Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onenastyviper
Why have engine builders recommended lightened fly wheels?
If I recall, a lightened flywheel allows the engine to rev more freely which means that losses of accelerating the flywheel are reduced. If the cranks is supposed to be stronger, then why would flywheel changes be necessary?
Do we need a technical working group, of sorts, where possible engine modifications may be requested on certain grounds, i.e. cost of manufacture, projected lifespan?
Seriously, what changes to the Kent engine would we find acceptable in order to reduce its running cost and would we be prepared to continue with these changes even if it meant that the kent engine remains only in the name on the block?
|
Well, what was in my mind with my question was... if the amount of weight coming off the flywheel weight was sufficient to remove say.. 10 -15mm from the diameter of the flywheel, then, apart from any performance difference with the reduced reciprocating weight and associated benefits...
there is much less chance of whacking the starter ring off the kerbs when you run a wee bit wide. And from what I am led to believe, it is this whack and the associated repercussions that are most likely to crack the crankshaft and/or cause serious damage to the engine.
Therefore; if the flywheel weight was to be reduced by a sufficient amount it may be possible (would it be possible?) to remove the starter ring reduce the diameter of the flywheel by the given amount, and then fit a new starter ring (manufactured to suit, along with a matching gear wheel to be fitted to the armature spindle on the starter motor,) if it was a small amount the starter motor should still be able to start the engine ok.
I imagine only the technophobes are still with me.
I may be talking out through a great big hole in my thingymajig, but then again, this is the place to do it.
