Torque vs Crank Angle, Flywheel Weight, and Transmission Happiness (strength)
#21
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 477
It seems the forums believe the the failed gear teeth from people's transmissions that failed under high HP builds all seem to have sheared the teeth of, and that the gears teeth failed due to fatigue.
A heavy flywheel will reduce this. So will the springs on the disk.
The question is, how much? My guess is it's significant, but I haven't done the calcs. I did find a machine design book that goes over how to calculate the fluctuations in torque of an engine vs flywheel weight/ mass moment of inertia, but that book is $$$. I should go look at my old machine design book and see if it goes over it.
Someone could calculate the loading a peak torque with 2 different flywheels and find out "how much" difference if makes. But more flywheel weight WILL bring the peaks down, that is a fact, and that will reduce fatigue loading on the gears. So if gears are failing due to fatigue, heavier flywheel = longer life.
A heavy flywheel will reduce this. So will the springs on the disk.
The question is, how much? My guess is it's significant, but I haven't done the calcs. I did find a machine design book that goes over how to calculate the fluctuations in torque of an engine vs flywheel weight/ mass moment of inertia, but that book is $$$. I should go look at my old machine design book and see if it goes over it.
Someone could calculate the loading a peak torque with 2 different flywheels and find out "how much" difference if makes. But more flywheel weight WILL bring the peaks down, that is a fact, and that will reduce fatigue loading on the gears. So if gears are failing due to fatigue, heavier flywheel = longer life.
#22
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,052
Total Cats: 6,615
Torsion springs: located inside the damper assembly, these springs smooth engagement and dampen vibrations.
Idle-stage dampers: included in some disc assemblies, they consist of small springs nested around the hub, or friction washers inside the disc. As pulsations from the engine reach the disc, the springs compress and expand to cushion or dampen vibrations and eliminate gear rattle.
Source: Schaeffler Automotive Aftermarket USA -|-Services -|-Clutch Basics
Posit: Of those who have installed a lightweight flywheel and then blamed it for the subsequent gearbox rattle, how many of these cases were accompanied by the installation of an aftermarket clutch disc which has either no sprung damper, or a less-effective damper than the stock or stock-equivalent disc?Idle-stage dampers: included in some disc assemblies, they consist of small springs nested around the hub, or friction washers inside the disc. As pulsations from the engine reach the disc, the springs compress and expand to cushion or dampen vibrations and eliminate gear rattle.
Source: Schaeffler Automotive Aftermarket USA -|-Services -|-Clutch Basics
And less noise, and easier shifting, and on and on. There are really no negatives to retaining the stock flywheel, insofar as I am aware.
#23
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 477
I ran an ACT extreme with the organic sprung disk it came with, on a stock flywheel for 5 years, it was silent. Went to a 10lb and same clutch, it's very noisy now. No idea how the springs in that disk compare to the stock ones though, but they were quiet with a stock flywheel.
#24
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 477
Only negatives I know of are that the car will weigh 8lbs more, and won't rev as quickly, and the second part isn't that bad, some wouldn't care at all, some would prefer it not to rev/drop as fast as you say, easier shifting.
#25
SadFab CEO
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: your mom's house phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,560
Total Cats: 1,142
The question is, how much? My guess is it's significant, but I haven't done the calcs. I did find a machine design book that goes over how to calculate the fluctuations in torque of an engine vs flywheel weight/ mass moment of inertia, but that book is $$$. I should go look at my old machine design book and see if it goes over it.
as far as sprung hub/vs non sprung, my anecdotal data point/s:
when i went from the stock 1.6 FW to the 9lb F1, i retained the sprung clutch hub and noticed exactly 0 increase in noise or rattle. my subi on the other hand, that im 90% sure has a solid hub, ceramic clutch installed by the PO, has a decent idle rattle only when the clutch pedal is pushed in.
#26
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Posit: Of those who have installed a lightweight flywheel and then blamed it for the subsequent gearbox rattle, how many of these cases were accompanied by the installation of an aftermarket clutch disc which has either no sprung damper, or a less-effective damper than the stock or stock-equivalent disc?
The last clutch I had on the car was the FM happy meal. Hub is sprung, flywheel is light. I don't recall the buzzy buzzersons.
#27
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
Posit: Of those who have installed a lightweight flywheel and then blamed it for the subsequent gearbox rattle, how many of these cases were accompanied by the installation of an aftermarket clutch disc which has either no sprung damper, or a less-effective damper than the stock or stock-equivalent disc?
And less noise, and easier shifting, and on and on. There are really no negatives to retaining the stock flywheel, insofar as I am aware.
#28
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 477
As for lower power, how? The motor is going to make the same power no matter what flywheel I run. All the flywheel is doing is taking that graph I posted at the top of this thread, and reducing the height of the peaks. It's not changing the power up or down, just dampening it. The closest thing to "power" that it's going to change is how fast the motor revs, we all know that!
#29
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,052
Total Cats: 6,615
At the moment that you are moving the shifter, the flywheel and pressure plate are decoupled from the transmission. Only the clutch disc itself is effectively a part of the rotating mass of the transmission input shaft, and therefore contributing to the force applied to the synchro rings during a fast shift.
Flywheel mass has no effect whatsoever on the speed at which one can move the shifter from one gear to another, or the wear imposed on the synchros in this process, presupposing that you are in the habit of depressing the clutch while shifting.
Intuitively, I find it difficult to believe that such a tiny reduction in mass (as compared to the weight of the vehicle) can result in any significant improvement in acceleration. That said, I prefer to rely upon solid data rather than gut instinct in cases such as this.
Except that I can't find a single shred of solid data one way or another.
This isn't the first time I've gone a-Googlin' in search of some sort of data which compares back to back runs of a vehicle with a stock flywheel and a lightened flywheel. I literally cannot find a single reputable source offering concrete numbers which either prove or disprove the theory.
#30
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 477
How is that, exactly?
At the moment that you are moving the shifter, the flywheel and pressure plate are decoupled from the transmission. Only the clutch disc itself is effectively a part of the rotating mass of the transmission input shaft, and therefore contributing to the force applied to the synchro rings during a fast shift.
Flywheel mass has no effect whatsoever on the speed at which one can move the shifter from one gear to another, or the wear imposed on the synchros in this process, presupposing that you are in the habit of depressing the clutch while shifting.
This is the usual justification I hear in favor of installing lighter-than-stock flywheels.
Intuitively, I find it difficult to believe that such a tiny reduction in mass (as compared to the weight of the vehicle) can result in any significant improvement in acceleration. That said, I prefer to rely upon solid data rather than gut instinct in cases such as this.
Except that I can't find a single shred of solid data one way or another.
This isn't the first time I've gone a-Googlin' in search of some sort of data which compares back to back runs of a vehicle with a stock flywheel and a lightened flywheel. I literally cannot find a single reputable source offering concrete numbers which either prove or disprove the theory.
At the moment that you are moving the shifter, the flywheel and pressure plate are decoupled from the transmission. Only the clutch disc itself is effectively a part of the rotating mass of the transmission input shaft, and therefore contributing to the force applied to the synchro rings during a fast shift.
Flywheel mass has no effect whatsoever on the speed at which one can move the shifter from one gear to another, or the wear imposed on the synchros in this process, presupposing that you are in the habit of depressing the clutch while shifting.
This is the usual justification I hear in favor of installing lighter-than-stock flywheels.
Intuitively, I find it difficult to believe that such a tiny reduction in mass (as compared to the weight of the vehicle) can result in any significant improvement in acceleration. That said, I prefer to rely upon solid data rather than gut instinct in cases such as this.
Except that I can't find a single shred of solid data one way or another.
This isn't the first time I've gone a-Googlin' in search of some sort of data which compares back to back runs of a vehicle with a stock flywheel and a lightened flywheel. I literally cannot find a single reputable source offering concrete numbers which either prove or disprove the theory.
I think we all know how much it "helps" could be calculated, but it's almost nothing.
The real purpose of this thread was to see ask if running a stock flywheel will, at least in theory, improve transmission life as compared to running a lighter flywheel. I think that part is true, and as Sean pointed out with his links on post 2, not having a torsionally rigid connection also helps!
I have read about how many transmissions some of the high HP guys have broken (BBundy for example) and from what I've read, BBundy is running a 1.6 lightweight flywheel and unsprung clutch. If true, that's interesting as he's broken a lot of transmissions, I'm curious if he's always run this setup or if some he broke had a stock 1.8 flywheel/sprung disk clutch? Or for that matter, anyone's who's broken a transmission, what flywheel/clutch disk were you running?
#34
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 9,302
Total Cats: 477
If I can find the box my old machine design book is in, I'll see if it has the maths to do the calcs to answer "how much" the stockflywheel helps reduce those peaks vs a lighter aftermarket flywheel. The book I found online that has these calcs was over 400!
#36
SadFab CEO
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: your mom's house phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,560
Total Cats: 1,142
How is that, exactly?
At the moment that you are moving the shifter, the flywheel and pressure plate are decoupled from the transmission. Only the clutch disc itself is effectively a part of the rotating mass of the transmission input shaft, and therefore contributing to the force applied to the synchro rings during a fast shift.
.
At the moment that you are moving the shifter, the flywheel and pressure plate are decoupled from the transmission. Only the clutch disc itself is effectively a part of the rotating mass of the transmission input shaft, and therefore contributing to the force applied to the synchro rings during a fast shift.
.
#37
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,100
Lower power was an example of another thing you can do to cure transmission failure, not a consequence of increased flywheel weight.
In theory, yes, but in reality, the drag on the clutch as the engine decelerates more quickly will drag the input shaft speed down as well. It's the same reason you can depress the clutch on the highway in 5th gear, let the motor idle, and it won't toggle 4th gear (or anything else), but if you blip the throttle with the clutch still depressed, you'll be able to get 4th.. In a perfect world, the clutch fully decouples the box, but in reality there's always a bit of drag.
How is that, exactly?
At the moment that you are moving the shifter, the flywheel and pressure plate are decoupled from the transmission. Only the clutch disc itself is effectively a part of the rotating mass of the transmission input shaft, and therefore contributing to the force applied to the synchro rings during a fast shift.
Flywheel mass has no effect whatsoever on the speed at which one can move the shifter from one gear to another, or the wear imposed on the synchros in this process, presupposing that you are in the habit of depressing the clutch while shifting.
At the moment that you are moving the shifter, the flywheel and pressure plate are decoupled from the transmission. Only the clutch disc itself is effectively a part of the rotating mass of the transmission input shaft, and therefore contributing to the force applied to the synchro rings during a fast shift.
Flywheel mass has no effect whatsoever on the speed at which one can move the shifter from one gear to another, or the wear imposed on the synchros in this process, presupposing that you are in the habit of depressing the clutch while shifting.
#38
Intuitively, I find it difficult to believe that such a tiny reduction in mass (as compared to the weight of the vehicle) can result in any significant improvement in acceleration. That said, I prefer to rely upon solid data rather than gut instinct in cases such as this.
.
Speaking of which, deceleration under load is a factor as well.
#39
I have read about how many transmissions some of the high HP guys have broken (BBundy for example) and from what I've read, BBundy is running a 1.6 lightweight flywheel and unsprung clutch. If true, that's interesting as he's broken a lot of transmissions, I'm curious if he's always run this setup or if some he broke had a stock 1.8 flywheel/sprung disk clutch? Or for that matter, anyone's who's broken a transmission, what flywheel/clutch disk were you running?
#40
I have the old FM happy meal (aluminum flywheel, ACT clutch which is a sprung hub) and it definitely buzzes on decel/idle with clutch pedal pushed in.
--Ian