RWHP Guestimations...
11-30-2006, 12:28 PM
#47
The further the mass is away from the axis of rotation, the harder it is to accelerate (more potential inertia to overcome). Of course, in your example, one disc weighs more, so it'd be harder to accelerate.
An interesting example: 20" alloy rims with low-profile rubber, say 45 series, and 16" alloy rims with 75 series tall sidewalls.... which one will take less energy to rotationally accelerate? The answer may surprise you.
An interesting example: 20" alloy rims with low-profile rubber, say 45 series, and 16" alloy rims with 75 series tall sidewalls.... which one will take less energy to rotationally accelerate? The answer may surprise you.
I didn't say the disk that weighs more takes more energy to accelerate. That's the one that takes less energy. Here's an even better example. Say we have the sames disks as I mentioned before. Make the one with the center cut out (already lighter) alluminum. It still takes more energy to angularly accelerate than the much heavier solid 20" steel disk.
11-30-2006, 01:00 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: louisiana
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'de say 750 or close to lmills yall have the same set up. So DonM, I ordered your helix 2 w/springs and hellfires and a PPE dual fueler kit. Do your think I will have 800 with the dual pumps??
11-30-2006, 01:52 PM
#50
Registered User
This of course would defy several laws of physics...The answer to your question: the 16" take less energy.
I didn't say the disk that weighs more takes more energy to accelerate. That's the one that takes less energy. Here's an even better example. Say we have the sames disks as I mentioned before. Make the one with the center cut out (already lighter) alluminum. It still takes more energy to angularly accelerate than the much heavier solid 20" steel disk.
I didn't say the disk that weighs more takes more energy to accelerate. That's the one that takes less energy. Here's an even better example. Say we have the sames disks as I mentioned before. Make the one with the center cut out (already lighter) alluminum. It still takes more energy to angularly accelerate than the much heavier solid 20" steel disk.
11-30-2006, 02:08 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fontana, CA
Posts: 5,776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're probably right, but D.'s wheels are much larger and much heavier than a 33. The difference on his rig will be much more significant.
11-30-2006, 02:32 PM
#54
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. & Columbus, OH.
Posts: 3,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO WAY!!
I am selling my stockers so, if they are gone prior to the dyno day then it will have to be done with just two rear wheels!
12-01-2006, 08:17 AM
#56
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. & Columbus, OH.
Posts: 3,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-01-2006, 09:46 AM
#57
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: kingston,wa
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when you get the shots, send me a disc and i will butcher together a video for you, i have some new soundtrack ideas for that truck. maybe something like the star wars theme.
take stills, videos, etc. as high resolution as you can. aim the camera at the computer monitor during one of the runs.
and i'd say somewhere above 289whp.
12-01-2006, 09:55 AM
#58
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. & Columbus, OH.
Posts: 3,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when you get the shots, send me a disc and i will butcher together a video for you, i have some new soundtrack ideas for that truck. maybe something like the star wars theme.
take stills, videos, etc. as high resolution as you can. aim the camera at the computer monitor during one of the runs.
and i'd say somewhere above 289whp.
take stills, videos, etc. as high resolution as you can. aim the camera at the computer monitor during one of the runs.
and i'd say somewhere above 289whp.
