Yamaha R6 Forum: YZF-R6 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 151 Posts

·
iRun
Joined
·
33,319 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I'm sick of seeing people not understanding this concept so I'm going to lay it out in this thread as clearly as possible.

First off, unsprung (rotating) mass is: weight that is NOT held up by the suspension, and is SPINNING as the bike is moving.

The "weight" of unsprung mass is irrelevant. The moment of inertia (or weight distribution) is the unit of measure that really counts, and those numbers are hard to extract meaning from. It's not gonna be like "Oh man, I can REALLY feel that last couple inches^4 that we got off there". Rims do make a HUGE difference though.

The reason why brake horsepower numbers are always higher than wheel horsepower numbers is because there's extra weight to rotate before the power can get to the ground. As such, rotating mass directly affects the acceleration, deceleration and horsepower on a motorcycle. You're going to see more power on the dyno with less rotating mass (like lighter rims/rotors/chain/sprockets), because you've got less parasitic weight in the drive train to eat up power.

What I'm saying is that if you weighed a stock rim and a forged magnesium (for instance) rim on a scale and they both turned out to be the same WEIGHT, that wouldn't mean that they would perform the same. It's all about weight DISTRIBUTION, hence why the units for moment of inertia are in length^4. It's determined by cross-sectional area times the distance to the center of rotation (the axle) squared. This is why cutting a couple pounds of rotating mass from the tires has a much more dramatic effect than cutting a couple pounds of rotating mass from a rotor. The tires are farther from the axle, and that distance is squared when computing moment of inertia. This is why doing the 520 conversion for a lighter chain and sprocket than stock while leaving the gearing alone won't really do much for you. It all helps, but you aren't going to feel that little of a difference in moment of inertia. Same with rotors..

3 pounds lost off the weight of the bike (like from a lightweight battery) does NOT yield the same performance gains from mounting rims that are 3 pounds lighter, necessarily. You can't even determine the effectiveness of your lighter rims with just a scale. Yes, lighter parts are almost always better, but that's not what counts. What I'm saying is that you can't say that mounting a tire that's 1 pound lighter is going to give the same performance benefits that losing 1 pound from the rotors, because they're not the same distance from the axis of rotation (the axle in this case).

Now does everyone understand why saying "these rims are 3 pounds lighter than stock" means absolutely nothing in terms of actual performance gains?


Another member explains this concept with a great analogy:

perhaps i can assist in the understanding of this argued concept. imagine you have two baseball bats of equal weight but unequal size. one bat has most it's weight near the grip (imagine holding the bat backwards) and the other bat has more weight near the end.

which bat will be harder to swing? the bat with the weight farthest from your body.

here's why: although your are technically swinging the same amount of weight, your moving a different amount of mass a different distance. the bat with the mass closest to the grip only has to move a short distance through space. however the bat with the weight farthest from the grip is traveling a much greater distance. so instead of moving 3lbs across a two foot distance, your moving 3lbs across a 6 foot distance, thus more effort is required.

did this clear it up for anyone?
 

·
When in doubtThrottle out
Joined
·
5,058 Posts
I'm sick of seeing people not understanding this concept so I'm going to lay it out in this thread as clearly as possible.

First off, unsprung (rotating) mass is: weight that is held up by the suspension, and is SPINNING as the bike is moving.

The "weight" of unsprung mass is irrelevant. The moment of inertia is the unit of measure that really counts, and those numbers are hard to extract meaning from. It's not gonna be like "Oh man, I can REALLY feel that last couple inches^4 that we got off there". Rims do make a HUGE difference though.

The reason why brake horsepower numbers are always higher than wheel horsepower numbers is because there's extra weight to rotate before the power can get to the ground. As such, rotating mass directly affects the acceleration, deceleration and horsepower on a motorcycle. You're going to see more power on the dyno with less rotating mass (like lighter rims/rotors/chain/sprockets), because you've got less parasitic weight in the drive train to eat up power.

What I'm saying is that if you weighed a stock rim and a forged magnesium (for instance) rim on a scale and they both turned out to be the same WEIGHT, that wouldn't mean that they would perform the same. It's all about weight DISTRIBUTION, hence why the units for moment of inertia are in length^4. It's determined by cross-sectional area times the distance to the center of rotation (the axle) squared. This is why cutting a couple pounds of rotating mass from the tires has a much more dramatic effect than cutting a couple pounds of rotating mass from a rotor. The tires are farther from the axle, and that distance is squared when computing moment of inertia. This is why doing the 520 conversion for a lighter chain and sprocket than stock while leaving the gearing alone won't really do anything for you. You aren't going to feel that little of a difference in moment of inertia. Same with rotors..



Now does everyone understand why saying "these rims are 3 pounds lighter than stock" means absolutely nothing in terms of actual performance gains?
I don't understand can you please explain with smaller words and slower for me, because I deserve respect. :poke
 

·
iRun
Joined
·
33,319 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I can't design around every aptitude level... :laugh



EDIT: and would you mind un-quoting that first post? I may need to update it later to go into more detail.
 

·
Official Noob Greeter
Joined
·
55,823 Posts
Less rotational mass equates to faster accel and decel. Suck it. It also helps the suspension work better. Factory teams use light parts, Steve. Why is that?:laugh
 

·
When in doubtThrottle out
Joined
·
5,058 Posts
I can't design around every aptitude level... :laugh



EDIT: and would you mind un-quoting that first post? I may need to update it later to go into more detail.
Dun make fun of my attitude level...

QFT?
 

·
iRun
Joined
·
33,319 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Less rotational mass equates to faster accel and decel. Suck it. It also helps the suspension work better. Factory teams use light parts, Steve. Why is that?:laugh
Did you read what I wrote? Yes, lighter parts are always better. What I'm saying is that you can't say that mounting a tire that's 1 pound lighter is going to give the same performance benefits that losing 1 pound from the rotors, because they're not the same distance from the axis of rotation (the axle in this case).
 

·
iRun
Joined
·
33,319 Posts
Discussion Starter #11

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
If your not getting it, think of it this way.

When you sit in a officechair and spin, when we were kids..., if you spin and put your feet out, you would always slow down, but when you brought your legs in the chair would spin faster easier and longer.. basicaly as you out more weight further away from the axis of rotation the more the forces worked against you. Same concept maybe easier to understand...
If you were fat you could spin just as fast, but when you put your fat leg out it slowed you down even more. It was only weight furthest from axis of rotation affecting it, although total mass of course plays a role

Great post more people should know even basic physics.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,478 Posts
If your not getting it, think of it this way.

When you sit in a officechair and spin, when we were kids..., if you soin and put your feet out, you would always slow down, but when you brought your legs in the chair would spin faster easier and longer.. basicaly as you out more weight further away from the axis of rotation the more the forces worked against you. Same concept maybe easier to understand...

Great post more people should know even basic physics.
/thread, thanks Paul :laugh:laugh
 

·
iRun
Joined
·
33,319 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
If your not getting it, think of it this way.

When you sit in a officechair and spin, when we were kids..., if you soin and put your feet out, you would always slow down, but when you brought your legs in the chair would spin faster easier and longer.. basicaly as you out more weight further away from the axis of rotation the more the forces worked against you. Same concept maybe easier to understand...

Great post more people should know even basic physics.
Kinda.. I don't like the phrasing, but I guess the concept is close enough for this crowd. :laugh
 

·
Speedy Claxton
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
If your not getting it, think of it this way.

When you sit in a officechair and spin, when we were kids..., if you spin and put your feet out, you would always slow down, but when you brought your legs in the chair would spin faster easier and longer.. basicaly as you out more weight further away from the axis of rotation the more the forces worked against you. Same concept maybe easier to understand...
If you were fat you could spin just as fast, but when you put your fat leg out it slowed you down even more. It was only weight furthest from axis of rotation affecting it, although total mass of course plays a role

Great post more people should know even basic physics.
How many people just tried this shit??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
If your not getting it, think of it this way.

When you sit in a officechair and spin, when we were kids..., if you soin and put your feet out, you would always slow down, but when you brought your legs in the chair would spin faster easier and longer.. basicaly as you out more weight further away from the axis of rotation the more the forces worked against you. Same concept maybe easier to understand...
If you were fqt you could spin just as fast, but when you put your fat leg out it slowed you down even more. It was only weight furthest from axis of rotation affecting it, although total mass of course plays a role

Great post more people should know even basic physics.

Good thing I work in an office and was able to test this theory. :laugh
 

·
Official Noob Greeter
Joined
·
55,823 Posts
Did you read what I wrote? Yes, lighter parts are always better. What I'm saying is that you can't say that mounting a tire that's 1 pound lighter is going to give the same performance benefits that losing 1 pound from the rotors, because they're not the same distance from the axis of rotation (the axle in this case).
Okay, that I agree with. distance from rotational center makes a difference as the centrifugal force would be different. HOWEVER, there is still a gain in the action of the suspension, regardless of that based on the weight alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,466 Posts
Kinda.. I don't like the phrasing, but I guess the concept is close enough for this crowd. :laugh
Nobody asked if YOU liked the phrasing...go start your own thread cock-gobbler...
 

·
iRun
Joined
·
33,319 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Okay, that I agree with. distance from rotational center makes a difference as the centrifugal force would be different. HOWEVER, there is still a gain in the action of the suspension, regardless of that based on the weight alone.
That's more of a suspension performance issue. I'm talking weight and weight distribution alone here... Let me blow your mind here for a minute though.


A heavier rim than stock may have less rotating mass than a stock one-- if the heavier rim has its mass more centralized around the axle it'll make acceleration and deceleration easier. Suspension won't see that gain, but that's a topic for another thread. :fact
 

·
Stunt Rider
Joined
·
7,981 Posts
I feel some what smarter meow.
 
1 - 20 of 151 Posts
Top