6pack
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re:.....flywheel

To: <6pack@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Re:.....flywheel
From: "Robert McBride" <rmcbride@twmi.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:13:50 -0400
Personally I think I need a heavier flywheel..  You know to stop those 
embarrassing stalls when taking off from a light when I'm driving the wife 
around...Bob



> In speaking of rotating objects, mass isn't as important as the moment of
> inertia is.  The moment of inertia takes both the mass and the 
> distribution of
> the mass into account.  If the flywheel could be approximated as a flat 
> disk,
> I = .5*mass*radius^2.  If we really wanted some improvements, reducing the
> radius would be the way to go!  Of course that really wouldn't work...
>
> So the thing is, just because something is heavy doesn't necessarily imply
> that the moment of intertia is large because the radius of rotation could 
> be
> small.  Relative to the radius of a flywheel, the radius of the driveshaft 
> is
> very small.
>
> Having said that, removing the possibility of harmonic vibrations could be
> benefit enough in installing a lightened flywheel (I guess depending on 
> what
> RPM the vibrations occur at).  I would have to think the ligher flywheel 
> would
> also offer some performance improvement, however the performance to $ 
> ratio
> could be well debated (as it has been!)
>
> Steven Altomare
> 74.5 without a light flywheel




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>