Random Thoughts - Part Deux [NO POLITICS]

[JD001]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

As long as it does not become meth all is good.

Thanks for summing that up for us.

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

Meh. Parts are easy. I don't want to crawl under everyone's footwell and that takes some finesse. People would need to bring their own 12 and 14 mm combo wrenches.

Yea, looked like your back didn't like doing mine.

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

As long as it does not become meth all is good.

.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

Yea, looked like your back didn't like doing mine.

20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I was like Gumby.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Spuds

He still needs to check my math... I say let the math free.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Ahhhh but you have not yet (to the best of my knowledge) presented any math to be checked. He does not need that distraction this week or I may be sitting in the San Francisco airport waiting on him while he is taking off his shoes to count to 20. God help us if he has to get up at o 21.

So far, the only math to check has been in Stephen Mason's work on his webpage. http://stephenmason.com/cars/rotationalinertia.html

His derivations and justification for equivalent mass are legitimate. I vaguely remember touching on it in college but never used it.

Nikitopo's estimate of 16 Kg equivalent mass in first gear feels reasonable but I'm grumpy about being sucked into verifying his assertion on my own.

When I get around to presenting my argument logically, the results will be similar. Then I will close by reminding the reader that first gear is used only to leave the paddock and, once on the track, even second gear is a rare event. Meanwhile, for a daily-driven occasional track toy, these changes are silly. Any gains achieved by shaving equivalent mass are all lost from a single missed shift or an early apex.

A lightweight, underdriving crankshaft pulley, even for a dedicated track machine, is just plain stupid. Maybe it makes sense for autocross but I bet it would bump the car up to the money-is-no-object class. So even there it's stupid.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

So far, the only math to check has been in Stephen Mason's work on his webpage. http://stephenmason.com/cars/rotationalinertia.html

His derivations and justification for equivalent mass are legitimate. I vaguely remember touching on it in college but never used it.

Nikitopo's estimate of 16 Kg equivalent mass in first gear feels reasonable but I'm grumpy about being sucked into verifying his assertion on my own.

When I get around to presenting my argument logically, the results will be similar. Then I will close by reminding the reader that first gear is used only to leave the paddock and, once on the track, even second gear is a rare event. Meanwhile, for a daily-driven occasional track toy, these changes are silly. Any gains achieved by shaving equivalent mass are all lost from a single missed shift or an early apex.

A lightweight, underdriving crankshaft pulley, even for a dedicated track machine, is just plain stupid. Maybe it makes sense for autocross but I bet it would bump the car up to the money-is-no-object class. So even there it's stupid.

I don't think that the fact there is reduction was ever in contention. It was the results of that reduction that was the issue.

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I was like Gumby.

Gumby without the wire.

We all did amazing things 20 years ago.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

The oozing thread reminded me of - Remember when you had to get under you car and actually grease shit?

Well, yes, use a rag to wipe off the grease nipple, pump on the grease gun till new grease oozes out somewhere, wipe off the excess …… move on to the next nipple (grease nipple - @Clipdat …. ).

humfrz

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by humfrz

Well, yes, use a rag to wipe off the grease nipple, pump on the grease gun till new grease oozes out somewhere, wipe off the excess …… move on to the next nipple (grease nipple - @Clipdat …. ).

humfrz

There's like 3 or 4 jokes there. Too easy.

[Teseo]

@ichitaka05
Did you saw the game today?
13 cups, last three on a row

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I don't think that the fact there is reduction was ever in contention. It was the results of that reduction that was the issue.

I still think that expressing the question as a percentage change in energy expended to accelerate the whole car through first gear is good enough for me. Then, if it's down in the 1 or 2 percent area, I say negligible.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

So far, the only math to check has been in Stephen Mason's work on his webpage. http://stephenmason.com/cars/rotationalinertia.html

His derivations and justification for equivalent mass are legitimate. I vaguely remember touching on it in college but never used it.

Nikitopo's estimate of 16 Kg equivalent mass in first gear feels reasonable but I'm grumpy about being sucked into verifying his assertion on my own.

When I get around to presenting my argument logically, the results will be similar. Then I will close by reminding the reader that first gear is used only to leave the paddock and, once on the track, even second gear is a rare event. Meanwhile, for a daily-driven occasional track toy, these changes are silly. Any gains achieved by shaving equivalent mass are all lost from a single missed shift or an early apex.

A lightweight, underdriving crankshaft pulley, even for a dedicated track machine, is just plain stupid. Maybe it makes sense for autocross but I bet it would bump the car up to the money-is-no-object class. So even there it's stupid.

It's not really necessary to calculate equivalent mass for a predictive performance model. It's a cool acedemic exercise to give the user a different perspective, but doesn't really tell you much about performance until you basically do the same thing as my model. I can see it helping to only have to work with linear motion though.

He goes into more detail on inertia calcs than I do, but they need more measurements than anyone really wants to take to be accurate.

[Sapphireho]

Man, random thoughts is now boring math thoughts. So boring.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

Man, random thoughts is now boring math thoughts. So boring.

At least more interesting than those ugly sluts you guys keep posting.