rpxtreme03, on 18 February 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

.. sigh.. hate to break it to you grasshopper.. "WE" didn't establish that there is ANY horsepower loss.. you seem to have it in your head there is hp loss when adding fww, did you actually read the posts following your "claim" that horsepower is lost? you are the only one that says there is a loss of horsepower. (as in you alone, you singular, you and nobody else, you are on one side of argument and everyone else is on other..).
Multi TIME ISDE winner Dwight Rudders says you don't loose hp with a heavier fww, DOUG DUBACH world champion says in his article you don't, everyone else including "A" class riders that have been racing longer than you have been alive state there is no hp loss using a heavier fww. But somehow laws of physics fail to apply in a 5 foot shere surrounding you? Ok! Even i learned something.

Now, all funny stuff aside. if you wanna state "i think a heavier flywheel weight causes a loss of hp" or somethin like that.. great, no problem, it's a FREE COUNTRY.. but DON'T post some bullpucky statement like "we established... " cause "WE" didn't.

Im glad to see you think it is a good idea for some bikes. At least we got that far, but you just MIGHT like a little extra fww on YOUR bike. But alas, as you think (wrongly) you "loose hp" you will likely never even try it for harescrambles/enduro. As your only 19 years old, there is still LOTS of time for you to give it a try. yea, i have taken this thread a little personal.

Edited by MELK-MAN, 18 February 2012 - 04:58 PM.

Lets just say for a minute that you did sacrifice some power with a fww. First of all 90% of us would never be able to notice it, and that power loss would be totally negated by increased traction and actually being able to put the power to the ground. You were correct in saying that some two strokes benefit from  a fww, and my RM is a year that had a brutal mid range hit, but I can say for sure that I gave up no power. The only change is the way the power is delivered, and I can tell you that in a drag race against my brothers and son( YZ426, and two YZ 250s) that my bike is faster( launches better) with the fww. The two YZ 250s do not need a fww as Yamaha uses heavier ones anyway, but the RMs have a light fw and let err buck has an RM and asked if a fww or auto clutch would be beneficial.

as i said befor i still recomend the FWW in most cases just saying that you do loose hp..the post melk-man made was a load of crap. the companies selling these say there is no hp loss to sell more. there is not "net hp" lossed but there is hp lossed under acceleration...
and i disagreee when you say 90% of riders wont notice it. they do notice it. they notice a different feel in the power curve. what they  are feeling is that loss of hp. but they like it because it gives them more control and the reason your bike is faster is because it hooks up better..
which is a great thing. im not saying you loose speed im saying you loose hp. there is a huge difference. i dont run a fww in my bike for the reason already stated, but if i felt that my bike had too hard of a hit to and wanted to tame it i would most certainly be running a FWW.
the FWWs really are a great thing. im just saying that your not going to be better off in every situation with a heavier fly wheel if that were the case our bike would prob weigh ten times what they do now and the motor simply wouldnt be able to move the bike..what do you thing your whp would be then? haha
im really not bashin the FWWs i do like them im just saying you guys cant listen to every word that these companies are advertising.

Edited by rpxtreme03, 19 February 2012 - 12:10 PM.

You're both right, sort of...

In simple terms under acceleration (inreasing RPMs) a small portion of the energy that could be going to the back wheel is absorbed my making the heavier flywheel spin faster. The energy is not lost, it's stored. The energy stored by the flywheel is fed back into the rear wheel whenever an obsticle (hill, rock, tree root, etc) tries to slow the engine.

rpxtreme03, on 19 February 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

ya know, i had a well thought out reply but your 19 yr old ignorant be-hind just ain't worth it.. You should go ride more and post on internet forums less. You MIGHT understand what everyone is trying to tell you. This post you just made is laughable.
PS: please show me where i said 90 % of riders wouldn't notice a heavier fww?? Your reading conprehension is BAD. Instead of riding and posting, perhaps ya should have stayed in school?

Edited by MELK-MAN, 19 February 2012 - 03:07 PM.

Windblown, on 19 February 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

you are 110% right. it takes longer to get there but the momentum it carries can be beiniificial. as well as the rideability and control you gain on the bike. it also helps the bike lug easier because it is lesss likely to stall at lower speeds because the engine is more difficult to stop with the extra weight.
you said it exactly.

Windblown, on 19 February 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Yea, are we talking engine HP or rear wheel HP?

I have a diesel truck that makes about 325HP.
Lets say there's gas powered truck that also makes 325HP.
Can we say the diesel truck makes less HP because a diesel motor is slower to build revs?  After a diesels RPMs are in the 'sweet spot' it'll pull a heavy load up a hill without dropping revs much better than an equal HP gas motor.  I think it's safe to say that a diesel motor acts much like a gas motor with a bunch of flywheel.

a flywheel stores energy,it in no way consumes energy.extreme needs to quit spewing his nonsense.

MELK-MAN, on 19 February 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

ssorry to tell you but that reply was directed at jcats reply. not yours. and as a little side note for you i am still in school. i carry a 3.4 gpa in college working 35 hours a week and taking 16 credits..im not trying to be conceeded but dont question my inteligence when clearly yours is the one that should be in question. you are not arguing using scientific data you are arguing using data provided to you by the companys making these things.  again not saying they are bad. just saying that you have to consider all angles befor investing in one.
i mean seriously did you ever take physics? everything i am saying here complys with every law of physics to have ever exhisted..all of your "facts/information" defys the laws of motion..your saying that it doesnt decrease hp meaning that some how it doesnt take more energy to move a heavier mass...your wrong..it does. that energy will be later delivered in other ways but you will loose hp.

cj_wai, on 19 February 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

it doesnt consume energy your right. it stores it you are correct. but that doesnt mean you dont loose hp.
you loose hp on the acceleration...the energy it stores does not give it more net hp nor give it any kind of gains. it instead aids the motor when slowing down. your bike will with stand more resistance for longer periods befor slowing down due to momenntum of the FWW
that is tthe advantage of a FWW

Edited by rpxtreme03, 19 February 2012 - 06:33 PM.

rpxtreme03, on 19 February 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

oh,ok.. that all makes sense now.you are right and i am wrong.thanks for the education.

Dude,
your contradicting yourself yet again. how can you store energy to be delivered later.. AND loose that hp.. Google is your friend. The answer to "do you loose hp with a heavier flywheel" is all over the place if you just take a moment to look. It changes rate of acceleration, the hp is not lost. meaning, in the open field wide open, YOU WOULD HANG RIGHT WITH THE GUY WITH A LIGHTER FLYWHEEL. Comprende? YOU are wrong Sir. I have posted no fewer than THREE articles from gentlemen (that im gonna guess) that are much smarter than you AND I .. fyi, i too graduated college with honors - as in all 4 years worth. And you ask if i took physics, no.. but based on the very vague explanations of this topic, I bettin YOU are not either.

Here is a thread from a "tech" forum that should be right up your alley. from an internet discusion forum http://ls1tech.com/f...t-vs-hp-tq.html EVEN WITH A 10 LB change in flywheel weight there is no HP "loss". this is a car forum but if 10lb change doesn't make you see the light i don't know what will in this discussion over a few oz here and there.

Here is the pertinant info take from the thread I posted .. and Jon IS and automotive ENGINEER, not a wanna be/yet to be engineer.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
Question:
Originally Posted by SlickVert
How much change in HP/TQ would a 10lbs change in weight at the flywheel make?
Bob   
  

ANSWER:
Short answer: probably not a lot on the street that you would feel. Starting from a stop might be a little nore trouble with a lighter flywheel, especially with a lumpy cam.
Loooong answer:
The engine would not produce any more/less HP/TQ at a steady rpm with a rotating inertia change (heavier/lighter flywheel). There would be a difference during engine acceleration which is happening most of the time when racing, well except maybe for the Daytona oval.
The increase/decrease in torque or hp to the flywheel or, more importantly to the wheels, depends on the total rotating inertia (wieght) and the acceleration RATE. The quicker the engine accelerates from one rpm to another the bigger the difference in hp/tq getting to the flywheel or tires.
In other words, rotating inertia makes more difference in the lower gears when accelerating than in the higher gears.
If you drop 10 lbs. from your flywheel you might notice it in 1st and 2nd gear, but if you went from 16 inch to 18 inch wheels and wider tires, the extra inertia of the tires wold probably negate the lighter flywheel's effect.
Would I spend money for a lighter flywheel if I were not racing? Nope.

Jon

Edited by MELK-MAN, 20 February 2012 - 08:20 AM.

melk-man,save your breath.extreme knows all and is all powerful.he is not to be approached.

seriously though,your post is the same as one i made to him earlier.i said i would head out to the shop and shave down every flywheel on every bike i own.i want to gain some horse power.you see extrem,s logic would dictate that to be true.a heavier flywheel is causing us to lose horse power so by inverse a lighter flywheel will show a horse power increase.

who new it was soooo easy to make extra horsepower.

like i said ,save your breath,extreme doesn,t get it and is too arrogant to find the truth.(i think  the arrogance is an age thing.)

Edited by cj_wai, 19 February 2012 - 07:37 PM.

Hey Melk, incorporate this into your signature somehow!

thanks DW, i thought that was as good an explanation as any from what appears to be a very credible source.

cj_wai, on 19 February 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

yup. I saw your post earlier, ya needed some "smilies" to get the level of sarcasm to "11" .

screnshaw400, on 19 February 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

that was exaclty the little somethin extra i had been looking for! thanks!

Edited by MELK-MAN, 20 February 2012 - 08:18 AM.

oh no not again.

bushman45, on 20 February 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

new here?

MrBlahh, on 20 February 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

there is always an argument when this is brought up. yeah new to this tread(off-road riding tech.).

cj_wai, on 19 February 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

LOL ya the laws of thermodynamics are under question in this thread. Maybe Watt should have shaved some of the hair off that pony for a little more HP??

.. like a train wreck, ya just can't look away can ya !