Want more HP....

[RCMUSTANG]

65mm throttle body.

Sponsored

 

[Pic-N-Stick]

There are cheaper ways to remove weight.

For vehicle acceleration, wheels and tires are barely any different than the same weight anywhere else on the vehicle. The wheels accelerate slowly, over a long time period, and never really spin that fast. That means they can't store much kinetic energy from angular velocity and acceleration

What???
How Much Does Wheel Weight Affect Performance? Real Test Data Reveals Truth

 

[Daweism]

There are cheaper ways to remove weight.

For vehicle acceleration, wheels and tires are barely any different than the same weight anywhere else on the vehicle. The wheels accelerate slowly, over a long time period, and never really spin that fast. That means they can't store much kinetic energy from angular velocity and acceleration

100% false

Take a 200lb passenger in Raptor A
vs
Raptor B with an extra 50lbs per wheel but without the 200lbs passenger

You think these 2 Raptors will accelerate, brake and have the same MPG?

Now for fun imagine a Raptor C where the weight of each wheel is hypothetically say 1lb each, imagine how fast it would spin with how little effort needed. Why do you think super lightweight Volk wheels are $1000 each?

 

[superj]

Wheel and tire weight makes the biggest difference. In acceleration amd gas mileage, for sure

I also have low hp 5 speed ranger and accidentally put heavy wheels and tires. They came off in a day or two.

 

[Tom W8JI]

What???
How Much Does Wheel Weight Affect Performance? Real Test Data Reveals Truth

That article is bologna designed to sell wheels. Anyone with any mechanical engineering or simple physics training know it is pure BS by this opening article statement:

" Even more impressive, a single pound of rotating wheel weight has the equivalent impact of 5-10 pounds of static vehicle weight when it comes to acceleration."

That is pure bologna. A good 7th grade science student would know it is 100% rubbish.

The energy stored in any rotating mass is determined by the rate of change in angular velocity and the radial weight distribution from center. The weight is a linear change, the angular velocity (RPM and distance off center) is by the square of change.

A wheel changes speed so slowly that the energy being stored from the flywheel effect is very small. The maximum return on weight in a really fast accelerating very light weight vehicle would be less than 4:1. This would be if ALL of the weight was at the tread surface, and the rest of the wheel was zero weight and it was a really fast accelerating vehicle.

They are either lying to help sell wheels, or they are just dumb as a rock.

Play around with this calculator.

https://globorious.com/mechanical-engineering-calculators/flywheel-energy-calculator/

Don't rely on articles published by people trying to sell you something! Salesmen will tell you any BS to sell you something. As an engineer I watched our marketing people at work. They would always ask "Can we claim this without being fined?".

Your tire is only turning about 1200 RPM at 100 MPH. The stored energy of a 25 pound wheel and 30" tall tire at 100 MPH is only about 100,000 joules. If it takes 20 seconds to get to 100 MPH it used only a couple of horsepower to get there. If you cut the wheel weight in half you save half that horsepower. You might save 1 HP per wheel if the vehicle accelerates to 100 MPH in 20 seconds and you cut wheel weights in half. That's a lot of money to pay for a couple horsepower.

I would spend it somewhere else first.

 

[RaptorME]

Go to a sports car forum like Rennlist and you'll get laughed off the board. Track guys put smaller wheels and tires to save unsprung weight and increase braking and handling. It's called inertia. Heard of it? Try to get a 25 lb rolling then try a 50 lb ball, according to you it should take about the same effort. I'm not sure why F1 cars use magnesium wheels then, or Porsche on their high-end GT cars. Guess they should have consulted with you and saved major cash. Laughable.

 

[Tom W8JI]

I really don't care what anyone that does not understand basic physics thinks. This is true regardless of what they own or drive or who they are. If someone wants to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, that is fine with me. I work in reality, not fantasy.

There are certain fundamental ways things work. There are unbreakable rules.

The wheel is primarily doing two things. It is a rotating flywheel (ring) and also has to track surface irregularities. While tracking the surface is important for traction and handling, acceleration (the "horsepower" topic here) is concerns energy storage as the velocity changes. This is a well documented simple thing.

The rotational energy stored in the wheel is dependent on the angular velocity and the weight. The velocity is a square while the weight is linear (1 for 1). The angular velocity is proportional to the radius from center. Twice the radius (at the same RPM and weight) is four times the stored energy. Twice the weight is just twice the stored energy.

Since the tire tread is the furthest thing out it has the most angular velocity. If we look at the distributed mean weight of the wheel as being half way out and the tire as the outer ring, four pounds on the wheel is the rotational equal of one pound on the tire.

The very most a weight change could in horsepower load make compared to weight is two times the static weight , and that would be an ideal condition. You will be way less than that.

If a vehicle is 4000 pounds and has 400 HP that is a 10:1 ratio. 40 lbs static removed is like adding 1 HP so far as acceleration (assuming the traction is perfect). The rotational equivalent in a normal wheel is going to be twice that.

It isn't my fault that people writing wheel marketing ads are stupid or dishonest. Then the public swallows that bologna and spends $2000 to gain almost nothing.

Look at how smart bicycle racers are. They have to know these things because they are pumping the pedals:

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/628389-rotating-weight-vs-static-weight.html

 

[Bloody run]

Easy for you to say

 

[DirtDerrick]

Would like advice on where I could pick up some additional hp. I currently have K&N kit, intercooler, down pipes, and a ZFG tune @ 23lbs. From what I have seen hot and/or cold piping isn't cheap and doesn't appear to add much at all. I also plan to have my tuner bring my boost up to 25lbs.

Could go with a small ethanol blend, Or turbos.

 

[superj]

I actually cycle so i know. Heavy tires and rims suck to start but once going, are ok. They are also harder to stop.

Same as my 04 ranger and why the heavy tires came off, quickly. I live in town so i am always starting and stopping so that weight was very noticeable.

 

[Hoss]

I really don't care what anyone that does not understand basic physics thinks. This is true regardless of what they own or drive or who they are. If someone wants to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, that is fine with me. I work in reality, not fantasy.

There are certain fundamental ways things work. There are unbreakable rules.

The wheel is primarily doing two things. It is a rotating flywheel (ring) and also has to track surface irregularities. While tracking the surface is important for traction and handling, acceleration (the "horsepower" topic here) is concerns energy storage as the velocity changes. This is a well documented simple thing.

The rotational energy stored in the wheel is dependent on the angular velocity and the weight. The velocity is a square while the weight is linear (1 for 1). The angular velocity is proportional to the radius from center. Twice the radius (at the same RPM and weight) is four times the stored energy. Twice the weight is just twice the stored energy.

Since the tire tread is the furthest thing out it has the most angular velocity. If we look at the distributed mean weight of the wheel as being half way out and the tire as the outer ring, four pounds on the wheel is the rotational equal of one pound on the tire.

The very most a weight change could in horsepower load make compared to weight is two times the static weight , and that would be an ideal condition. You will be way less than that.

If a vehicle is 4000 pounds and has 400 HP that is a 10:1 ratio. 40 lbs static removed is like adding 1 HP so far as acceleration (assuming the traction is perfect). The rotational equivalent in a normal wheel is going to be twice that.

It isn't my fault that people writing wheel marketing ads are stupid or dishonest. Then the public swallows that bologna and spends $2000 to gain almost nothing.

Look at how smart bicycle racers are. They have to know these things because they are pumping the pedals:

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/628389-rotating-weight-vs-static-weight.html

Okeedokee

 

[superj]

same issue with wider tires. i run this 23mm tires on my bikes and have one bike with 2.5 inch wide tires. its a freaking work out to keep it rolling at speed. to much rolling resistance

 

[RaptorME]

"on a bicycle you need to worry about unsprung weight, thats where the real savings are."

From your link, you should probably read before just copying and pasting.

Sponsored