Notices
Series I Aftermarket Performance Modifications Discussion of power adding modifications

Pulley pulleys pulleys!

Thread Tools
 
Rate Thread
 
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 11:55 AM
  #251  
Brettus's Avatar
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,856
Likes: 1,807
From: Y-cat-o NZ
Originally Posted by speeddemon32

lets say for numbers sake an RX-8 with 238 h.p. can no longer push the 3200 pound car through the air at 160 MPH. (which is pretty close, and of course depends on air density) assuming your in the same car, with the same power, at the same race track, on the same day, at the same time of day, with the same temperature, and the same air density, (get my drift) that same 238 h.p. engine could push a 2200 pound car through the air at lets say 170 M.P.H. because it does not also have to push that extra 1000 pounds. it leaves more power on tap to fight the resistance.

.
I agree with 4 yrs . Your car could weigh 10 pounds and it would still have an almost identical top speed as the 3200 pound car . Weight is not a factor with top speed only air and rolling resistance .
And rolling resistance will only be very slightly more on a heavier car

Last edited by Brettus; Jan 15, 2008 at 11:59 AM.
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 12:21 PM
  #252  
staticlag's Avatar
The Professor
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,479
Likes: 7
From: Omaha, NE
Originally Posted by Brettus
I agree with 4 yrs . Your car could weigh 10 pounds and it would still have an almost identical top speed as the 3200 pound car . Weight is not a factor with top speed only air and rolling resistance .
And rolling resistance will only be very slightly more on a heavier car
So your telling me that a car with a weed-eater engine that weighs 3200 lbs is going to have the same top speed as a car that weighs 10lbs with the same engine?
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 12:28 PM
  #253  
Brettus's Avatar
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,856
Likes: 1,807
From: Y-cat-o NZ
if it had the same rolling resistance then yes . However - at that power level the relatively (relative to how much power there is) large difference in rolling resistance will make quite a difference .
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 12:37 PM
  #254  
Brettus's Avatar
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,856
Likes: 1,807
From: Y-cat-o NZ
I should not have used the 10 pound figure as weight will obviously affect rolling resistance . Was just trying to make the point that weight is not a big factor when it comes to top speed .....
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 12:50 PM
  #255  
JB_Rotary's Avatar
Always lurking
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
I think I understand what you are saying. In a top speed environment (140mph+) Actual power greatly exceeds weight in terms of just how fast you can go. the difference between a 160 mph car and a 170mph car can be as much as 200hp just to overcome rolling and air resistance. Regaudless of weight. It's the diffeerence between 'get up and go' and 'going faster'. Yes a lighter anyhting will have better pick up but once at speed (especially high speed) weight becomes less of an issue and things like air/rolling resistance become the issues.
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 12:57 PM
  #256  
staticlag's Avatar
The Professor
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,479
Likes: 7
From: Omaha, NE
well, its pretty easy to see when we look at gravity as our force.

Imagine two objects falling(due to gravity) in a vacuum. One of them is a feather, the other is a bowling ball. Which will hit the ground first?

The answer is both because without air resistance the outside force (gravity) will affect both objects the same reguardless of total mass.

Same thing as for a car. Both of them have the same engines giving the same force so they should have the same top speed.
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 12:57 PM
  #257  
staticlag's Avatar
The Professor
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,479
Likes: 7
From: Omaha, NE
However, practically, increasing the mass on an object such as a car will increase the friction that the bearings and tires will experince and will limit the top speed accordingly.

Last edited by staticlag; Jan 15, 2008 at 01:01 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 01:03 PM
  #258  
Brettus's Avatar
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,856
Likes: 1,807
From: Y-cat-o NZ
Originally Posted by staticlag
However, practically, increasing the mass on an object such as a car will increase the friction that the bearings and tires with expereince and will limit the top speed accordingly.
agreed - but increasing the mass by 10% might only increase the rolling resistance by 0.1%(guess) and the top speed difference will be negligable
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 01:03 PM
  #259  
JB_Rotary's Avatar
Always lurking
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
the faster you go it becomes almost exponential how much power you need to go faster
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 05:40 PM
  #260  
speeddemon32's Avatar
Thread Starter
Bigboy in a little car!
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 7
From: In So Cal.. out in BFE... but in the good part... but not really by Cesar, Keith or Loren...
I can see this going around and around.....

I am not going to fight it much. this was not even the point of the thread anyways.

but its simple yet complex. but simply put, weight, power and drag, all play key. assuming all things being equal, you have a car the weighs less then the other and the one that weighs less will out perform the one that weighs more in every aspect. acceleration, top speed, handling and braking.

the focus on the last few post was weather or not one car with a top speed of say 160 would have a higher top speed if you took say 500 pounds out of it.... (of course assuming the limit was NOT gear ratio)

I say yes, you have more power on tap to fight the resistance.




ok, so you have an RX-8 that will top out at 160 MPH in stock form. you don’t change a thing, but you put a 1000 pounds in the car. now we all agree that the acceleration, handling and braking will be severally affected negatively right? (good, cause if not we have a real problem) but do you think that the car will still top out at 160? no way. the car is just to heavy for that power. the engine could no longer fight the weight of the car AND air resistance. at 120 (?) the air resistance would become to great. (Disclaimer: 120 is a guess... but probibly close)

well same thing the other way. You got a car that tops out at 160, you take off weight, and you then have more power on tap to fight the air resistance rather then the weight of the car itsself.


Now with that being said, will 50 pounds help top speed…. Not really, it would take more then that. But still. A car that weighs less will be better in every way, shape and form.

the original question in mind was NOT top speed… how did it even go that way anyways?
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 06:09 PM
  #261  
Brettus's Avatar
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,856
Likes: 1,807
From: Y-cat-o NZ
Originally Posted by speeddemon32

ok, so you have an RX-8 that will top out at 160 MPH in stock form. you don’t change a thing, but you put a 1000 pounds in the car. do you think that the car will still top out at 160? no way. the car is just to heavy for that power. the engine could no longer fight the weight of the car AND air resistance. at 120 (?) the air resistance would become to great.
my guess would be 155-158 . it really won't make that much of a difference to top speed .
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 06:20 PM
  #262  
max5roadster's Avatar
INDY RX8 CLUB - Officer
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 321
Likes: 1
From: Nashville,IN
Now factor in the likely event that your car will experience "lift" created by the air resistance and gravity will not behave the same... i.e. rolling resistance will vary.
Reply
Old Jan 15, 2008 | 06:33 PM
  #263  
Brettus's Avatar
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,856
Likes: 1,807
From: Y-cat-o NZ
An easy way to test would be to put 3 big fat fellas in the car and take it up to full speed - take them out then try again .
Any volunteers ? heh
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 01:24 AM
  #264  
TrochoidMagic's Avatar
is adjusting valve lash
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
From: hollywooood!
i don't need this book... but its still a fun read when compared to reading automotive textbooks, and its highly recommended regardless of your outlook on this subject.

"how to make your car handle" by fred puhn.

once that book is read, then those who still thinks weight is not a contributor of performance... well, what can you do?
there are always gonna be the few of us who buy performance parts, only to cancel out the performance with heavy sound system. let them waste their money...its not mine. just my 0.2 cents.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 02:06 AM
  #265  
TrochoidMagic's Avatar
is adjusting valve lash
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
From: hollywooood!
Originally Posted by speeddemon32
I can see this going around and around.....

I am not going to fight it much. this was not even the point of the thread anyways.

but its simple yet complex. but simply put, weight, power and drag, all play key. assuming all things being equal, you have a car the weighs less then the other and the one that weighs less will out perform the one that weighs more in every aspect. acceleration, top speed, handling and braking.

the focus on the last few post was weather or not one car with a top speed of say 160 would have a higher top speed if you took say 500 pounds out of it.... (of course assuming the limit was NOT gear ratio)

I say yes, you have more power on tap to fight the resistance.




ok, so you have an RX-8 that will top out at 160 MPH in stock form. you don’t change a thing, but you put a 1000 pounds in the car. now we all agree that the acceleration, handling and braking will be severally affected negatively right? (good, cause if not we have a real problem) but do you think that the car will still top out at 160? no way. the car is just to heavy for that power. the engine could no longer fight the weight of the car AND air resistance. at 120 (?) the air resistance would become to great. (Disclaimer: 120 is a guess... but probibly close)

well same thing the other way. You got a car that tops out at 160, you take off weight, and you then have more power on tap to fight the air resistance rather then the weight of the car itsself.


Now with that being said, will 50 pounds help top speed…. Not really, it would take more then that. But still. A car that weighs less will be better in every way, shape and form.

the original question in mind was NOT top speed… how did it even go that way anyways?
*sigh* speed, why bother? i give up.
thanks for agreeing with me though. i think we both know the answer as to how weight mmay/does affect top speed. or even ease of achieving top speed.
that said, i think my pulley is a cheap mod for the performance. the best $ spent and the wisest.

what pulley you're running? any tips on what you personally like to use for your autox car?

see, smile guys. lets change the subject, or purely just focus on the subject...

o and btw, lighter parts will help save gas there, i still said it.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 09:25 AM
  #266  
speeddemon32's Avatar
Thread Starter
Bigboy in a little car!
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 7
From: In So Cal.. out in BFE... but in the good part... but not really by Cesar, Keith or Loren...
Originally Posted by Brettus
my guess would be 155-158 . it really won't make that much of a difference to top speed .
none the less your still agreeing with me.

this topic was not how much it will help, but someone said that it will not help no matter what, weight does not effect top speed.... and that’s wrong.

either case, both my number and your number was a guess. but we both agree it will make a difference. that was my point.

I was the first one to say, "at top speed will 50 pounds make enough of a difference..... no, not on a street car". i mean come on, how often do you hit top speed in your daily driver. once maybe? but if you were a top speed racer at a track like the Bonneville salt flats, you WOULD be concerned about weight because it WOULD effect top speed..... period.




I find it funny that this is what we are arguing considering top speed was not even magic's intentions. he is trying to improve acceleration, handling, and braking. all of which we ALL know is greatly improved with the loss of weight.


and just for the record again, would I personally stress the 15 pound stock radio and speakers in my daily driver... no freakin way. a street car is a street car, a race car is a race car.

I DO think there are mods worth doing on a street car that can give you performance AND not have a down fall. Pulleys, Flywheel, light wheels, intake, exhaust, etc. no real down fall to these mods and it makes you feel like you have a faster RX-8 then the stock RX-8 sitting next to you at the stop light.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 09:32 AM
  #267  
speeddemon32's Avatar
Thread Starter
Bigboy in a little car!
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,276
Likes: 7
From: In So Cal.. out in BFE... but in the good part... but not really by Cesar, Keith or Loren...
Originally Posted by TrochoidMagic

what pulley you're running? any tips on what you personally like to use for your autox car?


I went with the UR pulley. the reason I went with that one is because I wanted to keep A/C... see again, on a street car, even one I autocross, I was not willing to give up A/C when there is a happy medium. I was able to keep the A/C and still loose some weight off the rotating mass. (plus underdriven)



as for what I liked to use on my auto cross 8. here is what I had. keep in mind I ran BSP. what class you run determines what you can do.

Koni Yellow struts
Sprint springs
RB sways
K&N intake
UR pulleys
ACT prolite flyheel
RB flash
Enkei RPF1 18x9.5" wheels
Kumho Ecsta V710 R compund tires 285/30/18
drilled and sloted rotors and other small stuff that didnt really do anything.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:12 PM
  #268  
TrochoidMagic's Avatar
is adjusting valve lash
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
From: hollywooood!
[QUOTE=speeddemon32;2245243]none the less your still agreeing with me.

I find it funny that this is what we are arguing considering top speed was not even magic's intentions. he is trying to improve acceleration, handling, and braking. all of which we ALL know is greatly improved with the loss of weight.





actually...i think this was an argument based on HP and/or MPG savings from pulleys...but then it turned to lightweight parts flywheels/ wheels/ car, etc.

Last edited by TrochoidMagic; Jan 16, 2008 at 04:30 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:20 PM
  #269  
TrochoidMagic's Avatar
is adjusting valve lash
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
From: hollywooood!
Originally Posted by 4 years to Supercharge


I hadn't heard of pulleys increasing MPG.

thats what he stated... however, its really not like i can "actually" prove him wrong. a pulley is such a minor piece and can only contribute such small gain. but its the same reason why mazda gone with light weight aluminum rotors in the renesis. its the same concept...and thats how you get more HP and MPG at the same time...its what i've been saying over and over again. top speed or not, even if weight does affect a role in top speed...in which case i agree with demon that it does.

weight from rotating parts, static parts and any other can contribute to mpg savings and probable horsepower gain...or the less use of horsepower to accel and maintain speed.

^^how's that for rephrasing? lightweight parts are still there to perform a function.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 12:09 AM
  #270  
BoosTED's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,896
Likes: 2
From: Minneapolis, MN
Let me rephrase to clarify my original point: I have not seen a MPG increase since having the UR pulleys installed.

I like my pulleys and endorse them but like I said I had never seen or heard of a MPG increase on the RX-8 with lighter or underdriven pulleys.


I was hoping you would understand my other point that quick is different than fast but it was overlooked. I will stop trying to explain because I am not looking for an arguement. Besides you probably know better than me anyways.

The rotors on the engine are not aluminum.

The rotors on the brakes are not aluminum either.

The rotor housings are.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 12:29 AM
  #271  
Razz1's Avatar
Mu ha.. ha...
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,361
Likes: 3
From: Cali
Let's get back to pullies and not areodynamics, MPG etc..
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 01:11 AM
  #272  
BoosTED's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,896
Likes: 2
From: Minneapolis, MN


Is pulleys spelled pullies or pulleys?



I finally spell checked it even though I am sure I have spelled it both ways.

Microsoft says the correct spelling is "pulleys"
Reply
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 07:43 PM
  #273  
Enjorren's Avatar
Gaijin
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix,AZ
Agency Power

http://www.vividracing.com

Has the Agency Power 3 pulley set with belts for $143.00

Picking mine up on Monday as this is a smokin deal.

You have to call them though as the website is misleading.

Last edited by Enjorren; Mar 14, 2008 at 07:46 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 08:03 PM
  #274  
d j's Avatar
d j
hukbong himpapawid
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 689
Likes: 1
From: Schwedelbach, Germany
Originally Posted by Enjorren
http://www.vividracing.com

Has the Agency Power 3 pulley set with belts for $143.00

Picking mine up on Monday as this is a smokin deal.

You have to call them though as the website is misleading.
I believe that's only for the e-shaft pulley + belts. AP never produced alt & H2O pump pulleys, unless that's a new product that they're offering...

Last edited by d j; Mar 14, 2008 at 08:05 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 08:15 PM
  #275  
Enjorren's Avatar
Gaijin
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix,AZ
Scratch that the guy I talked to didn't know what he was talking about. Since the crank pulley is techincally two pieces stock it makes it seem like the AP pulley is two pulleys.

Last edited by Enjorren; Mar 18, 2008 at 06:18 PM.
Reply


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM.