Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: Ron Silva]
#428446
08/04/09 04:13 PM
08/04/09 04:13 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,595 On the south side of Nowhere
S/ST 3040
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,595
On the south side of Nowhere
|
100% If the only reason for light weight cranks was for static weight, people wouldn't bother with the extra $2000 but, as I've previously admitted, I have been wrong before.
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: S/ST 3040]
#428447
08/04/09 04:25 PM
08/04/09 04:25 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,786 Portage,michigan
B3422W5
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,786
Portage,michigan
|
realistically, what gain could one expect to see with an 043 ring pack and just header evac setup going to a vacuum pump???? Scott's p7 deal has me sucking 3rd boob
Last edited by B3422W5; 08/04/09 04:26 PM.
69 Dart GTS A4 Silver All steel, flat factory hood, 3360race weight 418 BPE factory replacement headed stroker, 565 lift solid cam, footbrake street/strip car Best so far, 10.32 1/4 1.41 best 60 foot 6.56 at 104.17
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: B3422W5]
#428449
08/04/09 05:05 PM
08/04/09 05:05 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,595 On the south side of Nowhere
S/ST 3040
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,595
On the south side of Nowhere
|
Quote:
realistically, what gain could one expect to see with an 043 ring pack and just header evac setup going to a vacuum pump????
Scott's p7 deal has me sucking 3rd #%&#
It's probably worth a little......15-20 HP
Take 500 lbs. out of your car and see how you stack up.
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: S/ST 3040]
#428450
08/04/09 05:15 PM
08/04/09 05:15 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,880 USA
Ron Silva
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,880
USA
|
Just remember, there are limits as to what you can do with a Crank because it has to be in balance. So if you have it fully machined and you have a heavy rod and pistin, you will be ADDING weight to the crank Via Mallory metal to balance it. If you save 3 pounds in the rods alone by buying Titanium then you will have to take more weight out of the counterweight. So light pistons and rods compliment the crank and help remove more weight. Light pistons & Pins are easier on the rods and so the rods don't have to be as strong and so on.......Light parts really are good as long as strength is not sacraficed and they are used in the proper application.
Last edited by dragrcr97; 08/04/09 05:16 PM.
SRT DEMON ONE SEAT
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: S/ST 3040]
#428451
08/04/09 05:34 PM
08/04/09 05:34 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,786 Portage,michigan
B3422W5
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,786
Portage,michigan
|
Quote:
Quote:
realistically, what gain could one expect to see with an 043 ring pack and just header evac setup going to a vacuum pump????
Scott's p7 deal has me sucking 3rd #%&#
It's probably worth a little......15-20 HP
Take 500 lbs. out of your car and see how you stack up.
i know, but the chances of that happening are zilch..heck for my car to weigh 2950 with me in it, the car would have to weigh 300 pounds or so
69 Dart GTS A4 Silver All steel, flat factory hood, 3360race weight 418 BPE factory replacement headed stroker, 565 lift solid cam, footbrake street/strip car Best so far, 10.32 1/4 1.41 best 60 foot 6.56 at 104.17
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: B3422W5]
#428452
08/04/09 06:42 PM
08/04/09 06:42 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,924 Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,924
Weddington, N.C.
|
Herb Adams in his book "chassis engineering" states that one pound of rotating mass is worth roughly 6 (or maybe it was 8? don't have the book handy) pounds of static weight. I remember years ago switching my car from Magnum 500 wheels that weighed about 26 pounds a piece to weld wheels that weighed about 10, the car lost 64 pounds of static weight but the COMBINATION of dynamic AND static weight reduction dropped the et close to 2 10th's. I was amazed and the car pulled faster through the gears (although the rotational reduction really only applied to the rear wheels) Using 1 for 8 that would mean a 12.5 pound reduction of crank weight (or suppose any rotational weight) would be worth about 100 pounds of static weight or a rule of thumb 10th. The thing to remember is the crank can only accelerate as fast as the sum total of the rotational forces will allow, The cranks rotational mass is added to that of the tranny, the driveshaft, the ring gear and the axles and \most importantly the tiresagainst the ground so although you are dynamically lightening the crank and reducing the total mass of the drivetrain, it's not just the crank itself and when the totals are summed the percentage weight loss % is (quite) a bit lower than you'd see just revving the motor in neutral. Also there is a flywheel effect to rotating mass as far as how it Hits the tires at the moment where static energy becomes kinetic. Like a lighter or heavier flywheel there is a trade off that is beneficial in most cases but not necessarily in all cases. I went with a heavy steel flywheelin my 427 CObra because although I'm sure it would accelerate quicker in the 1/4 mile with lighter mass, I wanted the proper big block "feel" when I dumped the clutch as low engine speeds and to offset the very light 1850 gram bobweight of the smallblock. To transfer equal inertia with lighter rotating mass you have to tranfer the load at a higher RPM which is usually an advantage for drag racing. But EVERYTHING is a trade-off, the big slicks you need to launch off the line take a lot more power to turn at the top end, so racing is always a matter of where and when to apply power most effectively. also I believe when comparing cranks the effective weight of the rotating mass is the sum of the crank plus the rotational weight of the pistons and rods. you have 2 cranks one weighs 50 and the other 60 it is 20% lighter, but if you included ONLY the rotating (big end) weight of 8 rods (lets say the same 10 pounds) the effective rotational difference is really 60 vs 70 or a net of 16.6% lighter.....now add the sum of everything elese that spins inthe drivetrain. Interesting topic for sure!
Last edited by Streetwize; 08/04/09 07:08 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: Streetwize]
#428454
08/04/09 07:33 PM
08/04/09 07:33 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,219 New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,219
New York
|
one pound of rotating mass is worth roughly 6 pounds of static weight
Way too general - doesn't say radius (major factor), or relative speed (engine speed or less?).
the effective weight of the rotating mass is the sum of the crank plus the rotational weight of the pistons and rods. you have 2 cranks one weighs 50 and the other 60 it is 20% lighter, but if you included ONLY the rotating (big end) weight of 8 rods (lets say the same 10 pounds) the effective rotational difference is really 60 vs 70 or a net of 16.6% lighter
The actual math to calculate changes in inertia is a mess - the formula is easy, but figuring out the "mean center of gyration" isn't. If the crank were lightened 20 lbs. by simply drilling the main journals out to paper thin (this never happens!!), the inertia would hardly change - because their mean radius less than 1-1/4". The rod big end is somewhat better since it's located (about) stroke radius distance. The really important part is the counterweight OD.
I was told that the biggest noticable difference would be in the 60 foot times True - because the overall gear ratio is directly proportionate to inertia.
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: Streetwize]
#428456
08/04/09 07:43 PM
08/04/09 07:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591 Canton, Ohio
Sport440
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,591
Canton, Ohio
|
Bob, I have some of that info from the Herb Adams book. What I have shows a test between Static and Rotating weight of 15# Off the car, wheel, and crank. And by Far 15# of the crank was worth about 15 times as much as 15# off the car/dead weight. It appears Herb took a 3000# car and accellerated it from 64 MPH for a marked or timed distance. Dropping 15# first off the car, and then at the wheel and finally from the crank itself. Then by comparing the MPH change they calculated the approximate HP change that would of taken place. With a base line of 428 HP on a 3000# car the accelleration tests showed a gain of 2.14 HP equivalent from a 15# deadweight drop. 6.42 HP equivalent from a 15# wheelweight drop. 32.10 HP equivalent from a 15# crankweight drop. This from the old Herb Adams Chassis book. As far as its accuracy, I dont know. But it sure does imply that the best place to remove weight is in the engine rotating assembly. So with a 40# weight loss at the crank you should definately see and feel something, mike
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: Sport440]
#428457
08/04/09 08:03 PM
08/04/09 08:03 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,880 USA
Ron Silva
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,880
USA
|
Think about it this way. Above it is stated that you cansave 17 pounds rotating weight switching from a 727 to a 904 trans. Well you could EASILY lower that much going from stock pistons/rods/crank to good lightweight stuff. Probably more. Even if you considered gun drilling the mains static weight.
It has been proven that switcing transmissions is worth a measuarable gain.
SRT DEMON ONE SEAT
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: Sport440]
#428460
08/04/09 08:29 PM
08/04/09 08:29 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,924 Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,924
Weddington, N.C.
|
Sport, So herb was saying 15:1? I better go back and brush up....and then go drill some holes in my crank I guess the point I was making is everything from the Balancer to the tire that spins needs to be SUMMED, a crank will only spin as fast as the load against it can let it......Light cranks from my experience are really felt above the torque peak and as "panic" (sorry, you'll always be Panic to me!) said it really depends on a lot of other variables. Where it can also pay off (in an obvious but not really mentioned way) is if the lighter mass allows the motor to more safely rev and be built/tuned to a higher HP peak and allow the motor for more RMP/POWER than it would otherwise be able to achieve.
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: Ron Silva]
#428461
08/04/09 08:31 PM
08/04/09 08:31 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,463 oklahoma
forphorty
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,463
oklahoma
|
Quote:
Think about it this way. Above it is stated that you cansave 17 pounds rotating weight switching from a 727 to a 904 trans. Well you could EASILY lower that much going from stock pistons/rods/crank to good lightweight stuff. Probably more. Even if you considered gun drilling the mains static weight.
It has been proven that switcing transmissions is worth a measuarable gain.
I have heard several examples of cars picking up about 15 hundredths switching from a 727 to a 904. But i suspect that 17 lbs off the crank would not make as much difference .The transmission has components that must stop and start( band grabbing the drum, band releasing,etc.)whereas the crank is merely accelerating(with the RPM dropping at each shift of course).
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
[Re: Streetwize]
#428463
08/04/09 09:23 PM
08/04/09 09:23 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
......Light cranks from my experience are really felt above the torque peak and as "panic" (sorry, you'll always be Panic to me!) said it really depends on a lot of other variables. Where it can also pay off (in an obvious but not really mentioned way) is if the lighter mass allows the motor to more safely rev and be built/tuned to a higher HP peak and allow the motor for more RMP/POWER than it would otherwise be able to achieve.
that's the way i feel about it too. to keep high rpm engines from flying apart takes lightweight components. some cars will actually run slower 60' times if they no longer have enough mass (inertia) to launch them. don't expect huge gains in e.t. for a 10 sec. car, but better longevity should be expected in just about any race combo if done right, and not to extremes where parts are weakened by the lightening efforts.
|
|
|
Re: Performance difference crank weight... light VS heavy
#428464
08/04/09 09:40 PM
08/04/09 09:40 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,744 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,744
Bend,OR USA
|
there are many ways to make a car go faster, especially if your using stock, OEM type parts. As already mentioned the Pro Stock guys have lightweight cranks, rods and pistons. I'm not sure if the honda 1.8? size rod journal size is still the hot tip or not but anytime you can reduce the mass, weight and drag internally the car will end up going faster as long as you can keep it hooked up. Pro Stock motors have real big bores(not sure exactly what size now) and relatively short strokes, 3.6 maybe? And they use the lightest weight parts they can buy or make in those motor on the rotating parts If you where to make two identicle motors like a NHRA legal stocker and a legal NHRA legal super stocker and used just the short block not including the SS cam, lifters and upper end and used the stocker top end in the same car the SS short block will be faster with the stocker cam and upper end than the stocker short block will be in the same car with the same weather and same all other parts other than the short block. Now don't ask me how much differences ther are in the bob wieght bewtween those two motors, especially if it is 426 Hemi motor
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
|
|