Carbon Fiber drive shaft = awsome!!! :thumbsup:

[spydervr4]

Just replaced my stock driveshaft with a Carbon Fiber driveshaft from PST, and wow what a difference. The stock Mitsu 3 piece shaft weighs 46lbs, the PST CFDS weighs 13lb! :D

I was accelerating out of a corner from 1400rpm in 3rd gear, and it was nice and smooth, no shuddering what so ever! I couldn't even do that with the stock shaft in 2nd gear! I can start the car moving as easily in 2nd as in 1st!

Someone on 3si had dyno proven it to reduce the drivetrain loss by 25 wheel horse power on a relative stock car. That's pretty damned good, considering it's also a performance mod that instead of adding more stress to your car, reduces it! :thumbsup: :headbang2

Also added a MSD DIS4-HO and done the hose reduction. Now I can hold boost nice and smooth with no boost spiking and drop off nor any spark blowout what so ever all the way to redline! Finally I can realize the full potential of my 15Gs!!

Can't wait to get my car to KTR for another dyno run!!!

[WETDRM]

thats pretty cool.i was actually thinking of replacing the aluminium one in my stang with a C/F one.

[NickPSI]

Have you tried launching it with that shaft? Would carbon fiber be strong enough to put the power to the ground on a hard launch?

[TunedPort 335]

I still haven't gotten an aluminum one yet :blush:

[igotasweetride]

Originally posted by NickPSI
Have you tried launching it with that shaft? Would carbon fiber be strong enough to put the power to the ground on a hard launch?


YES, CF is something like 4 times as strong as mild steel or aluminum or some shit like that. either way, its CRAZY strong

[fiveho]

Carbon Fiber is serious shit.Strength/fatiuge cycles aginst other materials is off the charts.It's basically a strong,dead material.Dead meaning that it soaks up vibration.It's not resonant in the way that steal or aluminum is.It cancels out the resonant frequency of your driveshaft and axles.That is the wonnhh wonnhh wonnhh sound you hear cruising down the highway.Some people(myself incuded) have mistaken this sound as the engine cycling.But it is actually your axles going thru minute(in the thousandths) flex cycles.Unlike a steel or aluminum driveshaft,a carbon shaft will cancel that vibration out before it reaches the output shaft of your transmission.Prolonging the life of your gear box,and also giving your car a smoother(is that a word)ride.Sorry to ramble,but I a had a killer link about drivetrain noise and vibration.It was more about an aluminum against steal,but the same principles hold true for carbon fiber.I'll try to find the link and post it.

[spydervr4]

Originally posted by fiveho
Carbon Fiber is serious shit.Strength/fatiuge cycles aginst other materials is off the charts.It's basically a strong,dead material.Dead meaning that it soaks up vibration.It's not resonant in the way that steal or aluminum is.It cancels out the resonant frequency of your driveshaft and axles.That is the wonnhh wonnhh wonnhh sound you hear cruising down the highway.Some people(myself incuded) have mistaken this sound as the engine cycling.But it is actually your axles going thru minute(in the thousandths) flex cycles.Unlike a steel or aluminum driveshaft,a carbon shaft will cancel that vibration out before it reaches the output shaft of your transmission.Prolonging the life of your gear box,and also giving your car a smoother(is that a word)ride.Sorry to ramble,but I a had a killer link about drivetrain noise and vibration.It was more about an aluminum against steal,but the same principles hold true for carbon fiber.I'll try to find the link and post it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The 1 piece CFDS also gets rid of the carrier bearings on the stock 3 piece drive shaft on the 3s. No worn bearings to worry about.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by igotasweetride
YES, CF is something like 4 times as strong as mild steel or aluminum or some shit like that. either way, its CRAZY strong

carbon fiber is not nearly as strong as aluminum or steel, my car with the small block would shred a carbon fiber driveshaft on the first launch. Carbon fiber is about as strong as a factory steel shaft, only difference is in tensile strength which leads to torsional strength.

[02"laser" Red]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
carbon fiber is not nearly as strong as aluminum or steel, my car with the small block would shred a carbon fiber driveshaft on the first launch. Carbon fiber is about as strong as a factory steel shaft, only difference is in tensile strength which leads to torsional strength.

Actually, per cubic inch in around six times stronger than aluminium and twice as strong as 18-8 stainless. The problems with CF is two things, one if companies go cheap and use polyester syrene resin instead of west system it's not as strong as it should be. Two, CF doesn't bend it shatters. And as far as shredding them, I was recently on the power yacht Valkamano that houses two 1,200hp twin turbo power cats, they had CF shafts. Spinning water is like you driving uphill the entire life of your vehicle. I have worked with CF for around ten years, it's great stuff, as long as you know how to lay it up. :thumbsup:

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by 02"laser" Red
Actually, per cubic inch in around six times stronger than aluminium and twice as strong as 18-8 stainless. The problems with CF is two things, one if companies go cheap and use polyester syrene resin instead of west system it's not as strong as it should be. Two, CF doesn't bend it shatters. And as far as shredding them, I was recently on the power yacht Valkamano that houses two 1,200hp twin turbo power cats, they had CF shafts. Spinning water is like you driving uphill the entire life of your vehicle. I have worked with CF for around ten years, it's great stuff, as long as you know how to lay it up. :thumbsup: you cant shock load CF, it will disinetegrate, making it not useable for drag racing, in whihc case different alloys of aluminum/steel are much stronger, if you are road racing, its mint, but it cant take abuse.

[02"laser" Red]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
you cant shock load CF, it will disinetegrate, making it not useable for drag racing, in whihc case different alloys of aluminum/steel are much stronger, if you are road racing, its mint, but it cant take abuse.

Steel yes, aluminum no. This is somthing I know, now granted, I have never owned a CF driveshaft so I can't say how well they perform with multiple launches, I will say this, if money was no problem, I could hoop weave you a driveshaft that you could never ever break period. But your talking about a 5,000$ . For the most part unless you know what to look for most CF stuff out there is impregnated with Polyester styrene, so the general public really doesn't see the real deal.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by 02"laser" Red
Steel yes, aluminum no. This is somthing I know, now granted, I have never owned a CF driveshaft so I can't say how well they perform with multiple launches, I will say this, if money was no problem, I could hoop weave you a driveshaft that you could never ever break period. But your talking about a 5,000$ . For the most part unless you know what to look for most CF stuff out there is impregnated with Polyester styrene, so the general public really doesn't see the real deal.

i can break anything......pro-mod cars run aluminum shafts to keep from exploding u-joints because the shaft gives a little, in my mind this makes it stronger cuz you can use it. in terms of metalurgy its not stronger, but in actual use it ends up winning.

[grygst76]

So many times I watched people praise and then run down and buy a CF driveshaft and throw it on a stock car or even higher powered ones, the stock ones was a waste of money IMO since it does NOTHING but reduce weight and vibration. I watched those CF shafts completely disintegrate under a full launch with a camaro or import with 350+ horsepower and D/R's. I will go aluminum D/S and sink the 2-300 I saved on a real power adder like Nitrous or even a cam or something

[Feral]

Thusfar these PST driveshafts are used in the most powerful 3S's around ... cars with over 700 to the wheels ... but of course with 4 wheels instead of 2 that means only 350 is going through the driveshaft so I imagine exploding driveshafts really wont be a problem for these AWD cars unless they start breaking the 1000AWHP makr (which would be quite a feat ... like 1300 FWHP out of a 3.0L ... I'm not going to hold my breath).

Regardless the HP gains from the driveshaft come from reducing drivetrainloss ... meaning the gains will go up with FWHP.

[FATBLOCKMARO]

Originally posted by Feral
Thusfar these PST driveshafts are used in the most powerful 3S's around ... cars with over 700 to the wheels ... but of course with 4 wheels instead of 2 that means only 350 is going through the driveshaft so I imagine exploding driveshafts really wont be a problem for these AWD cars unless they start breaking the 1000AWHP makr (which would be quite a feat ... like 1300 FWHP out of a 3.0L ... I'm not going to hold my breath).

Regardless the HP gains from the driveshaft come from reducing drivetrainloss ... meaning the gains will go up with FWHP.
.

I CAN TELL YOU FOR A FACT THAT W/ MY TRACK RECORD THIS YEAR I DEF WOULD HAVE BROKEN A CF SHAFT THE WAY I WAS BREAKING IT......... HOW DO U THING THAT C/F SHAFT WOULD HOLD UP IF I SNAPED MY PINION!!!!...

[grygst76]

Originally posted by Feral
Thusfar these PST driveshafts are used in the most powerful 3S's around ... cars with over 700 to the wheels ... but of course with 4 wheels instead of 2 that means only 350 is going through the driveshaft so I imagine exploding driveshafts really wont be a problem for these AWD cars unless they start breaking the 1000AWHP makr (which would be quite a feat ... like 1300 FWHP out of a 3.0L ... I'm not going to hold my breath).

Regardless the HP gains from the driveshaft come from reducing drivetrainloss ... meaning the gains will go up with FWHP. So very true...That's why I'm buying a titanium D/S:smokin: Oh wait......I'm kidding Theres a nice vid of a 1000 horse skyline that was floating around for a while and he uses aluminum for his shaft ( I said shaft!!)

[forcefed6]

cf driveshafts were just intended for road course racing liek someone said up top. i would hate too go out and launch hard as shit and have the driveshaft own itself inder the car. but there are also some guys on the camaro messageboards running in the 10's with them. so i dunno. acpt wants almost a g for there ds, f-that, ill stay 1le:thumbsup:

[tims]

I was pretty impressed with the CFDS as well, I'v never been in a car with the stock DS that didn't vibrate at low revs. The stock driveshaft is pretty bad, It's got 2 extremely soft rubber bushings to soak up power, and weighs a ton. Also for everyone here saying the CFDS can't take the abuse, remember we are AWD, the driveshaft is only taking half (approxamately) the power. I havn't heard of anyone breaking one. Carbon fiber is dozens of times stiffer than mild steel, the driveshaft will not flex nearly as much as a similar one made out of steel or aluminum. I believe what all the dragracers are talking about is the "toughness" of the matirial, basically the area under the curve (strength/displacement) The toughness may be lower than steel , but most cars, especially AWD cars couldn't break the CFDS if you tried.

[spydervr4]

Well, I doubt my car will ever be built up to the level where it's gonna break the CF drive shaft. I also don't believe anyone is still making a alum drive shaft for 3s, so our options are a little limited.

Hey Tim, thanks to you and chris for driving all the way out to get me going. I was sure I was gonna get rammed a couple of times by some big ass trucks bearing down on me. People don't seem to get a car with break light on, flasher blinking and sitting in the middle lane of Rt. 9 not moving is not normally by the driver's choice...

[92vr4ny]

I heard 1 piece can have trouble with vibrations through certain RPM's with like 50% of them! I evertually want to get one, was not sure if 1 or 2 piece was better though. What are all the pro and cons between the 2?

[Feral]

1 piece = lighter and less frictional losses
2 piece = no vibration issues.

It's pretty much that simple. To be honest both are pretty light ... I'd probably still get a 1 piece since if it vibrates too badly you can get another one ... but the 2 piece is still an excellent piece.

[spydervr4]

Originally posted by 92vr4ny
I heard 1 piece can have trouble with vibrations through certain RPM's with like 50% of them! I evertually want to get one, was not sure if 1 or 2 piece was better though. What are all the pro and cons between the 2?

1 piece is lighter, thus more power. 2 piece has no vibration issues. And the 50% thing has been way over stated, most people when you do a survey that owns the 1 piece is fine. If you get vibration, most time it's resolved by turning the shaft in 90 degree increments.

I haven't tested out mine fully yet, since I don't like the idea of blowing my rear tires while doing 125+mph... (My rear camber was pretty off, so the inside of my tires in the rear are down to the inner core... Even though I just got my 3sx camber kit installed, I won't be getting replacement tires until next spring when I bring the Spyder out of storage...)

[540Malibu]

just another way to get rid of low end torque.

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
just another way to get rid of low end torque.


ok. i'm finally gonna say it. but when do you EVER actually need "low-end" torque?

in a racing situation, you are only in the "low-end" for a launch. that's it. period. if you know how to drive (or if you drive an auto), you're pretty much in the higher rpms the rest of the race (both in a straight line or on a roadcourse)

if you are ever actually dipping into your precious "low end" in a racing situaiton, it probably isn't going to save you...

[Blackwidow]

Torque wins races .. Horsepower wins shows

[540Malibu]

low end is under 3000 rpm, whihc is where you spend 90% of the time drving on the street. More low end torque = less engine work = less gas pedal effort = better mileage and efficiency

[TunedPort 335]

Originally posted by Lil RedCorvette
Torque wins races .. Horsepower wins shows

Uh huh :smokin:

[Devin Mac]

ok guys. tell that to all the dedicated racecars that are always under 3k rpms.....:sleep:

yeah, and spence, i forgot that mileage and efficiency were your specialties... :thumbsup:

i'm not saying having gobs of torque down low isn't fun, cuz it is. but in reality, you just don't really use it all that much in a racing situation. i'd much rather have a track car that revs to damn near 10 grand and makes tons of ponies above 5. with the right close-ratio gearbox, you'd power out of any turn thrown at you, and stay in your power all the time. but, honestly, i don't see how i can argue with fancy catch-phrases like "Torque wins races .. Horsepower wins shows"

i wonder how much torque indy cars are makin down low nowawdays....

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by TunedPort 335
Uh huh :smokin:

and you never nead anything but a good carburator and some pushrods, right? :hurl:

[92vr4ny]

I have to agree with Devin Mac, esp with my 3/S. They all wheel drive so you tach them up and lunch them. I start out 4,000K or more launch and you dont look back! You will never be in the low end grunt work unless crusin around town. In stock form I think we have 309lb of torque @ 2500rpms, so they have plenty of that. Torque is great and all, but there is a point where it is too much (on the street I am talking, not the track). If you can not hook up before 120mph... what is the point of racing unless you doing high speed runs. The idea of deer and shit scare me... so 140 would prolly be my personal limits.

[TunedPort 335]

My car isn't carbureted :blush:

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by Devin Mac
ok guys. tell that to all the dedicated racecars that are always under 3k rpms.....:sleep:

yeah, and spence, i forgot that mileage and efficiency were your specialties... :thumbsup:

i'm not saying having gobs of torque down low isn't fun, cuz it is. but in reality, you just don't really use it all that much in a racing situation. i'd much rather have a track car that revs to damn near 10 grand and makes tons of ponies above 5. with the right close-ratio gearbox, you'd power out of any turn thrown at you, and stay in your power all the time. but, honestly, i don't see how i can argue with fancy catch-phrases like "Torque wins races .. Horsepower wins shows"

i wonder how much torque indy cars are makin down low nowawdays....

horse power wont do shit wthout tourque, horsepower is an eroneous measurement.

indy cars dont accelerate up hills at all....and WTF do you know about driveshafts...when you get one, come talk.

[Feral]

In a dedicated race car lowend torque is useless and everyone knows it. In a street-car low end torque is beneficial as it makes the car more "streetable" and more fun off-throttle. End of story. Want to debate it more make another thread, this one is about driveshafts.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by Feral
In a dedicated race car lowend torque is useless and everyone knows it. In a street-car low end torque is beneficial as it makes the car more "streetable" and more fun off-throttle. End of story. Want to debate it more make another thread, this one is about driveshafts.

noone here has dedicated race cars. most races are won off the starting line, low end torque gets you off the starting line in any car, heavier rotating assemblies show more torque on the dyno, steel is heavier than c/f, steel driveshaft makes more torque.

[Superskwrl]

FWIW there are 7sec 10" tire cars with CF driveshafts, they are like2k$, and have titanium yokes etc, the PST 1's are not in the same category
FWIW i haven't seen a 8sec combo with less than 800ftlbs of tq @ the wheels, so i'd think a 7 sec would have even more, nuclear sub's used CF shaft's with like 40,000lbs of thrust

[tims]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
noone here has dedicated race cars. most races are won off the starting line, low end torque gets you off the starting line in any car, heavier rotating assemblies show more torque on the dyno, steel is heavier than c/f, steel driveshaft makes more torque.

really?... perhaps you could explain how a heavier driveshaft increases torque.


Originally posted by 540Malibu
horse power wont do shit wthout tourque, horsepower is an eroneous measurement.
[/B]
Thats such an awesome statement, I don't even know where to begin. Horsepower is wrong..... Are all measurements of power wrong, or is it just Horsepower? Perhaps we should ditch the watt, and the BTU as well.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by tims
really?... perhaps you could explain how a heavier driveshaft increases torque.



Thats such an awesome statement, I don't even know where to begin. Horsepower is wrong..... Are all measurements of power wrong, or is it just Horsepower? Perhaps we should ditch the watt, and the BTU as well.

its called inertia in centrifugal rotation, how torque is measured, the dyno puts a load on the drivetrain, and the drivetrains ability to resist that load measures torque.

HP is a fictitional number that is only derived by an equation from torque, load, and rpm.

you must have the first motor that doesnt have equal hp and torque at 5250rpm

[tims]

You mean 1 HP = RPM*(TQ(ft-lb)/5252)? True, but the point neither torque or horsepower are meaningless, they are 2 different measurements. Horsepower is a measurement of power, or the ability to do work, torque is the amount of force at a given distance from the center of rotation (hence ft-lbs) I just find it extremely amusing that you refer to horsepower as fictitous. Actually load is not necessary to derive it, just torque, and RPM. 1 HP is also = to 746 watts, so ether multiplication is fictitious, or the watt is also fictitious.

A heavier driveshaft can not produce more torque! It does not spin with the engine directly, it is perminintly connected to the output shaft, and the wheels. Heavier wheels, brake rotors etc would also produce more torque by that logic. A heavier flywheel can produce more torque on launch because its spinning with the engine, and momentum works in your favor when you drop the clutch, but the same does not apply to a driveshaft.

And my motor definitely makes the same HP, and ft-lbs of torque at 5250RPM....

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
horse power wont do shit wthout tourque, horsepower is an eroneous measurement.

indy cars dont accelerate up hills at all....and WTF do you know about driveshafts...when you get one, come talk.

horsepower IS torque, and torque IS horsepower. just the same way that matter and energy can be related to each other by the famous E=MC^2 equation, torque numebrs are converted to horsepower by the hp = (torque x rpm) / 5250 equation. so i guess although i was going to rip on you for that statement, spence, i'll let it slide since you're only stating the obvious... no kidding that horsepower won't do shit without torque. since it's the same thing, who would have thought that, eh? however, i may as well rip on taht statement since it's COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

the discussion at hand is about driveshafts. your contention is that a CF driveshaft is worthless since it is reducing the mass of the drivetrain rotating assembly and therefore reducing the amount of "low-end" torque output. you made some other assinine comments about gas mileage and "street driveability" which i'm not even going to touch again... what you seem to realize, in all your infinite wisdom, is that life does not stop at 3k rpms. high-revving motors can do just as well acceleration-wise with a lower torque peak as a lower-rev motor with a higher torque peak.

the reason for this is that a measure of the amount of work somehting can do is independant of time and can be expressed as work per unit time (without having a redundant equation). this allows us to come up with a unit such as horsepower to express POWER, which IS work per unit time. in this instance, our unit of time is a fraction of the engine's speed, as that's what's relevant to this measurement.

now with taht in mind, i'll say point blank that you're being really ignorant about how to accurrately measure an engine's performance capacity. according to what you've been saying, spence, having a motor with a big torque peak number down low is plain better than something you can rev the piss out of and make tons of horsepower. just isn't true, bud... i'm not going to claim to know what the best measure it, but i will say that "down low torque" isn't even fucking close. hell, niethr is peak torque or peak horsepower. if you want to argue that with me, start up a thread and we'll start crunching numbers. :thumbsup:

to the indy car statement. how many indy cars have you driven, spence? you have anything to back up your lame statement? or you just saying that because you know that small-engine indy cars don't make "mad torque down low, yo!" and given the stuff i mentioned at the beginning of this post, what do you wanna bet that an indy car spinning at around ten grand will accelerate like a bat out of hell up a hill?

and as far as my driveshaft experience... well, ya got me there, spence. guess firsthand knowledge of "driveshafts" takes precedence over the understanding of physics definitions... (although, really the only difference between my drivetrain and yours is that your final drive and trans ratios are seperated by a long "driveshaft" and mine are both contained within the same housing... but yeah, i still know dick...)

[Feral]

A driveshaft does not "make" torque ... only the engine does that. I don't care if you have a sugar-cane driveshaft or a cardboard driveshaft ... neither will be making any torque. Combustion makes torque. Now different driveshafts will rob different amounts of torque from the engine on its way to wheels and its quite obvious the ultimate driveshaft would be infinitely strong and weigh nothing ... therefore never breaking and stealing no torque from the engine. Carbonfiber is the closest we have. It is not perfect and is prone to shattering if not built to withstand the torque present in its particular application ... but the same can be said of steel.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by Feral
A driveshaft does not "make" torque ... only the engine does that. I don't care if you have a sugar-cane driveshaft or a cardboard driveshaft ... neither will be making any torque. Combustion makes torque. Now different driveshafts will rob different amounts of torque from the engine on its way to wheels and its quite obvious the ultimate driveshaft would be infinitely strong and weigh nothing ... therefore never breaking and stealing no torque from the engine. Carbonfiber is the closest we have. It is not perfect and is prone to shattering if not built to withstand the torque present in its particular application ... but the same can be said of steel.
a motor with a 50 lb flywheel reads more torque on an engine dyno than a motor with no flywheel...explain that

[tims]

I already explained that, the flywheel spins WITH THE ENGINE , the driveshaft is after the trans, and spins with the wheels. The DS, and flywheel can't be compared like that.

[Devin Mac]

do you have any sheets or charts or anything to back that one up, spence? i'm not saying it doesn't happen, necessarily.

but it's still doesn't make you sound more credible when you say that a flywheel makes more torque...

if heavier was better, companies like fidanza would be out of business, i would think. :eh:

[92vr4ny]

a motor with a 50 lb flywheel reads more torque on an engine dyno than a motor with no flywheel...explain that

The flywheel is right off the engine so you can not really compare the 2 really. With a stock flywheel you have more rotational mass, so the car is less likely to stall when you disengage the clutch and the rpms fall for example, this is not trying of cfds. Otherwise with a lightened flywheel which allows you to rev more freely do to the reduced mass. The engine is not creating more power, but it put more power to the ground via more efficient system. A driveshaft is not only deducing weight, but it also eliminating any possibly of flexing or twisting. This allows instant power delivery (transfer) to the rear wheel. Due to the lower weight it is also easier to get moving, esp from slower speeds where it would have bogged before.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by tims
I already explained that, the flywheel spins WITH THE ENGINE , the driveshaft is after the trans, and spins with the wheels. The DS, and flywheel can't be compared like that.
so i guess a direct drive or 1:1 ratio transmission has absolutely nothing to do with the motor, just because there is some thing called a transmission connecting the flywheel to the driveshaft it means the dirveshaft has no effect to the motor, what if you dont have a transmission and the car only has 1:1 via a coupler bolted straight to the flwheel, or a driveshaft bolted straight to the crank, wouldnt this make the driveshaft essentially a flywheel?

i guess this entire thread is pointless there is absolutely no reason to put in a c/f driveshaft because it does not lighten the rotating assembly of the drivetrain like for instance an aluminum flywheel making able to rev quicker.

[Devin Mac]

spence: 1
tims: 0
dev: infinity

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by spydervr4
1 piece is lighter, thus more power. 2 piece has no vibration issues. And the 50% thing has been way over stated, most people when you do a survey that owns the 1 piece is fine. If you get vibration, most time it's resolved by turning the shaft in 90 degree increments.

I haven't tested out mine fully yet, since I don't like the idea of blowing my rear tires while doing 125+mph... (My rear camber was pretty off, so the inside of my tires in the rear are down to the inner core... Even though I just got my 3sx camber kit installed, I won't be getting replacement tires until next spring when I bring the Spyder out of storage...)

1 piece is lighter thus more power.....BULLSHIT you dont gain any power, torque is power, you gain the ability to rev, that is it.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by Devin Mac
spence: 1
tims: 0
dev: infinity

you are right though, you know dick better than anyone.

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
1 piece is lighter thus more power.....BULLSHIT you dont gain any power, torque is power, you gain the ability to rev, that is it.

actually... torque isn't power... refer to my other post...

[tims]

So much misinformation so little time.......


so i guess a direct drive or 1:1 ratio transmission has absolutely nothing to do with the motor, just because there is some thing called a transmission connecting the flywheel to the driveshaft it means the dirveshaft has no effect to the motor, what if you dont have a transmission and the car only has 1:1 via a coupler bolted straight to the flwheel, or a driveshaft bolted straight to the crank, wouldnt this make the driveshaft essentially a flywheel?

You missed the point, the flywheel can produce momentarily more power, or torque because it is spinning with the engine so when you drop the clutch the momentum of the heavy flywheel that is already spinning goes into accelerating the car. And yes, a CFDS does not help the engine rev quicker like a lightweight flywheel.


1 piece is lighter thus more power.....BULLSHIT you dont gain any power, torque is power, you gain the ability to rev, that is it.?

Thats about as true as horsepower being fictitous. The driveshaft can not possibly effect how quickly the engine revs in neutral, or with the clutch in, it is not connected to it. Torque is NOT power. You do not gain any power, you reduce frictional losses, and rotational losses, therefore gaining power at the wheels. Yes, measured wheel torque will be increased as well.

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
you are right though, you know dick better than anyone.

gee spence. ya got me again.

it's a good thing those gay jokes aren't old yet...

<<<insert cricket chirps...>>>

[92vr4ny]

The engine will always make 'x' amount of horsepower no matter what. When you added the other things like flywheel and tranny (2wd or 4wd) are just 2 factors that will control how much of 'x' (potential) hp gets put to the ground. The engine makes 300HP for example either you have a fidanza fly wheel or a stock one. Teh different is if you dyno at 240whp or 250whp, but the engine is still only making 300hp.

[Devin Mac]

yeah, but what your "engine" puts out means precisely dick if you can't get any of it to the ground.

furthermore, it means even less than dick if your 300 horse are planted in a car that weighs a bazillion pounds. wheelhorse/ton is all that really matters.

[Feral]

Spencer I think you need to show me proof of how a heavier flywheel produces more FWHP. It is physically impossible and the dynometer must be reading wrong. By your logic running a 5,000lb driveshaft will make more torque than a 10lb one ... so clearly your logic is flawed.

[92vr4ny]

yeah, but what your "engine" puts out means precisely dick if you can't get any of it to the ground.

furthermore, it means even less than dick if your 300 horse are planted in a car that weighs a bazillion pounds. wheelhorse/ton is all that really matters.


This is all obvious and a given. We talking about cfds here, not the ratio of hp/lbs.

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by Feral
Spencer I think you need to show me proof of how a heavier flywheel produces more FWHP. It is physically impossible and the dynometer must be reading wrong. By your logic running a 5,000lb driveshaft will make more torque than a 10lb one ... so clearly your logic is flawed.

no no no, kurtis... it doesn't produce more horse, it produces more torque. get it straight. horsepower doesn't even exist, remember? ;-)

[92vr4ny]

Spencer I think you need to show me proof of how a heavier flywheel produces more FWHP. It is physically impossible and the dynometer must be reading wrong. By your logic running a 5,000lb driveshaft will make more torque than a 10lb one ... so clearly your logic is flawed.

Even if it the flywheel did add tq, I still do not see how it would play any role in the effect of the drive shaft in the while euqation. The only thing I could see a flywheel maybe doing keep the torque curve from dropping off as quickly (that is just a guess) due to the extra inirrta, but it should not add more torue. The engine has to more work to do with the flywheel in place, so I do not see how it would add more peak torque, if anything it would take away from peak power.

[Devin Mac]

no, spence was just using the whole flywheel thing as an example of how a lighter driveshaft will cause you to put less torque to the wheels in the lower rpm range. just an example.

[92vr4ny]

Explain the logic for it and why it should even work theory, let alone the real world? I am not saying you wrong, I just want to know how you come to that conclusion. :thumbsup: A lightened flywheel the rpms will drop off faster and might cause you to stall. The opposite is true of the cfsd though, it is more likely to keep you from bogging... due to the car rolling easier.

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by 92vr4ny
Explain the logic for it and why it should even work theory, let alone the real world? I am not saying you wrong, I just want to know how you come to that conclusion. :thumbsup: A lightened flywheel the rpms will drop off faster and might cause you to stall. The opposite is true of the cfsd though, it is more likely to keep you from bogging... due to the car rolling easier.

either go back and read the post and realize that i'm not arguing with you, or make a note of who your comment is directed towards.

[92vr4ny]

Just a friendly debate, if you agree then no disagreement here. I just been commenting on what people been posting in general. Sorry for any confusion.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by Feral
Spencer I think you need to show me proof of how a heavier flywheel produces more FWHP. It is physically impossible and the dynometer must be reading wrong. By your logic running a 5,000lb driveshaft will make more torque than a 10lb one ... so clearly your logic is flawed.

many engien dynos measure on accerleration and decelerance, on deceleration (which is still a valid figure) the motor will resist to decelerate equaling more torque.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by tims
So much misinformation so little time.......




You missed the point, the flywheel can produce momentarily more power, or torque because it is spinning with the engine so when you drop the clutch the momentum of the heavy flywheel that is already spinning goes into accelerating the car. And yes, a CFDS does not help the engine rev quicker like a lightweight flywheel.



Thats about as true as horsepower being fictitous. The driveshaft can not possibly effect how quickly the engine revs in neutral, or with the clutch in, it is not connected to it. Torque is NOT power. You do not gain any power, you reduce frictional losses, and rotational losses, therefore gaining power at the wheels. Yes, measured wheel torque will be increased as well.

you dont race in nuetral you dumb fuck, you dotn dyno in nuetral either, lighter driveline componenets allow the engine to rev faster than heavy drive line componenets when you are racing.

[tims]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
you dont race in nuetral you dumb fuck, you dotn dyno in nuetral either, lighter driveline componenets allow the engine to rev faster than heavy drive line componenets when you are racing.

You start a dragrace in neutral (clutch in), and that is the only benefit of a heavy flywheel - launching. I have no idea what your takling about though in regaurds to allowing the engine to rev faster while your racing. Do you mean it lets the engine rev faster while in gear?, if so does it do this without increasing power?, does it make the car go faster without increasing power?



So more importantly than my odd teqnique of launching with the clutch depressed, perhaps you could tell me a little bit about how you race while decelerating, or why you need those gobs of torque to decelerate.

many engien dynos measure on accerleration and decelerance, on deceleration (which is still a valid figure) the motor will resist to decelerate equaling more torque.

And finally since torque obviously equals power, I can take a 55HP geo metro motor, put a 100 to one gearbox on it, then attach the flywheel to the output shaft of the 100-1 gearbox, and it will have 5000+ft-lbs of torque at the flywheel. That will make your car pretty fast huh? I wonder why people use huge ass engines when they could just stick a gearbox on a 1 liter, and make more torque.... I guess the engineers are just confused.

[H3llphyre]

Okay okay.... Here it is...

Well, any rotating mass is going to "store" energy once it is spinning. Rotational inertia. So, if you were to spin the engine up and dump the clutch or whatnot, it would show MORE power to the wheels then if you started down low in the rpm and tried to rev it up. So yes, when you FIRST engage the clutch, a heavier rotating mass will create more torque, hence more horsepower down low. What does a lighter rotating mass give you? Well, with a heavy flywheel and driveshaft and wheels etc etc etc, not only does the rotating mass resist decceleration, but it resist acceleration. So, you are robbing the ability of the motor to rev. This decreases overall HP, as you are adding energy into the rotating mass for it to spin. Plain and simple physics.

As per the arguement over torque and horsepower.... It was already stated. Torque is a force. Horsepower is power. Really two different measurements, one is at a specific time, the other over a set measure of time. Force is F=MA, Power is P=F*D / T or the force x distance divided by time.... See, two different measures.

Anyway, thats your physics lesson for today. If you want anymore, just lemme know.

[Feral]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
many engien dynos measure on accerleration and decelerance, on deceleration (which is still a valid figure) the motor will resist to decelerate equaling more torque.

Ahh yes I see. Yes a heavier flywheel will have a better torque curve during deceleration :eh: Ok I thought we were arguing about something that mattered.

How will deceleration help you in a drag race? Maybe if you accelerated for a 1/4 mile ... let off the gas for 1/8 mile and then floored it again for a final 1/8 mile ... but in most cases where people are trying to win in a drag race they tend to only accelerate for the 1320'.

The bottom line is in the 1/4 you want the lightest possible drivetrain that will withstand the torque you are putting through it ... with the possible exception of the flywheel where you might need a heavier flywheel to enable a good launch. Agreed?

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by Feral
Ahh yes I see. Yes a heavier flywheel will have a better torque curve during deceleration :eh: Ok I thought we were arguing about something that mattered.

How will deceleration help you in a drag race? Maybe if you accelerated for a 1/4 mile ... let off the gas for 1/8 mile and then floored it again for a final 1/8 mile ... but in most cases where people are trying to win in a drag race they tend to only accelerate for the 1320'.

The bottom line is in the 1/4 you want the lightest possible drivetrain that will withstand the torque you are putting through it ... with the possible exception of the flywheel where you might need a heavier flywheel to enable a good launch. Agreed?

road racing, oval track racing, you can let off the gas completely in the corners this allows you to retain fuel, equaling 5-10 more laps without running out, this means you win because you didnt have to pit.

in 1/4 mile racing, it means the the driveline stores energy, keeping rpms up as you shift, not every one has 10 million dollars to have a custom transmission to be made perfect, by storing energy you dont need to power shift, break your transmission and the 1-200 rpm increase of non-stored energy can keep you in the powerband.

[Feral]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
road racing, oval track racing, you can let off the gas completely in the corners this allows you to retain fuel, equaling 5-10 more laps without running out, this means you win because you didnt have to pit.

This is true ... in an oval track application a heavy drivetrain is important while acceleration doesn't really matter. You are correct. In a road-race applicaton it only matters if fuel economy will matter (this only applies in certain endurance racing situations). For general road-racing where fuel economy isn't a big deal then the lighter flywheel is superior for quicker double-clutching.

in 1/4 mile racing, it means the the driveline stores energy, keeping rpms up as you shift, not every one has 10 million dollars to have a custom transmission to be made perfect, by storing energy you dont need to power shift, break your transmission and the 1-200 rpm increase of non-stored energy can keep you in the powerband.
I shift pretty fast even without powershifting ... I don't know if my RPMS drop 100-200 even with my lightened flywheel.

However when changing gears in the 1/4 a lighter flywheel is better since when you disengage the clutch after the gearshift there is a moment where the engine has to rapidly decelerate from a higher RPM to a lower RPM ... at this point you want the flywheel and crankshaft to be as light as possible so that less energy is lost decelerating (less time spent getting the engine down in RPMS). Still in a heavy AWD car I think a moderately heavy flywheel is important for launching purposes.

As for the driveshaft indeed it can preserve some rotating momentum for you when out of gear (again I contest this is a tiny amount of time) ... but I seriously doubt this little momentum lost isn't adequately made up for by the HP gained to the wheels. Going from the stock metal driveshaft to a carbon-fiber one in VR4's reduces the total drivetrain loss by about 5% ... it adds a solid 20-25 AWHP to a near-stock car ... more like 35-45 in a heavily modified one. That' a non-trivial amount of ponies hitting the ground.

So for oval track racing and some enduro racing I'm all for a heavy drivetrain!!! For drag racing a lightened transaxle-back (tires, shafts) is superior and an appropriately sized flywheel (to facilitate a good launch and as you stated to store some energy when the clutch is engaged).

You brought up some good points I hadn't thought of though ... awesome.

[tims]

I really don't see how a heavy drivetrain will help fuel economy ether. The more mass you need to speed up, and slow down, the more energy needed. A heavy drivetrain is exceptionally bad in a roadcourse, you need to slow down to a given speed to make the corner, which means all the kintetic energy (that required fuel to make) from the drivetrain goes straight into the brakes. Bad for the brakes, bad for fuel economy. A heavy drivetrain would allow you to coast for longer, but that isn't advantageous for roadracing. You still need to slow down to make the corner, a heavy drivetrain will not allow you to take the corner faster. Quite the opposite is true, just as a lighter car will require less fuel, a lighter drivetrain will also require less fuel.

[Feral]

Originally posted by tims
I really don't see how a heavy drivetrain will help fuel economy ether. The more mass you need to speed up, and slow down, the more energy needed. A heavy drivetrain is exceptionally bad in a roadcourse, you need to slow down to a given speed to make the corner, which means all the kintetic energy (that required fuel to make) from the drivetrain goes straight into the brakes. Bad for the brakes, bad for fuel economy. A heavy drivetrain would allow you to coast for longer, but that isn't advantageous for roadracing. You still need to slow down to make the corner, a heavy drivetrain will not allow you to take the corner faster. Quite the opposite is true, just as a lighter car will require less fuel, a lighter drivetrain will also require less fuel.

Not in a roadrace but it definitely helps in the oval track where you never touch the brakes and coast into corners. Drivetrain tricks like this make or break most nascar vehicles ...

Granted ... i fucking hate nascar and think it is the lamest possible form of racing ... but regardless that's not the point.

[H3llphyre]

Originally posted by Feral
Not in a roadrace but it definitely helps in the oval track where you never touch the brakes and coast into corners. Drivetrain tricks like this make or break most nascar vehicles ...

Granted ... i fucking hate nascar and think it is the lamest possible form of racing ... but regardless that's not the point.

yeah, after they started putting restrictions on NASCAR, it is stupid. They actually run a LOT slower now then they did 10 years ago. I am all for NO restriction stock car racing. Back to the old days of production type cars running around a track. Not, "All cars must use a chevy small block design". how retarded is it that toyota just came out with a SBC?

[Feral]

Originally posted by H3llphyre
how retarded is it that toyota just came out with a SBC?
LOL ... put it in your Supra y0!

[H3llphyre]

Originally posted by Feral
LOL ... put it in your Supra y0!


BLAH! I just think it is retarded. On another note, looks like Honda is getting into the truck fray now. V8 honda power y0.

[92vr4ny]

Does it have T-Vec for towing also.... LOL, sorry I had to!

[grygst76]

Lightened flywheels cause loss of torque under 2000 RPM's. Carbon fiber driveshaft causes loss of torque under 2000 RPM's.
Lightening the drivetrain ONLY improves top end revving ability and nothing else...Do the research and you will see that it is useless on a street driven car. I had a 94 Supra which I put the aluminum driveshaft in and the fidanza aluminum flywheel. After 1 month I removed them both because I lost all my low end torque street driving and since I do more street driving then racing, it was not worth it. I can say it helped my turbo spool quicker though but at a cost of torque. On the street I got spanked a lot by camaro's and vettes alike light to light because by the time I got to use that extra RPM's I either came up to traffic or a redlight.
As far as beneficial, yes it is as long as you keep your RPM's in the useable range i.e above 2500 RPM's or higher depending on your setup. I had to get a custom PC since without it when the RPM's dropped, the engine almost died and the idle quality was suffering. I had no traction either due to having to rev to above 2 just to stop the offline bog. To make a long story short I sold both and used the money to buy a better clutch and my problems were over. Each application is different but the end result is the same. My 76 camaro I had I put a heavier flexplate in it and ended up with a better E.T by .4 seconds. It's a matter of what you want to give up since there is no happy medium when making your car a better performer. In road racing it is the best way to go since you will most always be near your peak torque level (as long as you know where that is). By the way Nascar cars do have low end torque a shitload of it because of the gear multiplication in 1st and 2nd. Some use steel in their drivetrain. Not all road race vehicles use aluminum in their setups either, too costly and can easily go out of balance after a few clutch drops. By the way, you cannot use an aluminum flywheel with drag radials or slicks, you will never launch..

http://www.fastwrx.com/finalflyw.html

http://scc.primediaautomotive.com/archives/features/feature05_0301.shtml

http://turbo.primediaautomotive.com/archives/insidetech/insidetech01_0502.shtml

http://www.ws6.com/mod-10.htm

http://www.wincom.net/trog/driveshaft.html

http://www.dennysdriveshaft.com/html/hd_aluminum.html

http://www.fasttoys.net/9496impalasstrans.html

Homework is the key..

[tims]

I'm not a big fan of nascar ether.... so I really dont know too much about the tricks the use to save fuel, but I still don't see how a heavy drivetrain would help matters. You have to put energy into the drivetrain to get it spinning, all you are doing is getting the energy you wasted spinning up the heavy drivetrain back, its not actually conserving energy. Thats similar to saying a heavy car will get better gas mileage because it will coast further. In the case of nascar a heavy drivetrain wouldn't hurt things much, but it still would not be beneficial.

[92vr4ny]

You talking about a RWD car though... much different then AWD oviously. People with 3S said they could not push the car in neutral, when they install the cfds, they would actually move it fairly easy. They also said they could coast better when drive and it would go lower into the rpms range with out it wanting to buck and stall out. So the statement saying it takes away streetableness (is that a word) is defeintly not true with all car at least. The flywheel do take some getting used to. When I cost on the highway in 5th most the time it is 2,500pms anyway, so the under 2k comment it not that important if it is even true.

[Feral]

Oh I am NOT an advocate of the aluminum flywheel despite having one in both of my 3/S's ... I can still launch but I have to dump the clutch at about 6,500 instead of the 5,500 I used to and if I went to DR's or something I might have to dump it at redline whereas with a heavier flywheel I could dump it lower and that is quite annoying. However the CFDS does not change launch characteristics at all ... in fact it might even help the launch by stealing less power from the clutch dump ...

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by grygst76
Lightened flywheels cause loss of torque under 2000 RPM's. Carbon fiber driveshaft causes loss of torque under 2000 RPM's.
Lightening the drivetrain ONLY improves top end revving ability and nothing else...Do the research and you will see that it is useless on a street driven car. I had a 94 Supra which I put the aluminum driveshaft in and the fidanza aluminum flywheel. After 1 month I removed them both because I lost all my low end torque street driving and since I do more street driving then racing, it was not worth it. I can say it helped my turbo spool quicker though but at a cost of torque. On the street I got spanked a lot by camaro's and vettes alike light to light because by the time I got to use that extra RPM's I either came up to traffic or a redlight.
As far as beneficial, yes it is as long as you keep your RPM's in the useable range i.e above 2500 RPM's or higher depending on your setup. I had to get a custom PC since without it when the RPM's dropped, the engine almost died and the idle quality was suffering. I had no traction either due to having to rev to above 2 just to stop the offline bog. To make a long story short I sold both and used the money to buy a better clutch and my problems were over. Each application is different but the end result is the same. My 76 camaro I had I put a heavier flexplate in it and ended up with a better E.T by .4 seconds. It's a matter of what you want to give up since there is no happy medium when making your car a better performer. In road racing it is the best way to go since you will most always be near your peak torque level (as long as you know where that is). By the way Nascar cars do have low end torque a shitload of it because of the gear multiplication in 1st and 2nd. Some use steel in their drivetrain. Not all road race vehicles use aluminum in their setups either, too costly and can easily go out of balance after a few clutch drops. By the way, you cannot use an aluminum flywheel with drag radials or slicks, you will never launch..

http://www.fastwrx.com/finalflyw.html

http://scc.primediaautomotive.com/archives/features/feature05_0301.shtml

http://turbo.primediaautomotive.com/archives/insidetech/insidetech01_0502.shtml

http://www.ws6.com/mod-10.htm

http://www.wincom.net/trog/driveshaft.html

http://www.dennysdriveshaft.com/html/hd_aluminum.html

http://www.fasttoys.net/9496impalasstrans.html

Homework is the key..

so what's it like to not be able to drive properly?

again, i'll say it again... if you are EVER under 2k when yer in any sort of racing situation, or even just wanna drive fast and feel powerful, you don't know how to drive. plain and simple.

or you drive an auto and you're not in control.

either/or...

i'm really starting to get sick of this "street driving" and "low-end" bullshit. especially when it's torquin mullet-mobilers like you babbling on about driving at less than 2k. if you are driving around at under 2k, then your either just puttin around and not caring about how much power you have, or your a FUCKING BITCH behind the wheel.

maybe you'll be able to drive around town at 3k or so when yer balls finally drop.

[Feral]

Originally posted by Devin Mac
...

haha ... well I wasn't going to say anything myself but what the hell would a supra owner be doing under 2000rpms?? A Supra doesn't even hit boost until 3500-4000 ...

[92vr4ny]

haha ... well I wasn't going to say anything myself but what the hell would a supra owner be doing under 2000rpms?? A Supra doesn't even hit boost until 3500-4000 ...

Saving gas for more mods?

[H3llphyre]

Originally posted by 92vr4ny
Saving gas for more mods?

With the sticker prices, yeah, who can afford even the gas.

[grygst76]

Originally posted by Devin Mac
so what's it like to not be able to drive properly?

again, i'll say it again... if you are EVER under 2k when yer in any sort of racing situation, or even just wanna drive fast and feel powerful, you don't know how to drive. plain and simple.

or you drive an auto and you're not in control.

either/or...

i'm really starting to get sick of this "street driving" and "low-end" bullshit. especially when it's torquin mullet-mobilers like you babbling on about driving at less than 2k. if you are driving around at under 2k, then your either just puttin around and not caring about how much power you have, or your a FUCKING BITCH behind the wheel.

maybe you'll be able to drive around town at 3k or so when yer balls finally drop.
Believe me, I know how to drive so if you want to turn this into a flame then go fuck yourself period I like having tight balls, makes me drive better then you could cause my balls don't smack my legs unlike yours I guess right? Mullit mobilers?? I guess you lost a lot of street races from mullit monsters huh?? It's not my fault buddy, it's yours.:)

[tims]

Originally posted by Feral
Oh I am NOT an advocate of the aluminum flywheel despite having one in both of my 3/S's ... I can still launch but I have to dump the clutch at about 6,500 instead of the 5,500 I used to and if I went to DR's or something I might have to dump it at redline whereas with a heavier flywheel I could dump it lower and that is quite annoying. However the CFDS does not change launch characteristics at all ... in fact it might even help the launch by stealing less power from the clutch dump ...

the lightweight flywheel might hurt launches slightly, but it makes for lightning quick double clutches which just makes the car so much more fun to drive, I suppose it depends on what your goal with the car is.

[FATBLOCKMARO]

Originally posted by grygst76
Believe me, I know how to drive so if you want to turn this into a flame then go fuck yourself period I like having tight balls, makes me drive better then you could cause my balls don't smack my legs unlike yours I guess right? Mullit mobilers?? I guess you lost a lot of street races from mullit monsters huh?? It's not my fault buddy, it's yours.:)


WOA BUDDY

[Feral]

Originally posted by grygst76
Believe me, I know how to drive so if you want to turn this into a flame then go fuck yourself period I like having tight balls, makes me drive better then you could cause my balls don't smack my legs unlike yours I guess right? Mullit mobilers?? I guess you lost a lot of street races from mullit monsters huh?? It's not my fault buddy, it's yours.:)

He's just short ... don't pick on him!!!

In any case the lounge is for flame wars ... this is the tech section lets keep the debate at least somewhat civil.

[Feral]

Originally posted by tims
the lightweight flywheel might hurt launches slightly, but it makes for lightning quick double clutches which just makes the car so much more fun to drive, I suppose it depends on what your goal with the car is. I rarely find myself in situations where double clutching is advantageous ... as in I have probably done more AWD launches total in the lifetime of the car than double-clutching ... this will definitely change when I start roadracing her though. Regardless it doesn't matter ... I DO have the aluminum flywheel I just wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

[Devin Mac]

good point, feral. my apologies, and if anyone wants to continue this flamage, find my post in the lounge. :thumbsup:

[FATBLOCKMARO]

Originally posted by Devin Mac
so what's it like to not be able to drive properly?

again, i'll say it again... if you are EVER under 2k when yer in any sort of racing situation, or even just wanna drive fast and feel powerful, you don't know how to drive. plain and simple.

or you drive an auto and you're not in control.

either/or...

i'm really starting to get sick of this "street driving" and "low-end" bullshit. especially when it's torquin mullet-mobilers like you babbling on about driving at less than 2k. if you are driving around at under 2k, then your either just puttin around and not caring about how much power you have, or your a FUCKING BITCH behind the wheel.

maybe you'll be able to drive around town at 3k or so when yer balls finally drop.


I DONT KNOW ABOUT THAT, I CAN BURN MY TIRES AT 2K RPMS
:eh:

[tims]

Originally posted by Feral
I rarely find myself in situations where double clutching is advantageous.

All depends on your driving style I guess, I double clutch a lot more than I launch, I probably double clutch 100 times for every 1 time I launch, so its definitely worthwhile for me. If you ever go to a roadcourse, double clutching will be extremely advantageous. Mildely advantageous on an autocross, although you generally stay in second for most of it. Besides, necessary or not, it makes driving a lot more fun. And of course... were on another tangent:thumbsup:

[grygst76]

double clutching was only when manual trannies had no synchro gear since I never seen anyone "double clutch" anymore. Double clutching is when you shift to neutral, then into the next gear (for those who didn't know) I'm not making this a flamefest or at least not trying to, there are pro's and cons to the lightened drivetrain.

[H3llphyre]

Originally posted by grygst76
double clutching was only when manual trannies had no synchro gear since I never seen anyone "double clutch" anymore. Double clutching is when you shift to neutral, then into the next gear (for those who didn't know) I'm not making this a flamefest or at least not trying to, there are pro's and cons to the lightened drivetrain.

I wonder if people are thinking about "power shift" or "not lifting to shift"....

[Feral]

Apparently you guys have never road-raced. Double-clutching is the only way to drive around a road-course ... the synchros nor the brakes simply wont work or last even one hot-lap around a roadcourse unless you are double clutching. Double-clutching is alive and well at a roadcourse near you.

[tims]

Originally posted by grygst76
double clutching was only when manual trannies had no synchro gear since I never seen anyone "double clutch" anymore. Double clutching is when you shift to neutral, then into the next gear (for those who didn't know) I'm not making this a flamefest or at least not trying to, there are pro's and cons to the lightened drivetrain.

not this argument again:) I think this is really a whole seperate thread. Regardless, wether you double clutch or not, the lightweight flywheel helps you rev match downshifts more quickly, so I really don't think its necessarily important to the lightweight drivetrain argument. I was really using double clutch interchangably with downshift.

[tims]

Originally posted by Feral
Apparently you guys have never road-raced. Double-clutching is the only way to drive around a road-course ... the synchros nor the brakes simply wont work or last even one hot-lap around a roadcourse unless you are double clutching. Double-clutching is alive and well at a roadcourse near you.

LOL, well put. If you have a 3/S, the brakes won't last one lap anyway, but I'd much rather replace brake pads every couple races than synchro's!

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by tims
the lightweight flywheel might hurt launches slightly, but it makes for lightning quick double clutches which just makes the car so much more fun to drive, I suppose it depends on what your goal with the car is.

BWHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA you fried the piston rings....

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by Feral
Apparently you guys have never road-raced. Double-clutching is the only way to drive around a road-course ... the synchros nor the brakes simply wont work or last even one hot-lap around a roadcourse unless you are double clutching. Double-clutching is alive and well at a roadcourse near you.

i have a road race transmission in my s10, YOU DO NOT DOUBLE CLUTCH IT, maybe in those gyros they equip the 3s's with you have to, but not in any real transmissions.

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by Feral
Apparently you guys have never road-raced. Double-clutching is the only way to drive around a road-course ... the synchros nor the brakes simply wont work or last even one hot-lap around a roadcourse unless you are double clutching. Double-clutching is alive and well at a roadcourse near you.

actually, oh nordic one, i'd venture to say that you would more likely do more heel-toe shifting on a 'course than true double-clutching... likewise on an autox.

but either way, you start relying on syncros and brakes for EVERYTHING and you're gonna be a very unhappy camper very quickly..

and spence:

Originally posted by 540Malibu
i have a road race transmission in my s10, YOU DO NOT DOUBLE CLUTCH IT, maybe in those gyros they equip the 3s's with you have to, but not in any real transmissions.

you're starting to sound mighty fucking dumb again. a true roadracing tranny would have nothing really resembling syncros in it... which would mean you would HAVE to either double-clutch or heel-toe in order to rev-match...

i'd love to hear your explaination of what a "real" tranny is, and why you DO NOT double-clutch it (should be as good as your torque arguments.... :lame:) how do you feel about heel-toe rev matching? again, unnecessary?

i know you have a fucking badass s10, spence. but seriously. saying that double-clutching is irrelevant in modern driving is ignorant.

[540Malibu]

Originally posted by Devin Mac
actually, oh nordic one, i'd venture to say that you would more likely do more heel-toe shifting on a 'course than true double-clutching... likewise on an autox.

but either way, you start relying on syncros and brakes for EVERYTHING and you're gonna be a very unhappy camper very quickly..

and spence:



you're starting to sound mighty fucking dumb again. a true roadracing tranny would have nothing really resembling syncros in it... which would mean you would HAVE to either double-clutch or heel-toe in order to rev-match...

i'd love to hear your explaination of what a "real" tranny is, and why you DO NOT double-clutch it (should be as good as your torque arguments.... :lame:) how do you feel about heel-toe rev matching? again, unnecessary?

i know you have a fucking badass s10, spence. but seriously. saying that double-clutching is irrelevant in modern driving is ignorant.

synchro's will not wear out faster if just straight up downshifting, the synchro still has to slow down the slider to match the next gear. properly lubricated you will have zero wear. But who knows your crappy transmissions porbly use plastic synchros. The other way to avoid wear on synchros is by the use of a clutch brake.

going into nuetral before downshifting will make you use the brakes more than straight up dowshifting becasue you will not have engine breaking soon enough.

also, you dont win races by being in nuetral, if your going to win, fuck the synchros replace em after the race, the more time you spend double clutching is the more time you have to be off the gas for a turn. Indy cars dont double clutch, neither do nextel cup cars, dirt cars,short track cars... the only cars i've ever seen double clutch are the ones that will break the transmission if they dont because of a poor design or cheap quality parts.

ok let chuck (the transmission guy) answer this question for you....

chuck, wasnt the m22 muncie (close ratio for those of you who dont know transmissions) designed for road race use in stingray vettes?

[tims]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
BWHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA you fried the piston rings....

Damn straight!, you're granny shifting, not double clutching like you should:smokin:


Seriously though, any of you who think double clutching doesn't exist should do some reading. I could explaing why its necessary, but there are plenty of sites that already do that. here are just a couple of the many.

http://www.driversedge.com/dblcltch.htm
http://www.mg-midget.com/healtoe.html
http://www.austinmotorsports.com/article4.htm

There are plenty more, but you get the idea. Actually is explained, heel toe is still double clutching (or can be), the only difference is what part of you foot is on the gas, the tecnique is still the same. You could heel-toe without double clutching, but that would be poor driving. Also you might want to consider that it is generally faster to double clutch than it is to just jam the stick where it doesn't want to go.

[Devin Mac]

it's more a matter of efficiency and smoothness than anything else. synchros are neither efficient nor smooth.

if you're coming into a corner at 100+ and you need to exit at 50, you need to not only accomplish this acceleration, you also need to do it smoothly (since you will more than likely be damn near the limit of your tires' lateral g capacity). if you DON'T double-clutch/heel-toe (yes, all proper heel-toe maneuvers involve a double clutch) you rely on the syncros to bring the tranny shaft to the correct speed, and they don't do it smoothly. you'll lurch (like most people do when they downshift) and probably break traction, forcing you to slow down even more through said corner.

try learning how to do it properly, spence. sounds like you just don't want to put in the effort... it's ridiculous how good it feels to do it right and power out of a hard-braking corner. plus, any passenger you have at the time will be impressed that they never felt your downshift. :thumbsup:

[tims]

Originally posted by Devin Mac
it's more a matter of efficiency and smoothness than anything else. synchros are neither efficient nor smooth.

if you're coming into a corner at 100+ and you need to exit at 50, you need to not only accomplish this acceleration, you also need to do it smoothly (since you will more than likely be damn near the limit of your tires' lateral g capacity). if you DON'T double-clutch/heel-toe (yes, all proper heel-toe maneuvers involve a double clutch) you rely on the syncros to bring the tranny shaft to the correct speed, and they don't do it smoothly. you'll lurch (like most people do when they downshift) and probably break traction, forcing you to slow down even more through said corner.

try learning how to do it properly, spence. sounds like you just don't want to put in the effort... it's ridiculous how good it feels to do it right and power out of a hard-braking corner. plus, any passenger you have at the time will be impressed that they never felt your downshift. :thumbsup:


YES, thats exactly how I would put it:thumbsup: Try downshifting into first or second anywhere near redline, and see how smooth it is just relying on the synchro's. It's amazing how few people actually learn to drive correctly. Its a hell of a lot more fun to drive when you know how to double clutch.


Indy cars dont double clutch, neither do nextel cup cars, dirt cars,short track cars... the only cars i've ever seen double clutch are the ones that will break the transmission if they dont because of a poor design or cheap quality parts.

Of course indy car drivers don't double clutch, there is no clutch since they are electronlically controlled manual tran's. The INDY cars do double clutch though, as does any paddle shifted manual trans.

[540Malibu]

my transmission goes right into any gear at any rpm, excpet reverse becasue its not synchro'd

[Devin Mac]

Originally posted by 540Malibu
my transmission goes right into any gear at any rpm, excpet reverse becasue its not synchro'd

if you knew how to double-clutch, you could get it in reverse at whatever rpm you wanted ;-)

[tims]

Yea, but only if your going backwards.... Or know how to make the engine spin in reverse:thumbsup: Try stuffing it into first at 40-50 or so, wherever your redline is. I bet it you'll feel it resist.