Quote:
Originally Posted by Conissah
Redneck math is for every 3lbs of rotational weight saved, thats 1 extra wheel HP. So let's say that the 53.5 is split among all 4 wheel perfectly (definitely not the case), that's 13.375 lbs per wheel. The 2 rear wheels are the only ones driving the car, so you're looking at a (VERY VERY ROUGH) 4.5 whp per rear wheel, or 9 whp total difference with the CCB's vs the steels. Now obviously this is crude math, but somewhat gets the point across. The CCB's are only part of the equation too, the CS wheels will be a whole lot lighter than the piggy 788 wheels, which will also help tremendously.
|
Interesting point. The nuance there is moment of inertia - the closer the weight is to the center of the rotation, the less impactful it is to this concept. Put another way, 5 lb lighter tire has more impact than a 5 lb lighter rim which has more impact than a 5 lb lighter brake rotor. A uniform disc like a flywheel is a little accurate from where comparing one to another is even. Way back in my college days when we were required to calculate this stuff you'd reduce the mass down to a point load, generate the approximate distance from the center radii, and then create the moment of inertia from that. For complex items (like a wheel) you'd do the calculus to sum the parts and find the correct moment, or do approximations on various points and average together etc... but I digress.
My short point is - yep, less rotating mass, but choosing lighter tires by a few lbs would make an even bigger difference (for example the Michelin Cup 2's are actually 2-4 lbs lighter than RE71R's at the same size).