"4 lb x 8= 24 lbs x4= 96 lbs." What the f....

First of all last I checked 4 x 8 wasn't equal to 24. Secondly, do you have 8 wheels? Thirdly, the whole discussion started with an assumption of a 10 lb per wheel weight reduction and even if a 4 lb per wheel reduction is more likely it doesn't really change anything about the discussion.

Lastly, you seem to be assuming a 4 to 1 ratio is more appropriate than 8 to 1 or 10 to 1 but it's no more logical than the other assumptions just a little less wrong. For some reason people seem to think weight mystically gets multiplied by some significant amount (4, 6, 8 , 10, or whatever) becasue it happens to be rotating, this is just plain wrong. Forgot all the logical thinking or the math calculations, just go out and test it, what you'll find is basically weight is weight, period. Any difference between rotating weight and static weight is small enough that you're very unlikely to be able to measure the difference and most certainly any difference is NOT significant, which is why it's so hard to actually measure in real world testing.

 

Maybe that's that durn newfangled calculus?

 

WOOPS 32lbs

didn't I say don't flame me cause i have no idea what i'm talking about?

 

Besides the math, he was wondering why you have 8 wheels!

 

Stock 2002 SE rims and tires are 50lbs. SSR Competition 17x8's with Kuhmo 245/45/17 rubber are 40lbs. That the 10lbs per corner I was referring to.

Stereodude

 

When I put my stock '02 SE wheel with a Toyo Garit 225/50x17 tire on a scale it said 47 lbs.

 

Well Paul, thanks for your answer. I think what Sport Compact Car meant by "feel" was that the engine could rev more quickly, thus acheiving higher speeds sooner, and getting through the quarter mile faster. They do not subscribe to the "butt-dyno" any more than you or I do. I think we should get some real experimenting going. I'm not an expert, in fact, I've only got half a high school physics class under my belt, with another big test tomorrow!! But I still believe significantly lighter wheels will give you an advantage.....sorry, I'm not convinced....besides, this is the internet, and after all, I heard Hillary Clinton had sex with aliens on the internet.....so we know the internet is gospel....

 

I didn't say i had 8 wheels, i was assuming 8 pounds of unsprung weight for every pound of rotational weight, like everyone else has been saying on this forum for years. Dunno if that holds true though, i'll ask my friend who's a physics major.

 

I know you didn't say you had 8 wheels, BUT you did somehow get from 4 lbs a wheel up to a 128 lb theoritical savings (ie. 4 x 8 x 4) so I guess this means ultimately you're subscribing to the 8 to 1 theory only you get there by first multipling by 2 due to the unsprung weight issue and then multipling again by 4 due to the rotational weight issue.

Here's a hint, don't bother asking the "physics major" about this stuff because he's just gunna end up sprouting off a bunch of calculations and theories which are ultimately meaningless in the real world. Why is it that everybody want to spend time TALKING and theorizing about this sh*t, just go to the track and get the real answers. All the theories do is get a bunch of people with no real experience trying to impress us with their education.

You wanna ask somebody about this stuff, ask a racer with experience who's actually taken the time to test various combinations. Time slips don't lie and are the only relevant information. People want to ask the "physics major" becasue it's easier to just talk about all this stuff than it is to go out and get the real answers, the ones that actually mean something.

 

AMEN to that

 

Check out Sport Compact Car Magazine, Jan 2001 Issue, there is a great article in there about rotational mass and rim sizes. They know what they are talking about.