Originally Posted by Revolver
(Post 3647962)
Without wishing to induce another outbreak of gratuitous sarcasm :grouphug:, has anyone out there done a before and after dyno when fitting a light weight flywheel? Surely that would answer the question by replacing theory with fact?
[I am not questioning the intelligence of either combatant here - just interested] Edit - Paul's last post just answered my question I think - i.e. hp won't change but torque will? I will now run away. Yes - I have done a before and after dyno answer : it makes NO difference to the numbers as reported by the dyno . |
i will keep this in mind next time we do a light wheel fly upgrade on a rx8 and post up results, only in hp or kw at the wheels, no more flywheel power figures from me. ever. lol
|
Originally Posted by Revolver
(Post 3647962)
Without wishing to induce another outbreak of gratuitous sarcasm :grouphug:, has anyone out there done a before and after dyno when fitting a light weight flywheel? Surely that would answer the question by replacing theory with fact?
[I am not questioning the intelligence of either combatant here - just interested] The point of this mindlessness is that the point of a flywheel isnt to enlarge your testicles via some inflated dyno number. The fact of the matter is, take 2 identical cars and remove 30 pounds from the rotating mass of one(and add that 30 to the body to keep total mass equal). The car with less rotational weight is ALWAYS going to accelerate faster. Its physics. Plain and (not so)simple. Most people cant do the math behind it, so if someone cant get it in principle, well I dont know what to tell them other than to take a 1st year physics course.
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 3647967)
and does not even know what the f'n argument is about
|
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
(Post 3647969)
All that would do is dumb people down. I can guarantee you that it will produce NO change in peak numbers, and the change in the curve is possibly not even noticable. Because a dyno measures TQ@RPM in static incriments, to produce your curve.
The point of this mindlessness is that the point of a flywheel isnt to enlarge your testicles via some inflated dyno number. The fact of the matter is, take 2 identical cars and remove 30 pounds from the rotating mass of one(and add that 30 to the body to keep total mass equal). The car with less rotational weight is ALWAYS going to accelerate faster. Its physics. Plain and (not so)simple. Most people cant do the math behind it, so if someone cant get it in principle, well I dont know what to tell them other than to take a 1st year physics course. Now go back and reread the whole f'n argument and realise you didn't get what it was about in the first place . |
Originally Posted by Charles R. Hill
(Post 3646644)
Powertrain losses in the M/T RX-8 are usually around 40 h.p. (stock flywheel) and about 25 h.p. (light flywheel). .
|
Originally Posted by Mazfix Racing
(Post 3647968)
i will keep this in mind next time we do a light wheel fly upgrade on a rx8 and post up results, only in hp or kw at the wheels, no more flywheel power figures from me. ever. lol
|
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 3647972)
Great - you get it .
Now go back and reread the whole f'n argument and realise you didn't get what it was about in the first place . stop being arrogant and think about it.... you think dozens of thousand of dollars are spent on lightweight internals for race engines for no reason? By your reasoning they could save a fuck-ton of money and simply reduce static weight off the frame instead. Right? They do it becasue it can significantly change the behaviour of an engine, to include how fast it accelerates... all without making anymore power, OR delivering more power to the wheels at any given instentaneous point in time. Thats what you dont get Brettus. Dyno's measure based on a bunch of instentaneous readings and plot them to form a curve, and give you your precious F&F numbers. In the real world there is MUCH more to it than that. And it is because of drivetrain loss due to rotational mass |
Originally Posted by Mazfix Racing
(Post 3647968)
i will keep this in mind next time we do a light wheel fly upgrade on a rx8 and post up results, only in hp or kw at the wheels, no more flywheel power figures from me. ever. lol
|
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 3647974)
This was Charles's statement that started all this BS . Can you now see why it is wrong ?
It doesnt make you any more right. Your still arguing that the color blue smells like wood. Sounds stupid when you try to quantify something by a means in which it is not measurable. Again reference the multimillion dollar cars that go to extreme engineering and financial pains to reduce a few grams from a piston rather than taking 5 seconds of a grinder to some static piece of frame. The whole point isnt to argue that your wrong, its to argue that the way you're trying to measure and thus compare any performance change from a LW flywheel is simply wrong. You've displayed a lack of understanding of basic physics principles by ever trying to aruge anything about a dyno in the first place. |
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
(Post 3647979)
i got it from the beggining. what you dont get is that your concern with the change in dyno results after changing rotational mass is about as fucking stupid as expecting a glass of water to weigh more because you froze it.
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
(Post 3647979)
stop being arrogant and think about it.... you think dozens of thousand of dollars are spent on lightweight internals for race engines for no reason? By your reasoning they could save a fuck-ton of money and simply reduce static weight off the frame instead. Right?
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
(Post 3647979)
They do it becasue it can significantly change the behaviour of an engine, to include how fast it accelerates... all without making anymore power, OR delivering more power to the wheels at any given instentaneous point in time. Thats what you dont get Brettus. Dyno's measure based on a bunch of instentaneous readings and plot them to form a curve, and give you your precious F&F numbers. In the real world there is MUCH more to it than that. And it is because of drivetrain loss due to rotational mass |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 3647991)
My first post was merely correcting what Charles said . The drivetrain loss with a normal flywheel is 40 whp the drivetrain loss with a light flywheel is STILL 40hp . Any dyno will show that . That is my ONLY point here . I never said anything else about it . You made the f'n stupid assumption that I thought a flywheel made no difference . WRONG
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 3647788)
A light weight flywheel reduces the hp needed to accelerate the flywheel so you have more hp available to accelerate the car but it does NOT reduce the drivetrain losses . So you cant measure the effect of a lightweight flywheel on a dyno .
;)
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
(Post 3647846)
then pray tell, how do you define drivetrain loss?
this got drug into the dyno nonsense because of this:
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
(Post 3647895)
tell ya what, go attach 50 pounds of lead weights to your driveshaft. dyno your car, pull the weights off, dyno again. jeez
|
i was not arguing whatever you must have though... I am simply telling you that your understanding of drivetrain losses is flawed. In an attempt to explain how and why, it got drug through the mud and almost tangented into other things, simply because you dont understand what drivetrain loss is and the reason that you cant effectively measure it on a dyno
A light weight flywheel reduces the hp needed to accelerate the flywheel so you have more hp available to accelerate the car but it does NOT reduce the drivetrain losses . So you cant measure the effect of a lightweight flywheel on a dyno . then explain why the only change was in the rotational weight of the drivetrain, yet the car is suddenly much faster than if you had removed the same amount of weight from your trunk? because you reduced the loss in your drivetrain this is why high dollar light weight internals exist. anything professional is regulated for weight and power. so there would be no point in spending HUGE money to reduce rotating weight when they could simply cut static weight and still weigh in the same. or alter an intake runner to make more power. the difference is there is a reduction is drivetrain loss that cannot be quantified by a dyno, that relates directly to a faster car. its a drivetrain loss that is much more significant than loosing static weight |
OK - so this whole stupid argument started because I didn't DEFINE driveline losses .
LOL I was looking at it in the context of Charles's post which would translate a 200fwhp car has 40 hp drivetrain losses so 160whp a 200fwhp car with a lightwqeight flywheel has 25hp drivetrain losses so 175whp This is obviously wrong - hence my first post . This is the ONLY point i was trying to make ..... |
i know what your point in the post was..
OK - so this whole stupid argument started because I didn't DEFINE driveline losses . LOL and yes, it is "lol" but its also not. the forum is absolutely FULL of nonsense like that. it wasnt the topic, or in context i know, but i can tell you from experience that new kids come in here and see that kind of thing. even though it isnt the topic or point, stuff like that stands out and they take away a misunderstanding of whats going on and how things work. which simply promotes more stupidity and hey, sorry for being a dick about it. i had a point to make, and a valid one. perhaps i'm just not the best informative/persuasive speaker. and i've just REALLY lost any patience and tolerance for this forum lately |
As far as I can tell, paul is correct in this debate.
While not a direct example/explanation of the idea, I think this kind of relates to what paul is making a point of... A dyno is typically measuring power under acceleration. It might not make a difference assuming it's at a single rpm, but with the typical dyno plot, the car is accelerating. Under WOT at any point in the graph, the car will make more power than just holding a constant rpm, correct? |
lol... I'm with Paul... in the real world, acceleration is more important than total power when all things are equal. If you want a dyno queen, then no one cares, and dyno your heart away, but it's sad that you didn't realize that the dyno numbers would be the same before you even purchased the part. Now, if you actually plan on racing your car, all things being equal, you wont beat a guy with lower rotational mass. He'll accelerate away from you, and reach his peak speed faster. He'll have the advantage on you at the exit of every corner, or at a launch.
Flywheels are racing parts, not performance parts. |
Lets get back to what you think I don't understand .
Flywheel horsepower is 220 Wheel horsepower is 180 What is a the driveline loss ? Is it 40hp ? Is loss due to rotational acceleration included in the 40hp ? |
Originally Posted by reddozen
(Post 3648025)
but it's sad that you didn't realize that the dyno numbers would be the same before you even purchased the part.
this was entirely and totally initiated over an error referring to rotational mass not being a drivetrain loss. it actually started as semantics. |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 3648032)
Lets get back to what you think I don't understand .
Flywheel horsepower is 220 Wheel horsepower is 180 What is a the driveline loss ? Is it 40hp ? Is loss due to rotational acceleration included in the 40hp ? take that example^^ remove 50 pounds from the drive line(rotational) Now take it again, this time remove 50 pounds from the frame(static) both will dyno the same, the one where you removed rotational weight will be significantly faster. THAT is the point. as reddozen said, the car that removed the 50 pounds of rotational weight not only has the HP/Wt ratio change as the other, it will also make its way through the powerband faster... its a loss, in the drivetrain, that a dyno cannot measure you cant claim you made more power, and you reduced the same amount of weight in both cases. but one is a static weight loss, the other is a drivetrain loss, and it makes a difference |
Originally Posted by reddozen
(Post 3648025)
lol... I'm with Paul... in the real world, acceleration is more important than total power when all things are equal. If you want a dyno queen, then no one cares, and dyno your heart away, but it's sad that you didn't realize that the dyno numbers would be the same before you even purchased the part. Now, if you actually plan on racing your car, all things being equal, you wont beat a guy with lower rotational mass. He'll accelerate away from you, and reach his peak speed faster. He'll have the advantage on you at the exit of every corner, or at a launch.
Flywheels are racing parts, not performance parts. |
ok... Brettus and I are on the same page now(I think/hope) so let me make this clear, this is what the bitching was about:
1) Removing rotational mass from the drivetrain reduces drivetrain loss. 2) Drivetrain loss cannot be measured accurately on a dyno. 3)Take 2 identical test vehicles remove the same weight from each, one from frame, one from driveline. a)They both still dyno the same. b)They both still have the same power to weight ratio. c)The one with weight removed from the driveline will be faster every single time. *Rotational mass in the driveline causes drivetrain loss, just not the kind you can measure on a dyno |
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
(Post 3648037)
no it is not. a dyno cannot measure loss due to angular acceleration.
take that example^^ remove 50 pounds from the drive line(rotational) Now take it again, this time remove 50 pounds from the frame(static) both will dyno the same, the one where you removed rotational weight will be significantly faster. THAT is the point. you cant claim you made more power, and you reduced the same amount of weight in both cases. but one is a static weight loss, the other is a drivetrain loss, and it makes a difference Now lets get to MY point : Tell me : what is the industry standard measure for drivetran loss ? You know - the one that all manufactures and dyno operators alike use . Is it the 40hp figure from the example above or is there some other number I don't know about ? |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 3648051)
That is YOUR point - with which at no stage have I disagreed .
Now lets get to MY point : Tell me : what is the industry standard measure for drivetran loss ? You know - the one that all manufactures and dyno operators alike use . Is it the 40hp figure from the example above or is there some other number I don't know about ? dyno operators? the dyno spits out a "calculated/estimated" Flywheel horsepower number based on some sketchy logic at best. shit the OP of this thread ought to be a good example of that you CAN NOT properly measure drivetrain losses on a dyno. Frictional losses alone you can, but not drivetrain loss which includes loss due to rotational mass and its distance from axis. This almost interconnects with some other folks bitches about dyno's and the retarded obsession with them.. a dyno can provide you with some useless numbers. they are ONLY usefull if you know how those numbers are applied in relation to time when actually driving. what good is a motor that makes (insert favorite target HP # here), if it takes 15 seconds to move from idle to 2,500 rpms? and another 2 minutes to reach 9,000rpms? A dyno CAN NOT show you that, it simply shows you that you made 700 million HP ignoring the fact that your motor takes 37 days to reach peak HP.. the numbers are utterly useless unless you know HOW and WHEN they are applied. Rotational mass is a drivetrain loss but it is not an instentaneous loss, it is a loss in relation to TIME. and IMO anyone with performance or racing in mind, should be pretty interested in TIME |
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
(Post 3648048)
1) Removing rotational mass from the drivetrain reduces drivetrain loss. 2) Drivetrain loss cannot be measured accurately on a dyno. 3)Take 2 identical test vehicles remove the same weight from each, one from frame, one from driveline. a)They both still dyno the same. b)They both still have the same power to weight ratio. c)The one with weight removed from the driveline will be faster every single time. *Rotational mass in the driveline causes drivetrain loss, just not the kind you can measure on a dyno When you say "dyno the same" are you only referring to hp or torque as well? That hp won't change is a nail well driven home (and then some :uhh:). But if the car accelerates faster, won't the dyno torque numbers improve with a lightened flywheel? Or am I missing something? |
Originally Posted by Revolver
(Post 3648070)
I appreciate the summary and I think I've followed this debate properly but can I just clarify one thing?
When you say "dyno the same" are you only referring to hp or torque as well? That hp won't change is a nail well driven home (and then some :uhh:). But if the car accelerates faster, won't the dyno torque numbers improve with a lightened flywheel? Or am I missing something? This has been debated to hell and back ont he LS1 forums since they existed lol. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands