Rotating Mass: You've Probably Been Misinformed - Page 4 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > General Technical Discussions > Tires & Wheels > Rotating Mass: You've Probably Been Misinformed

Rampage Bowless Soft Top Oconee offroadAlloy USA Still AvailableAdvance Adapters SYE Kits

Reply
Unread 08-03-2013, 08:17 AM   #46
SLADE
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: 26537
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschi772 View Post
Absolutely correct, but typical automobile tires don't vary in diameter by enough to really swing that ratio too much one way or another, so I just say 2:1 to keep it nice and simple. My 225/75r15's actually calculate as having ever so slightly less than a 2:1 ratio.

But the tires typically found on Jeeps will vary from 30" to 37".

What's the difference (compared to each other) between adding 10lb to a 30" tire and adding 10lb to a 37" tire?

How significant is the added rotating mass when it is put on a Jeep that is already pushing the efficient/comfortable limits of it's motor and drivetrain? Would the drivability and effects of the additional rotating mass be exaggerated/more noticeable?

__________________
2014 Wrangler JKU
2013 Wrangler JK
2004 Wrangler TJ on LEAFS
2001 Dodge Ram 2500
SLADE is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-03-2013, 12:45 PM   #47
mschi772
Web Wheeler
 
mschi772's Avatar
1997 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 2,183
A little really sloppy math shows very little difference, SLADE. The thing about what you're asking about a 30 vs 37 (I used 30 vs 35) is that, assuming they're both on the same sized wheel (15" for example), all that really changes is that the sidewall grows by 2.5" and the tread grows by about 15" in circumference (that's only about a 16% growth). Everything about a 30" tire is still "inside" the 35" with just a little bit extra and only some of it held just a little bit farther from the axle.

Grrr, I typed this following paragraph about 7 times and couldn't really explain what I wanted to satisfactorily. The bottom line is that there's not much of a difference in the ratio. Whether or not the vehicle is regeared for the new tire size is extremely important, and that's why I just stop at figuring the ratio. When comparing a 30" to a 35", leverage/gearing is WAY more important a factor for comparison than equivalent mass. The equivalent mass ratio stays about the same, but because the bigger tire will be more massive, the effect will be slightly greater based on however much more massive it is.
mschi772 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-03-2013, 01:15 PM   #48
WXman
Registered User
2001 WJ 
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,246
From this month's Off-Road Adventures magazine: "Steel (wheel) is strong, cheap, easy to keep looking nice and most easily repaired. It's heavy and that contributes both to a loss of drivetrain durability due to increased weight/inertia and lower fuel economy, acceleration, and braking performance.."

Dang...they must be relying on common sense too. Shame on them. You guys go ahead and keep throwing around your numbers. We'll keep learning from experience on the road and trail.
__________________
'92 YJ - heavily modded
'96 ZJ - heavily modded
'05 KJ CRD Limited - 370 lb./ft. from a 4-cylinder and trail ready. Pure awesomeness.
'11 Mango Tango JKU Sport - Mods
'12 Dozer JKU Sport S - 6-speed - ACE rock rails - Max Tow package - Daystar spacers - 33x12.50 Duratracs
WXman is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-16-2013, 12:36 PM   #49
Charley3
Web Wheeler
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,732
These first two are a reciprocating mass example, but similar concept.

Wear a day pack with 10 lbs in it. Now go for a jog.

Take off the day pack. Strap a 5 lbs weight around each ankle. Go for the same jog.

Do you notice a difference?

===

You could also go jogging in running shoes.

Next day, do the same jog wearing heavy boots.

Do you notice a difference?

===

This is rotating mass...

Ride a bike with a 10 lbs weight on the cargo rack.

Peddle as fast as you can.

Then take the weight off the bike rack.

Strap a 5 lbs weight around each ankle.

Now ride the bike. Peddle as fast as you can.

Do you notice a difference?
__________________
Warning: Sometimes I edit a post a few times to get it how I want it.
Charley3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-17-2013, 12:58 PM   #50
Charley3
Web Wheeler
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,732
Now put 20 lbs on the bike rack. Ride the bike. Easy, isn't it? You barely notice the 20 lbs on bike rack.

Now remove the 20 lbs from bike rack.

Strap 10 lbs to each ankle. Ankle weight like joggers used to use.

Now ride the bike. Pretty difficult isn't it?

===

Why is it so much more difficult to pedal with 10 lbs weight around each ankle (total 20 lbs) than it was with the 20 lbs weight on the bike rack? Rotating mass is why.

===

If anyone doubts this, go try the bicycle experiment IRL. You'll find that rotating mass matters a lot.
__________________
Warning: Sometimes I edit a post a few times to get it how I want it.
Charley3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-17-2013, 04:15 PM   #51
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
That is soooo silly. Ankle weights compared to a back back. Is that the thing? Sort of like comparing carrying the groceries in your arms instead of in the cart isn't it?

On a Jeep wheel, every ft/lb of work a wheel does to rotate its mass upward on one side against the pull of gravity is offset by the downward motion of the other side pulling the wheel downward in rotation.


Now, Charley, if you could figure out a way for your left foot to pull up your right foot when your left foot is headed toward the ground, your analogy would be just perfect. But, alas, your legs are not connected to each other with some Rube Goldberg contraption. At least not in this world.
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-17-2013, 05:10 PM   #52
mschi772
Web Wheeler
 
mschi772's Avatar
1997 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 2,183
Charley, please don't assume that I have no real world experience with this. It's clear to me that many people refuse to even approach this from a scientific/mathematical level, and that's fine because this isn't easy math to grasp (even I have to take it slow and check and double/triple check myself every time to make sure I know what I'm doing), but I'm also a cyclist and have spent some years racing in addition to being a car guy. Rotational inertia is also a major player among cyclists (probably more so), and if you think that automotive geeks know a thing or two about rotating mass, you haven't met a bicycle "weight-weenie." You haven't seen anything until you've seen cycling weight-weenies fuss over a couple grams of mass here or there.

On that note, here is another source for exploring rotational inertia (it's actually linked on Mason's page as well) http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsInertia_Page.html. Yell "nah-uh" at me all you like, but this isn't the first thing in the history of science that people have stubbornly refused to believe because it's unintuitive, but that doesn't make it untrue. If you want to PROVE your own theory of the effect of rotational inertia, show your own calculations or results from a controlled experiment such as a pendulum test or some other reproducible/verifiable scientific method. Mason and I could be wrong, but I'm not about to give fuzzy analogies the time of day when pitted against real math.
mschi772 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-17-2013, 06:27 PM   #53
SLADE
Registered User
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: 26537
Posts: 1,861
On a scientific/mathematical level it's difficult to figure out, hard to grasp and according to the scientific/mathematical numbers there shouldn't be much of a difference between running a heavy tire/ wheel combo and a light tire/wheel combo.

Help me understand a few things...

Why is it so easy to feel the difference when your driving the vehicle and for some, see the difference in the fuel economy.

Why does the scientific/mathematical level and the seat of the pants level not correspond?

For the scientific/mathematical Ratio (2 to 1) you gave to be accurate, wouldn't you also need to take the gear ratio, motor horse power, and motor torque into consideration?

If the motor horse power/torque and the gear ratio isn't some how accounted for as a variable, how can you accurately come up with a ratio that represents the effects of the tires on a given vehicle?
__________________
2014 Wrangler JKU
2013 Wrangler JK
2004 Wrangler TJ on LEAFS
2001 Dodge Ram 2500
SLADE is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-17-2013, 09:07 PM   #54
Charley3
Web Wheeler
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,732
OK Mschi. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. You're a good guy and you always have good intentions. We'll just have to disagree on the rotational mass topic, but I still think you're an awesome person, amd you've had a lot of great ideas and info in other threads on other topics.

So even though we disagree on this topic, I respect you and appreciate you, and you are good for the forum.
__________________
Warning: Sometimes I edit a post a few times to get it how I want it.
Charley3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-17-2013, 09:12 PM   #55
Charley3
Web Wheeler
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLADE View Post
On a scientific/mathematical level it's difficult to figure out, hard to grasp and according to the scientific/mathematical numbers there shouldn't be much of a difference between running a heavy tire/ wheel combo and a light tire/wheel combo.

Help me understand a few things...

Why is it so easy to feel the difference when your driving the vehicle and for some, see the difference in the fuel economy.

Why does the scientific/mathematical level and the seat of the pants level not correspond?

For the scientific/mathematical Ratio (2 to 1) you gave to be accurate, wouldn't you also need to take the gear ratio, motor horse power, and motor torque into consideration?

If the motor horse power/torque and the gear ratio isn't some how accounted for as a variable, how can you accurately come up with a ratio that represents the effects of the tires on a given vehicle?
Excellent questions. It is very noticeable in real life, IME.

No offense to Mschi, but how do we know the guy who made the Website he references got it right? Perhaps he missed something. Lab experiments and physics story problems don't always reflect real life because sometimes some elememt of real life was not figured in.

All I know for sure is rotating mass matters a lot based on my experiences.
__________________
Warning: Sometimes I edit a post a few times to get it how I want it.
Charley3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-17-2013, 09:22 PM   #56
Charley3
Web Wheeler
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,732
Wilson, you're consistently on the wrong side of almost every topic I've seen you participate in.

You're in no position to call anyone silly. You think common sense is silly. That's why someone called you a moron earlier in this thread, but I'd never do that because I'm to polite.

You're probably to old to know this, but there are now strap on ankle weights that wrap around ankles for wearing during excercise. They can be worn during running, aerobics, or other excercise.

However, they fell out of favor when people started suffering joint injuries from the extreme strain of wearing a weight on ankles. The reciprocating mass caused to much strain and injuries. So their popularity declined.

If a person wore a few of them on each ankle/leg, the tests I suggested could be done.
__________________
Warning: Sometimes I edit a post a few times to get it how I want it.
Charley3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-17-2013, 09:44 PM   #57
Charley3
Web Wheeler
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,732
Mschi, I have no further info to contribute to this thread, and I don't want flames disrupting your thread. I won't read or post anymore in this thread.

I wish you well and look forward to seeing you in other threads on other topics. I respect you and like you, even if we occasionally disagree on a topic. On most topics we agree.

Best wishes. Good bye for this thread.
__________________
Warning: Sometimes I edit a post a few times to get it how I want it.
Charley3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-18-2013, 04:36 AM   #58
wilson1010
Registered User
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley3 View Post
Mschi, I have no info to contribute to this thread . . . .

Best wishes. Good bye for this thread.
There, I fixed for for you.

Ankle weights = Rotating mass! Oh, yea!
__________________
03 Rubicon; 99 xj with too much stuff to list; Unimog 406
wilson1010 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-18-2013, 06:24 AM   #59
mschi772
Web Wheeler
 
mschi772's Avatar
1997 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 2,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLADE View Post
On a scientific/mathematical level it's difficult to figure out, hard to grasp and according to the scientific/mathematical numbers there shouldn't be much of a difference between running a heavy tire/ wheel combo and a light tire/wheel combo.

Help me understand a few things...

Why is it so easy to feel the difference when your driving the vehicle and for some, see the difference in the fuel economy.

Why does the scientific/mathematical level and the seat of the pants level not correspond?

For the scientific/mathematical Ratio (2 to 1) you gave to be accurate, wouldn't you also need to take the gear ratio, motor horse power, and motor torque into consideration?

If the motor horse power/torque and the gear ratio isn't some how accounted for as a variable, how can you accurately come up with a ratio that represents the effects of the tires on a given vehicle?
Usually this is a matter of placebo effect. Someone expects to feel an big impact, so they end-up thinking they feel one. This is why people's "butt dynos" are useless and never taken seriously when anyone talks about the changes a given mod make them feel. CAI mods are a great example of a place where often people will say they feel a big power increase but a true dyno run usually just says there's been little to no change. People's perceptions are unreliable. There can be other factors, but this is a major player and why I never take anecdotal "butt dyno" testimonies seriously...ever. Regarding tires, this is almost always confounded by the fact that when someone changes their tire weight, they almost always change tire model, diameter, and/or width at the same time. It's hard to tell what's causing what when you change multiple things at once. Tread patterns, compounds, and width can have a profound effect on resistance while different diameter, as all well-informed Jeepers know, don't have to change a whole lot to have big enough effects worthy of regearing.

No, the ratio is independent of gear ratios. It's an inertial equivalence. An object (wheel) has inertia whether or not it's attached to an engine and a bunch of gears, and those things don't change its mass or its inertia. They do change how the mass is moved of course. Lower gears make it easier for a given engine to accelerate a given amount of mass and all that etc etc.

Neither I nor Mason have shown the effects on varying masses on the vehicle. We've shown equivalent mass of rotating objects compared to static objects. The effects of either the rotating or static object on something like a vehicle is another can of math worms, but the ratio for the tire/wheel/driveshaft/whatever remains the same and becomes PART of those calculations.
mschi772 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 08-18-2013, 06:36 AM   #60
mschi772
Web Wheeler
 
mschi772's Avatar
1997 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 2,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley3 View Post
No offense to Mschi, but how do we know the guy who made the Website he references got it right? Perhaps he missed something. Lab experiments and physics story problems don't always reflect real life because sometimes some elememt of real life was not figured in.
Those are always things to be asking in math/science. All I can say is that I've chugged the numbers and algebra on my own--albeit a bit sloppier than he--and ended-up with the same equations/results. I welcome disagreement, but it's gotta be backed-up somehow by math or science. I've chugged numbers to the best of my ability can came-up with something demonstrable, repeatable, and hopefully verifiable; that's what I'd like to see from anyone claiming otherwise. It's not a competition where I want to be right; that's not what science is about. I'd be super happy if someone came in here with some math or some data from a well-conducted controlled experiment that say something else.

Obviously we've both simplified things slightly. For example, we both approached tires as being composed of two discs (the sidewalls) and a band (the tread) and only guesstimated how the mass is distributed throughout the shape of the tire (about 2-3x more mass in the tread than the sidewalls; Mason's script calculator allows you to change this ratio, though).

We also both ignored the fact that a tire's diameter grows as it spins faster. Why, well, a tire's diameter also shrinks because weight pressing down on it and compressing it against the road. For simplicities sake, we both just left these attributes out of the equations figuring they likely cancel each other out to some degree.

Here's something I couldn't even fathom how to calculate, and all Mason says on the matter is that it's beyond the scope of his page/scripts: handling. Intertial mass (a spinning wheel as opposed to a static wheel) has some very noticeable effects on handling. An easy way to see what I'm talking about here is to take your bicycle wheel off your bike. Now hold it by the axle/skewer while it's NOT spinning and turn/tilt it. Easy, right? Spin it then tilt/turn it. Feel that? Yep, that's due to rotational inertia, and I don't have much of a clue how to start "mathing" that.
mschi772 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Tools






Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.