balancing.

[mr.utility at highstream.net (mr.utility@highstream.net)]

Dan, 

  Perhaps he did install a different engine at that time, he will have to 
answer that one way or another...  Patrick?  ATS?  (BTW, dude, let me know on 
those fuel lines/brake lines...)

As far as the reason, I have given it to you...  Perhaps you do not agree with 
it, and if not, I will research my facts and see if I cannot find a 
reason/argument to suit this forum better...  BTW, lightened flywheels reduce 
the fuel spent initially, but not over the long haul...  Again, how much time 
do you spend accelerating?  10 seconds max?  (for each attempt of course), and 
how much time do you spend maintaining an average speed from OKC to Dallas?  
Three and a half hours?  Now, how much time do you have the potential to save 
energy in each case?  

I really cannot see the confusion with these illustrations, but I still admit 
that on face value, it should not work this way...

David

BTW Dan, the comment that it makes no engineering sense is a fallacy, I think 
it is called 'ploy for authority', can't recall.  You cannot possibly know all 
there is to know about engineering (otherwise you would be too busy than to 
spend you time here), therefore for you to say that it makes no engineering 
sense is at the very least, arrogant!

Also, apology accepted on the Vortex matter...  :-)

Quoting Dan Bubb <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com>:

> Simply put there is no reason why reducing rotational inertia will decrease
> MPG just like reducing the weight of a car will not Decrease MPG or reducing
> aerodynamic drag will not Decrease MPG. They all reduce the energy required
> to move a car, they will all reduce the fuel used. Some more, some less.
> Before you take too much solace in Patrick chiming in, I think you should
> verify that he did not also change to a 2.0L engine at the same time.
> I could be wrong, but a quick review of some of his posts indicates the
> installation of the lightened flywheel coincided with the swap to a 2.0L.
> It's far more likely that the increase in engine size accounts for his drop
> in economy.
> I'm sorry about the Vortex comment, but the statement about decreased MPG
> makes no engineering sense.
> Dan
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mr.utility@highstream.net>
> To: Mark <mardak@cogeco.ca>
> Cc: 'Dan Smith' <sad_rocc@yahoo.com>; <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>; 'Patrick
> Bureau' <txrocco@sbcglobal.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:33 PM
> Subject: RE: balancing.
> 
> 
> > Okay, obvoiusly I have not made myself very clear here, so let me
> rephrase...
> >
> > You WILL lose mpg, although that may not be important to you...  Patrick
> as
> > chimed in, and agreed with my experience, mpg lost, about 2 mpg...  That
> may
> > not be important to you...  If so, then this discussion has little to do
> with
> > what you want...  More power...
> >
> > Forgive me if I am a bit heated, I just wrote a very well thought out
> response
> > to Dan, the engineer, and my computer ate it, twice...  So, once I get
> home, I
> > will be responding where I know that it will not be lost...
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > Quoting Mark <mardak@cogeco.ca>:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: scirocco-l-bounces@scirocco.org [mailto:scirocco-l-
> > > > bounces@scirocco.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Bureau
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1. alot easier to rach 7K on the rpm in 1st gear and it gets there
> > > FAST!
> > > > 2. alittle lost of MPG indeed, I used to get 32-34MPG before I get 30-
> > > > 32MPG
> > >
> > > You more than likely have slightly less fuel mileage because you're
> > > USING the extra acceleration that a lightened flywheel provides.
> > > There's no free ride here - usually if you gain some horsepower from a
> > > modification, you're going to USE that extra power - which in turn burns
> > > more fuel...   I don't buy the argument that fuel mileage decreases with
> > > a lightened flywheel simply because there's less rotational inertia.  If
> > > anything, it takes more power to get a heavier flywheel spinning in the
> > > first place, so I believe that fuel mileage would be worse (albeit an
> > > almost immeasurable amount) with a heavy flywheel.
> > >
> > > Mark.
> > > 80 S
> > > 81 S  ABA/JH/4K
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> 
> 
>