ENGINES PARTS STATUS

[Weisseule1]

I agree with the "no minimum weight rule".

It's what the Prod cars run, and if you want to see some scary flywheels, look at some of the stuff those guys run.

First, machine off ALL of the flywheel everywhere, down to 0.00ohmygodthin, THEN, cut large "windows" just completely removing 75-85% of what's left for material anyway, oh yeah, leave somewhat enough area to catch some of the friction material from the clutch disc, and you might want to leave it just a little extra thicker under the ring gear, don't want that coming off, eh.

Atleast that's what I've seen of the guys that don't go spend the money for trick aluminum flywheels. Either way they weigh absolutely nothing, and then get turned 9,000 rpm+

If the CB board is hesitant about "going all the way down to 15.5#", I think it's unrealistic that they'll give us a zero min. It would be nice though, and it would probably help Enterprises too, make their crank look good by never failing, after taking away all the bad harmonics and stuff that was previously caused by the too heavy flywheels.

I do agree it's another stop-gap measure, those that go real close to min now, in a few years will have the same problems again. Let's see, 2# lower every three years, that ought to about do it.;)So we can revisit this rule how many times in our lifetime to get to a zero min?

Though the flywheel replacement price is currently helped(lower) by the proposed flywheel, so the 15.5# rule should help 1-engine life, 2-costs. Still a step in the right direction.

I sent my positive feedback to SCCA, did you?

Marc

[scott 71]

What matters the most, the overall flywheel weight or how the weight is distributed from the center, i.e. the moment of inertia? The stock flywheel has a lot of weight at the outside. The new one might have more going for it than just being four (or three) pounds lighter.

John: Do you know how the MOI compares between the stock flywheel and the proposed one?

[DENIS]

I finally dug up what I could on one that I know of.

How about 5.5lbs with ring gear, milled/turned from billet steel, shipped from SA to States for $155 total? Fit to either stock or race clutch.

If I could post a jpeg here on it I'd show you.

This simplistic approach is the cost savings and hassle free approach I'm talking about.

Seems this guy may have run a post from time to time on race-cars.com too. Might look there. Or someone can post the pic if I forward it to them. No web site to reference.

[Mojomama]

In response to a request for a status update on the flywheel, I got the following response from KENBROWN at the SCCA:

"This has only recently been proposed. It will be a least March before it could be approved and that is only if it is approved. It may be even longer."

Ken Brown

So it looks like the rebuild for this season gets put back together with the stock flywheel.

[Mike Andersen]

Fellas;

I wouldn't file to your allternate quite yet. Give this thing until February.

Iverson

[Mike Andersen]

John;

Any scuttlebutt?

Iverson

[email="milspec@brainerd.net"]milspec@brainerd.net[/email]

[Dale Carter]

I emailed Ken and he confirmed what he said previously. I have now emailed two key members of the CB to encourage speedy action. I await their reply. I don't know what to say. If I were doing an engine right now, I'd go ahead with the current weight flywheel.

[size="1"][ January 15, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: John Merriman ][/size]

[nrs]

Guys,

Remember, A 15.5 lb flywheel with the weight concentrated towards the ring gear will fatigue a crank a lot more than a 15.5 lb flywheel with the weight concentrated at the center. I hope the rules guys know the difference and set the new spec design appropriately. All this talk and effort will be for nada, and the naysayers will get to say "I told you so".

In fact I could design a 19.5 lb flywheel with the weight concentrated at the center that will fatigue the crank a whole lot less than a 15.5 lb flywheel with all the weight concentrated out at the ring gear. It is all in where you remove the metal during maching.

As I recall radial acceleration/deceleration is pproportional to the sqaure of the radius. Anyone have their ME handbook handy? Correct me if I am wrong.

Bill

[nrs]

In fact, a flywheel with all the weight concentrated at the center is less likely to explode at high RPM than one with the weight concentrated at the ring gear.

The radial loads( from the center out) on the material increase as the weight increases out to the ring gear.

The best way to envision this is standing a the center of a spinning turntable. If you started to walk out to the edge, the loads would steadily increase to where you would be thrown off.

A fly wheel with all the weight concentrated at the outside by the ringear tries to tear itself apart at high RPM.

Bill

[markD]

I need confirmation of this but my understanding is that Jay Ivey has an aftermarket supplier lined up to supply the new lighter weight flywheel. With Jay's reputation for delivering a quality product I would guess that the design of the new flywheel focuses the weight as close the to crank centerline as possible, thereby minimizing the very forces that you describe above.

[nrs]

That would be great!

[Dale Carter]

That's right. As indicated in previous posts, Jay has a supplier lined up and he's sent a sample flywheel to the Comp. Board through Ken Brown at SCCA. I continue to hear the Proposal will be considered at one of the next two Comp. Board meetings.

[nrs]

I guess my final point to this is that the flywheel only needs to be 5/8in thick under the ring gear. The ring gear is .50 thick. Add another 1/8 in material for a lip to hold the ring gear in place. Then taper to the thickness required at the clutch face. Otherwise any design thicker than 5/8in at the ring gear has to much mass at the outside and is not optimized.

I cut a stock flywheel down to 7.5 lbs per the spec drawings from Brian Little's modified Cortina engine in his Atlanta region CSR prior to his switching to the very first AMW (Aledo Motor Works)engine he helped develop in 1984. His and my Cortina sang like a sewing machine.

I had no worry that this flywheel would explode since it had almost no mass out at the ring gear to cause any significant radial stress at 7000rpm.

[JONKATHY]

Well it's crunchtime for me. The flywheel is the only thing my mechanic is waiting on to finish the motor.
What should I tell him to make it (it's currently something like 24 lbs.)?

[nrs]

I would go with the 15.5lb flywheel and have fun.

What are the scrutineers going to do, make you take it out and weigh it? Expecting to win the runoffs anytime soon? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chuck Gillis]

Mike: The minimum flywheel weight is ccurently at 19.4 pounds. Have your engine builder finish your engine with that weight. Waiting for a decision from Topeka is a sure way to watch from the sidelines.

Mr. Manofsky, you need to have your measuring equipment checked when you get a chance. My ring gears all measured at under 3/8" which may just affect your design for our flywheel.

As a Chief Scrutineer, we don't go looking for underweight flywheels, overbores, cheater cams, and high compression engines. For the most part, racers in this class are scrupulously honest and don't go out of their way to cheat or push the rules. That's one of the many attractions this class holds. I believe Mike C is a newcomer to this class, and may not need the flavor of help that you are offering.

gm

[DENIS]

"No min/stock size ring gear".

I stand by it and have heard support from others on it. No min, no problem, no tech, no new starter, no clutch change, no costly changes to what you have, no costly 'custom, legal' part etc. etc.

Still believing this is going to be the answer you are looking for, for a number of reasons.

[RACERMIKE23]

Todd: I'm on the same page as you, but that proposal might need some tweaking. When I ran a 510 under GT rules, a 'stock size' flywheel was required. This translated to a 5" clutch, a 5" 'flywheel' (the real part that the clutch attached to) and a thin aluminum disc that was stock diameter. Total weight of flywheel and clutch-11.5 lbs. Total cost in 1989 dollars-over $600, not counting the special offset starter. One could suppose that serrating the edge of the disc could pass as a 'ring gear'. No need to belabor the 'what-ifs', but it should probably be a bit more definitive. But boy, it really revved quick!

[DENIS]

Tom,

You may have missed my rants about this for a long time, (!) but my 'plan' was calling for the flywheel to be unrestricted in weight but must retain one of the stock size ring gears. Thus the diam would be the same and starter the same etc. No control on clutches as some already have the 5.5 vs. the 7.25 ones.

I know of a very nice steel one that comes in about 8lbs (fitted for a clutch too perhaps) and can be had for about $150!

I don't debate the benefits of the lighter part, but rather the large outlay of cash to prep (again) a part for more money than is can be replaced for.

[Chuck Gillis]

I met with our CB member over the weekend and discussed the flywheel proposal for a few minutes. As a result of that discussion, below is my email to the CB this morning:

"Reduced weight flywheel proposal for FF1600 shoud be approved. The
physics of the lightened flywheel are moot other than the crankshaft
longevity increase from decreased rotating mass applied to the
crankshaft. Granted, the engine will rev quicker, UNLOADED, but the reality we
have to consider is that in a racing application where we are using
17:34 and 18:34 first gears, the ability to rev quicker LOADED is degraded
significantly by the mass of an 1100 pound car with a 100HP motor. Do
not be tempted by dynomometer data unless it is chassis derived and
modeled after a real word environment."

The CB is interested in NOT approving this in an effort to save us from having to immediately machine our flywheels to even up a not-proven, but speculated endlessly upon, "competitive advantage".

I would ask that every member of this forum do SOMETHING along these lines, as the response to this issue to the CB is microscopic. Get with it or get over it.

gm

[Mike Ahrens]

I just sent my second request to the Comp Board on this topic. The link is on page two of this topic. It only takes a minute. [b]If you are behind this proposal please take that minute and send them an e-mail supporting it.[/b]

[Mike Andersen]

Fellas;

For your convenience.

[email="kbrown@scca.org"]kbrown@scca.org[/email]
[email="compboard@scca.com"]compboard@scca.com[/email]

Iverson

Post Scriptum - Vote early and vote often.

[Todd Colwell]

Thanks for posting the link to the comp board. I have sent a letter in favor of the light flywheel propsal.

frank

[Mike Andersen]

Fellas;

We need maximum participation on this thing or it may not happen. Or worse yet, it may very well be short of our target.

Your comment to the Comp Board needs only to be a one liner. As an example:

[b]Dear Comp Board;

Respectfully, I support the immediate ratification of the proposal before the Comp Board regarding C/FF flywheel weight reduction to less than or equal to 15.5 pounds.

Sincerely

Rick Iverson
LOL
170399 [/b]

Now, I am not a literary genius, but this simple note is more than functional in conveying your position without ambiguity. Simply copy, paste and send. For those who are computer challenged:

</font>[list][*]place your cursor immediately to the left of Dear</font>[*]depress and hold down the left button on you mouse</font>[*]drag down to the right side of 170399.</font>[*]depress the right button on you mouse</font>[*]at the drop-down, select copy</font>[*]select the hyperlink below
[email="compboard@scca.com"]compboard@scca.com[/email]</font>[*]as the new mail screen appears, place your cursor in the text area</font>[*]depress the right button on you mouse</font>[*]at the drop-down, select paste</font>[*]change the name, region and membership number - [i][b]VERY IMPORTANT[/b][/i]</font>[*]place a subject (i.e., C/FF flywheel weight reduction)</font>[*]send.</font>[/list]
Iverson
[email="milspec@brainerd.net"]milspec@brainerd.net[/email]

Post Scriptum - We have people on the board who are our advocates, and truly see the value of this rule change. But they can not get this done without your help. Remember, this is your club, so it's your call.

[size="1"][ 02-09-2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Rick Iverson ][/size]

[Dave Hopple]

Hey Rick
Done!
and thanks...

[Dennis Cleary]

Rick and others,

[quote] Dear Comp Board;

Respectfully, I support the immediate ratification of the proposal before the Comp Board regarding C/FF flywheel weight reduction to [b]less than or equal to 15.5 pounds[/b] .

Sincerely[/quote]Are you in support of Todd's rule of no rule as written above or are you in support of the proposal before the Comp Board?

[Dale Carter]

Let's be realistic and support the 15.5 lb. proposal submitted by Jay Ivey. The FF class is a "restricted class" and it is very unlikely that the CB will okay a "no-minimum" rule change. The 15.5 lb. flywheel proposed has a profile similar to the OEM flywheel - so it does not have all its weight toward the center. As such it will NOT provide a significant performance advantage and everyone will not be "forced" to go to 15.5 lb. Canada has already gone to the 15.5 lb. weight. The other major engine builders also support this proposal. I suggest emails be sent referencing the 15.5 lb. proposal. Delete the wording "less than..."

[Mike Andersen]

Tim;

Personally, I would like to see no minimum weight imposed, but I do not believe that will happen. The original concept was a function of parts availability. A GCR flywheel weight amendment to less than what we now have will re-populate the market with those 19.4 lb. flywheels sitting in the corner of most engine builder’s shops.

Further, I would be remiss were I not to point out the fine effort put forth by Jay Ivey regarding a replacement flywheel. He has done an enormous amount of homework on this project to provide us yet another alternative, and ostensibly at 15.5 lbs. +/-.

Fellas, since I do not thrive on rejection, I am not interested in a heated debate about this. What I would like to see is for this thing to move off dead center while I am still alive. To be honest, I think we are well past the discussion stage, and the CB is deliberating on 15.5. May not be to everyone’s liking, but from my chair here, it is better than what we have to date.

Iverson

[Dennis Cleary]

My point is that you are recommeding that everyone use your language to as for a rule "less than or equal to 15.5 pounds". You should have said greater than or equal to 15.5 pounds. I'm not trying to start an arguement, I'm trying to figure out what you want. It's clear that what you want is not what you suggested we send to the Comp Board.

...I'm starting to see why the people at HQ get confused!

[DENIS]

So it's now "min weight 15.5" and not 'or less than' as worded above. A finite number may help....as pointed out.

John, you may be assuming a lot. I don't believe we have ever heard from "all the other engine builders" for one. Please elaborate, or better yet ask them to weigh in their proposals to the CB and let us know how they voted.

[Dale Carter]

Todd, Jay Ivey told me that the flywheel proposal was discussed among several of the engine builders at the RunOffs and he has followed up with them since then. Jay submitted the proposal and also sent a sample flywheel to the SCCA. He sent an OEM flywheel as well so they can see exactly how they compare. This is a well thought-out, reasonable, intelligent solution to a parts supply problem. It is in the best interest of the racers in every respect and it has no downside.

[Mike Andersen]

The most confounding thing about this electronic communication business is that it can be composed in a minute, and studied for hours. Unless carefully crafted, it is often difficult to determine the tone of message or mood of the writer. However, for this dribble, the tone is that of interrogative, and my mood is that of regret.

Can you understand my [b]only[/b] intention was to facilitate maximum participation? What I provided was an "example" of my comment to the CB. The point of this entire exercise was simply to make it as easy as possible for our people to voice a position. But most importantly, the verbiage was at the discretion of the writer.

I mentioned previously I was unwilling to engage anyone in this debate. That still stands.