except - rotational inertia also depends on the distribution of mass relative to the axis of rotation. The aftermarket flywheel is not only lighter but the weight is also redistributed towards the axis of rotation. So, the ideas you are presenting are fine, but the numbers are not particularly accurate. Specifically, the aftermarket flywheel has MUCH less inertia than the simple weight difference suggests.
just added a lightened flyweel to my e36 m3 evolution the original dual mass weighs 24 lbs the new lwfw weighs 7kg and the difference is very noticeable in acceleration. the car has schrick 284 cams and low ratio diff with a quick shift and eisenmann race exhaust just beat a 2015 m5 from a standing start 0-60.
Why doesn't Porsche or somebody make a LIGHTER WEIGHT ALUMINUM DUAL mass flywheel? Both Inertia & vibration improvements? Wouldn't that be a proper 'compromise' between the two!? I really enjoy your videos because you are brilliant!
danny memeo cuz when light weight flywheel install, if u let the throttle out too quick on low rpm it jerk so much and very uncomfortable. Means required a way better throttle control
Interesting, but I don't follow your logic at 8:35 it doesn't matter if you start at 700rpm or 4000rpm as the 7697J/s (hp) is energy over time. I would think it requires the same 10.32hp to accelerate it from 4000 to 7000 as it does from 700 to 7000rpm (less energy difference but also less time equaling to the exact same J/s) correct me if I'm wrong.
It's kind of complicated, but you're essentially right. You're right in that I should not have said less horsepower. As you said, power is energy over time. What I should have said at this point is that you will experience that gain in horsepower for a shorter time (meaning it will not be as helpful to performance). What I was really trying to get at was the concept of work, but I didn't want to get into force times distance, etc. etc. and I was sloppy as a result. Good catch!
So.. I just put a single mass with a spec 2+ clutch on my 2011 335xi. I do a fair amount of city driving and honestly I ride supersport motorcycles so im used to race applications and performance parts. Here’s my question. I didn’t do the research necessary ahead of time to really see the downsides to the single mass and now I’m worried about my transmission. What can I do to prolong longevity of it and any and all other components from premature failure?? Any insight would be amazing.
haha! yep. Radial inertia. The same concept. of course this is more like an ice skater who replaces her arms with lightened aluminum ones... since the flywheels are roughly the same size.
So I own a 1999 Porsche 986 Boxster 2.5 manual. My good buddy has a 97 986 2.5 manual. He put the aluminum flywheel in with the sprung stage one pressure plate clutch kit. I drove it, it idles great, spins up quick, and is easy to drive in traffic and matches revs beautifully. I know some guys have put the solid aluminum flywheel in with the original solid unsprung pressure plate which is a big no no and leads to engine and drivability issues unless tuned for drag racing or track. Anyone else on here have this set up with aluminum flywheel and sprung pressure plate stage one? I don't want to invest $700 in the aluminum flywheel and $550 in the stage one clutch kit only to end up with engine misfire codes and problems in traffic. My freind claims that is his setup and it feels great but I did not see him install it first hand. I know my car is original and his definitely feels nicer then mine and spins up quicker. I'm replacing my IMS so im replacing all clutch and a stock on isnt much cheaper then the pretty aluminum one with stage one clutch kit(sprung). The original boxster flywheel is the sprung part with a solid pressure plate(kinda wierd in my opinion)
having a problem rev matching with my porsche 2002 turbo that has the lighten flywheel ..I am thinking of take it out should i keep clutch masters FX350 CLUTCH in and go back to the factory flywheel??? or put it all back to factory
Good idea. The factory setup will definitely help you rev match. Your clutch is designed for use with a lightened flywheel. It might still work with the factory setup, but I think I would put it all back to factory.
It always amazes me that kinetic energy is rot² so 10x more rpm 100x more energy. it is not logical. I wonder how much Dragsters use this kinetic energy at launch ( high rev and clutch it ).
These engines are known to have problems when changed over to lightweight flywheels. The harmonic frequencies are not absorbed and leads to problems. A quick search of the Internet is all it takes to discover the problems. The GT3 is a completely different motor, and it was designed to use it.
I love the fact that every guy out there is an engineer, a doctor, a psychologist and a drug expert at the same time these days. Absolutely mind-numbing
I think the reason petrol cars competing with diesel cars even during launch is due to the fact that they can use the extra energy of the flywheel in addition to their engine's torque output. Is it logical?I mean,how much torque can a flywheel provide to shaft if the driver dumps the clutch very quickly?
Yes, your ability to launch the car is greatly diminished and your first gear acceleration will be a lot worse. The idea is that the better acceleration in gears 2-3 will make up for what you lost in first. This isn't always the case which is why drag cars don't use lighter flywheels, the energy stored in a heavy flywheel is crucial for rapid acceleration. Lightweight flywheels are meant for track cars who need to shift gears constantly as the main benefit is the amount of time it takes for revs to match is greatly reduced. Another plus is that they are slightly easier on gearboxes as they can't dump as much energy at once.
No problem, btw what is your opinion on a LWFW on a front wheel drive? I have been told that it would be too much torque and that there would be insane amounts of wheelspin.
Ok, this will make me sound like a car snob, but I've never actually owned a front wheel drive car. That said, a LWFW isn't going to increase the total amount of torque--your engine still delivers the same torque. What happens is that that torque is not delivered as smoothly with a LWFW, so it's a little harder to control. There will be a much narrower range between stalling and spinning out. So, yeah, I think it could definitely lead to unwanted wheelspin off the line. Once you get moving, it's a little easier to control.
Zachary Yes, you will. Any reduced drivetrain loss WILL produce more horsepower at the wheels. How significant that increase is, is another debate but there is no doubt about whether or not it does.
Cyrus Lever Imagine this. Your car makes 100hp at a base timing of 0BTDC. You advance the timing to 10BTDC. You car is running more efficiently now and you produce 105hp. Did you gain horsepower or did you just reduce efficiency losses? Pretty much every you’d ask would say you gained power. Why should drivetrain losses be regarded differently? Especially when talking about horsepower at the wheels?
@@edge21str drivetrain changes wont make a signifigant or even measurable difference in hp. He explains in the video. You dont get more horsepower. Just less resistance to the same amount of force.
@@edge21str You both know what you're talking about and are correct. You guys are just arguing about semantics, is all. However, In my opinion, I think it's more correct to say increasing efficiency leads to an increase in power, as opposed to one occurring independently of the other. increasing efficiency, perhaps by finding the correct timing for negative pressure waves within an exhaust system to return to the cylinders, yields the result of greater horsepower, for instance.
