Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Unsprung Weight & Rotational Mass

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    703

    Unsprung Weight & Rotational Mass

    I came accross these articles which Im sure may be common knowledge to some but I thought very interesting reading.

    Unsprung Weight

    Rotational Inertia

    Now Im starting to worry about replacing my 17"x7.5" Denvers with 18" x 8.5 GTC? They will have less unsprung weight but will have more rotational inertia.

    Although this calculator http://www.csgnetwork.com/tiresizescalc.html

    tells me that my 225/45/17 Pirellis have a tire diameter of 24.972inches and my 235/40/18 Re002's have a tire diameter of 25.402inches which makes an increase in rotational mass of only .428 of an inch or 1cm! I just went out and measured them and this is correct! So...........what does this mean? Is 1 cm of extra rotaional mass a problem considering Im losing about 1.5kg per wheel?
    Last edited by thezoneR32; 26-01-2012 at 06:55 PM.
    Volvo S60 RD T6

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bentleigh, Melbourne
    Posts
    1,007
    Users Country Flag
    interesting articles.
    stick with what wheels looks best, i wouldn't bother getting all the equations right unless your doing track/hillclimbs.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    703
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Stiggy_21 View Post
    interesting articles.
    stick with what wheels looks best, i wouldn't bother getting all the equations right unless your doing track/hillclimbs.
    Cheers mate, was an intersting read nonetheless. Might look at brakes to reduce unsprung weight, ****, I didnt even know what that meant until today...........now where was that bbk group buy thread........
    Volvo S60 RD T6

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bairnsdale & Ferntree Gully, Victoria
    Posts
    7,491
    why not go to 225/40/18 if thats the case about the diameter change

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    480
    Users Country Flag
    Its still a healthy weight saving if I'm not mistaken

    Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, VIC
    Posts
    3,178
    Users Country Flag
    You will only gain rotational inertia if your are running a tyre that is heavier than the original or if the rim portion of the wheel is noticably heavier than the Denvers. It is VERY hard to predict if that will be the case due to the possible variations in tyre and wheel construction. The only way to be sure is to test the rotational inertia with both wheels with tyres mounted.

    I seriously doubt you should be worrying about this - I'd be more worried about the harsher ride and the greater likelyhood of the rims being damaged by potholes.
    Resident grumpy old fart
    VW - Metallic Paint, Radial Tyres, Laminated Windscreen, Electric Windows, VW Alloy Wheels, Variable Geometry Exhaust Driven Supercharger, Direct Unit Fuel Injection, Adiabatic Ignition, MacPherson Struts front, Torsion Beam rear, Coil Springs, Hydraulic Dampers, Front Anti-Roll Bar, Disc Brakes, Bosch ECU, ABS

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    287
    Users Country Flag
    Losing 1.5kg and reducing unsprung weight is good.
    Would not worry about the rotational inertia, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference, probably only with a stopwatch at the track.
    With a lower profile, you need to be careful with big potholes and the kerbs when parking.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    703
    Thread Starter

    All good advice thanks fellas!
    Volvo S60 RD T6

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
| |