Less Drivetrain Loss? 5AT
09-05-2010, 11:57 PM
#16
Administrator
If you want to run shorter tires might as well get a larger final drive gear
09-06-2010, 01:25 AM
#17
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Philly Burbs
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheels are tires are arguably part of the drivetrain....they are at the very end of it. Brake rotors are not part of the drivetrain at all. The drivetrain is what propels the car...the brake rotors help stop it.
Unsprung weight does impact suspension movements, but rotational mass (crankshaft, driveshaft, axle shafts, etc...) should be differentiated from unsprung weight, although a reduction helps in each.
Unsprung weight does impact suspension movements, but rotational mass (crankshaft, driveshaft, axle shafts, etc...) should be differentiated from unsprung weight, although a reduction helps in each.
09-06-2010, 01:29 AM
#18
Registered User
Wheels are tires are arguably part of the drivetrain....they are at the very end of it. Brake rotors are not part of the drivetrain at all. The drivetrain is what propels the car...the brake rotors help stop it.
Unsprung weight does impact suspension movements, but rotational mass (crankshaft, driveshaft, axle shafts, etc...) should be differentiated from unsprung weight, although a reduction helps in each.
Unsprung weight does impact suspension movements, but rotational mass (crankshaft, driveshaft, axle shafts, etc...) should be differentiated from unsprung weight, although a reduction helps in each.
09-06-2010, 07:13 AM
#20
It doesn't matter if wheels and tires are part of unsprung weight, they are ALSO part of the drivetrain. Rotors are ALSO part of the drivetrain. How can you think they're not? They may not propel the car but they slow it down by increasing the weight to be rotated by the engine during acceleration.
Don't take my word for it....look it up yourself.
09-06-2010, 05:17 PM
#22
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not to derail the thread but why do people always think of power when trying to go quicker instead of reducing weight? is there any way to significantly reduce the weight of our cars? if they were lighter they'd be so much faster (i.e. the 370z)
09-06-2010, 05:22 PM
#23
Administrator
Because you dont really buy a "luxury" vehicle to strip it
09-06-2010, 07:50 PM
#24
Some of you guys really need to get back to basics when you discuss things like drivetrains.
Here's a Cliff's Notes version: Drivetrain is synonymous with powertrain....you can use either interchangeably. A drivetrain consists of all components that "drive" (or propel) the vehicle. Hence the name "drive"-train. Or another way of saying it is the drivetrain are the components that transfer the power from the engine to actually propel the car.
The transmission is part of the drivetrain. The driveshaft is part of the drivetrain. U-Joints, CV-joints, differentials, etc..are all part of the drivetrain. Braking components (rotors, calipers, pads, etc...) are not part of the drivetrain. Suspension components (springs, struts, shocks, A-arms, sway bars, etc...) are not part of the drivetrain.
This is pretty basic stuff and everyone should know the difference between the powertrain and the suspension system and the braking system.
09-07-2010, 06:53 AM
#26
But if you want to discuss wheels and brakes in the same sentence then fine.....Does the engine have to rotate the wheels, tires, and rotors in order for a vehicle to move? Of course it does. Does that mean that the wheels, tires, and rotors are all part of the drivetrain? Of course not. This is embarrassing that guys who are supposed to be enthusiasts don’t understand such a simple concept.
09-07-2010, 07:45 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^ i was about to say, most of the things being mentioned are not true "drivetrain" components at all. Yes, they reduce unsprung or rotational mass but just because the car moves them does NOT mean its part of the drivetrain.
I still think the only way to have less drivetrain loss is in the driveshaft, U-joints, axles, etc. Im curious as to what material a driveshaft can be made of that can take the TQ that our steel ones can and weigh less. You can also go all solid bushings and you might save a HP or two because energy is not being wasted on mushy bushings. but then we get into the debate of NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) where the resulting NVH from all these solid components will probably outweigh the gains you're getting.
Basically, you want the least amount of drivetrain loss possible and you have lots of money, you can make it work (and even then you wont get of it all, or close to all) but you will hate the ride for a daily driver.
I still think the only way to have less drivetrain loss is in the driveshaft, U-joints, axles, etc. Im curious as to what material a driveshaft can be made of that can take the TQ that our steel ones can and weigh less. You can also go all solid bushings and you might save a HP or two because energy is not being wasted on mushy bushings. but then we get into the debate of NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) where the resulting NVH from all these solid components will probably outweigh the gains you're getting.
Basically, you want the least amount of drivetrain loss possible and you have lots of money, you can make it work (and even then you wont get of it all, or close to all) but you will hate the ride for a daily driver.
09-07-2010, 08:00 AM
#28
Registered User
You just don’t get it, do you? Forget about wheels….that’s not even part of this debate. Wheels are not brakes. Simple, right? I’ll say it again for those who just can’t keep up: Brake components ARE NOT part of the drivetrain. Don’t believe me? Look it up yourself. Google is your friend. There are a million websites that will explain to you what makes up the drivetrain.
But if you want to discuss wheels and brakes in the same sentence then fine.....Does the engine have to rotate the wheels, tires, and rotors in order for a vehicle to move? Of course it does. Does that mean that the wheels, tires, and rotors are all part of the drivetrain? Of course not. This is embarrassing that guys who are supposed to be enthusiasts don’t understand such a simple concept.
But if you want to discuss wheels and brakes in the same sentence then fine.....Does the engine have to rotate the wheels, tires, and rotors in order for a vehicle to move? Of course it does. Does that mean that the wheels, tires, and rotors are all part of the drivetrain? Of course not. This is embarrassing that guys who are supposed to be enthusiasts don’t understand such a simple concept.
But just to recap what YOU have said earlier:
Originally Posted by MSCA
Wheels are tires are arguably part of the drivetrain
09-07-2010, 08:37 AM
#30
I still think the only way to have less drivetrain loss is in the driveshaft, U-joints, axles, etc. Im curious as to what material a driveshaft can be made of that can take the TQ that our steel ones can and weigh less. You can also go all solid bushings and you might save a HP or two because energy is not being wasted on mushy bushings. but then we get into the debate of NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) where the resulting NVH from all these solid components will probably outweigh the gains you're getting.
Basically, you want the least amount of drivetrain loss possible and you have lots of money, you can make it work (and even then you wont get of it all, or close to all) but you will hate the ride for a daily driver.