balancing.

[jdbubb at ix.netcom.com (Dan Bubb)]

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!

Do you also have a cute term for the purpose of this paragraph?
Not everything is rocket science. It's not necessary to know everything
there is to know about engineering to analyse this issue since it's
basically first year physics.
It's naive of you think I would have to be arrogant to make that statement.
Thanks for putting your spin on it though!


----- Original Message -----
From: <mr.utility@highstream.net>
To: Dan Bubb <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: Mark <mardak@cogeco.ca>; 'Dan Smith' <sad_rocc@yahoo.com>;
<scirocco-l@scirocco.org>; 'Patrick Bureau' <txrocco@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: balancing.


> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>