Author Topic: Reducing weight - rotational and static  (Read 617 times)

Offline Marty van den Bosch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
    • http://martyvandenbosch.fotopic.net/
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« on: January 25, 2004, 04:06:50 pm »
Tweaking for race day...

I remember reading somewhere about a list of part weights, I can't find it. Anyone got the link?

I read that every static 100lbs saved is 10hp less needed for same accelleration, and that rotational weight has even greater savings (varies by gearing)

Driver: Ok - those who know me, yes I am 300lbs (I'll do what I can to drop 70lbs over the year but I am SOL before race day)

Rotational = 17" Villain rims @ 18.5lbs /ea and lower diameter tires save a little more, I also got 8lb flywheel.
What else rotational? balance shaft? rotors?

Static : Starting from my rear (ya the 150lb sub-box goes on race day), where else can I save? the bumper for an aluminum one? - I want seats, so are there lighter ones? (drivers one needs to be wide  :oops: )

links, tips, suggestions.....I still will be modding up till race day, but figure I should look into weight a little too.
991 Plymouth Laser FWD
12.0 @ 121.7mph

Offline Mike Schmid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2004, 04:48:27 pm »
It all depends on how much you're willing to spend and how much comfort, convenience and security you're willing to give up.  

Heavy single items include side impact door beams, bumper reinforcements, glass, battery, probably muffler, then the obvious spare tire and jack.  

You're not going to really save any weight unless you get radical.  If I was in a different financial position I'd pick up an older AWD, build a stroker with tubular manifold, a lightweight turbo, real short exhaust path with a real light muffler, a small gel cell type battery, strip the interior out to bare metal, lightweight race seats, a real flimsy fiberglass dash, roll cage, pull the bumper reinforcements, then mold the entire front clip, doors, and hatch out of carbon fiber.  Make some plexiglass side and back windows and then put some lightweight 15" wheels on.  

That'd have to potential to be a quick race car.  It'd only be streetable enough to drive to the track but hey, who cares, it'd be a second car.  

On a street car you can save a few pounds here and there but IMHO there's not much worth the sacrifice to give up.  I like my stereo, sound deadening, a/c, p/s, p/w, p/l, safety and durability too much.  

It wouldn't hurt to pull the sub box, amps, back seat, spare and jack on race day though.  But I'm gonna leave that to the Honda boys.  

Go Fast With Class.
DSMs - fun when they run

'92 TSi AWD AT - 180bhp
'93 TSi AWD - 195bhp
'90 Laser RS NT - *sold*
'71 Camaro - *sold*

Offline Jason Gilbert

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2004, 06:39:07 pm »
Brakes count against unsprung weight and rotors are a rotational mass.

Just pack a chute! :D
991 TSI AWD (Red)
The good stuff is on!
1991 TSI AWD (Black)
Whoops..Somehow its become a parts car!

"Run her 'till she melts a piston, then back the boost down a pound"

Offline Mike Schmid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2004, 10:05:35 pm »
That's why some of the dedicated drag cars have wimpy looking unvented rotors with lightweight billet calipers.
DSMs - fun when they run

'92 TSi AWD AT - 180bhp
'93 TSi AWD - 195bhp
'90 Laser RS NT - *sold*
'71 Camaro - *sold*

Offline Edson Ng

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2004, 10:53:03 am »
link to calculate rotational effects.

http://www.the-welters.com/racing/rotational.xls
91 Talon TSi AWD
98 Talon TSi AWD

Offline Jason Gilbert

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2004, 11:15:04 am »
Thats an awesome spreadsheet! Havent played with it yet but looks good.Thanks Edson.
991 TSI AWD (Red)
The good stuff is on!
1991 TSI AWD (Black)
Whoops..Somehow its become a parts car!

"Run her 'till she melts a piston, then back the boost down a pound"

Offline Jason Gilbert

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2004, 11:18:12 am »
Thats an awesome spreadsheet! Havent played with it yet but looks good.Thanks Edson.
991 TSI AWD (Red)
The good stuff is on!
1991 TSI AWD (Black)
Whoops..Somehow its become a parts car!

"Run her 'till she melts a piston, then back the boost down a pound"

Offline Edson Ng

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2004, 11:32:30 am »
If you are interested in tire weights for various sizes, Check this site:

http://www.imptire.com/tires/ze512/ze512medidas.asp

The weights are for Falken but I think the relative weight between sizes would apply to most tires.
91 Talon TSi AWD
98 Talon TSi AWD

Troy Simkus

  • Guest
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2004, 11:40:37 am »
G.A.P. 100lb = 0.1s saved in the 1/4mile.

a good post on wheel weight from Joe Cheng (Phantom) at VCMC

"People talk about wheel weight. In actual fact, they should be talking about the polar moment of inertia (PMI) of the wheel. It's true that weight (actually mass in this case) appears in the PMI calculation, but the important variable in the equation is the distance of the mass from the centre of rotation. This distance appears as a "squared power" in the equation. See below:

PMI = total sum of all (mass x d x d)

Since a good portion of the weight of a wheel is concentrated at the outer rim portion, a 16" wheel will have substantially higher PMI than a 15" wheel even if the two wheels weight the same. In fact, a slightly heavier 15" wheel might (and most likely) still has a lower PMI than a lighter 16" wheel. PMI consumes more engine power during acceleration than moving the same static weight in a straight line. Same with deceleration. For a low power car. Minimizing PMI is critical. The rule of thumb is to go with the smallest diameter wheel you can fit over the brake caliper. Once the diameter is decided, you will find out that increasing the rim width doesn't really add that much weight to the wheel. One way to minimize PMI is to run 3-piece wheels. Most of the spun rim halves on a 3-piece wheels is 4 to 5 mm thick. A cast wheel, because of weaker strength and possible porosity in the casting, the thickness is usually 6-8 mm. This is the portion that has the largest distance from the centre and should be minimized if your budget allows it. The answer to your original question is to run the smallest diameter wheel and widest you can get without rubbing fender and suspension components.
Contact patch (area) doesn't change much with tire size. It changes with tire pressure and the vertical load that is applied to it. Its "shape" changes with tire size. A wider tire gives a more elongated shape (but narrower in the other direction). To minimize PMI, you want a short (smaller diameter) tire, and I don't want to hear about this thing about the ugly gap between the fender and the top of the tire. You can look good or you can go fast. If you pick the first one, then you are asking your question on the wrong forum.

Joe"

Offline Kevin Standeven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1755
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2004, 12:40:52 pm »
and this is why I would kill a kitten for 16x8 volks.
97 Talon AWD

Currently under the knife...

Graeme Shaw

  • Guest
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2004, 12:51:09 pm »
Only one?  Pansy.

Offline Kevin Standeven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1755
Reducing weight - rotational and static
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2004, 04:33:09 pm »
no snowboard for you!

<unhijack thread>
97 Talon AWD

Currently under the knife...