:rofl:

If anybody wants a good read, check out this old thread I participated in:
tungsten crankshaft - D-series.org

This guy was even dumber than "failure", he wanted to make a super heavy crankshaft out of tungsten because he thought that the crank carrying more inertia would equate to a faster car... somehow.

Yes, I agree. Nothing I've said is incompatible with this.


I don't doubt that this is possible, but this example car certainly isn't a Miata. Also, this is only true for a single gear, and it assumes the flywheel wasn't spun up before engaging the clutch.

Dude have you ever played Gran Turismo 3? The first mods you always do to a car are LWFW, stage 3 clutch, and carbon driveshaft. They are the cheapest and drop your lap time significantly.

Vidya games don't lie

The Miata is a front engine rear wheel drive car, hardly unique in the automotive world. What makes you think that it would be different?

O RLY!?

It doesnt matter what car it is. It doesnt matter how much the car weighs. All that matters is the difference in rotating mass and the rpm. If anything it may have a greater affect on a miata because we would be spinning to higher speeds than the big V8s that Herb Adams worked with for Trans Am racing.
Yeah, I set my rev limit at 10k rpm, so when I slowly flat shift at 8k I get a clutch raping boost in acceleration. That makes more sense than shifting fast.

Everything you've said is incompatible with that. It's almost like you don't even know what you're saying, yourself.

I never denied that reducing the weight of the flywheel freed up power. Only that it did so by a relevant amount.

You're not trying to imply that 1 lb of flywheel mass = 2 HP, regardless of anything else about the car, are you? I can assure you, my 7 lb flywheel didn't give me 30 HP. How much gain did yours net you on the butt dyno?

...

Glad we're on the same page now. I guess 32hp isn't relevant to you though, seems like quite a bit to me when you start from ~140hp. Though I guess it would be a bit less than 32hp since you're only talking about a 13lbs difference rather than a 15lbs difference like in the example.

Well yeah. It's relevant. That's why we're talking about it.




There's a very important qualifier that you're leaving out.

Yeah, it sure feels awesome putting down 115 + 32 = 147 HP from my 1.6. Apparently I have more horsepower than the 1.8 guys now.

:bowrofl:

Tell me more about how the MOI differs between 1st and the rest of the gears, I'm almost pissing myself I'm laughing so hard.

Where is this whacky theoretical knowledge of yours coming from? You're not a freshman mechanical engineering student are you?

You are so unbelievably short-sighted it's a wonder you can put on matching shoes every day.


Of course, that's an assumption on my part.

I wonder if someone else will point out that you don't know what you're talking about or if they're too busy shitting all over me.

We've got the 'shipped artwork hall of fame' thread and the 'Joe Perez Epic Rants' thread, we need a collection of 'Epic Failures in Physics/Engineering' thread to compile these. I remember the guy who vehemently argued that the most important part of the suspension was the amount of suspension travel, which is why his stock suspension setup was better than everyone who 'ruined their handling' when lowering their cars with coilovers.

Unlikely, as he's not the one that's wrong.

Nobody is saying that a flywheel adds power. There's your hint of the day.

No, they're just claiming that reducing flywheel weight reduces drivetrain losses well into the negatives.

As to why the flywheel has less effect in higher gears, it's not because the MOI of the flywheel changes. In high gear, much more load is placed on the engine from the road, while the load from the flywheel stays constant.

No... nobody is saying it reduces losses into the negatives. I don't know where the hell you got that.

I don't even have a degree and sucked at math past trig, and even i understand what's going on here. Let's keep up, shall we?

The difference made by the flywheel isn't just weight. It will show a change in power on an inertial dyno. The obvious implication of the "1 lb = 2 HP" crowd is that if you removed the flywheel, clutch, and pressure plate and linked the crank directly to the input shaft of the transmission, you would see a change of about 50 HP vs stock. This is manifestly untrue, because where the fuck is that 50 HP going to come from?

It's not "drivetrain losses", losses come from friction.

It's just like weight reduction only the affect is amplified because of the high speed things like the flywheel are accelerated to.
Taking 200 lbs out of a miata might make it accelerate like it has another 20 HP. That doesn't mean if gained 20 HP. Taking this same weight out of the wheels, driveshaft, crank, flywheel, etc. Would have an even greater affect.

We're talking about a measured difference in acceleration of the car here. It is true that an inertia dyno will show small differences in power from drivetrain inertia, but that is just because inertia dyno are retarded. Plus, this discrepancy is relative to the mass of the inertia dyno's drum which is easily 1000 lbs. That is why a flywheel would only have a small affect on its reading.

I'd count the number of times you've contradicted yourself, but i'm too dumb to count that high and suck at math.