quickWS6

Thanks everyone. I am going to look into a set of skinnies and ET streets. What wheels are the lightest? I don't mind running a spacer, but I don't want to have to grind on anything. What wheel sizes would be best? Thanks again.

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

[quote]
Surely you're kidding? If the engine isn't what's accelerating the front wheels I don't know what is. I know, you WERE kidding, but I had to make sure.
<hr></blockquote>

Friction from the ground is accelerating them. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> I agree there is a rotational component to accelerating front wheels, but I don't like to refer to them as "rotating mass". I look at it as them being drag.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burger ]</p>

Leon

Terry

Youre a moron. <img src="gr_tounge.gif" border="0">

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

What do you run again Leon?

Red2000SS

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>
Pat, shame on you! The engine isn't accelerating the front wheels (like it does the rear), so front wheel weight is not included in what we consider "rotating mass". </strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I get it, so the ENGINE isn't accelerating the front wheels, Magic Fairies are!!! <img src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Of course, it makes so much more sense now!

You need to correct some guy named Newton and his whole F=MA thing. What was he thinking! <img src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

I'm sorry, but what your saying is just horseshit. <img src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" border="0" alt="[bullshit]" /> Pardon my French.

I think I might have a High School physics book you could borrow...

Toxic Texan

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>

Friction from the ground is accelerating them. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> I agree there is a rotational component to accelerating front wheels, but I don't like to refer to them as "rotating mass". I look at it as them being drag.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burger ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

So are you saying the ground is moving and the car is staying still??
<img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0">

Chris Spiess

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>Pat, shame on you! The engine isn't accelerating the front wheels (like it does the rear), so front wheel weight is not included in what we consider "rotating mass".
</strong><hr></blockquote>

They have mass, they rotate. If they're not rotating mass then what are they?
I suppose if you carry the front thorugh the entire 1/4 then they're not <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

Chris Spiess

[quote]Originally posted by MysticZ28:
<strong>I'm considering the Convo Pro/165x15 set up in front. My understanding is that the Convo Pro 15x4 with a 1.75 off set will need no grinding and no spacer up front?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I will need spacers for mine.

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>What do you run again Leon?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Didn't MMS do all of the work on your setup? If so, what does making a pass prove? Just curious...

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

[quote]
Didn't MMS do all of the work on your setup? If so, what does making a pass prove? Just curious...
<hr></blockquote>

If you follow that logic installing parts doens't mean anything anyway, any monkey with a tech book can do that. The creative aspect is the actual head porting and cam grinding.

Regardless its always fun to put people in to perspective. If this guy is calling me a moron and his car runs slower, then I argue he's a much bigger moron. If he runs quicker, I'll argue the points of my assertion above with him. I don't waste my time with people who run slower, their opinions aren't worth much to me.

01 SS Jay

Man, you people love to jump on Terry's nuts all the time dont you. I agree with him, when most RACERS say rotational mass, they are thinking MOTOR items that rotate, crank, pulley, valvetrain, CF driveshaft, etc. Front tires are not usually considered rotational mass, because they are not directly attached to the drivetrain. Just because it rotates does not mean it falls under "rotational mass". Yes, it rotates, and yes the engine drives it, but that doesnt make it rotational mass.
Think of it this way.. if you had the car off the ground, and you floored it, the things that would slow the motor and rear tires is considered rotational mass. Everything else is pretty much weight savings. Sure, its easier to turn lighter front wheels, but its easier to propell a gutted interior too.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Jason ]</p>

McRat

Geez, I didn't mean to start a fight, just saying why I thought skinnies reduced ET more than the weight would indicate.

The "rotating mass" thing involves anything on the car/bike that moves in directions other than just forward: Disc Brakes, spokes, lugs, tires, axles, driveshafts, etc, etc. You need to apply additional energy to these things to accelerate them.

You can't make an exact ratio outta how this weight applies to ET's. Some say 3:1 which may be close. You must also consider less rolling resistance and less frontal area.

Skinnies are a proven mod. No one will argue that. I'm not sure why Terry saw only 1/2 the gain I did, but I'll still stick with ~.12.

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

[quote]Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>
I don't waste my time with people who run slower, their opinions aren't worth much to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

LMAO! I've met many people that could be considered fast that don't know jack about their setup. I guess it's a good thing that there are plenty of faster people than you on this board or you'd end up talking with yourself. <img src="graemlins/gr_xmas.gif" border="0" alt="[santa]" />