John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
news:4smo51tlo5cjbp381u8sgmnb7v2kuiemph@4ax.com:

>>Is that why Honda did backflips to reduce rotational mass
>>everywhere it could in the S2000?

> Sure, but they can actually make really significant reductions.
> Not just a pound or so, but real weight reduction that only a
> factory can manage by careful design.

I think that seven pounds per corner tire+wheel is REAL weight
reduction. Nine pounds would be even more real. My only real
question is whether that last two pounds might be better invested in
+1 wheels and more rubber on the road.

>>I've read elsewhere that reductions in rotational mass play out as
>>more "apparent" horsepower. I don't pretend to know myself,
>>that's why I ask here, politely.

> Yes, that's true, but again, you're not going to notice a pound
> less.

Not noticing a an additional pound at the margin tells me something.
Not noticing an extra two pounds at the margin tells me something.

>>> Anyhow, if minimum unsprung weight is a real necessity, go find
>>> some magnesium wheels and never mind the tires.

I've observed up to five pounds difference in tires of the same size
spec. I don't think that's nothing. I think I might notice.


>>I'd ask you again to FOCUS ON THE QUESTION: Diminishing returns in
>>unsprung weight, rotational mass, ride and handling.

> You're way out on the tapering end of that diminishing return.

Thank you. This is what I suspected, and needed to know.

>>The question is one of where and when additional investments in one
>>area don't generate payoffs that would be more easily attained
>>elsewhere.

> That's precisely where you're at.

Again, thank you very much for your input.



--
-- CL.

+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing / Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+