Tire Size Question
07-04-2005, 03:26 PM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
I think that we need his expert opinion here.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42C989FF.5B651FB4@***.net...
> Perpetual motion, was the word I was looking for to explain your
> never ending spinning wheel. All though with a little help you may make
> a gyroscope run forever
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Earle,
> > Yes, I know that's why I wrote the definition of C squared as the
> > speed of light.
> > Lance, will happy to know you have the secret of spontaneous energy
> > in that your wheel will never stop spinning. Size means nothing to you,
> > if you had a big enough lever you could move the earth. Where the rest
> > of us have to deal with centrifugal, kinetic, and inertia.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Earle Horton wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > E=mc² is not a formula from classical mechanics, which is what you are
> > > talking about here. The energy to get a wheel, or any other object,
> > > spinning depends on its "inertial mass", which is usually called
"moment of
> > > inertia", and the effective radius. Calculus gives the formula E=1/2
IR²,
> > > which is similar to the formula for a moving object, E=1/2 mv², where
m is
> > > the mass of the object and v is the velocity.
> > >
> > > Now, once you get an object moving or spinning, there is NO energy
required
> > > to keep it doing that, unless there are losses. In a vehicle, losses
are
> > > friction, air resistance, and that hundred pound girlfriend's credit
card
> > > usage. The wheels on Lance's bike have to be light because of the
need to
> > > accelerate, decelerate, and turn. Big heavy mountain bike wheels
would slow
> > > him down, but not for the reasons you state.
> > >
> > > Earle
> > >
> > > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> > > news:42C8CF21.A4377FAB@***.net...
> > > > Horsepower, or imagine the the force you would need to peddle
your
> > > > bicycle, now put your Jeep tire on the bicycle and peddle. E=mc².
The E
> > > > stands for energy. The m stands for inertial mass, which is similar
to
> > > > (but not the same thing as) weight. C squared stands for the speed
of
> > > > light multiplied by itself. I would say Lance Armstrong bike wheel
are
> > > > very light right about now in france, not like his mountain bike.
> > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > >
> > > > RoyJ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason you use a 13 pound flywheel is to allow maximum
ACCELERATION
> > > > > of the engine. The reason for lightweight tires is to allow
> > > > > ACCELERATION. The reason to not take your girlfriend along is
> > > > > ACCELERATION So what does weight have to do with steady state?
(other
> > > > > than the additional wear on the bearings?)
> > > > >
> > > > > L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Dave,
> > > > > > To keep something turning takes more horsepower the heavier
it
> > > is,
> > > > > > that's why the drag racers use a thirteen pound aluminum
flywheel and
> > > > > > lighter rims and tires. Of course, that flywheel also stores
energy,
> > > > > > that will made the stock V6 buick power CJ with it's fifty pound
> > > > > > flywheel easily crawl over rocks that would easily stop a couple
of
> > > > > > hundred more horsepower in a 350" Chevy V8. I know taking your
hundred
> > > > > > pound girlfriend with you down the drag strip will cost you a
tenth of
> > > a
> > > > > > second. As far as sprung and unsprung weight, all I know is it
makes a
> > > > > > great deal of difference in their ride and cornering ability,
like
> > > road
> > > > > > racers need independent suspension to win.
> > > > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave Milne wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>I read somewhere that every lb of unsprung weight is worth 10 lb
of
> > > sprung
> > > > > >>weight ; don't know if that's true or not.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Dave Milne, Scotland
> > > > > >>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
I think that we need his expert opinion here.
Earle
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42C989FF.5B651FB4@***.net...
> Perpetual motion, was the word I was looking for to explain your
> never ending spinning wheel. All though with a little help you may make
> a gyroscope run forever
>
> "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Earle,
> > Yes, I know that's why I wrote the definition of C squared as the
> > speed of light.
> > Lance, will happy to know you have the secret of spontaneous energy
> > in that your wheel will never stop spinning. Size means nothing to you,
> > if you had a big enough lever you could move the earth. Where the rest
> > of us have to deal with centrifugal, kinetic, and inertia.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Earle Horton wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > E=mc² is not a formula from classical mechanics, which is what you are
> > > talking about here. The energy to get a wheel, or any other object,
> > > spinning depends on its "inertial mass", which is usually called
"moment of
> > > inertia", and the effective radius. Calculus gives the formula E=1/2
IR²,
> > > which is similar to the formula for a moving object, E=1/2 mv², where
m is
> > > the mass of the object and v is the velocity.
> > >
> > > Now, once you get an object moving or spinning, there is NO energy
required
> > > to keep it doing that, unless there are losses. In a vehicle, losses
are
> > > friction, air resistance, and that hundred pound girlfriend's credit
card
> > > usage. The wheels on Lance's bike have to be light because of the
need to
> > > accelerate, decelerate, and turn. Big heavy mountain bike wheels
would slow
> > > him down, but not for the reasons you state.
> > >
> > > Earle
> > >
> > > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> > > news:42C8CF21.A4377FAB@***.net...
> > > > Horsepower, or imagine the the force you would need to peddle
your
> > > > bicycle, now put your Jeep tire on the bicycle and peddle. E=mc².
The E
> > > > stands for energy. The m stands for inertial mass, which is similar
to
> > > > (but not the same thing as) weight. C squared stands for the speed
of
> > > > light multiplied by itself. I would say Lance Armstrong bike wheel
are
> > > > very light right about now in france, not like his mountain bike.
> > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > >
> > > > RoyJ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason you use a 13 pound flywheel is to allow maximum
ACCELERATION
> > > > > of the engine. The reason for lightweight tires is to allow
> > > > > ACCELERATION. The reason to not take your girlfriend along is
> > > > > ACCELERATION So what does weight have to do with steady state?
(other
> > > > > than the additional wear on the bearings?)
> > > > >
> > > > > L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Dave,
> > > > > > To keep something turning takes more horsepower the heavier
it
> > > is,
> > > > > > that's why the drag racers use a thirteen pound aluminum
flywheel and
> > > > > > lighter rims and tires. Of course, that flywheel also stores
energy,
> > > > > > that will made the stock V6 buick power CJ with it's fifty pound
> > > > > > flywheel easily crawl over rocks that would easily stop a couple
of
> > > > > > hundred more horsepower in a 350" Chevy V8. I know taking your
hundred
> > > > > > pound girlfriend with you down the drag strip will cost you a
tenth of
> > > a
> > > > > > second. As far as sprung and unsprung weight, all I know is it
makes a
> > > > > > great deal of difference in their ride and cornering ability,
like
> > > road
> > > > > > racers need independent suspension to win.
> > > > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave Milne wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>I read somewhere that every lb of unsprung weight is worth 10 lb
of
> > > sprung
> > > > > >>weight ; don't know if that's true or not.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Dave Milne, Scotland
> > > > > >>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
07-04-2005, 03:39 PM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Hi Earle,
No, but I bet you sold those little spring loaded centrifugal force
thingie to fit in a child's bicycle wheel, designed to remove their
money.
Are we teasing Mike Romain, here or what? ;-)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
> spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
> keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
> I think that we need his expert opinion here.
>
> Earle
No, but I bet you sold those little spring loaded centrifugal force
thingie to fit in a child's bicycle wheel, designed to remove their
money.
Are we teasing Mike Romain, here or what? ;-)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
> spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
> keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
> I think that we need his expert opinion here.
>
> Earle
07-04-2005, 03:39 PM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Hi Earle,
No, but I bet you sold those little spring loaded centrifugal force
thingie to fit in a child's bicycle wheel, designed to remove their
money.
Are we teasing Mike Romain, here or what? ;-)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
> spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
> keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
> I think that we need his expert opinion here.
>
> Earle
No, but I bet you sold those little spring loaded centrifugal force
thingie to fit in a child's bicycle wheel, designed to remove their
money.
Are we teasing Mike Romain, here or what? ;-)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
> spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
> keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
> I think that we need his expert opinion here.
>
> Earle
07-04-2005, 03:39 PM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Hi Earle,
No, but I bet you sold those little spring loaded centrifugal force
thingie to fit in a child's bicycle wheel, designed to remove their
money.
Are we teasing Mike Romain, here or what? ;-)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
> spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
> keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
> I think that we need his expert opinion here.
>
> Earle
No, but I bet you sold those little spring loaded centrifugal force
thingie to fit in a child's bicycle wheel, designed to remove their
money.
Are we teasing Mike Romain, here or what? ;-)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
> spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
> keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
> I think that we need his expert opinion here.
>
> Earle
07-04-2005, 03:39 PM
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Hi Earle,
No, but I bet you sold those little spring loaded centrifugal force
thingie to fit in a child's bicycle wheel, designed to remove their
money.
Are we teasing Mike Romain, here or what? ;-)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
> spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
> keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
> I think that we need his expert opinion here.
>
> Earle
No, but I bet you sold those little spring loaded centrifugal force
thingie to fit in a child's bicycle wheel, designed to remove their
money.
Are we teasing Mike Romain, here or what? ;-)
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> I didn't invent perpetual motion. Newton did. The wheel would keep
> spinning forever, except for friction from the bearings, road and air. What
> keeps the Earth spinning? What happened to Stephen Cowell, anyway?
> I think that we need his expert opinion here.
>
> Earle
07-05-2005, 12:44 AM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Exactly what I'd expect to see, Bill not withstanding. You can run into
some issues if the tire size change is enough to get you in a bad spot
in the power curve(too high in 4th, too low in 5th) for your normal
driving speed.
Old Crow wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>Daughter's 95 YJ with 2.5 sucked on gas stock, sucked on gas with 31"s,
>>and still sucks on gas with 33"s and 4.88s.
>>
>
>
> My '95 YJ with the 4 cyl. Had 30x9.50's on it and now has 235-70's.
> On a measured 135 mile round trip commute it averages 20 mpg...with
> either tire on it. Just has a bit more pick up with the 235's
>
> My wife's '94 YJ with a 6 cyl. Had 215-70's on it when we got it. Now
> has 30x 9.50's. On the same 135 mile commmute, it also averages around
> 20 mpg.
>
> The only way tire size seems to have affected the gas mileage was by
> the change in the speedo reading. Over an actual measured course, not
> using the odometer as a reference, the mileage didn't hardly change.
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 FLTC-P "Pearl"
> '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
> SENS, TOMKAT, BS#133, DOF#51, MAMBM
> "There's only *one* RE"
>
some issues if the tire size change is enough to get you in a bad spot
in the power curve(too high in 4th, too low in 5th) for your normal
driving speed.
Old Crow wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>Daughter's 95 YJ with 2.5 sucked on gas stock, sucked on gas with 31"s,
>>and still sucks on gas with 33"s and 4.88s.
>>
>
>
> My '95 YJ with the 4 cyl. Had 30x9.50's on it and now has 235-70's.
> On a measured 135 mile round trip commute it averages 20 mpg...with
> either tire on it. Just has a bit more pick up with the 235's
>
> My wife's '94 YJ with a 6 cyl. Had 215-70's on it when we got it. Now
> has 30x 9.50's. On the same 135 mile commmute, it also averages around
> 20 mpg.
>
> The only way tire size seems to have affected the gas mileage was by
> the change in the speedo reading. Over an actual measured course, not
> using the odometer as a reference, the mileage didn't hardly change.
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 FLTC-P "Pearl"
> '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
> SENS, TOMKAT, BS#133, DOF#51, MAMBM
> "There's only *one* RE"
>
07-05-2005, 12:44 AM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Exactly what I'd expect to see, Bill not withstanding. You can run into
some issues if the tire size change is enough to get you in a bad spot
in the power curve(too high in 4th, too low in 5th) for your normal
driving speed.
Old Crow wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>Daughter's 95 YJ with 2.5 sucked on gas stock, sucked on gas with 31"s,
>>and still sucks on gas with 33"s and 4.88s.
>>
>
>
> My '95 YJ with the 4 cyl. Had 30x9.50's on it and now has 235-70's.
> On a measured 135 mile round trip commute it averages 20 mpg...with
> either tire on it. Just has a bit more pick up with the 235's
>
> My wife's '94 YJ with a 6 cyl. Had 215-70's on it when we got it. Now
> has 30x 9.50's. On the same 135 mile commmute, it also averages around
> 20 mpg.
>
> The only way tire size seems to have affected the gas mileage was by
> the change in the speedo reading. Over an actual measured course, not
> using the odometer as a reference, the mileage didn't hardly change.
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 FLTC-P "Pearl"
> '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
> SENS, TOMKAT, BS#133, DOF#51, MAMBM
> "There's only *one* RE"
>
some issues if the tire size change is enough to get you in a bad spot
in the power curve(too high in 4th, too low in 5th) for your normal
driving speed.
Old Crow wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>Daughter's 95 YJ with 2.5 sucked on gas stock, sucked on gas with 31"s,
>>and still sucks on gas with 33"s and 4.88s.
>>
>
>
> My '95 YJ with the 4 cyl. Had 30x9.50's on it and now has 235-70's.
> On a measured 135 mile round trip commute it averages 20 mpg...with
> either tire on it. Just has a bit more pick up with the 235's
>
> My wife's '94 YJ with a 6 cyl. Had 215-70's on it when we got it. Now
> has 30x 9.50's. On the same 135 mile commmute, it also averages around
> 20 mpg.
>
> The only way tire size seems to have affected the gas mileage was by
> the change in the speedo reading. Over an actual measured course, not
> using the odometer as a reference, the mileage didn't hardly change.
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 FLTC-P "Pearl"
> '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
> SENS, TOMKAT, BS#133, DOF#51, MAMBM
> "There's only *one* RE"
>
07-05-2005, 12:44 AM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Exactly what I'd expect to see, Bill not withstanding. You can run into
some issues if the tire size change is enough to get you in a bad spot
in the power curve(too high in 4th, too low in 5th) for your normal
driving speed.
Old Crow wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>Daughter's 95 YJ with 2.5 sucked on gas stock, sucked on gas with 31"s,
>>and still sucks on gas with 33"s and 4.88s.
>>
>
>
> My '95 YJ with the 4 cyl. Had 30x9.50's on it and now has 235-70's.
> On a measured 135 mile round trip commute it averages 20 mpg...with
> either tire on it. Just has a bit more pick up with the 235's
>
> My wife's '94 YJ with a 6 cyl. Had 215-70's on it when we got it. Now
> has 30x 9.50's. On the same 135 mile commmute, it also averages around
> 20 mpg.
>
> The only way tire size seems to have affected the gas mileage was by
> the change in the speedo reading. Over an actual measured course, not
> using the odometer as a reference, the mileage didn't hardly change.
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 FLTC-P "Pearl"
> '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
> SENS, TOMKAT, BS#133, DOF#51, MAMBM
> "There's only *one* RE"
>
some issues if the tire size change is enough to get you in a bad spot
in the power curve(too high in 4th, too low in 5th) for your normal
driving speed.
Old Crow wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>Daughter's 95 YJ with 2.5 sucked on gas stock, sucked on gas with 31"s,
>>and still sucks on gas with 33"s and 4.88s.
>>
>
>
> My '95 YJ with the 4 cyl. Had 30x9.50's on it and now has 235-70's.
> On a measured 135 mile round trip commute it averages 20 mpg...with
> either tire on it. Just has a bit more pick up with the 235's
>
> My wife's '94 YJ with a 6 cyl. Had 215-70's on it when we got it. Now
> has 30x 9.50's. On the same 135 mile commmute, it also averages around
> 20 mpg.
>
> The only way tire size seems to have affected the gas mileage was by
> the change in the speedo reading. Over an actual measured course, not
> using the odometer as a reference, the mileage didn't hardly change.
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 FLTC-P "Pearl"
> '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
> SENS, TOMKAT, BS#133, DOF#51, MAMBM
> "There's only *one* RE"
>
07-05-2005, 12:44 AM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Exactly what I'd expect to see, Bill not withstanding. You can run into
some issues if the tire size change is enough to get you in a bad spot
in the power curve(too high in 4th, too low in 5th) for your normal
driving speed.
Old Crow wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>Daughter's 95 YJ with 2.5 sucked on gas stock, sucked on gas with 31"s,
>>and still sucks on gas with 33"s and 4.88s.
>>
>
>
> My '95 YJ with the 4 cyl. Had 30x9.50's on it and now has 235-70's.
> On a measured 135 mile round trip commute it averages 20 mpg...with
> either tire on it. Just has a bit more pick up with the 235's
>
> My wife's '94 YJ with a 6 cyl. Had 215-70's on it when we got it. Now
> has 30x 9.50's. On the same 135 mile commmute, it also averages around
> 20 mpg.
>
> The only way tire size seems to have affected the gas mileage was by
> the change in the speedo reading. Over an actual measured course, not
> using the odometer as a reference, the mileage didn't hardly change.
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 FLTC-P "Pearl"
> '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
> SENS, TOMKAT, BS#133, DOF#51, MAMBM
> "There's only *one* RE"
>
some issues if the tire size change is enough to get you in a bad spot
in the power curve(too high in 4th, too low in 5th) for your normal
driving speed.
Old Crow wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>Daughter's 95 YJ with 2.5 sucked on gas stock, sucked on gas with 31"s,
>>and still sucks on gas with 33"s and 4.88s.
>>
>
>
> My '95 YJ with the 4 cyl. Had 30x9.50's on it and now has 235-70's.
> On a measured 135 mile round trip commute it averages 20 mpg...with
> either tire on it. Just has a bit more pick up with the 235's
>
> My wife's '94 YJ with a 6 cyl. Had 215-70's on it when we got it. Now
> has 30x 9.50's. On the same 135 mile commmute, it also averages around
> 20 mpg.
>
> The only way tire size seems to have affected the gas mileage was by
> the change in the speedo reading. Over an actual measured course, not
> using the odometer as a reference, the mileage didn't hardly change.
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 FLTC-P "Pearl"
> '95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
> SENS, TOMKAT, BS#133, DOF#51, MAMBM
> "There's only *one* RE"
>
07-05-2005, 12:45 AM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tire Size Question
Blather. Go take an introductory physics course.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Horsepower, or imagine the the force you would need to peddle your
> bicycle, now put your Jeep tire on the bicycle and peddle. E=mc². The E
> stands for energy. The m stands for inertial mass, which is similar to
> (but not the same thing as) weight. C squared stands for the speed of
> light multiplied by itself. I would say Lance Armstrong bike wheel are
> very light right about now in france, not like his mountain bike.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> RoyJ wrote:
>
>>The reason you use a 13 pound flywheel is to allow maximum ACCELERATION
>>of the engine. The reason for lightweight tires is to allow
>>ACCELERATION. The reason to not take your girlfriend along is
>>ACCELERATION So what does weight have to do with steady state? (other
>>than the additional wear on the bearings?)
>>
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Dave,
>>> To keep something turning takes more horsepower the heavier it is,
>>>that's why the drag racers use a thirteen pound aluminum flywheel and
>>>lighter rims and tires. Of course, that flywheel also stores energy,
>>>that will made the stock V6 buick power CJ with it's fifty pound
>>>flywheel easily crawl over rocks that would easily stop a couple of
>>>hundred more horsepower in a 350" Chevy V8. I know taking your hundred
>>>pound girlfriend with you down the drag strip will cost you a tenth of a
>>>second. As far as sprung and unsprung weight, all I know is it makes a
>>>great deal of difference in their ride and cornering ability, like road
>>>racers need independent suspension to win.
>>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>>
>>>Dave Milne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I read somewhere that every lb of unsprung weight is worth 10 lb of sprung
>>>>weight ; don't know if that's true or not.
>>>>
>>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Horsepower, or imagine the the force you would need to peddle your
> bicycle, now put your Jeep tire on the bicycle and peddle. E=mc². The E
> stands for energy. The m stands for inertial mass, which is similar to
> (but not the same thing as) weight. C squared stands for the speed of
> light multiplied by itself. I would say Lance Armstrong bike wheel are
> very light right about now in france, not like his mountain bike.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> RoyJ wrote:
>
>>The reason you use a 13 pound flywheel is to allow maximum ACCELERATION
>>of the engine. The reason for lightweight tires is to allow
>>ACCELERATION. The reason to not take your girlfriend along is
>>ACCELERATION So what does weight have to do with steady state? (other
>>than the additional wear on the bearings?)
>>
>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Dave,
>>> To keep something turning takes more horsepower the heavier it is,
>>>that's why the drag racers use a thirteen pound aluminum flywheel and
>>>lighter rims and tires. Of course, that flywheel also stores energy,
>>>that will made the stock V6 buick power CJ with it's fifty pound
>>>flywheel easily crawl over rocks that would easily stop a couple of
>>>hundred more horsepower in a 350" Chevy V8. I know taking your hundred
>>>pound girlfriend with you down the drag strip will cost you a tenth of a
>>>second. As far as sprung and unsprung weight, all I know is it makes a
>>>great deal of difference in their ride and cornering ability, like road
>>>racers need independent suspension to win.
>>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>>
>>>Dave Milne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I read somewhere that every lb of unsprung weight is worth 10 lb of sprung
>>>>weight ; don't know if that's true or not.
>>>>
>>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ