i think you ment to say in the context of this thread hijacking

 

Nah actually I really did mean the welcome. He took his licks in stride and corrected it. While this thread has turned into a bit of a trainwreck....at least its been at the top of the first page for days. I look forward to seeing more from them

 

i didnt quote masked ferret and i really wanted to , but then i saw he meant looking through the earth. still he and Jon were both wrongish because kevin said the correct answer is- the toilets dont spin at all(in relation to what they are attached to) and what the hell is "backerds"? thats worse than my normal typing

 

^ LMAO!

 

paul has gone . I'm the last one standing so ......... I WIN

 

excellent logic Brettus.

Good thing too - I'm all out of virtual popcorn for one day.

Lesson for me? I'm not a serious enough driver to waste money on a lightened flywheel....yet. Other bits and bobs to waste money on before then (e.g. second oil cooler, oil and boost gauges, revising my exhaust....oh, and some new rubber - I still seriously hate the Korean crap I'm currently running).

Now, I suggest Mazfix that you take Brettus' original advice and start a new thread with your first post and the pic you also posted...

 

i would, but in amongst these 7 pages there have been some great things said about the workshop etc. its a tuff call.

 

yep u are the smart one u win,,,, paulmasoner the stupid one, he loses,, lol

 

What....the....****.

This thing has been pretty sweet.

What cracks me up is we go from power (time based) to torque (no time based) and all over the place. In short - that is why we look at the power (work X time), then it becomes easier to see benefits of some parts like lightweight rotational components.

To add to this cause I like watching people freak out, lightweight components can be measured on the dyno...even holding the motor at say 9000RPMS, anyone guess how? (Hint: inertial resistance goes both ways)...

 

you talking about ceramic seals Kane ?

 

That would be a very very small part of it brettus, less frictional losses. But I would wager that couldn't really even be measured.

 

Load vs flow?

 

how ?

 

We have some fixed variables, drum resistance from the dyno (or water resistance from a dynapak), friction resistance which is basically a constant for 99% of the people in the world with the same engine.

And physics tells us that it takes more work to rotate a heavier mass (or even more work to maintain rotation with a heavier mass) - so there would be a change in load to rotate a 100lbs at 9000RPM vs 30LBS at 9000RPMS right?

 

wait...I winz?

 

lol - lower load required to hold a steady state power output would indicate a greater efficiency of the power plant...

 

hey no fair, i had to go to work

lol

and you're still a posing douchebag.
at least i try to have educated discussion.... err arguments...

 

I was going to say : hold a steady state 9000 rpm and then suddenly vary the load on the drum . Whatever rpm drop occurs is a measure of the rotational inertia of the drivetrain .
Vary the rotational inertia (ie fit lightweight flywheel) and watch how much more the rpms drop ......

 

HAHAHA... yeah... i've been on it lately

tell me about it.. while i understand and in principle its a pretty simple relationship, when i get bitchin things get thrown around and words get used wrong(which is exactly what i've been on about lately ) thats why i tried referencing energy for a moment... then the red came back lol


btw, i didnt realize dyno's were precise enough for that. thats good i suppose.
btw2, still in a more perfect world it would be 3 dimensional graphing

 

That would work too I suppose, but since CALC LOAD is easy to log and save, I'd use it.

My software will do 3D dyno....same dynamics as tuning. Though the numbers are subject to the same math as all this ****, the changes would be accurate.

Power is a measurement of the efficiency of the system.... so like everything else think outside the box some, and you'd be amazed what you can measure if you think system-wise. You can do the same thing with tires, wheels, brakes....etc - ask me how I know my $2000 brake system is worth it?

 

Yay for whatever your software is called(i forget)!

yeah. after seeing the math you had to do for the software models, i KNOW you know the math, and thus the principles, inside and out

 

As you guys continue to argue, er I mean discuss (in a most enteraining manner ), how this could be measured I am reminded of the guy earlier in the thread who said something like a light weight flywheel is a racing part rather than a worthwhile street mod.

In my humble little universe, if the gain is so incremental that you're struggling to measure it, the utility rapidly diminishes the further away from the track you go.

Of course, this is assuming we mod our cars purely for logical reasons.

I was interested by Brettus' heel and toe remark though - might be time to do some calf raises mate.

 

i honestly cant remember if any of the cars i've driven(8 or otherwise) had a light fly, but it certainly stands to reason that there is some substantial truth behind this

 

I thought it was BS, until I drove mine (stock flywheel but lightweight clutch); less rotating mass makes a difference that you actually can feel, even boosted. For the price it is worth it if you do the labor yourself IMO.

Paying someone else to do it would DRASTICALLY reduce the $ to gain ratio.

Paul, it is called Baseline...yeah the math is nasty nasty, but it does help me understand the system. Applied science FTW!

 

Interesting. I def noticed the heavier clutch feel after the s/c kit went on. I'm fine with it for street use but I can see how it could be slower on the track.

Thanks guys, I'll keep this in mind once I get some higher priority mods sorted out...