|
Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
#626807
02/28/10 12:53 PM
02/28/10 12:53 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
'72CudaRacer
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
|
I balanced my rotating assembly yesterday, and if my math is correct, I lost almost 4 3/4 lbs. New pistons, pins, rings, retainers = 888 grams, old = 1113 grams (old DC/TRW pistons) New H-beam rods were only 8 grams lighter than stock LY rods, but are bushed and have ARP 2000 7/16" cap screws and should be MUCH stronger. Plus King Pro rod bearings are 4g less than Clevitte 77. That comes to 237g/ hole X 8 = 1896g, plus the 240g removed from crank shaft = 2136g total weight removed from rotating assembly. (1g = 28.349 oz.) 3126g = 75.34 oz = 4.7 lbs Anyone know what the engine will "see" because of this?  And then we add approx. 3.5 more points of compression (from 10.0:1 to 13.5:1) and a set of alum Stealth heads, we can do more of this  Brian
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: AndyF]
#626810
02/28/10 01:03 PM
02/28/10 01:03 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,880
USA
Ron Silva
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,880
USA
|
You did good! I have always been a big believer in weight reduction.
Here is 10 pounds of dead weight, GONE!
SRT DEMON ONE SEAT
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: '72CudaRacer]
#626811
02/28/10 01:07 PM
02/28/10 01:07 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,542
BROOK PARK, OH
WILD BILL
Senior Member of the Junior Dragster Club
|
Senior Member of the Junior Dragster Club
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,542
BROOK PARK, OH
|
Sounds like we're in the same boat. I dropped 7.7+ lbs off my rotating assy, upped the CR from 8.6-1 to 12-1, and opened the heads up a lot and now have no clue what's in store 
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: '72CudaRacer]
#626813
02/28/10 01:20 PM
02/28/10 01:20 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
Sport440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
|
Herb Adams had a comparison chart on rotatating vs static weight. On a rotating assembly each 1# loss was worth 2 HP. So if you were to accept that as Fact, then a 4.7# loss = 9.4 HP Whether its true or not. No doubt a 4.7# loss off the rotating assembly is a win, win deal. mike 
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: tboomer]
#626814
02/28/10 01:39 PM
02/28/10 01:39 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
'72CudaRacer
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
|
Quote:
Interesting,Brian...What did the ly rod weigh... 
Stock LY rod, with a 1/8" hole in the top of the pin end, pin end floated (not bushed), ARP bolts (stock style), nuts, & no bearings = 860g
The big ends were not resized if I remember correctly. I measured them and found them to be acceptable.
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: Ron Silva]
#626815
02/28/10 01:42 PM
02/28/10 01:42 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
'72CudaRacer
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
|
Quote:
You did good! I have always been a big believer in weight reduction.
Here is 10 pounds of dead weight, GONE!
Did you rifle drill the crank???
That shouldn't affect the balance, because it's on the center line of the rotating mass, just lower total weight, correct?
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: '72CudaRacer]
#626818
02/28/10 02:15 PM
02/28/10 02:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
Sport440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
|
Quote:
EDIT:My calc says 3126g = 110.2664oz = 6.8915# 
All I can say is Hold On and Sinch Your Belts Tighter 
I have 1g = .0352 oz, 1 oz = 28.349g. Or is that not correct?
Maybe its not exact but roughly 454 grams = 1#
454/16 oz. = 28.375 grams a oz. So you are correct.
That 110.266 grams per oz. is a mistake. His total grams converted to pounds is correct. mike
3126/454= 6.8854 pounds.
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: sturmenater]
#626820
02/28/10 03:54 PM
02/28/10 03:54 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,235
TN
65racer
2009 IHRA World Champion
|
2009 IHRA World Champion
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,235
TN
|
Brian, how's it going? Seems like your gonna step it up quite a bit. Get it ready, racing season is just around the corner. Maybe I should have made mine quicker, but didn't want to mess with my combo. Good luck Dave ps,,,,, If anyone around your neck of the woods is looking for a new enclosed trailer, send them my way, I have that 28' I need to get rid of.
Last edited by 65racer; 02/28/10 04:26 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: Sport440]
#626822
02/28/10 06:19 PM
02/28/10 06:19 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,675
Akron, Ohio U.S.A.
roadhazard
master
|
master
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,675
Akron, Ohio U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT:My calc says 3126g = 110.2664oz = 6.8915#
All I can say is Hold On and Sinch Your Belts Tighter
I have 1g = .0352 oz, 1 oz = 28.349g. Or is that not correct?
Maybe its not exact but roughly 454 grams = 1#
454/16 oz. = 28.375 grams a oz. So you are correct.
That 110.266 grams per oz. is a mistake. His total grams converted to pounds is correct. mike
3126/454= 6.8854 pounds.
So he took off 6.88# not 4.7# correct?
I was using a converter that I found online and yes I made a mistake 1g = .03527396oz
Hope I didn't cause any problems 
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: roadhazard]
#626824
02/28/10 07:51 PM
02/28/10 07:51 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
Sport440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
|
Hey Greg I see what happend with the 4.77# vs the 6.88# Brian had both sets of numbers listed in grams 3126 - 2136 and typoed a 3 and 2 switch. You did the math for the 3126, Brian did the math for 2136. After rereading the post the 2136 gram number is the correct one. So 4.7# is the number. 6.8 - 4.7 its all in the right direction. mike
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: Sport440]
#626825
02/28/10 11:25 PM
02/28/10 11:25 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
'72CudaRacer
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
|
Quote:
Hey Greg I see what happend with the 4.77# vs the 6.88#
Brian had both sets of numbers listed in grams 3126 - 2136 and typoed a 3 and 2 switch. You did the math for the 3126, Brian did the math for 2136. After rereading the post the 2136 gram number is the correct one. So 4.7# is the number.
6.8 - 4.7 its all in the right direction.
mike
I think I need to take a break. Yesterday at the machine shop, Dan is letting me do as much as I can. (I'm a mechanic, not a machinist) Anyway, I'm weighing everything and balancing rods & pistons and filling out balancing work sheet. I get done and he comes over to set up balancer, and finds that I've recorded small end at 255g and big end at 297g (597g was correct) for a rod total of 552g, 300g light. Good thing he don't trust me yet!  
Sorry about that.
Brian
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: '72CudaRacer]
#626826
02/28/10 11:30 PM
02/28/10 11:30 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,542
BROOK PARK, OH
WILD BILL
Senior Member of the Junior Dragster Club
|
Senior Member of the Junior Dragster Club
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,542
BROOK PARK, OH
|
Maybe that's why Scott and Dale did all my balancing on a day I wasn't there to help 
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: WILD BILL]
#626827
02/28/10 11:37 PM
02/28/10 11:37 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
'72CudaRacer
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
|
Quote:
Maybe that's why Scott and Dale did all my balancing on a day I wasn't there to help
I might be better off if he would just run me off...I know he would be!
Can I watch??? Can I help??? Please??? Dan? Now, where did he go, again? HaHaHa.  
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: Sport440]
#626828
03/01/10 12:46 PM
03/01/10 12:46 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,206
New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,206
New York
|
Herb Adams says a lot things.
That approximation might have some merit - if referring to a specific radius of rotation.
1 lb. off the center of the crank does nothing.
1 lb. off the pin at 3.31" stroke does something.
1 lb. off the OD of a 440 counterweight does a whole lot more.
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: '72CudaRacer]
#626829
03/01/10 01:13 PM
03/01/10 01:13 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,206
New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,206
New York
|
Weight off pistons: 225 grams × 8 = 1800 grams reciprocating weight = 63.49 oz.
Weight removed from crank for balance @ 50% factor: 900 grams rotating weight = 31.75 oz.
Total weight off crank: 2700 grams = 95.24 oz. = 5.95 lbs. just for the pistons.
Weight off rod bearings: 4 grams × 8 = 32 grams rotating weight + 32 grams balance = -64 grams = 2.26 oz.
Rod weight loss: you added the 8 grams that you identified as a loss. In addition, we don't know how this was distributed.
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: emarine01]
#626831
03/01/10 07:11 PM
03/01/10 07:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,235
TN
65racer
2009 IHRA World Champion
|
2009 IHRA World Champion
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,235
TN
|
Brian, I shot you a PM, let me know if you got it, been having internet service problems  Dave
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: polyspheric]
#626832
03/01/10 07:53 PM
03/01/10 07:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
Sport440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
|
Quote:
Herb Adams says a lot things.
That approximation might have some merit - if referring to a specific radius of rotation.
1 lb. off the center of the crank does nothing.
1 lb. off the pin at 3.31" stroke does something.
1 lb. off the OD of a 440 counterweight does a whole lot more.
 totally! It was a approximation IMO, with No specifics to radius of rotation. As you state the further out, the better the effect. mike
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: polyspheric]
#626833
03/01/10 08:48 PM
03/01/10 08:48 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
'72CudaRacer
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
|
Quote:
Weight off pistons: 225 grams × 8 = 1800 grams reciprocating weight = 63.49 oz.
Weight removed from crank for balance @ 50% factor: 900 grams rotating weight = 31.75 oz.
Total weight off crank: 2700 grams = 95.24 oz. = 5.95 lbs. just for the pistons.
Weight off rod bearings: 4 grams × 8 = 32 grams rotating weight + 32 grams balance = -64 grams = 2.26 oz.
Rod weight loss: you added the 8 grams that you identified as a loss. In addition, we don't know how this was distributed.
So, is this a good thing? Or just useless knowledge? With this amount of weight reduction, will it make a diffence as to what the engine will "see"?
I'm thinking that it can't hurt.
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: 65racer]
#626834
03/01/10 08:50 PM
03/01/10 08:50 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
'72CudaRacer
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
|
Quote:
Brian,
I shot you a PM,
let me know if you
got it, been having
internet service problems
Dave
No mail from The Champ.
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: Sport440]
#626835
03/01/10 09:55 PM
03/01/10 09:55 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,675
Akron, Ohio U.S.A.
roadhazard
master
|
master
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,675
Akron, Ohio U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Hey Greg I see what happend with the 4.77# vs the 6.88#
Brian had both sets of numbers listed in grams 3126 - 2136 and typoed a 3 and 2 switch. You did the math for the 3126, Brian did the math for 2136. After rereading the post the 2136 gram number is the correct one. So 4.7# is the number.
6.8 - 4.7 its all in the right direction. mike
Yes Mike it's all in the right direction
Brian those mods should pick your car up a bunch and with a lighter bob weight it should be more durable also
You have a Sweet looking ride. What's her best time and MPH?
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: roadhazard]
#626836
03/01/10 11:14 PM
03/01/10 11:14 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
'72CudaRacer
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,039
Mooresburg, Tn
|
Brian those mods should pick your car up a bunch and with a lighter bob weight it should be more durable also You have a Sweet looking ride. What's her best time and MPH?
Thanks Greg,
Most of the tracks around here are 1/8 mile, except Bristol and even they run brackets on 1/8.
Mid to high 6.8x, @ 98-99 mph, 60' 1.46/1.47. Last spring we went to Z-Max for Pinks All Out, 1/4 mile at approx 600' lower altitude, I went 10.873 @ 122.29, 1.481 60', 1/8 mile on that same pass was 6.869 @ 98.77. I'll include a photo from the rear of that pass.
Car weighs 3270 lbs w/ me, SS springs, 11.5 X 29.5 MT, all steel, fiberglass hood.
I really don't have a clue as to what this new engine will do, I just hope it don't mess up my combination.  This car has always been deadly consistant. The guys that I race with will tell you that my reaction times will be from .00x-.070, but count on the car running dead on.
Last edited by '72CudaRacer; 03/01/10 11:54 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: Streetwize]
#626838
03/02/10 02:20 PM
03/02/10 02:20 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,986
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
gregsdart
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,986
Frostbitefalls MN (Rocky&Bullw...
|
Another factor is RPM at launch/total rpm loss and recovery in each gear. The less rpm change, the less gain. A super speedway nascar racer probably won't see much, but a car with a tight converter and wide gear splits will.
Other factors would be change in size of any rotating part exposed to the crankcase, which would change the drag from windage.
8..603 156 mph best, 2905 lbs 549, indy 572-13, alky
|
|
|
Re: Rotating Assembly Weight Reduction
[Re: gregsdart]
#626839
03/02/10 10:36 PM
03/02/10 10:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
Sport440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
|
I like the combined two aspects that both Wize and Greg point out. 1. The motor underload can only rev as fast as the load its driving through will allow it. 2. The limited RPM rev range in witch the said motor will operate in with its combined vert stall and rpm shift points. Both combined would have a effect on any total net effective HP gain of any rotational weight losses. IMO, no doubt theres a performance gain, but the bigger gain IMO would be the reduced G forces on parts by thousands of pounds. mike
Last edited by Sport440; 03/03/10 01:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
