Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Lightweight\s+wheels\.\.\.drive\s+only\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Lightweight\s+wheels\.\.\.drive\s+only\?\s*$/: 35 ]

Total 35 documents matching your query.

1. Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: GRMPer@aol.com; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:45:13 EDT; Anybody out there know if you just replace the DRIVE wheels with lighter pieces, how much advantage this is? Are the drive wheels 50% of the rotational inertia from the wheels...or is it more? Per; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01691.html (7,529 bytes)
2. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: "Kevin Stevens" <kevin_stevens@hotmail.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:45:20 PDT; Assuming they're rotating at ground speed, each of the four wheels has to be accelerated; doesn't make any difference whether it's by FWD, RWD, or rocket booster. KeS ________________________________; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01698.html (8,378 bytes)
3. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:13:02 -0400; is it Imagine you have a tank - you know, big-ass metal thing with a big gun - and you turn it upside-down so the track is in the air. Drive wheels are in the back, all the bogies are just along for; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01709.html (9,402 bytes)
4. RE: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: miket <miket@interaccess.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 00 15:13:34 -0500; I've pondered this myself, and concluded that the drive wheels are 50%. In other words, you get just as much bang by making the non-drive wheels lighter as you do with the drive wheeels. The only dif; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01710.html (8,623 bytes)
5. Re:Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: "Andy Whittle" <awhittle@fastrans.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:39:28 -0500; If you are only going to replace two wheels, then replace the drive wheels. The advantage of rotational mass is the same but the advantages of the unspring weight ... but then the other end of the ca; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01711.html (8,319 bytes)
6. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: jon e prevo <tcbracer@juno.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:44:35 -0500; I have waited for this point to be made. This is not exactly true. Your reasoning is correct, it is your physics which is flawed. The only difference is that the That "only" difference is a big diffe; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01717.html (11,009 bytes)
7. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: GRMPer@aol.com; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:19:31 EDT; However, when you can only find legal lightweight wheels that'll work on the << In the end, the difference isn't going to be enough to justify buying only two light wheels anyway.>>; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01726.html (8,315 bytes)
8. RE: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: "Eric Buckley" <ejbuckley@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:52:23 -0500; So is yours. (Note to team.net - I'm not pissed, I'm just being sarcastic) <snip example from kart racing which may well be true - I wouldn't know> This is true, but unless you are actually spinning; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01727.html (12,581 bytes)
9. RE: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: "Eric Buckley" <ejbuckley@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:21:15 -0500; Before all the engineers flame me... Brain fart. That should be: I is the "moment of inertia". "Rotational inertia" is the moment times the angular velocity. Need to proof my posts a bit better, I gu; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01730.html (8,863 bytes)
10. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: Bob Mosso <bobmosso@pcmagic.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:44:16 -0700; Sorry Jon, I disagree. I concur with dg, Eric, et al. My engineering degree isn't in physics but this seams quite clear to me. Personally I'd follow Andy's advise: "Put the light wheels on the end of; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01731.html (8,703 bytes)
11. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: "Eric Linnhoff" <eric10mm@qni.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:49:28 -0500; == You guys are all screwy. You're all missing the only REALLY important point here. If the original poster only buys two light weight wheels, he'll look goofy as hell. The sheer embarrassment alone; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01741.html (9,240 bytes)
12. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: "Steven N. Burkett" <sburkett@ooi.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:01:38 -0500 (CDT); No, no, no... You put the light wheels both on the same SIDE of the car. Solves both problems at once. Oh, and that'd be the left side. Steven; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01742.html (9,057 bytes)
13. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: "David Hironaka" <daveds50@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:47:08 -0700; actually, the reason you see the clutch kart racers do this, is to lock up their clutches. clutch stall speed is set to peak torque of the engine, and you can make the clutch grab for a moment by jum; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01745.html (9,994 bytes)
14. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: washburn <washburn@dwave.net>; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:24:45 -0500; Just the opposite....if Per puts them on, lots of people will be wondering if that's what makes him so fast and will copy him. It'll be the thing to do to be competitive. Boy, now I have to buy mis-m; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01747.html (9,227 bytes)
15. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: GRMPer@aol.com; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:36:24 EDT; Thanks, but I don't need mismatched wheels to look goofy. My pylon tattoo usually suffices. Per GRM SCAC OSUS etc; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01749.html (9,070 bytes)
16. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:57:21 -0400; I believe the word you want is "analogy" No, it's not. Uhhhh... no. The track is stationary with respect to the ground, so for all intents and purposes, the part of the track in contact with the grou; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01755.html (10,571 bytes)
17. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: "Otto Crosser" <ottocrosser@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:02:38 EDT; Well, If you take wheelspin into account, it will be more benificial to put the lightweight wheels on the DRIVE wheels to get MORE wheelspin. WOOHOO Burnouts are cool! OTTO __________________________; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01758.html (11,374 bytes)
18. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: GRMPer@aol.com; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:03:01 EDT; 91-92 MR2's with 14x6" on the front and 7" on the rear, high offset, 5x114.3.; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01762.html (8,992 bytes)
19. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: jon e prevo <tcbracer@juno.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:24:09 -0500; Thanks, Eric. I am not one who would take offense at your disagreement, however that disclaimer seems to be more and more important these days. I still believe you guys are missing something here abo; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01764.html (9,974 bytes)
20. Re: Lightweight wheels...drive only? (score: 1): Author: jon e prevo <tcbracer@juno.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:43:58 -0500; Hyperbole: The car is a tank. Analogy: The car is like a tank. Possibly my physics is flawed. I will get back to you on that. My diction was correct. Jon FP 73; /html/autox/2000-07/msg01765.html (9,052 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]