as above really. Why do stock cars have such heavy ones, the series 4 Turbo one is really heavy compared to a TII or an FD which is lighter still.
Any pro\'s or cons?
A lighter flywheel will allow the engine to rev quicker as there is less mass to be accelerated when you hit the loud pedal. It may give you a little more power right at the top end but the main point is that it makes the engine a tad more responsive.
The downside is that you lose some bottom-end torque as the mass of the heavier flywheel helps to mask the lack thereof on a rotary to a certain extent.
Heavyer flywheel results in more inershia..... smoother running at low speeds as the weight of the flywheel is forcing the engine to turn over!!
Lighter flywheels result in quicker throttel responce as there is less weight to turn on the crank.... this also results in slightly heavyer idleing as there is less weight spinning keeping rotation going between combustion strokes!!
Learnt this on my Mini!!!
Hope its answerd your question (and you can understand what I\'m trying to explain!!)
Jono
torque at the wheels = torque at the crank - driveline inertia
lighter flywheel= less inertia = more torque at the wheels = more power at the wheels
power = torque x rpm
Ant, as above. I have run one from very early on in my modding game. It takes a bit of getting use to as you are either on power or off, so you have to change your style of driving or you feel like you have kangaroo juice in the tank. But fantastic when you want power, bang it\'s there no waiting for the revs to build up. How can I make that sound simple.
Right you have been driving along in low boost mode behind some muppet out for a sunday drive, easy to picture that it\'s happened to us all, you press high boost see your safe overtake and in 3rd she is released and flys--1. Because she is as bored as you. 2. because you have let her have more boost and she responds with lightning speed and 3. because it feels:flamed good.
Well thats what it feels like when you drive an engine with a normal flywheel, sluggish and then drive the same engine with a lightened one it is so much more responsive -- bang power.
Hope that makes sense.
So it seems to be that it does not make the engine more powerful as such, but it allows quicker build up of revs so reaching into the power band more quickly and giving you quicker access to the available power.
Thats what I said but you said it a lot bettttteeeerr than what I did.:Tongue1
Hmmm, people only seem to think it is a good thing... incorrect information again..
A lighter Flywheel also has a bad side like everything else...
\'Like reduced Torque!\' :yes
Best explain before the boo boys start...
It takes effort to get the \'Flywheel\' rotating and stops the engines revs increasing or slowing down quickly. A \'lighter wheel\' takes strain off the engine and allows the engine to rev more freely.
A race-tuned engine increases and decreases revs a lot more quickly than a standard engine.
A result of that with a Turbo charged motor is that the revs drop off quicker so a more rapid gear shift is needed to keep the engine in the sweet spot!
But the big downside to a \'Lighter flywheel\' is that torque is reduced – most noticeably on a hill. Whereas the momentum in the engine is maintained with a heavy flywheel the momentum is reduced and the hill has a much more direct effect on the engine output. Best used in a race situation where the track is flat with a demand for fast engine speed changes and the \'Engine has been tuned to output power matching the flywheel capacity\' (high revving).
You can\'t just throw a \'Lighter wheel\' on and think your car is faster or better, it can be worse...
Different grades of flywheel are available for different situations.
Various weight of flywheel are available allowing you to get the best torque/free revving capabilities. But depends on your engine capablities and requirements which is right for you (weight)..
:Thumbs-up
The lighter you go the less engine braking as well.
Also much easier to bog down when launching unless you keep the revs up, due to the reduced inersia (rotating weight).
The benefit is response.
A lighter or heavier flywheel is not going to change torque one way or another!! People need to get this confusion out of the equation! Most arguments are correct here, but accurately, the torque will not be effected!
It\'s like saying, if i fit bigger wheels, it will reduce the torque. The wheels (Or flywheel in this case) have no impact on the power or torque developed by the engine! A heavier flywheel will reduce the effect of the torque.
Put it another way. Most people know the formula F=ma. Force = mass times acceleration. In rotational mathmatics, Torque is the rotational equivalent to Force. Therefore, if you reduce the mass (It\'s actually \'Moment of inertia\', but lets stick with mass at the moment!) the force will remain the same, but the acceleration will increase. Hence, why people like to go for lighter flywheels: For the same engine torque, you\'re acceleration will be increased. It will depend upon how much lighter (And where the reduction of mass has taken place) the flywheel has been made.
I hope that\'s not got too technical for people!
many thanks guys, i dont want one of those little ali things that weighs nothing, i\'m want a steel one thats a somewhere near the stock FD one or a little less. I couldnt fit the stock FD one as the counter weight is wrong for the low compression S4 rotors i have. Hence going for an aftermarket one.
As i said the s4 one is HUGE. its several pounds heavier than a TII and a TII is heavier than a FD so an FD one would have been great!
is the TII one not the same as an FD one? Ive got a TII one which i removed from a TII and it looks identical and feels of identical weight to the one i removed from my FD
i thought that the TII was heavier but i may be wrong
Nik forget the Maths son... it\'s proven Torque will be reduced.. not on paper with a pen but on actually engine dyno\'s and testing!
Besides it\'s common sense anyway! :)
Torque is not reduced! Explain how torque will be reduced please - i\'d love to know! If i put a brick on top of the engine too, will that reduce torque as well?
Also, have a read of this article. This is the second time i will have posted up an article by this guy. He explains this very clearly, and very sensibly. At no time does he mention that torque is the overiding control involved in lightened flywheels: it\'s mass (or rotation mass to be precise)
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/flywheel.htm
Ant ...im not sur tbh as my engine was such a bodge that it really could be a TII flywheel and cw in there...
WTF? :eek: :wiggle :eek: :Hammer
Quote from: onelastpostWTF? :eek: :wiggle :eek: :Hammer
Wrong thread! :p :D
Quote from: nikpWrong thread! :p :D
oops!!:guinness
Nik I think you lost me with that babble in that link.. As far as I could see there, as I had a scroll through that link and could find nothing about \'Torque\'!
Unless you could prove otherwise!
Not going in to too many details as I could go on for ages to prove it or even have a brief surf on the net here to show you more information!
For now I will use your \'maths equation\'.. (which is not fully correct either)
It\'s like this actually...
Torque = Force x Radius (force in this instance will be \'weight\')(flywheel weight)
Actually I won\'t use science as yet to confuse, I\'ll keep it simple for everyone to understand without the silly maths calculations, as it\'s common sense to see if you understand how \'Torque\' is produced, you will see by reducing any one of \'Force or Radius\', Torque will be reduced!!!!!!!!
(First you must understand how Torque is achieved..)
I attached a small illustration of a common use of Torque.. Looking at the picture, if you move the position(reduce) the Force line, naturally less \'torque\' will be had!
Again if you missed it, less/reduced force(weight), less \'Torque\'...
Right, ok. This could get complicated - and your mention of you getting confused may not help. As you may get lost. Rotational physics does take some explaining, and can be difficult to understand. As you\'re finding it. It\'s fascinating stuff.
QuoteAs far as I could see there, as I had a scroll through that link and could find nothing about \'Torque\'!
That\'s what i said - there is no mention of torque. Torque is not effected by reduction in weight of a flywheel. It\'s all about the reduction inthe moment of enertia which allows something to be accelerated quicker. You really need to understand what is written in that link to be able to understand what reducing the weight of a flywheel does. I\'m afraid it is
all about the mathematcis involved. The problem is, i understand it. You have to understand what he is writing about, to fully appreciate the physics involved in lightened flywheels.
Reducing the weight of a flywheel reduces the moment of inertia. That is the important thing here. Moment of inertia is reduced. That is why you reduce the mass from the outside edges of the flywheel if at all possible (Or at least, as from from the centre as possible). Moment of inertia is the sum of the mass times the radius of that mass squared (mr^2).
Yes, Torque is force times radius. However, my point was torque is the rotational
equivalent of force = mass times acceleration. In rotational terms, force is torque. Mass is the moment of inertia, and acceleration is rotational acceleration. Reducing the moment of inertia has no play on the torque, it increases the rotational acceleration.
Yes, your picture is correct. However, you seem to misunderstand what is generating what!
Hmmmm.....this is difficult for me to put in simple terms. Ok, how about a theoretical ones here. If we have an engine developing 1000Nm of torque, and stick a really really large flywheel on it, so that that engine can only just begin to turn that flywheel, how much torque does that engine have? 1000Nm still. It\'s just having a lot more difficulty in turning that engine.
Ahhh correct... (your last statement)
The \'Motor/engine\' will still be knocking out 1000Nm of Torque, \'But\' the transfer of the Torque or energy to the flywheel and then out will be greatly reduced....
A good example is Steam engines and electric motors which tend to produce maximum torque close to zero rpm, with the torque diminishing as rotational speed rises.... (but this is another example story..lol)
One more example is a Classic DC wound Motor. By varying the field current(\'FORCE/WEIGHT\'), it is possible to alter the speed/torque ratio of the motor... :Thumbs-up
QuoteThe \'Motor/engine\' will still be knocking out 1000Nm of Torque, \'But\' the transfer of the Torque or energy to the flywheel and then out will be greatly reduced....
Ah....I see where you\'re going wrong. Yes, i can see how you\'re coming up with this conclusion. It would appear like that, wouldn\'t it?
In fact, the engine is still producing the exact same torque. Nothing has changed. however, if we then add another flywheel to the same output shaft, is the torque reduced? No. It\'s just that the engines ability to accelerate the combined flywheels has been reduced - the two will accelerate even more slowly.
Lets put this in forward motion terms, instead of rotational terms - it\'s easier to understand. We have a car. It weighs X kg. It can accerlate by Y m/s/s. If we double X (Similar to doubling the weight of the flywheel, but not quite - it\'s due to that pesky moment of inertia thing again!) Y will be halved (We shall be ignoring frictional forces of course). This has had no effect of the torque (or power which is directly linked to torque). The force pushing the car forward is unchanged. It just has more mass to accelerate, and therefore cannot do it as quickly.
Yes it will have more \'force\' pushing the car not \'torque\'.. it\'s different..
Have a think about the \'Electric motor\' example...
Nik don\'t dissappear on this mate, I\'ve got to run off and pay some bills(work..lol):D
Quote from: nikpA heavier flywheel will reduce the effect of the torque.
I think this statement says it all - for me anyway!!
I reckon you guys are both saying exactly the same thing!
Pah! Work, it\'s overated!
In my example i gave, it is essentially the same one as the flywheel issue, but in a forward motion sense as opposed to a rotational sense.
Force will not change in my example, and nor will torque in an engine. It\'s the acceleration that will.
In the elctric motor example, if you had an ordinary run of the mill electric motor, and attached a large automotive flywheel to it, yes it won\'t turn. However, this is not because the motor is not generating any torque. It is still generating torque. It just cannot generate enough torque to turn the wheel. Now, before you jump on and say \'Aha! See, no torque on output\'. I would say two things. Firstly, where has that torque gone? When you lose torque from flywheel to wheels, it is lost through noise and heat energy, which includes friction. There very, very little of it there. In theory, the motor will be able to accelerate the flywheel round, but we all know that it won\'t be able to.
I strongly advise you to read that article, that details exactly how lightened flywheels work. Study the article, and understand it. It\'s very important.
Quote from: onelastpostI think this statement says it all - for me anyway!!
I reckon you guys are both saying exactly the same thing!
No. Perhaps i should clarify: it will reduce the perceived torque. No change will occur. It will appear that torque has been reduced, but in fact it will remain constant (at any given rpm of course)
How about this statement!...
Engine inertia is greater with a heavier flywheel - less with a lighter.
All circuit cars (EDIT: SHOULD) run light flywheels - they are sensational :)
Heavier flywheels are good for hard launches off the starting line at the drags as there is more inertia from the engine.
I remember in 2002 speaking to Rick Engman about the 4rotor at LE Mans (the one that stopped on the first lap! :( ). As they were running a restrictor to reduce power to around 500hp they were having trouble getting the car through and out of corners. So they put a heavier flywheel on it to assist with this - but the downside is slower revving through the gears.
Listen to the 787B videos, idling and revving - it has a very light flywheel. One of my old racecars had a 1 kg aluminium flywheel - it WAS AWESOME! :)
Light flywheels make driving the car in traffic more difficult, and generally speaking that is why the factory flywheels are heavy - as it reduces the jerkiness, and helps keep engine revs through the inertia on low rev starts in 1st gear etc.
I think for a street RX - a 6kg flywheel is quite nice (standard are around 12kgs I think).
lol. 5 pages late they actually agree on an outcome. keeping reading to find out.
Ah, jeez. I aint going into this anymore. This could go on for ever. You\'re certain of your explanation, I\'m certain with the mathmatics and physics of mine. People will (and have) get bored very quickly.
Put it this way:
lighter flywheel = better acceleration.
Heavier flywheel = more consistent revs, less lumpy, potentially easier to drive, easier quick launches from lower revs.
Which explains why mine bogs down easily, if i don\'t give it good revs. I have a lightened flywheel on mine.
Listen to the difference here:
Heavy Flywheel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGLkpIpsCow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGLkpIpsCow)
Light Flywheel: :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLsNKmdvQa4&mode=related&search (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLsNKmdvQa4&mode=related&search)=
See how hard it is to get going without inertia from the engine! (my old RX-4 - which I\'m sure some of you have seen, but it is a good illustration of a super light flywheel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHmoVN2c9ys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHmoVN2c9ys)
Superlight flywheel gives you RSS (repetitive stalling syndrome).
I am sure we all agree here that there is no diifference to torque.
The difference is how the torque is used.
The way i see it is
torque is created by force x radius (distance between centre of crank and connecting rod big end)
force is created by compression (amount of air and fuel in the chamber at the time of ignition)
If the rotating mass is less,less throttle will be needed therefor less force is created and less torque.
But a rotating mass also creates its own kind of torque due to its weight therefor helping when the engine cant apply enough force(eg on a hill)
a lighter flywheel will allow to engine to rev faster
but a heavyier one will help with torque
So its best to pick one correct for your set up
all i will say is 787b, awsome. i want one they sound cool as F***. POWER TO THE ROTARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: D1 WTFall i will say is 787b, awsome. i want one they sound cool as F***. POWER TO THE ROTARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here Here!
With a lighter flywheel you\'ll notice the reduction of the effect of the torque the engine produces especially when you drive up a hill (breath), when driving down a hill or on the flat you will feel the benefit of the lighter flywheel and the engine\'s rev\'s will climb quicker as torque is not as essential (breath again).
A mate of mine had an uber-light flywheel on a Civic VTi (not much torque anyway) and when blasting up a hill it felt like the clutch was slipping!!! when on the flat or downhill the revs just shot up.
Also, with a lighter flywheel, when you take your foot of the gas the engine\'s revs will drop quicker. Vectra V6\'s have a massive flywheel, you can take your foot of the gas and pretty much continue at the same speed!!!
That\'s my laymans version anyway - sod maths, gave that up at 18!
A few weeks ago I had the a prob with starter\\flywheel...........as you all know I ran a machined lightened flywheel on the 13B Bridge,on pull away from a stop,I needed to give it some to get away,driveablity at low rpm was a bitch to say the least,I was always cruising with clutch in or run in a higher gear.
When the clutch let go etc etc,I changed to a stock 12A flywheel\\pressure\\clutch combo.drivability is so much better,pulling away is boring now,low rpm cruising is boring.............:Typing.
The heavy flywheel has given me more torque,engine takes time to rev up,had to adjust carb and idle speed.Because our road speeds are lower than Im used to in the RSA,a slightly heavier flywheel makes sense now.:Typing
Make sense....?????????
Forgot to say,on the race cars running in class C (no bridge or PP port),we ran heavy flywheels,Class A cars running Birdge an PP\'s we ran ultra light flywheels !!!:Typing
Quote from: oldoneA few weeks ago I had the a prob with starter\\flywheel...........as you all know I ran a machined lightened flywheel on the 13B Bridge,on pull away from a stop,I needed to give it some to get away,driveablity at low rpm was a bitch to say the least,I was always cruising with clutch in or run in a higher gear.
When the clutch let go etc etc,I changed to a stock 12A flywheel\\pressure\\clutch combo.drivability is so much better,pulling away is boring now,low rpm cruising is boring.............:Typing.
The heavy flywheel has given me more torque,engine takes time to rev up,had to adjust carb and idle speed.Because our road speeds are lower than Im used to in the RSA,a slightly heavier flywheel makes sense now.:Typing
Make sense....?????????
Hope it is machined steel? and not the original cast material that is machined?
When going uphill, etc on a lightened flywheel and you notice \'less torque\', what you actually noticing is less stored energy in the flywheel.
I have to admit i get a little Confused with this subject. It was explained to me along time ago at collage but had lots of sleep since then.
This is the Bit thats a bit Vauge, i think the Inital Torque Level does drop due to the Rotational mass being less, but same as already said the only real way to change torque all the way through the rev range is to make the crank Throw longer, If you where to Dyno the two cars with and Without a light flywheel they would be fairly Similar. BUT what you are seeing is a difference in the rotational mass Momentum, if you where to stick a heavier flywheel on where the Torque of the starter could only just Turn it would rev very slowly but the Initial weight of the Flywheel would properly keep Turn the engine over after the Ignition has been cut (until the Momentum died off) but if you used a No/Light Flywheel the engine would Die as soon as the motor was Cut, But if you take two engines and increase the Crank throw (Keeping the same Flywheel) you will see a simalr thing (the extra weight of the Rotational mass will want to keep Turning like a Flywheel)
Its the old one cylinder engine theory if the Flywheel is big enough it will effectively throw the engine over rather than it using its own Combustion, but in turn won\'t rev very high. That\'s why a Big one cylinder engine etc will only fire every 30 seconds or so but the weight of the rotating Mass is such it will provide enough Momentum to give the needed Compression for the Next Ignition. What you are seeing is No flywheel so there is very Little mass so with things like Power steering and Alt all this tries to pull the Motor back so when the engine is making its Compression for the Fire its looseing Speed making the Mass important to smooth running,Good idle and the Initial Punch, thats why you have to rev them so the mass is increased due to the RPM not Weight.
Then add to all this if you fit a heavier flywheel to say a drag car for the Initial take off Inertia, Imagine the Centrifugal force at 10,000 rpm of the heavier flywheel as opposed to 10,000 Rpm of the lighter one, it has been Known for the Flywheel to literally explode under load at High RPM.
Like anything there is a happy medium, mazda wanted a car that could be Driven round town knowing there engine was always going to have less Torque than say a Supra, so to get round it Stalling all the time they fitted a heaveir Flywheel to increase the Rotational mass, this is Ok on a Street or even drag car but you can loose a Bit for a Track car ;) (But not all of it as Glen says you loose the Punch out of Corners)
Really good thread this.
Was wanting to ask the question myself.
Right, Imagine you are riding a push bike. A push bike has no flywheel and so can be likened to a car with an ultra light flywheel. As you approach a steep uphill section your legs immediately feel the strain and you start to slow down. The hill is very steep and very soon you come to a complete stop unable to pedal the mass of the bike any further up the hill.
Next (you guessed it) you introduce a 5kg flywheel into the drivechain of the bike and try to pedal up the same hill. Will you get any further?????? Lets assume that you lose 5kg elsewhere off the bike to make up for the additional weight of the flywheel.
You find it a little slower to accelerate the bike and so you are not travelling quite as fast by the time you hit the beginning of the uphill section. The kinetic energy stored in the flywheel eases the immediate pressure on your legs so you don\'t slow down quite as quickly at first, but the pressure still builds and you come to an abrupt halt.
How close to the hill you start will determine which system will take you further up the hill. Given a long enough run up so that you can reach maximum speed in either case, then the stored energy in the flywheel bike will take you further up the hill. But if you start right at the base of the upward slope you may fail to even get the flywheel turning at all and the bike with no flywheel will get you further up the hill.
So what is happening? Your legs have the same muscle power in each example so the torque applied through the pedals is identical in each case. In the flywheel example, as you hit the uphill slope at full speed you benefit from the torque applied to the pedals through your legs + the stored energy in the flywheel to see you up the hill. This gives you an increased effective torque at that instant in time, (because the stored energy in the flywheel is paying you back a bit of the turning force that you lost whilst you were spinning it up to speed) but as you struggle further up the hill, the inertia of the flywheel starts to work against you giving you reduced effective torque.
In the no flywheel example effective torque is consistent throughout.
Overall, the mean torque in both systems is identical.
^^^Apologies for laborious post....:Hammer
The more I think about it the clearer it seems that the stored energy in a flywheel will pay you back torque (at the wheels) at certain times and lose you torque (at the wheels) at other times. For instance, If you had a massive enough flywheel (say half a tonne!!!!) and got it up to speed you could turn off the engine altogether and the flywheel would continue to supply torque to the wheels and move the car forward for a while.
But I am also convinced that the mean torque with or without flywheel is the same.
QuoteIf you had a massive enough flywheel (say half a tonne!!!!) and got it up to speed you could turn off the engine altogether and the flywheel would continue to supply torque to the wheels and move the car forward for a while.
It\'s all about the moment of inertia of a flywheel. where the weight is, not just how heavy it is. In theory, a half a ton flywheel could be made that is easier to turn than a 1kg flywheel. It\'s true - and i\'ll let you all think about that. (And therefore the stored energy will be higher in the lighter flywheel)
OK, so I should modify my wording from \'a half tonne flywheel\' to \'A flywheel with an enormous moment of inertia\' to be more precise.
Of course there are similar concepts in structural engineering where you can make a beam (or structure) much lighter without significantly reducing its strength by cutting out mass in all the right places.
Precisely!
Ooh, you\'re a structual engineer, eh!? I did Civil Engineering as a degree. I\'m not in it as a career though.
Yes I did study Civil Engineering and worked in the field for many years but now run an Electronics company (sounds strange I know).
I think where the misunderstanding has been coming from in saying that \'you lose torque\' in running a lightened flywheel, is that you lose the potential for higher amounts of stored energy that a heavier flywheel can supply. But this is not torque.
Agree with that, but the rotational energy stored in the flywheel can be converted back into torque in the right circumstances, surely.
I think so! But, when considered - the energy that that flywheel has stored does not come from no where. The engine has to supply that energy to spin it. That same engine has to supply less energy to spin a lightened flywheel.
Precisely!!! So while the engine is spinning up the heavier flywheel it has less torque to supply to the driving wheels, (because it is busy storing energy -or \'potential\' torque- in the flywheel). That energy can then be converted back to torque at some point, adding a little increased torque to the driving wheels. The engine then has to spin the flywheel back up again so losing usable torque and so on.......So the mean torque figure is the same with either flywheel but a heavier flywheel gives you more variation in torque output whilst a lighter flywheel gives you less variation in torque output?????
Perhaps we should be talking about this in terms of energy. I assume you know the laws of energy conservation: energy cannot be \'conjoured\' up from anywhere, and nor will it magically dissappear into nothingness. Therefore, whether using a light flywheel, or heavy flywheel, with the same spec engine, the energy that can be supplied by the engine will be constant.
I need a drink!
Quote from: nikpPerhaps we should be talking about this in terms of energy. I assume you know the laws of energy conservation: energy cannot be \'conjoured\' up from anywhere, and nor will it magically dissappear into nothingness. Therefore, whether using a light flywheel, or heavy flywheel, with the same spec engine, the energy that can be supplied by the engine will be constant.
I absolutely understand that. But I am not conjuring up energy from anywhere. My model is clear; there is just energy transfer from engine to flywheel (energy is being temporarily stored in the flywheel) and then at some point it is released again, putting that energy back into the system.
Yes, that sounds right :)
I assume however, that the energy released by the flywheel is only off throttle or part throttle, otherwise energy is being transmitted to the flywheel. However, my understanding of energy transfer has reached it\'s limits and I am only theorising there.
This theory makes sense though, when people say that a heavier flywheel gives better driveability and idling - and also off throttle deceleration.
Quote from: nikpI assume however, that the energy released by the flywheel is only off throttle or part throttle, otherwise energy is being transmitted to the flywheel.
Yes that would be my understanding too....:)
Trex? You still following this?
Better not to wake up the Tyrannosaurus....:bandit
At the end of the day you fit the flywheel to suit what you intend to use the car for, a lightend FW [6kg] for fast road / sometimes track, stock for yer dragging, stupid [3kg] for full on race:WaveBye HTH
oh by the way changing the weight will not alter your torque:Thumbsup!
Quote from: Glenn ButcherHope it is machined steel? and not the original cast material that is machined?
heheheheheh.learned that lesson 14 years ago bud...........:o :Typing
Friend of mine...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2pz1PkhAo8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2pz1PkhAo8)
I am so blessed to be in the same room as all you tech boffs....:Thumbs-up ,all the explaining you do has been very entertaining.:Typing I wish that you could have been at some of the testing sessions,where we actually tested differant flywheel clutch combinations........to change the driveability of the car,in and out of corners,top speed attained reletive to coner exits,change of braking points etc.........:Talking1
So to quite honest and to be rude..:o the normal person without the experience will never know or feel the differance of the diff combinations.Hence the only way to educate someone is to actaully do the test and let them get the \'feel\'..........
Make sense ?
Quote from: Glenn ButcherFriend of mine...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2pz1PkhAo8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2pz1PkhAo8)
I can still smell,feel and hear it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Glenn ButcherFriend of mine...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2pz1PkhAo8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2pz1PkhAo8)
Thats not funny nor clever - experience is the key, learn from those that have gone before - amen
Quote from: oldoneI am so blessed to be in the same room as all you tech boffs....:Thumbs-up ,all the explaining you do has been very entertaining.:Typing I wish that you could have been at some of the testing sessions,where we actually tested differant flywheel clutch combinations........to change the driveability of the car,in and out of corners,top speed attained reletive to coner exits,change of braking points etc.........:Talking1
So to quite honest and to be rude..:o the normal person without the experience will never know or feel the differance of the diff combinations.Hence the only way to educate someone is to actaully do the test and let them get the \'feel\'..........
Make sense ?
Understand exactly where you are coming from, but you should not completely discard the merits of theory either. There is a place for both. One man might design an aeroplane but it may take a very different kind of guy to actually fly it...If you get my drift...;)
Quote from: AdriansturgessAgree with that, but the rotational energy stored in the flywheel can be converted back into torque in the right circumstances, surely.
Yes, when you take your foot off the throttle and the car with a heavy flywheel takes longer to slow down than one with a light flywheel.
Quote from: John YorkeThats not funny nor clever - experience is the key, learn from those that have gone before - amen
Yes John,got the scars !!!!!!!!!!!:guinness ...
Quote from: MaveYes, when you take your foot off the throttle and the car with a heavy flywheel takes longer to slow down than one with a light flywheel.
Only ..you never take your foot off the loud pedal heheheheheheh:evillaugh :D :cool
On a serious note,with a light flywheel,you have to stay on the boil all the time...as when you take your foot off the car puts its head between its legs and slows down now !!!!
Better and longer than war and peace is this.
John Yorkes comment about 10 posts earlier was almost what I wanted. I have been considering a lighter fly wheel for fast road and occaisional track use. I don\'t however want to lose driveability of the car. Somewher down the thred someone described it as \'Kangaroo\' driving, I know what they mean.
I take it with a lightened wheel say 6kg for arguments sake, is the tick over an idling okay. Does the car remain driveable in slow moving traffic. I want the car to remain practical. Any suggestions as to manufacturers of flywheels.
ta
Just wanted to say fantastic read.