Quote:
Originally Posted by larryn
First, this is a thread about a guy paying over a few thousand in new tires and wheels, and being proud of it (I would be too, and I'm sad I helped to degrade the thread - sorry, Andy). However, YOU felt it necessary to immediately post a bash (for what purpose, I do not know), based on BS wrong information, trying to sound like you know what you are talking about, when you were talking out of your ass. That was an unprovoked dick thing to to do, especially ending with, the "Just saying. lol", as if you are making fun of him for making a mistake... That's the reason for my tone in response to you.
Second, again, you are (again) asserting totally wrong information about rotating mass.
The tires weigh the same and the remaining rotating mass 8lbs less at each corner. Since the tires weigh the same, you are incorrect. There is 16lbs of less mass at the drive wheels that will need to be spun. This will make braking and accelerating easier for the car, not to mention the 30+ pounds less mass needing to be moved.
As a very simple braking example, if you try to stop two very similar equally rotating (rpm) gyroscopes that weigh 60lbs and 52lbs (where the furthest ring of the gyroscope is same weight and diameter) , it will take less energy to stop the lighter setup. This lesser force needed to slow the rotating mass is multiplied x4 on our cars. Yes, I know it is also stopping mass (the rest of the car), but that is a constant.
The same is true for the force to get those gyroscopes spinning again.
So, you need less energy to make it spin, and if you apply more energy to get it to spin (because you can with wider and stickier tires - added friction between pavement and tire), you can get it to spin faster sooner. It's not a dramatic difference, but it is easily perceptible, as seemingly better throttle response. I've witnessed this on many of my cars and sets of much lighter-than-stock wheel swaps.
I believe this explanation is a liberal ripoff of the rules of rotational kinetic energy, and Newton's 2nd law (if I remember correctly).
Btw, you also totally missed the "quicker around corners" and lateral stability part of arrutled's purchase. As he said, we autocross, and this setup will be MANY seconds faster than the stock setup on any run... same car... same driver... same course.
|
First of all, I never bashed, iI stated a fact.
Second, my information is 100 percent accurate, prove me wrong.
If his stock wheel set up according to his scale weights 52.x lbs and this set up weight 50.x lbs then that is a difference of roughly 2 lbs. Yes I am using a bathroom scale because that i what he posted.
Second, you stated the stock wheels are 26 lbs and the new ones are stated to be 18 lbs. I am comparing this to the STOCK WHEEL SET UP HE IS RUNNING, not the stock wheel and runflat set you are comparing it to. Like i said, reading>you.
So....according to you there is roughly a 8lb difference between the stock wheel and this wheel correct? According to his scale there is a 2 lb difference between the the two wheel/tire combos at hand....where do you think the added weight is on the new set up if it is not in the wheel? THINK HARD. It is on the outside, thus further away from the hub, thus requiring more force to acc, brake, or turn then the stock set up he was running previously. This is simple FACT.
You are using an argument regarding the stock wheel and tire, I am using the argument regarding the stock wheel that HE POSTED A WEIGHT OFF.
btw your gyroscope example was cute, however realize that he is adding weight to the outside, and the new tire set up has a .5 bigger diameter. Like I said, you simple do not realize my back round, Once again, you are wrong.
If you would like to continue this discussion, start a new thread. I will come in there with a pencil and calculator and dumb it down so it is understandable to anyone who feels like taking the time to read it. It will involve math though, so if numbers are not your thing, don't bother.