I have reached the point with my H22A where I should replace the clutch. Not because it is bad, but because my rear main seal is leaking. So I figured since I have to pull the tranny I might as well pop in an ACT clutch. The dilemma is, should I stick with the stock flywheel or buy a chromoly one instead? I've seen the F1 flywheel which weighs 11 lbs and, according to the ad, is "solid one-piece billet chromoly." Then there is the XTD flywheel which is a little bit lighter. My 3rd option would be to keep the OEM flywheel. The REAL issue for me, should I keep a heavier flywheel to have more inertia and more low-end torque, or will I notice better results acceleration-wise with an 11 lb. flywheel? I'm not too keen on losing a lot of low-end power, even though this motor is in a del Sol. I will be spraying the motor with a 75 shot. Is it not practical to keep the OEM flywheel in this car? Keep in mind it could very well be 16 years old.

 

you should go with a ligther flywheel better rpms ill do it

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SolAssassin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">should I keep a heavier flywheel to have more inertia and more low-end torque, or will I notice better results acceleration-wise with an 11 lb. flywheel? </TD></TR></TABLE>

You aren't going to lose any low-end power or torque by installing a lighter flywheel, and if anything, acceleration will be marginally improved due to the decreased rotating mass that the engine is forced to spin. I'd personally go with a Fidanza (which is currently being offered on special in the Sponsor's Marketplace).

 

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

You aren't going to lose any low-end power or torque by installing a lighter flywheel, and if anything, acceleration will be marginally improved due to the decreased rotating mass that the engine is forced to spin. I'd personally go with a Fidanza (which is currently being offered on special in the Sponsor's Marketplace). </TD></TR></TABLE> you always loose torque by going with a lighter flywheel.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Golden Eagle &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> you always loose torque by going with a lighter flywheel.</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's a complete myth.

Can you present dyno charts to support that claim?

 

I agree with Golden Eagle. Sounds like common sense but maybe my common sense is broke.

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

That's a complete myth.

Can you present dyno charts to support that claim? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Can you present dyno charts that prove him wrong?

 

Reciprocating weight has nothing to do with torque.
Your confusing torque with inertia.

Some good info from Donf and others here &gt;https://honda-tech.com/zero...age=1

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BILLETGRIP &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I agree with Golden Eagle. Sounds like common sense but maybe my common sense is broke.</TD></TR></TABLE>

How would adding weight to the end of the crank increasing torque seem like common sense?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BILLETGRIP &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Can you present dyno charts that prove him wrong?</TD></TR></TABLE>

You don't need a dyno, you just need a basic understanding of what torque is, how it is created, and how an engine functions. When you have that, you'll see why the idea that a heavier flywheel increases an engine's torque is simply incorrect.

When you start arguing against these basic, fundamental concepts (as occurred above), that's when you need to provide some actual dyno results to try to support the claim.

Either way, if you check out the link provided, you'll discover this post:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Nick M &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I gained torque and area under the curve with a lighter flywheel.
/ Thread </TD></TR></TABLE>

 

^^For rizzeal.

There is a difference between inertia and torque, go read some wikipedia.

A lighter flywheel is going to rob less energy from the crank because it requires less to get moving faster (i.e it has a lesser moment of inertia), which will create more torque and as follows area under the curve. Thank you nick.

Why do you think the flywheels/clutches on ferraris are only 6" in diameter and (sometime) made of carbon fiber?

FWIW, I noticed a difference in the engine's ability to rev faster, rev matching was easier and driving in traffic is better.

 

maybe i am confusing inertia with torque.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Scholzey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">get on the dyno with a 100lb flywheel rev the engine to 7k then drop the clutch, measure torque. attach a 10lb flywheel and repeat. which has the greater torque? maybe thats what he is talking about. torque created by inertia. </TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mista Bone &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">on my NA 1.5L, the stock 18 lb flywheel was quicker in the 1/4 mile compared to a 12.25 pound unit. Same thing with the D16Z6 on spray, the 12.25 was quicker that a 7.5 lb unit.
But then again launching at 7000+ rpm's on slicks, gotta use the interia to holeshot the car. </TD></TR></TABLE>
^^ still makes sense to me

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BILLETGRIP &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">maybe i am confusing inertia with torque.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No your not. Inertia is a direct function of engine torque and speed. Therefor the change in crankshaft speed (applied torque) results in inertia, which is the ability to remain at a constant velocity without interaction with an outside force. (IE the engine speeding up the crankshaft, the air resistance and tires slowing it down, as well as the engine during compression braking)

Inertia is the result of torque, and when it is applied, its inertia is converted into torque through centrifugal movement and connection. (clutch)


Two engines turning 1000 rpms each, making 20ft lbs of torque each, and one having a 20lb flywheel, and the other having a 40lb flywheel, the one with the 40 will resist change more due to its weight (equals applied torque), as energy is stored in its movement, therefor resulting in more overall power. This is simple science, and energy which causes movement does not simply disappear.

Whats easier to stop, a Honda Civic at 50mph or a dump truck at the same speed. Think about it....

 

LOL. Interesting discussion, I was having the same one with a friend. I read that other post and it looks like it's one guy's word against the other's. I do see what a lot of you mean by there being a difference between inertia and torque. This isn't making my decision any easier...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SolAssassin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">LOL. Interesting discussion, I was having the same one with a friend. I read that other post and it looks like it's one guy's word against the other's. I do see what a lot of you mean by there being a difference between inertia and torque. This isn't making my decision any easier... </TD></TR></TABLE>

It should...

Force = Mass X Acceleration

So, NO MATTER WHAT The force will always be equal when it is applied.

A heavier unit will create more usable torque on apply, and less acceleration.

A lighter unit will create more usable acceleration, and less applied torque.

The only advantage to a light flywheel is that it is lighter, and would reduce the weight of the car. There is no other advantage to having a lighter flywheel on a car.

I have Newtons 2nd law on my side, and I'm sure hes quite reputable, since his laws require no enforcement.

 

good stuff slowcivic, glad we got this straightened out. So in reallty a heavier flywheel would be better for stop and go taffic, since it ressits change better, and change bein the clutch grabbing the flywheel and putting power to the wheels.

 

Let me make one final statement on this..

A light and heavy flywheel both transmit the same power, over two different methods. A heavy flywheel uses high inertial torque, and a lower RPM to achieve the same power. A light flywheel is just the opposite, high speed, with little inertial torque.

Heavy flywheels are suitable for street cars because of their resistance to change, which reduces vibration and smooths engagement RPM/time. This is ideal for most driving conditions and racing.

Light flywheels only have one advantage in a car, and that is weight reduction. It would be more practical for a street car to get lighter wheels.

Before posting claims gains on horsepower, the Law of Conservation states that matter (take into account E=MC2) cannot be created or destroyed.

There is no increase or decrease in total power with either of them. Light flywheels are also more prone to RPM change because of reduced moment of inertia, and like I've said before, car parts don't like to be started and stopped all the time, it wears them out.

 

lol and if your still confused theres nothing wrong with a stock flywheel.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slowcivic2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Heavy flywheels are suitable for street cars because of their resistance to change, which reduces vibration and smooths engagement RPM/time. This is ideal for most driving conditions and racing.

Light flywheels only have one advantage in a car, and that is weight reduction. It would be more practical for a street car to get lighter wheels.</TD></TR></TABLE>

If heavy flywheels were more suitable for racing, they'd be used in race cars. However, the truth is that some race cars don't even use a flywheel at all, and others use very lightweight flywheels, like the Comptech unit used on the RealTime ITR's (cars which, incidentally, had to run lead ballast to increase overall weight, so weight reduction was not the motivating factor). The flywheels improve throttle response as well as acceleration. Heavier flywheels are suitable for street cars because they do provide a "smoother" driving experience with more margin for driver error, but they certainly do not provide better performance.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slowcivic2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Before posting claims gains on horsepower, the Law of Conservation states that matter (take into account E=MC2) cannot be created or destroyed.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think you're beginning to grasp at straws in your attempt to reinforce your argument. Where did anyone mention the creation or destruction of matter?

The engine creates a finite amount of power by converting the stored energy in fuel. That power is then used to turn the crank, and anything attached to it. Turning a heavy flywheel takes a certain amount of that finite energy, just as pushing a heavy truck down the road takes a certain amount of energy. It doesn't matter that the flywheel or the truck are already moving. Both still require more energy to maintain that movement than a lighter flywheel or a smaller truck would respectively require.

 

whats easier to roll a marble or a bolder ??
the marble will gain and loose speed more rapidly bc of the weight compared to the bolder
once the bolder starts rolling it takes a hell of a lot more energy to stop it
and vice versa once it stops moving its gonna take more energy to speed it up again
as apposed to the marble


ok.... lets say your cruising at 50mph and you punch it
option a. your engine has to move drive shaft ect...
option b . your engine has to move drive shaft ect... - 9-12lbs?
less weight is less weight

which seems easier on the engine? hummmm.....

 

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

If heavy flywheels were more suitable for racing, they'd be used in race cars. However, the truth is that some race cars don't even use a flywheel at all, and others use very lightweight flywheels, like the Comptech unit used on the RealTime ITR's (cars which, incidentally, had to run lead ballast to increase overall weight, so weight reduction was not the motivating factor). The flywheels improve throttle response as well as acceleration. Heavier flywheels are suitable for street cars because they do provide a "smoother" driving experience with more margin for driver error, but they certainly do not provide better performance.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Look at the quote in the above posts about Mista Bone's track experience with light flywheels, I'd like for you to also disagree with his statements as well.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Padawan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I think you're beginning to grasp at straws in your attempt to reinforce your argument. Where did anyone mention the creation or destruction of matter?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Furyof4 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Reciprocating weight has nothing to do with torque.
Your confusing torque with inertia. </TD></TR></TABLE>


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Padawan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The engine creates a finite amount of power by converting the stored energy in fuel. That power is then used to turn the crank, and anything attached to it. Turning a heavy flywheel takes a certain amount of that finite energy, just as pushing a heavy truck down the road takes a certain amount of energy. It doesn't matter that the flywheel or the truck are already moving. Both still require more energy to maintain that movement than a lighter flywheel or a smaller truck would respectively require.</TD></TR></TABLE>


You obviously think that turning a huge force makes that energy disappear because of weight, which is why I stated that Law above, if you understood that, you would know that this also applies to all energy, as it can change form, but never disappear/appear out of nowhere. Energy spent turning something will always exist, because it is moving, and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon.

This creates a moment of inertia, which is a burst of torque caused by a weights rotation, it does not disappear, which is what you seem you think, this energy is reformed to the wheels regardless of the method in which it gets there, either by high speed revolutions or lots of inertial mass, the same net HP will always result. The only downside is the weight of the flywheel, which increases or decrease the vehicles weight.

Energy used to start turning the crank is irrelevant, because we do not use it until it is applied by a clutch or another mechanism.

 

ok heres the math
crank hp - weight of **** between crank to wheels = wheel hp!!!
if you dissagree why is there a loss in hp from crank to wheels?
its bc of all the power *SPENT* on moving that ****
so lessn the load of *weight of **** between crank to wheels* and that equals
more crank hp to get through the wheels !!!!!


http://www.whizwheels.com/Tips....html
expletive yall!!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slowcivic2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Energy used to start turning the crank is irrelevant, because we do not use it until it is applied by a clutch or another mechanism.</TD></TR></TABLE>
energy used to start turning the crank is the same amount of energy thats gonna be used when the clutch is applied so yea it does matter

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slowcivic2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Energy spent turning something will always exist, because it is moving, and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
yes newtons law is true but did you forget about umm gravity, wind resistance,friction ? haha no matter how you try those factors of resistance are everywhere * un less you were in a complete vacuum *ie* space*

so if i roll a ball it will slowdown b/c of gravity and air resistance.


o and key word in your sentence up there *spent* as in used up in the process of moving the flywheel which leaves less to get to the wheels.

did you even take physics ??? it looks like you dont know what your talking about. and who ever said you loose torque is a jack ***;2 : a turning or twisting force. there you have it folks straight from webster himself so example

1. 100 ft/lbs moving 20lbs ball
2. 100 ft/lbs moving 10lbs ball ....?
humm which uses less energy therefore haveing more remaining energy?
the 10lbs ball

therefor you really gain torque * actually is doesnt give you torque its lets you use more of what you started out with bc it wastes less turning a lighter flywheel or in this case ball*

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slowcivic2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
this energy is reformed to the wheels regardless of the method in which it gets there, either by high speed revolutions or lots of inertial mass, the same net HP will always result.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

then why is there drive train loss?

haha ok so i have a h22 ek vs a prelude? who will win, who will accelerate faster?

the ek b/c its lighter so the engine has less mass to move and inturn mores the *less mass* faster and quicker.
while as for the lude the engine is useing up all its energy moving that heavy *** car.

 

Heavier flywheels can hold up to more torque. I don't think that's a direct correlation to the weight though. That's usually due to the mass of the flywheel & material. If you notice on any standard pickup, the heavier duty the pickup, the heavier that flywheel feels, the slower it revs, the slower it drops. You ever see the RPM raise/drop on a tractor trailer? It's not exactly VTEC.

Now with that said, a heavier flywheel is harder to get moving, but holds inertia longer.

With that said, I think (though am not sure) a heavier flywheel is better for launching, as the power will be transferred better and the extra force that the car (wheels, drivetrain, weight) applies to the flywheel is less - meaning you launch harder/better with a heavier flywheel. Though the question is:
IS THIS COMPENSATED BY ACCELERATION??

Usually, not.

Heavier flywheel = harder launch, so wha tyou have to ask yourself is if you're making enough power that you can overcome the initial lag (weaker launch) created by a weaker flywheel.

If I was you (which I'm not), I wouldn't do anything lower than maybe 11-12-13lbs unless you're making 200+ on a launch. If you're making 200+ at the wheels on a launch then a lightened flywheel will help you, but if you're making the stock 80-100lb/ft tq. that a Z6 makes and you slap a lightweight flywheel on it, your launch is gonna turn to ****, you're gonna launch like ur tied to a poll.

So refer to the question in bold.
heavier = better launching and transition during shifting
lighter = faster acceleration, but lower launching and weaker power grab on the shifts.

You have an H22A, that'll probably drop a good 150 or so whp on the launch, so I'd stay around a 12-13lb flywheel - anything less and your launch and shifts are gonna blow - the H22's got enough torque to carry that extra weight around, ESPECIALLY since you're using nitrous (which gives you ultimate torque).

I think a 13lb would be perfect for your app.

 

so what Syndacate is basically saying is that the h22 rules all hands down
he just op'd to show this using flywheels lol

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slowcivic2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Look at the quote in the above posts about Mista Bone's track experience with light flywheels, I'd like for you to also disagree with his statements as well.</TD></TR></TABLE>

His quotes are in reference to launching a drag racer, not tracking a car on a circuit.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slowcivic2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You obviously think that turning a huge force makes that energy disappear because of weight, which is why I stated that Law above, if you understood that, you would know that this also applies to all energy, as it can change form, but never disappear/appear out of nowhere. Energy spent turning something will always exist, because it is moving, and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon.</TD></TR></TABLE>

xXSilentScreamXx has already addressed this above, and there isn't much else to add. You're simply mistaken about what is occurring from a physics standpoint.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by xXSilentScreamXx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ok heres the math
crank hp - weight of **** between crank to wheels = wheel hp!!!
if you dissagree why is there a loss in hp from crank to wheels?
its bc of all the power *SPENT* on moving that ****
so lessn the load of *weight of **** between crank to wheels* and that equals
more crank hp to get through the wheels !!!!!


http://www.whizwheels.com/Tips....html
expletive yall!!!
</TD></TR></TABLE>

It is called heat and flexing, axles/gears in mesh create that because of friction and the force used to keep stuff in line, like bearings and thrust washers.

unequal length driveshafts create torque steer. The shorter axle will get power first, because the longer one will twist a small amount before it reaches the tire. Which again, states that flex and heat cause power loss.

For the last time, power does not disappear. Power spent on turning an object does not dissappear, it will still be in those parts.

100ft lbs of torque in your arguement above is a finite amount of power. There for the 10lb ball will spin faster, because it is lighter, but will have less inertial power. The 20lb ball will have just the opposite, more inertial power and less speed, so regardless of the two methods, speed or inertial power, the power is still getting out equally ONCE IT IS APPLIED.

What you just said makes you look like a fool, because you think the energy spent turning the ball simply is lost. Tell that to a dump truck when you try to stop it...
And another thing, like I said before, objects in motion stay in motion, this is because power is applied to it.