Hmmmm. Interesting. Thanks, Randall. So I guess how much one takes off a
flywheel depends on the effect desired. More off gives faster acceleration but
can make for finicky stalls and engine vibration. None off means slower
acceleration. Is there a mathematical middle ground in terms of ounces that
can be removed to optimize all variables?
> On September 11, 2018 at 12:14 PM Randall <tr3driver@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> > So what exactly is the energy co-efficiency of heavy vs.
> > light flywheel? Heavy means more torque to take you up a
> > steeper hill in higher gear, whereas light means less mass to
> > move on acceleration so prompter speed? Something like that?
>
> Heavier means the engine has more resistance to sudden changes in speed (aka
> inertia). So you get less drop in rpm when you let the clutch out
> (especially on a hill). Acts like more torque, but isn't really since it
> only applies to sudden changes in engine rpm.
>
> But more inertia also limits how quickly the engine can spin up. It takes
> power to accelerate that heavy flywheel, so a lighter flywheel acts like
> more power when accelerating (but again isn't really more power, just less
> resistance).
>
> A heavier flywheel also tends to damp out the vibration from each cylinder
> firing, so the engine seems smoother.
>
> -- Randall
>
** triumphs@autox.team.net **
Archive: http://www.team.net/pipermail/triumphs http://www.team.net/archive
|