well i only see this when people are heading to or from the track or out street racing. i dont know, i guess it makes a difference. even so, you probably wouldnt notice.
personaly i think it's becuase they can only afford two wheels at a time
and that what they've seen other twits do, so they do the same
<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/mullett/personal_pic.jpg">
Smokey wrote:I'm going to disagree with you Saint. You really have to look at it in the bigger picture. In the end, the engine is accellerating 4 wheels and tires, no matter what. I know about the shorter gearing, but in reality, it doesn't matter what wheels the engine is driving. The need to over come that inertia is there, no matter if the driveshaft in connected to it or not.
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. We'l use a FWD car for this example:
The Engine turns the front wheels and pulls the car forward, now the movement of the vehicle over the stationary road surface is what turns the rear wheels, the engine may have to overcome this MOI, however it has a negligible effect on the acceleration of the vehicle, because like I said it is the movement of the vehicle over the road surface that turns the rear wheels, not the power of the engine. Like I said before the increased MOI of the larger rear wheels will only really make itself apparent when stopping the vehicle.
Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home
so to make it simple..putting BIG rims on the back and steelies on the front just isnt worth looking retarded!!!
Pretty much
Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home
Sorry Saint, the power of the engine has to accellerate everything on the car. I wish I could explain it better to you, but I can't really. Just remember: Stopping is really just accelleration in a different direction.
O noes!
Smokey wrote:Sorry Saint, the power of the engine has to accellerate everything on the car. I wish I could explain it better to you, but I can't really. Just remember: Stopping is really just accelleration in a different direction.
no, stopping is friction. quite different than acceleration.
and as far as acceleration is concerned, Saint is correct. the wheels get dragged along the road. since they are on an axle (which usually has some form of lubrication and berings), it basically rotates freely. there is very little friction there to work against. jack up the back end of your car and spin your rear wheels. it doesn't take any effort to spin those. so unless you got your ebrake on all the time, your engine shouldn't have to exert itself what so ever to move the rear wheels, only the front.
saint = right
smokey = wrong
i took enough physics and mechanical/civil engineering classes to know that saint is in every way right
still looks retarded.
CAR GODS MADE THE 1.6 SOHC TO MAKE US 2.2 OHV GUYS FEEL BETTER.
everyone does it around here because they want to look like the cars you see at the drag races with actual drag radials on the steelies. they think it looks good, i think it looks bad. btw a guy i know has a civic like this and he almost never has a full matching set of rims.
Sorry, you're wrong. Rotating mass is rotating mass, plain and simple, it doesn't matter if the power from the engine is going to those wheels or not.
Doesn't adding heavier wheels affect braking by making it longer? Yes. Why? The wheels have more energy that has to be slowed down, which takes more time. Works the same way in accelleration. A force is being applied to the vehicle. It could be to the front tires, rear tires, hell a jet engine driving no wheels. But for that vehicle to accellerate, all four wheels have to accellerate too. Less rotating mass is less rotating mass.
Taking a class doesn't exempt you from being wrong.
O noes!
Again, Smokey, you are wrong. You can not compare braking to acceleration, they are two different forces, and you can not compare thrust to torque again 2 different forces acting in two very different ways.
When braking while MOI does play a part in it it is acting on the vehicle in a different way. On all Modern vehicles Braking works on all 4 wheels at the same time, while in a FWD, or RWD vehicle the force of the engine only acts on 2 wheels. Think of it this way if you could suspend the non-drive axle in the air the vehicle will move foward and the wheels will turn in the slipstream created by the vehicle, does the engine have to overcome the rotational force of these wheels? No, it doesn't, same thing applies when the vehicle is on the ground, it is the movement of the vehicle that creates the rotation of the tires, not the power of the engine.
Now MOI will have no effect on the acceleration of a vehicle powered by Thrust. The only part that the and wheels will play in the acceleration of a vehicle like that is in the Coeffecient of Friction between the tires and the road surface, which is an entirely different argument altogether.
Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home
Quote:
still looks retarded.
your both wrong..and chapter 10 is right
ITS RETARDEDDDDD
Fine, don't believe me? Tie 50 pound cement bags to your none drive wheels tonight, and take a spin. Then take off the bags, place them in the car, and try again. I assure you that the car is a lot lot slower to accellerate with the bags on the none drive wheels. You can even put them on the drive wheels, and it will feel the same as if it was on the non drive wheels.
More proof? Saint, your Durango has 4WD, right? Drive in Two wheel drive, and then go into 4 wheel drive. Minus the traction difference, the truck accellerates at the same rate. Yet it suddenly has two more tires to turn!
Why? The engine always has to turn those tires, unless you break traction, which means you're going nowhere's fast anyways.
Drag rims on the non drive wheels are larger? Simple. Aspect ratio. Those rims are really thin, for thin tires. To have a tire of a certain height on the car, at say a really narrow width, would take a smaller sidewall. Naturally, the rim has to get larger to take up this space. The MOI they gain from the rim getting larger is more than recovered by the amount it removes from the tire itself.
All four tires are accellerating at the same rate. The none drive wheels are not exempt from the laws of physics. They have to pick up speed just like the front ones. I've spun the rear tires before. You know what? It takes a lot of effort to make them pick up speed (accellerate). If they were lighter, then it would be a lot easier to make them accellerate.
werd
O noes!
ricers see kids at the track who put steelies on the front, why, so when they are spinning the tires and burning up the rubber, they aren't burning the rubber on their good tires, their burning them on their race track steelies. ricers see this, and go i want to be like him, so they go home and take their rims off the front and run their steelies. just idiots trying to be like someone else. just like you see allot of primered cars at the track because all they are concerned about is the engine, so kids will take a fine paintjob and just spray primer over top so they look like the guys at the track, and they can tell everyone that they are all about the speed wether their car is slow or fast. its called wannabe's their in every town and city. yes its stupid,but its their car so who cares.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Well, the one thing we can all agree on is it looks retarded. But this thread is worthless without pics
Of Course when you add more weight, you slow down that's a well known fact of performance, it doesn't matter if you add those 50 lbs. bags to the trunk they're gonna effect acceleration.
The point I'm arguing is that given 2 different wheels given they are the same weight, the only variable being the diameter of the wheel itself, it will not matter if you run a 1-inch wheel, or a 100-inch wheel it will not effect the acceleration of the vehicle at all. Because the wheels are not geared to engine, the engine is not using any more power turning them then it would normally.
Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home
it cant be winter excuse bc i live in the snow belt, havent seen anycars like that only at the track.
i think it looks retarded
So there are some factors that I would like to touch on.
-for the guys you see on the street with steelies on the front I don't really care but...
>They are going or coming from the strip, ok so they didn't want to mess up their good tires that the spent a good penny on...
>but doesn't racing have to do with traction also... so why are they using their skinny $20 tire to race on?
>I've only seen one car around here that did it right and it was a Tiburon that ran on street slicks on the front.
This is just another point that is just based on cars going in a line.
>rim S = 10in and rim L= 20in on 2 of the same cars.
>to get from point (A) to point (B) (lets say a 1/4 mile) it will take more work for rim S to go the same distance as rim L, But it will take more power for rim L to go the same distance as rim S.
> Rim S will accel. faster. (more work) (more rotations)
>Rim L will need more power to rotate it. (less rotations)
***you would have to find what would be the most optimal diameter of the rim and tire combo. for the best results... not just do it because every one else is doing it... trial and error***
As for the Back rim/tire dilemma I have to agree more with saint... but I'm not saying that the rear tire has nothing to do with acceleration because it does. but there is not much you can do about the rear tire because it is always going to be there. I think the best thing for the rear tire is to put the skinniest tires you can find, less tire to road less friction... So in some point I can see why people will ride their rims on the front and "steelies" on the back.
so what would be the best combo?
>>>Best if you have the money
>Street slicks on the front with optimal diameter rim and skinnies on the rear with same ride height of the front
>>>I think it would be okay if they put good tires with good traction on the steelies
>(rice boy style) Steelies on the front 17" on the back
>>>Maybe not for the strip but for show.
>same 17" on all four with ok tires
Like I said I'm not a physics major nor do I race... allot but some common sense was applied to this post... just some thoughts... don't bash me.
I can't beat everybody.... but I'm sure as hell going to try.
sorry about all of the post but another thing about the weight of the rim...
If you have 2 rims that weigh the same and are the same diameter dosen't mean they will perform the same.
since the the rim spins it is best to have the majority of the weight in the center rather than further from the center... just another thing I wanted to comment on.
I can't beat everybody.... but I'm sure as hell going to try.
hey i put two doughnuts on the front of my car about 3 hours ago. saint is correct.
CAR GODS MADE THE 1.6 SOHC TO MAKE US 2.2 OHV GUYS FEEL BETTER.
Jet engines don't drive anything... They push to aircraft use trusts.
What if you had squares on your back wheels. The engine would drag the rear wheels right. No rotating mass. If you lifted up the back of the vehicle using the hand of god, then the front wheels would pull the vehicle. They would still have to pull the mass of the wheels and everything on the car. The engine does not drive the rear wheels. It drags them. Just like a RWD car pushes the front wheels. What happens when a Trans Am or Mustang does a wheelie? Is the engine still driving the front wheels, no it is pushing them and everything else on the car.
To answer the org question of why. That picture of the Drag Cav shows it. Some people mount slicks on the front tires on steelies. They use them at the track. Well, some kids saw that rear racers do that and thought it would be cool to do that too. I had some kid in an Teg tell me that he had slicks on the steelies in the front. Had some nice Focals on the back. I told him I've never seen R Rated Slicks.
Now Back from Iraq!
With More Favor and Less Calories
Working on the engine... Soon to be complete.
Everybody misses the point, talks about flying cars and magically lifting up the rear tires.
Are not the rear tires going the same speed as the front ones? Yes. It takes energy to make them accellerate up to that speed. Right? Right. Where is this energy coming from? The @!#$ physics fairy? NO, it's coming from the engine, one way or the other.
Look at the whole picture people.
O noes!
I'm not arguing the general laws of physics, what I'm saying is that if the rear wheels and tires are the same weight, it doesn't matter if they ar 100 inches or 1 inch they will not effect the acceleration of the vehicle because they are not geared to the engine so the engine only has to overcome the Coeffecient of Friction between the tires and the road and the hub and axle bearings. The wheels on the non-drive axle are basically along for the ride.
Now in reference to my truck, actually since there will be more of a parasitic weight loss when I lock the Transfer-Case in 4wd my truck will actually accelerate slower, because now it has to turn the gear to the Front Driveshaft, the Front Driveshaft, the Ring and Pinion in the Front Differential, the Front CV shafts and then the wheels, which does take extra power. Now it may be nominally slower to almost non-existant, due to the fact that my Front Axles are always engaged, but it will still be slower.
Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home
