2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.

what are the effects of reducing rim weight to reducing body weight??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 9, 2003 | 09:44 PM
  #1  
Rx-7Blazin's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 886
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Tx
what are the effects of reducing rim weight to reducing body weight??

is there a difference between reducing the weight of your rims and reducing the weight on your car?? would it kinda be like adding a reduced weight flywheel or drive shaft(reducing rotating mass)???
Reply
Old May 9, 2003 | 10:23 PM
  #2  
Rotary Freak
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
From: Boulder, CO
yes.
Reply
Old May 9, 2003 | 10:30 PM
  #3  
Icemark's Avatar
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 24
From: Rohnert Park CA
No more flywheel HP is gained by lighter wheels, however there should be a decrease in drive train load (so you get some rear wheel HP back).
Reply
Old May 9, 2003 | 10:36 PM
  #4  
dr0x's Avatar
pei > caek
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,643
Likes: 0
From: Mars
Losing 10lbs in unsprung weight (your wheels, or even if you switched to CF rotors) makes a huge different when compared to 10lbs out of the car.
Reply
Old May 9, 2003 | 10:48 PM
  #5  
rotary>piston's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 873
Likes: 1
From: Boulder, CO
losing unsprung weight drastically changes the handling of the car, but won't improve acceleration much.
There isn't much weight to be lost though, besides changing rims (or buying lighter rotors), and those have a terrible, TERRIBLE acceleration per dollar ratio.
I'd say lose some weight from the car, you can take out the AC and other options, then, if you're really serious, you can remove the sound deadening material and tar.
Personally I'm not much for weight reduction, unless you're building a race car, keep the extra couple hundred (at the most) pounds and just enjoy the car.
Reply
Old May 9, 2003 | 10:58 PM
  #6  
Evil Aviator's Avatar
Rotorhead
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 39
From: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Yes, it reduces the inertia. Actually, for the wheels, it is two types of inertia, each with its own benefit. Reduced rotational inertia will allow the wheel to accelerate and decelerate faster under throttle or braking. Reduced linear (vertical) inertia allows the wheel to better follow road irregularities and also to return back to its maximum contact position when displaced by larger bumps, making the existing suspension components more effective and reducing shock to the car's balance.

Also, reducing the overall weight of the car will change the car's overall inertia, which is often overlooked by the car magazines which only state the static weight and static weight distribution. For example, which configuration do you think will handle better when inertia is taken into effect given that the front and rear bumpers are each the same distance from their respective wheels?...
a) Car with 1,200 lbs on the front bumper, 1,200 lbs on the rear bumper, and 600 lbs in the center.
b) Car with 50 lbs on the front bumper, 50 lbs on the rear bumper, and 2,900 lbs in the center.
As you can see, both cars weigh the same at 3,000 lbs, and both cars have a 50/50 weight distribution, but car "a" is going to have a severe "dumbell" inertia issue when it tries to maneuver.
Reply
Old May 10, 2003 | 02:34 AM
  #7  
dr0x's Avatar
pei > caek
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,643
Likes: 0
From: Mars
Originally posted by rotary>piston
losing unsprung weight drastically changes the handling of the car, but won't improve acceleration much.
Unsprung weight plays a *HUGE* role in acceleration. Why do you think a civic (just as an example, because its most common) with huge chrome rims cant get much better than 2.7 60 foot times? Yet an identical civic with stock rims can cut a 2.1?
Reply
Old May 10, 2003 | 03:08 AM
  #8  
Dan H's Avatar
Zoom Zoom Boom!
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
I agree. Any weight removed from rotating mass has a greater effect than removing static weight.
Reply
Old May 10, 2003 | 03:09 PM
  #9  
Snrub's Avatar
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Thank you Evil, no one gets that! I can't count the number of times people have failed to understand that all 50/50 cars are not equal.

I have friends who are mechanical engineers who don't get that.

Last edited by Snrub; May 10, 2003 at 03:12 PM.
Reply
Old May 10, 2003 | 08:35 PM
  #10  
Scott 89t2's Avatar
SOLD THE RX-7!
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,451
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Originally posted by dr0x
Unsprung weight plays a *HUGE* role in acceleration. Why do you think a civic (just as an example, because its most common) with huge chrome rims cant get much better than 2.7 60 foot times? Yet an identical civic with stock rims can cut a 2.1?
most unsprung weight things don't add acceleration... wheels do. there is alot more "unsprung" things besides rims. brakes, shocks, hubs etc.
Reply
Old May 10, 2003 | 10:17 PM
  #11  
controler's Avatar
Junior Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
I've read that its a general rule 1 pound of unsprung weight is equal to about 2 pounds sprung weight. If that helps.
Reply
Old May 10, 2003 | 10:37 PM
  #12  
dr0x's Avatar
pei > caek
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,643
Likes: 0
From: Mars
Originally posted by Scott 89t2
most unsprung weight things don't add acceleration... wheels do. there is alot more "unsprung" things besides rims. brakes, shocks, hubs etc.
It doesnt add any acceleration, removing the weight just makes it more efficient. And believe me if I had a spare 800 bucks laying around Id have a CF driveshaft and rear end
Reply
Old May 11, 2003 | 01:05 AM
  #13  
Evil Aviator's Avatar
Rotorhead
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 39
From: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Originally posted by Snrub
Thank you Evil, no one gets that! I can't count the number of times people have failed to understand that all 50/50 cars are not equal.

I have friends who are mechanical engineers who don't get that.
Pilots get it. Well, some didn't get it, but they are dead now, so they don't count.

I would also like to point out to others that it also makes a difference where the weight is reduced in the wheel. For example, you could have two different wheels of the same static weight, but if one wheel has more mass in the rim it will have more inertia than one that has more mass in the hub. In fact, you could even have a heavier wheel with less inertia than a lighter wheel, depending on where the weight is distributed. This also goes for flywheels, turbochargers or anything else that rotates.
Reply
Old May 11, 2003 | 03:06 PM
  #14  
Rx-7Blazin's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 886
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Tx
im thinking about getting vert rims 11lbs!!! i have the GXL Rims look kinda like a ninja star or somthing but i think they weight 20+Lbs thats almost a 10lb decrease at every wheel
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jeff20B
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
73
Sep 16, 2018 07:16 PM
OCDHerb
Build Threads
3
Sep 9, 2015 02:19 PM
OCDHerb
Build Threads
0
Sep 7, 2015 05:41 PM
nkuhajda
New Member RX-7 Technical
2
Sep 7, 2015 04:07 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 AM.