Date:         Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:12:30 +0100
Reply-To:     Michael Kraewinkel <M.Kraewinkel@MITUTOYO.DE>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Michael Kraewinkel <M.Kraewinkel@MITUTOYO.DE>
Subject:      AW: Flywheel Lightening little vanagon content

> ----------
> Von:  David Marshall[SMTP:vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG]
<snip>
> A lightened flywheel is not desired when you want torque.
<snip>
Hi David,
1.sorry but imo a lightened flywheel takes NO effect to torque, it just
makes your
engine easily rev up and down without load (at idle?). if you decrease
masses
in your engine it will run rough and starve suddenly at low end rpm.
i think that is not what Randy wants in his car.

2. if you add all rotating masses in your car (in the engine, gearbox,
 driveshaft, wheels, etc.) this are the rotating masses which have to be
accelerated,
(at a given vehicle weight) when you are driving, now subtract the amount
that will
go off your flywheel.
Now you´ve know the mass you´ve won. for me it seems not to be that much.
the better way is to get your flywheel balanced (completely with the
clutch).

3.we´ve built BMW-boxer engines with nearly the same geometrical sizes,
(half waterboxer)
with decreased rotating and oscillating masses by nearly 35%. they had an
idle rotating speed
(%//? what was the right word for it?) of 1200 rpm abruptly starving under
1100 rpm.

Its not exactly like this, but my stumbling english is not running very well
this morning.
        greetings micha