-KangaRod-

I just couldn't take it anymore...
Stress on the valve train is not measure as a strict measurment of rpm. It is infact measured by instantanious acceleration at the pully/flywheel/crank/cams. Now, if the acceleration of the motor vs RPM were infact constant, and directly proportional to the flywheel, then yes, valve train stresses could be evaluated by intrepreting RPM.
However....they are not, As your car infact revs through the rpm range, every milli-second the engine is slowing down and speeding up. This happens because everytime the motor turns over, there is only a force that acts on it twice (the spark fires twice) now that force is obviously not instaintanious, but of course would not push for the entire stroke of motor, which is where the flywheel comes in. The flywheel insures that the engine does not loose momentum when the cylinder pressure is not pushing down on it. To put it bluntly, your engine is slowing down, and speeding up a significant amount evertime the spark plug fires. If what I was stating was not true, engines would not need flywheels. A heavy flywheel makes this less significant, since it has more momentum, it will spin longer without a force acting on it. But will spin up easier. This is where the illusion of power comes from a lightweight flywheel. The fact of the matter remains, a car will make more torque easier with a heavy flywheel (espically since you can rev your car up while you are sitting at the tree / light / waiting for the arm to drop, so the force required to spin your motor up is infact not taken from your et). I cannot stress this enough.
engines do not make horsepower, modifications to an engine do not add horsepower
horsepower is a measurment of torque over time, so you can't make horsepower without making more torque (unless you rev higher, but thats a different story).
So where were we...
Cars with longer strokes can have smaller flywheels since the force on the is acting longer, and still have the same smoothness as a car with a shorter stroke and a heavy flywheel. To put it bluntly, Light flywheels on short stroked, long rodded performance motors (B16, ZE) will have a negative effect on straight line performance. Lightweight flywheels are to add easy of rev matching between shifts, and make the motor rev more freely to attain higher revs easier (thats not for drag racing, sorry guys! The infact make it harder to launch since the power application is not as constant, thats what gives you the bogging effect off the line with a lightweight flywheel). Long stroke, short rod motors (LS, 1ZZ, D-series) have a longer stroke, so they wont suffer reliabily and torque issues as much as a shorter stroked motor would.
The main concern of mine stems from the fact that since when you add a lightweight flywheel, the momentum of the flywheel will fall off and speed up much more drastically than if you had a heavy flywheel (as we already established). This means that the instantanious acceleration at the flywheel will have a much greater range of motion between firing and will drop and accelerate at a much greater pace. This is reflected into the valve train, and has a direct reflection upon how hard the valve springs have to work. Makes sense no?
Lightweight flywheels put additional stresses on the valve train.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

-edit-
this tangent brought to you by your friendly neightbour hood Rocket, because before him, I didn't understand this theory.

rodimus

hmm..the ITR flywheel is a tad lighter than the gsr's...
based on what you are saying, everyone would be using gsr fly's for drag races?
when is a flywheel for a b18c1 too heavy/too light for drag racing? esp for launches?

rodimus

yes lightweight fly's put additional stress on the valvetrain, but doesn't everything performance wise that makes your engine spin faster/rev at higher rpms put stress on the valvetrain?

ActiveAero

I don't get your point of saying a lightweight flywheel hurts in a strait line. Mine accelerates faster with my Fidanza than without it, especially in the first 2 gears. Might make the car harder to launch, but it sure hasn't slowed it down.

-KangaRod-

I believe that when you include the launch a lightweight flywheel (such as a fidenza) would be hurt (esp in the first cupple gears). Once a car gets moving the less recopricating mass the better, but to start it moving is what is most important in drag racing.
I'm not saying that lightwieght flywheels are bad. They serve a very important purpose while road racing. They enable the engine to rev much more freely, thus making it easier to rev match while downshifting. Its hard to say how light is to light. I don't know how a 55 lb flywheel would preform. I think it would really help a car out of the hole.
Evol - everything puts additional stresses on the valve train, yes, but the flywheel espically since it is such a large contributor to the speed an engine sustains between firing. That is its purpose on the engine, so when you change that you are changing what its purpose is for.
I'm curious to see peoples numbers before and after lightweight flywheels. Espically between GsR to ITR. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject by a long shot. I'm just trying to make people think.
I still think the lightwieght flywheel illusion is just that, an illusion. I'd be intrested to see proof otherwise of course.

rodimus

what "illusion" exactly?
if it does ATLEAST serve some purposes, as you stated..rev matching...
allowing an engine to rev more freely/quicker...
than how is that an illusion?

rod- who just got his aasco flywheel installed

shant

i dont understand the stress on the vavletrain part. how do the valve springs, valves, cams LMA's and retainers get stressed when there is fluctuating speed of operation due to lightened flywheels? Those components will do their job even with the minor changes in speed caused by the loss flywheel mass and inertia.

i can understand stress on the timing belt.

am i missing something here?

ActiveAero

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by -KangaRod- &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I believe that when you include the launch a lightweight flywheel (such as a fidenza) would be hurt (esp in the first cupple gears). Once a car gets moving the less recopricating mass the better, but to start it moving is what is most important in drag racing.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why would the lightweight flywheel hurt it in the first couple of gears? I can see it hurting on the launch because it is harder to transfer power due to lack of interia as the clutch engages, but that can be compensated with more throttle or a higher rpm launch. After the clutch is fully engaged it is just making the mass the crank has to turn lighter, which is better in terms of acceleration from everything I have read.

HatchAttack242

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by -KangaRod- &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I believe that when you include the launch a lightweight flywheel (such as a fidenza) would be hurt (esp in the first cupple gears). Once a car gets moving the less recopricating mass the better, but to start it moving is what is most important in drag racing.
I'm not saying that lightwieght flywheels are bad. They serve a very important purpose while road racing. They enable the engine to rev much more freely, thus making it easier to rev match while downshifting. Its hard to say how light is to light. I don't know how a 55 lb flywheel would preform. I think it would really help a car out of the hole.
Evol - everything puts additional stresses on the valve train, yes, but the flywheel espically since it is such a large contributor to the speed an engine sustains between firing. That is its purpose on the engine, so when you change that you are changing what its purpose is for.
I'm curious to see peoples numbers before and after lightweight flywheels. Espically between GsR to ITR. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject by a long shot. I'm just trying to make people think.
I still think the lightwieght flywheel illusion is just that, an illusion. I'd be intrested to see proof otherwise of course.</TD></TR></TABLE>


Incorrect.

Proof.

inertia[inur´shu] Pronunciation Key, in physics, the resistance of a body to any alteration in its state of motion, i.e., the resistance of a body at rest to being set in motion or of a body in motion to any change of speed or change in direction of motion. Inertia is a property common to all matter. This property was first observed by Galileo and restated by Newton as his first law of motion, sometimes called the law of inertia. Newton's second law of motion states that the external force required to affect the motion of a body is proportional to that acceleration. The constant of proportionality is known as the mass, which is the numerical value of the inertia; the greater the inertia of a body, the less is its acceleration for a given applied force.

-KangaRod-

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by shant &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
i can understand stress on the timing belt.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
if you can understand stress on the belt, why not on the springs. They are all directly connected.
The big thing about the heavier flywheel is that you get to rev it up for free at the tree. There is no doubt that a lighter flywheel is nicer once the car gets moving, but getting the car moving is much more important in drag racing.
Say for example it takes 100,000 KJ of energy to rev a 90 lb flywheel to 9000 rpm, and 50,000 KJ to rev a 45 lb flywheel to 9000 rpm. That is an extra 50,000 KJ of energy that will be unleashed at your lauch, and didn't cost you anything (except that it took longer to rev up), but you didn't mind since you were sitting at the light anyway. That extra energy would carry through untill 3rd gear or so when the free revability of the lighter flywheel would carry though.
The main purpose of the post (I went off a little bit) was to explain the additional valve stresses that take palace.
As for that guy who posted Newton's first law, I don't understand how that disproves what I'm saying. If anything it supports it.

snowseeker

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by -KangaRod- &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
if you can understand stress on the belt, why not on the springs. They are all directly connected.
The big thing about the heavier flywheel is that you get to rev it up for free at the tree. There is no doubt that a lighter flywheel is nicer once the car gets moving, but getting the car moving is much more important in drag racing.
Say for example it takes 100,000 KJ of energy to rev a 90 lb flywheel to 9000 rpm, and 50,000 KJ to rev a 45 lb flywheel to 9000 rpm. That is an extra 50,000 KJ of energy that will be unleashed at your lauch, and didn't cost you anything (except that it took longer to rev up), but you didn't mind since you were sitting at the light anyway. That extra energy would carry through untill 3rd gear or so when the free revability of the lighter flywheel would carry though.
The main purpose of the post (I went off a little bit) was to explain the additional valve stresses that take palace.
As for that guy who posted Newton's first law, I don't understand how that disproves what I'm saying. If anything it supports it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

So after you launch and your motor drops down to 4,500 RPM the engine than has to rev that flywheel back up to 9,000 rpm while trying to pull a car along now.

HatchAttack242

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by -KangaRod- &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
if you can understand stress on the belt, why not on the springs. They are all directly connected.
The big thing about the heavier flywheel is that you get to rev it up for free at the tree. There is no doubt that a lighter flywheel is nicer once the car gets moving, but getting the car moving is much more important in drag racing.
Say for example it takes 100,000 KJ of energy to rev a 90 lb flywheel to 9000 rpm, and 50,000 KJ to rev a 45 lb flywheel to 9000 rpm. That is an extra 50,000 KJ of energy that will be unleashed at your lauch, and didn't cost you anything (except that it took longer to rev up), but you didn't mind since you were sitting at the light anyway. That extra energy would carry through untill 3rd gear or so when the free revability of the lighter flywheel would carry though.
The main purpose of the post (I went off a little bit) was to explain the additional valve stresses that take palace.
As for that guy who posted Newton's first law, I don't understand how that disproves what I'm saying. If anything it supports it.</TD></TR></TABLE>


The only way the stored energy in the flywheel can help is if the engine does not generate the power to launch off the line at the maximum traction threshold of the tires without bogging. Then it might be able to use this stored energy to accelerate. Otherwise, power above this threshold and you spin wasting time and energy. A 50 lb flywheel might help you win a burnout competition, where holding the engine at a constant speed would be necessary. However, in drag racing the ability to resist a change in motion is not the goal, accelerating is. The energy it takes to re-accelerate the heavy flywheel after launch and between each shift will slow the car down.

The law of inertia proves this point. Racing is an accelerating test, not a resistance to change in motion. Perhaps in tractor pulling competitions this might be valid, where initial resistance from the weight sled is low, and increases as you move further down the track, and obviously you must resist this force slowing down your tractor. But even then if you have ever watched them.. The engine makes more than enough power, traction is the real issue.

ActiveAero

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by -KangaRod- &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
if you can understand stress on the belt, why not on the springs. They are all directly connected.
The big thing about the heavier flywheel is that you get to rev it up for free at the tree. There is no doubt that a lighter flywheel is nicer once the car gets moving, but getting the car moving is much more important in drag racing.
Say for example it takes 100,000 KJ of energy to rev a 90 lb flywheel to 9000 rpm, and 50,000 KJ to rev a 45 lb flywheel to 9000 rpm. That is an extra 50,000 KJ of energy that will be unleashed at your lauch, and didn't cost you anything (except that it took longer to rev up), but you didn't mind since you were sitting at the light anyway. That extra energy would carry through untill 3rd gear or so when the free revability of the lighter flywheel would carry though.
The main purpose of the post (I went off a little bit) was to explain the additional valve stresses that take palace.
As for that guy who posted Newton's first law, I don't understand how that disproves what I'm saying. If anything it supports it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Like the other guy said above your idea is assuming you can convert ALL of your extra power into traction.

If two cars with the same engine CAN'T break traction even when launched from the rev limiter then yes the car with the heavier flywheel should get off the line harder. However most cars have traction limits, the heavier flywheel might reach this point at a lower rpm due to the extra weight, but what does it matter if you can reach the same point of interia by launching higher with the lightweight flywheel?

Also I don't see how you say the power will transfer all the way through third gear? How is this? Once you engage that heavy flywheel fully the engine is now lugging the extra weight of it, in fact the effect is mulitplied in the lower gears and actually becomes less effective as the gear ratio lessens. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

-KangaRod-

if traction is the issue, then you can slip the clutch.
Not all the way through 3 gears, the beginning 3rd gear is where I would assume the lightwieght flywheel would start to catch up, but being as how your 60 ft time is IMHO the most important part of any drag race, I'd much rather have a 1.7 60' than a 4 second (2nd half) eigth mile. I don't claim to be an expert on it at all, like I've said, and am getting in a little bit over my head (haha) I'd be curious to find out what type of flywheel the 10 second all motor guys run, as well as dyno curves and et's of cars with GsR flywheels vs ITR flywheels.
Also, when you have a heavier flywheel, its much safer to ram shift, so you can keep the rpm's higher.
If a car was faster with a lightweight flywheel, why wouldn't Honda have put one on the ITR? That is not a drag racer by a long shot, yet still it has a fairly heavy (compared to a aluminum aftermarket) flywheel?
There is also the issue of engine harmonics, the stock flywheel (mostly the balancer) was designed to control the engine harmonics to a much larger extent than eveything but the most expensive aftermarket flywheels.
I believe in OEM quality, but more so I believe in parts that work together. Finding parts that work together well take lots of research and development, which non of the aftermarket companies would have put into anywhere near the same amount of hours as Honda.
Active Aero - you said, what does it matter if you can launch with the same inerta with a higher rpm limit, but it does very much so. A higher rpm drop puts a lot more stress on an already weaker flywheel. The engine doesn't lug the heavy flywheel for sometime, it actually helps it spin for the most part.
I'm suprized nobody has taken my points out of context yet and said something to the effect of why don't cars run 150 lb flywheels then? Obviously there is a happy medium between the two, of which I would rather be on the high end. One could say the opposite about your case and ask why run a flywheel?
The flywheel is a necessary part on any engine, which I assume we all know in here, and ligher ones don't provide the benefits that heavier (to an extent do) for drag racing (IMHO). They are weaker [in a driveline that will see serious abuse (hopefully )], don't carry as much inertia, and are more difficult to drive. Low end torque is king when it comes to drag racing. Why do you think an LsVtec will beat a similarly prepared ITR?

HatchAttack242

I'm not being rude, but you do not fully understand the physics of what is happening. I at one time did not understand these concepts either and hey did not just jump into my head. So please don't think I'm trying to belittle anyone. I'm trying to think of ways to explain this to help whoever is reading and interested in learning it.
If you want to actually "see" the stored energy in the flywheel do the following. Get motor A. Put a 50# flywheel on it. Rev it to X rpm. Let off the gas. Use a timer and time how long the heavy flywheel takes to drop from X rpm to 0 rpm. Do the same thing with a 8# flywheel. The 8# wheel will stop rotating first. You seem to understand this part. BUT, the energy stored in a 50# weight with a rotating radius of ~ 6 inches does not have the energy to move itself a 1/4 mile, let alone a 2000# car. Slipping the clutch is still wasting time and power, the exact same thing as wheel spin, except your fiction point is the clutch meeting the flywheel instead of tire meeting the ground. Same thing just a different place in the driveline. The flywheel is not going to carry energy through to the top of third, the INSTANT the clutch has stopped slipping and you have no wheel spin, the 'driveline' between the point of power production (crank) and the point of friction required to accelerate your car (tire meeting road surface) is now at a fixed speed, and it is the sole responsibility of the engine to produce the required power to accelerate the entire driveline, plus sufficient force to accelerate the weight attached to the driveline (the car). The flywheel does not have magic power to aid in acceleration here. The flywheel is at a fixed rotation with fixed stored energy once the driveline has completed. It cannot speed itself up, otherwise this would be perpetual energy. It does 2 things. It resists deaccelerating, and it resists accelerating (uht oh). This is law of inertia. We are trying to accelerate. The flywheel can no longer aid us in accelerating, because it does not have any energy stored above and beyond its current rotation speed. Otherwise, again, we would have perpetual energy.

On another note, low end torque does not win the race. ls-vtec's win because they simply have more horsepower under the area of the curve used during the race. Torque does not have a factor of time in the equation, Horsepower does. I was going to type out a big *** explanation. But go here http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm and read the second half about horsepower and torque.

Big Poppa Pump

Oh NO!!!! Not this Flywheel argument **** again!!!

They are cheap enough these days that if you want 1 buy it and if you dont like it sell it!! Plain and simple!!!

shant

I think what ~KangRoad~ meant was with the heavier flywheel the car will have a better launch (better 60 foot time) will improve the ET, and may possibly reduce the time the car takes to accelerate and shift into third gear because of the reduction in 60 foot time. so if that is true, then the time to accelerate to third gear is actually faster with the heavier flywheel. even though the benefit of the energy in the heavier flywheel is gone as soon as the engine speed starts to accelerate after launch in first gear the benefit has already taken place and the car is off to a better start. 60f time is the most important thing in drag racing and a reduction in 60f time will improve the whole ET.

I remember 2 years ago i was at a track that had good traction (VHT sprayed on the track) and i was launching my car from 8600rpm with 10psi in my slicks and the car would bog right down to 4000 rpm, my 60f times were terrible and i could not get the car to launch well. I had to add air to the tires to lose some traction to stop the motor from bogging off the line. The 60f times did improve a bit with more tire spin off the line, I do use a 7.5 lb flywheel and if the flywheel was heavier i probly would not have had to raise tire pressure because the inertia will pull the car out of a bogging problem at the launch.

with a heavier flywheel the car would accelerate faster (better 60f) to a certain point, but at some point the benefit of the lighter flywheel will take over and out weigh the better 60f time, this might take place somewhere around half track, or ever might be past the 1320 mark, there is a happy medium somewhere. it seems that some might think that there is no need to run a heavier flywheel because everyone is struggling for traction as it is. Traction problems are caused by driver error, too much power, bad track conditions, suspension set up, tires size and pressure etc. not a heavier flywheel
look at all the f1 and Indy cars that stall the motor coming out of the pits or out off a spin. they are engaging the clutch at high rpms but the lack of a flywheel (very small) causes it to be very difficult to control the car, sometimes causing the motor to stall, light up the tires or bog the motor most of the time.

my opinion is that a lighter flywheel is a better choice for my application, i use a 7.5lb aluminium flywheel with the clutch assembly weighing in at 23lb and next year i will switch to a tilton flywheel and clutch assembly that weighs in at 11lb total. i might have problems bogging off the line but i believe that lack of weight in the car 1700lb est should not be too much of a problem for the energy in the motor @ 8000 rpm to pull the car out of the hole nicely. maybe even improve 60f times and will definitely improve the transient response of the motor after the launch.

About the increase in Valvetrain stress with a lighter flywheel. i still dont get it. can someone try to explain this better. i can see the timing belt stress because its rubber and will strech and expand possibly tear. But valvetrain stress i dont uderstand.

Modified by shant at 8:43 PM 10/25/2003


Modified by shant at 9:06 PM 10/25/2003

rodimus

i can throw a baseball further than a tennis ball.
my little cousin can throw the tennis ball further than my baseball.

ok bye.

shant

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EVOL &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yes lightweight fly's put additional stress on the valvetrain, but doesn't everything performance wise that makes your engine spin faster/rev at higher rpms put stress on the valvetrain?

i can throw a baseball further than a tennis ball.
my little cousin can throw the tennis ball further than my baseball.
ok bye.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

What about the stress on the valve train because of a lighter flywheel? why components does this stress and how?

-KangaRod-

your valve spring stress (the entire purpose of this thread) will have a direct corelation to the instantanious acceleration as measured at the flywheel (or cams, or dizzy, or valve spring - they are all connected directly for the most part, the t-belt complicates things a little bit)
and since the light flywheel speed drops and speeds up (on a microsecond level) much faster with a heavy flywheel (do you understand this part?) the valve spring tenson will also increase and decrease at a much larger difference (still with me, I'm trying to find out where you are getting confused), since the tension in the spring is changing much more frequently, and at a larger rate, it will fail much sooner. (

EVOL - I have the feeling you are illustrating a very good point, but I don't follow you.

-KangaRod-

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HatchAttack242 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm not being rude, but you do not fully understand the physics of what is happening.
Don't worry about "explaining" your rudeness. This is the internet, if there is one thing we can all do, its be rude!

The flywheel does not have magic power to aid in acceleration here. The flywheel is at a fixed rotation with fixed stored energy once the driveline has completed. It cannot speed itself up. It does 2 things. It resists deaccelerating, and it resists accelerating (uht oh). This is law of inertia. We are trying to accelerate. The flywheel can no longer aid us in accelerating, because it does not have any energy stored above and beyond its current rotation speed. Otherwise, again, we would have perpetual energy.
we are not attempting to use the flywheel soley...
we are attempting to use it assist in accelerating. By your reasoning no flywheel would be better than a heavy one. You need a flywheel of course to run the motor, so the sheer notion of this is redicilious, but what do you think would happen to a car with no flywheel? The engine would rev all over the place between shifts, you'd have to rev to the moon to launch the car, and it would fall so far out of the powerband during the 1 two shift.

On another note, low end torque does not win the race. ls-vtec's win because they simply have more horsepower under the area of the curve used during the race
. Torque does not have a factor of time in the equation, Horsepower does. I was going to type out a big *** explanation. But go here http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm and read the second half about horsepower and torque

what puts more area under the curve? a higher rev limit? There are only two ways to have a higher hp number, more torque or more revs. Personally I never look at the hp curve because its numbers are irellivant. The are dependant upon the torque curve and calculated by the dyno computer using that..</TD></TR></TABLE>

-edit-
I also read that websight, and I definitely thought it agreed with me. It made seem HP as though it didn't matter.

-KangaRod-

I also came accross this websight, and thought it off semi relivance, althought it is mostly directed at balancers and doesn't prove or disprove anything said so far today.
http://dinancars.com/html/dang...s.htm

turbociv

inertia makes complete sense when it comes down to aiding the crank in rotation. However intertia of the flywheel has nothing to do with valvetrain. Valve train is solely mechanical and does not do anything unless the timing belt makes it. The only thing making your cams spin and your valves go up and down is the timing belt. but on the other hand:\

1. lighter flywheel means that the engine is slowing down and speeding up more so than a heavier flywheel. Do to the crank being directly connected to the cams via timing belt the valvetrain (ex. springs) are slowing down and speeding up more also.

2. A heavier fly wheel is going to have more inertia meaning that in those millisecs where nothing is spinning the engine other than flywheel weight, crank speeds are going to stay more constant (due to inertia of heavy flywheel) meaning cams and springs dont have to slow down and speed up as much because fly wheel weight is spinning (more than lightweight) to keepa more constant speed.

However that all gets thrown out the window as soon as clutch is fully engaged and traction is met. Then its the lighter flywheel thats going to excelerate faster. At this point everything but enertia is taken into perspective.(ex. vehicle weight, engine power, air dynamics etc.)

jeremy.

up

-KangaRod-

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turbociv &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
However that all gets thrown out the window as soon as clutch is fully engaged and traction is met. Then its the lighter flywheel thats going to excelerate faster. At this point everything but enertia is taken into perspective.(ex. vehicle weight, engine power, air dynamics etc.)</TD></TR></TABLE>
So what are you saying? AS soon as the clutch is engaged the flywheel that has all the extra energy stored (because it is heavier and took more energy to rev up) is thrown out the window?