Since Kinetic Energy=1/2m(v(squared)), would a lighter flywheel of a 9K revving engine make more of a difference in performance (acceleration) than the same weight savings in a flywheel of a 6K revving engine? Or if the max torque of the 9K engine is less than the other, would this performance 'advantage' be equalized between the two?

I am asking this since what might be perceived as the advantage of a lighter pulley, or getting rid of something like the ac pulley, might be of a greater advantage than what would otherwise be the case for a 'lower' revving car.

 

Prolene, what you really need to look at is the rate of acceleration of those rotating objects. If you know the moment of inertia (MoI) and the acceleration rate of the object (in g's) then you can determine how much torque it will take to accelerate that object.

Now, clearly, if you're having to apply that torque at a higher rpm, there will be more power losses, but percentage wise it will be the same effect.

UL

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
[B]Prolene, what you really need to look at is the rate of acceleration of those rotating objects.

 

Well, it really depends on the rate of acceleration.

But think of it this way, you've got to setup the pulley sizes for the water pump, A/C, etc. so that they work across the appropriate range of rpm. Thus, peak speed on the A/C pulley for an S2000 might not be too different from the A/C pulley on a Mustang GT.

This means that the gearing on the pulleys would be different, so that the pulley on the S2000 would require less torque to accelerate it, but at a higher rpm so that the power required would be the same. Make sense?

Now if you just geared the pulleys at the same ratio (pulley size ratio essentially) then the S2000 would suffer because it would be spinning the A/C pulley faster.

UL

 

Stop making me look stupid

 

 

Yer looking for reciprocating parts like rods/valves

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
[B]
This means that the gearing on the pulleys would be different, so that the pulley on the S2000 would require less torque to accelerate it, but at a higher rpm so that the power required would be the same.

 

well, that's true for pulley driven devices.

However, the flywheel, pressure plate, clutch, engine internals, and input shaft of the tranny are going to be moving at 9krpm.

Tranny, and internals are hard to change, but reducing weight in the clutch assembly could make a bigger difference than in a low revving car? If so, that might explain the 'weak' clutch the s2000 has if honda was going for weight savings.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aaric
[B]