft. There are some people who will relate the reduction of wheel weight/tire weight as being bounded at 3:1 to 6:1 depending on who does the math.
-------------------
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:1, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, you are really going to slow the mess down; that load (rotational inertia is really felt)
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:10, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, it wont be as hard to accelerate that weight. Since you have the equivalent to a lever, it is not that hard to move that weight. Think of gears like a lever and fulcrum. But, instead of the weight going up and down, it is going round-and-round. The principal is the same. If you add the weight and have tremendous mechanical advantage, a very great load on the slow speed side of the gearbox, doesn't effect the acceleration, as would a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio.
One could even look at the reverse side of a gearbox as reflected load. So, if I have a gear ratio of 1:4 and the output gear pulls on a string with a weight of 10lbs hanging from an attached pulley. The output pulley would need 4 turns of the input gear to make the output gear turn once. (You say, “So what! However, that 10lbs would appear like a 2.5lb load to the motor driving the input side of that 1:4 gearbox.)
Our gear ratios are:
1st 2.563 / 4.428 approx overall ratio 1:11
2nd 1.551 / 4.428 1:7
3rd 1.021 / 4.428 1:5
4th 0.653 / 4.428 1:3
5th 0.470 / 4.428 1:2
Using Final 4.428 ratio
So, the weight of the car and rotating mass looks like reflected load, and that’s another way to look at why you get good acceleration in lower gears, and less acceleration as you go from 1:11 to 1:2 (For you electronic people, a gear box is similar to a transformer in more ways than you could expect!) (This is just the opposite way to look at the reduction in torque from the engine to the wheels)
[
--------------
CASE 4 (losing 15lbs at the engine) Improvement Factor = 15 (last case first -- since you asked about this first)
You mean at Engine speed -- he(they) are referring to losing 15lbs at the engine. Shawn will be thrilled -- perhaps they will make a lightened flywheel for him. The flywheel is moving fastest (regardless of gear [well, mostly so]), so that's where the biggest gain is. It doesn't have to be the flywheel (but, they didn't exactly explain how homogenous the weight was and where it is removed). It is just a "rough" rule of where weight gets chopped off, and the resulting gains in equivalent HP. For example, the pulleys help by reducing the same type of weight at the engine (in addition, they slow down other heavy moving parts, like the alternator). (The pulley example is a little "off", since it also is reducing the power consumed by the accessories too...) Another example would be a lightened torque converter (that didn't break) or a super light crankshaft.
(Don't forget the analogy with wheels -- the weight you remove at the very outside of a wheel or tire is much more important than the weight at the inner diameters. (One wouldn't expect a super loss in rotational inertia by removing weight of the a 1/2" drive shaft; lose that weight sitting 1 foot out from center on a wheel, and your talking jackpot (same goes with a non-homogenous flywheel -- the weight removed from the outer portion of the disk will help the most.)
----------------
----------------
CASE 1: stock car -- no weight loss. Improvement factor = 0
(No kidding, no gain -- reference point for 3000lb car)
-----------------
-----------------
CASE 2: losing 15lbs of static/dead weight in the car. Improvement factor = 1
Just loosing weight in the car (like going on a diet or getting a light weight seats, lighter battery, etc.)
------------------
------------------
CASE 3: (Loosing 15lbs at axle speed. Improvement factor = 3)
Similar to removing weight of a driveshaft. There are some people who will relate the reduction of wheel weight/tire weight as being bounded at 3:1 to 6:1 depending on who does the math.
-------------------
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:1, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, you are really going to slow the mess down; that load (rotational inertia is really felt)
If you try and speed up an object that is geared 1:10, and you add 20 lbs to the driven gear, it wont be as hard to accelerate that weight. Since you have the equivalent to a lever, it is not that hard to move that weight. Think of gears like a lever and fulcrum. But, instead of the weight going up and down, it is going round-and-round. The principal is the same. If you add the weight and have tremendous mechanical advantage, a very great load on the slow speed side of the gearbox, doesn't effect the acceleration, as would a 1:1 ratio or a 2:1 ratio.
One could even look at the reverse side of a gearbox as reflected load. So, if I have a gear ratio of 1:4 and the output gear pulls on a string with a weight of 10lbs hanging from an attached pulley. The output pulley would need 4 turns of the input gear to make the output gear turn once. (You say, “So what! However, that 10lbs would appear like a 2.5lb load to the motor driving the input side of that 1:4 gearbox.)
Our gear ratios are:
1st 2.563 / 4.428 approx overall ratio 1:11
2nd 1.551 / 4.428 1:7
3rd 1.021 / 4.428 1:5
4th 0.653 / 4.428 1:3
5th 0.470 / 4.428 1:2
Using Final 4.428 ratio
So, the weight of the car and rotating mass looks like reflected load, and that’s another way to look at why you get good acceleration in lower gears, and less acceleration as you go from 1:11 to 1:2 (For you electronic people, a gear box is similar to a transformer in more ways than you could expect!) (This is just the opposite way to look at the reduction in torque from the engine to the wheels)
uhhhhhhh huh
That made my head hurt.
Curiosity Killed The CL-S
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, CA
EricL:
This is a very very very nice post!! I don't quite get the part about lighter flywheel versus lighter wheels though. I would have thought that losing 15lbs at the wheels would be more beneficial. My reasoning is that wheels are about 17 inches in diameter. So losing 15 lbs at 8.5 inches would yield the equivalent of about 10 lb-ft of extra torque (15 * 8.5/12). And since I don't think the flywheel is 17 inches in diameter, how could that provide more gain? I'm sure I'm missing something since losing weight at the flywheel seems more correct "intuitively". Please educate me! Thanks!
This is a very very very nice post!! I don't quite get the part about lighter flywheel versus lighter wheels though. I would have thought that losing 15lbs at the wheels would be more beneficial. My reasoning is that wheels are about 17 inches in diameter. So losing 15 lbs at 8.5 inches would yield the equivalent of about 10 lb-ft of extra torque (15 * 8.5/12). And since I don't think the flywheel is 17 inches in diameter, how could that provide more gain? I'm sure I'm missing something since losing weight at the flywheel seems more correct "intuitively". Please educate me! Thanks!
Banned
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,418
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
EricL:
A question Eric...about the flywheel...I was under the impression that our cars did not actually have a flywheel...but a drive plate directly coupled?
Also...by giving yourself a lighter flywheel you are trading off for engine smoothness. The engine isn't one smooth machine...it is in our cases six individually firing pistons...which make for a very bumpy shaft without or with a lighter flywheel, especially at idle. So much like the pulleys are great they basically neuter your electronics and power steering.
A lighter TC or drive plate or camshaft...or hell pistons even...would be nice and with no tradeoff...but things like your flywheel you have to be a wee bit more cautious of.
Austin519
A question Eric...about the flywheel...I was under the impression that our cars did not actually have a flywheel...but a drive plate directly coupled?
Also...by giving yourself a lighter flywheel you are trading off for engine smoothness. The engine isn't one smooth machine...it is in our cases six individually firing pistons...which make for a very bumpy shaft without or with a lighter flywheel, especially at idle. So much like the pulleys are great they basically neuter your electronics and power steering.
A lighter TC or drive plate or camshaft...or hell pistons even...would be nice and with no tradeoff...but things like your flywheel you have to be a wee bit more cautious of.
Austin519
Banned
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,418
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Loseit:
Sort of...though the pulley kits they're talking about are using pulleys that are a different size from stock to give less power to the power steering and alternator in turn for more power to the drivetrain...
Austin519
Sort of...though the pulley kits they're talking about are using pulleys that are a different size from stock to give less power to the power steering and alternator in turn for more power to the drivetrain...
Austin519
S/C'd Accord Coming Soon!
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: Lafayette, LA | Houston, TX (Weekends)
Some lightweight pistons, connecting rods, valves and camshafts would be a good place to start for reducing engine weight.
Hell just get those VTEC cheater valve rockers that ProtoType Racing makes, and you could have someone custom grind a camshaft that only has ONE lobe instead of THREE lobes for the intake valves.
Someday I will have an Accord that runs 12's.... someday.
Hell just get those VTEC cheater valve rockers that ProtoType Racing makes, and you could have someone custom grind a camshaft that only has ONE lobe instead of THREE lobes for the intake valves.
Someday I will have an Accord that runs 12's.... someday.
Banned
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,418
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Loseit:
BNut:
Nah man...come help me out on my project...DIY jet engine install...granted it only runs for 45 seconds on the gas tank...but that's a friggin incredible 45 seconds Find a way to hide it (sleeper car) and we can go make some serious money...hell we could even but stock tires on there if we wanted...wouldnt' matter if they were turning or not with the jet engine
Austin519
BNut:
Nah man...come help me out on my project...DIY jet engine install...granted it only runs for 45 seconds on the gas tank...but that's a friggin incredible 45 seconds
Find a way to hide it (sleeper car) and we can go make some serious money...hell we could even but stock tires on there if we wanted...wouldnt' matter if they were turning or not with the jet engine Austin519
Got BOOST????
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
From: NY, Lovely Long Island
there not just talking about undersizing pullys, they are making them lighter. the unorthordox pullys for the crank are not undersized, but 6 lbs lighter (i think) than stock, that's y they are suppose to gain so much hp. the flywheel is for the six speed people, not automatic. if u can reduce weight from anything that rotates, it will make a big difference,no?? correct me if i'm wrong.
Smack My B*tch Up
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,213
Likes: 0
From: W. Bloomfield, MI
Originally posted by Austin519
Loseit:
Sort of...though the pulley kits they're talking about are using pulleys that are a different size from stock to give less power to the power steering and alternator in turn for more power to the drivetrain...
Austin519
Loseit:
Sort of...though the pulley kits they're talking about are using pulleys that are a different size from stock to give less power to the power steering and alternator in turn for more power to the drivetrain...
Austin519
S/C'd Accord Coming Soon!
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: Lafayette, LA | Houston, TX (Weekends)
Originally posted by Austin519
BNut:
Nah man...come help me out on my project...DIY jet engine install...granted it only runs for 45 seconds on the gas tank...but that's a friggin incredible 45 seconds Find a way to hide it (sleeper car) and we can go make some serious money...hell we could even but stock tires on there if we wanted...wouldnt' matter if they were turning or not with the jet engine
Austin519
BNut:
Nah man...come help me out on my project...DIY jet engine install...granted it only runs for 45 seconds on the gas tank...but that's a friggin incredible 45 seconds
Find a way to hide it (sleeper car) and we can go make some serious money...hell we could even but stock tires on there if we wanted...wouldnt' matter if they were turning or not with the jet engine Austin519
Also a HUGE AZZ wing would be in order as well to provide downforce so the car doesn't go airborn. It would look like the perfect riced out POS, but who's gonna be counting the money at the end of the night?
Banned
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,418
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
bnavarro:
Nah you're totally right. I want a lighter TC, camshaft, drive plate, pulleys, etc etc etc. You will get MUCH quicker responsiveness this way. The whole difference about rotating weight I think, correct me if I am wrong...is yes you ARE removing rotating weight so the energy used to rotate it can go to other things now...but if you reach some constant speed then it won't take you any more energy if it was heavier than if it was lighter (some random rotating piece), aside from the small impact of friction. What changes is your car's responsiveness to speed changes. However, you WILL benefit from a virtual increase in power by the decrease in REAL weight of the pieces, not rotating mass.
Samer007:
You're right...I didn't know that. But I still don't want undersized pulleys...a bit edgy to me.
BNut:
I swear man if I ever make enough money I WILL do that...get some car you'd never expect...like a Ford Taurus...and all you see is some weird big hole in the back with carbon deposits. And of course you have a curved lip in the front to provide downforce as well as a HUGE wing...then we fire it up and everyone's like OMG rocket engine...and while he's still peeling out I'm on the other side of the checkered line trying to slow down
Austin519
Nah you're totally right. I want a lighter TC, camshaft, drive plate, pulleys, etc etc etc. You will get MUCH quicker responsiveness this way. The whole difference about rotating weight I think, correct me if I am wrong...is yes you ARE removing rotating weight so the energy used to rotate it can go to other things now...but if you reach some constant speed then it won't take you any more energy if it was heavier than if it was lighter (some random rotating piece), aside from the small impact of friction. What changes is your car's responsiveness to speed changes. However, you WILL benefit from a virtual increase in power by the decrease in REAL weight of the pieces, not rotating mass.
Samer007:
You're right...I didn't know that. But I still don't want undersized pulleys...a bit edgy to me.
BNut:
I swear man if I ever make enough money I WILL do that...get some car you'd never expect...like a Ford Taurus...and all you see is some weird big hole in the back with carbon deposits. And of course you have a curved lip in the front to provide downforce as well as a HUGE wing...then we fire it up and everyone's like OMG rocket engine...and while he's still peeling out I'm on the other side of the checkered line trying to slow down
Austin519
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
4drviper
3G TL Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
1
Apr 23, 2025 07:13 PM
navtool.com
5G TLX Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
31
Nov 16, 2015 08:30 PM
navtool.com
1G RDX Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
1
Sep 25, 2015 05:15 PM