Had debate with a guy on another site about front wheels weight.His point of veiw is its rotating mass and will drop et by that alone.He is basing amount on old rule of thumb , that rotating is 10 times dead weight. Going off 100 equals .10 in quarter.He figures his wheels(yes he is dealer) which are about 14 lbs. lighter for apair will give you about .15 drop.

My point of view.Not going to happen. First off the reduction could mean adding weight to keep the front end down. Rotating mass might be effective on rear wheels, driveshaft, flywheel and anything is driven by the crank. I do not see the rotating mass of front wheels being near as effective. I figure 14 lbs is worth a lot less more like .015 at best. Then I am not a wheel dealer.LOL

I went as far as to make a straight-up bet. I would do aba test and if they cut .1 anything I would pay full price for wheels and tires.If not They were free. Any guess to the outcome of that?

So your thoughts on how much effect front wheel weight would have and if you see rotating theory applying here?

Not debating the 10:1 part myself, But I am sure some will.LOL

smoke and mirrors BS. you did right telling him you will pay for the wheels if it picks up .15 and get his reaction lololol . not gonna happen the net gain will be so small it will never be seen.

If I could pick up a tenth swapping front wheels I would in a heartbeat but I wouldnt...lol. I think your dead on....back to back swap MAYBE 0.015 but nowhere close to 0.15

Thanks for replys. How about rotating mass relating to front wheels or just parts that are crank driven?

Personally don't buy the 10:1 argument. I do think it has more effect than dead weight, but not at that rate.

I have not found that about the rotating mass to be much if any different than weight in general. I have not done a lot of testing as I did not tell any difference so no need in further wasting time and money on it.

I do think it is a good idea to lose weight and if given a choice I would lose rotating weight first but I would not expect any huge gains.

Plus with your front engine dragster you probably like me have to add weight on the front to make car work right. So why remove weight on front wheels to have to add more to chassis?

With a Front Engine Dragster it is a balancing act to get car to hook up and work right and moving weight is critical on making it work right.

Front wheels don't typically make up that much weight to begin with. Plus they are usually small diameter tires anyway so even tires don't take much. Where rotational mass comes into play is in the DRIVELINE, as you've stated. That is, anything connected to the engine that spins will have a more significant effect. So yeah, rear wheels could have an effect on ET if there's a significant weight difference, but even then most rear wheels are still center heavy so the weight is still close to the rotational axis. The only thing 15lbs in the front will do is just that, take 15lbs off of the nose on the scales, even then it won't help with weight transfer much, as that is mostly suspension anyway. 15lbs may help carry the wheels a little further though during wheelies, so that's a plus.

I don't think there is much performance in wheel weight. After Weld Delta's came out, they were supposed to be so awesome, I noticed the well funded Pro Stock teams were still running Weld Stars and Magnums for quite a few more years after. Those top tier teams must not have felt there was an advantage.

Deltas were worth nothing on the time slip but that not why they were purchased.

I went from older Weld double bead locks we had put a V Series center in to Deltas. In the process lost 22lbs or rotating weight, gained zip, zero zilch. But like Ed was not the reason for the switch. But so much for that myth

On a side note I have a 64 Plymouth with an older Weld Rodlite and Moroso front runner. I updated the fronts to a Weld Full Throttle. The old school wheel and tire combo actually weighs 4lbs less

I have picked up -but- it was a big drop of 54 lb. rotating weight of wheels tubes brake rotors. Also on a driveshaft change from stock to aluminum. Small bl. powered 2320 lb. ride. Almost 3 tenths total!

removed 32 lbs. of rotational weight off the front of my former Chevelle and that too was worth nothing on the time slip.

Swapped from the OEM 3" steel driveshaft to a 3 1/2" MMC driveshaft and that was worth .04

quote:

Originally posted by 1320racer:
removed 32 lbs. of rotational weight off the front of my former Chevelle and that too was worth nothing on the time slip.

Swapped from the OEM 3" steel driveshaft to a 3 1/2" MMC driveshaft and that was worth .04

Ed, do you think steel vs aluminum shaft shaft would net any difference?

The only gain I've ever seen with wheels or tires is going tubeless on Slicks.

very little if any. that said, both of my cars have aluminum driveshafts

quote:

Originally posted by vetman:
I have picked up -but- it was a big drop of 54 lb. rotating weight of wheels tubes brake rotors. Also on a driveshaft change from stock to aluminum. Small bl. powered 2320 lb. ride. Almost 3 tenths total!

That does give some proof that it is a lot more effective when it is rotating weight. I would say about 5 to6:1 Also seems might be because smaller engine, shorter crank and less tq liked it more. Tubed being on outer part of rotating mass had to be good amount of it.

.3 for 54 lbs is awesome.

While I don't see front wheels having any effect other than weight loss and yes 14 lbs, is a good amount. It is just not near as cost-effective for me as other areas would be.14 lbs at 1300 bucks and not in an area I need weight loss. Already dropped about 4 lbs with new spindles, needed replacing anyway and the same cost.
For me, if it is well below the 100 per pound, it is good to deal. Drill bits and end mills are very cost-effective, time wise not always so much. LOL

Now the wire wheels with all the bells and whistles weight wise do get a cool factor vote from me. Just in case any of you are feeling bad about missing my birthday gift last month. Yea not holding my breath, but hey it cost nothing for the shot.

quote:

Originally posted by vetman:
I have picked up -but- it was a big drop of 54 lb. rotating weight of wheels tubes brake rotors. Also on a driveshaft change from stock to aluminum. Small bl. powered 2320 lb. ride. Almost 3 tenths total!

I think it is a good thing to lose weight and rotational weight is probably better to lose. With that said I have not seen any thing close to that!

no one has, he's delusional!

I have lost a tenth going to smaller rear wheels and tires. Tubes would be more. 54 lbs is going from almost worst case to a pretty light deal for rotating.
Can you break down that total? The wheels/tires in the rear were obviously the big hitter, and at the largest distance away from the axle as well.

The speed which you are trying to accelerate rotating driveline mass is a crucial part of what effect a change of mass will make.
I.E., the higher (numeric) the ratio, the more a change of mass will yield.

In the case of the front wheels / tires, it's simply unsprung weight, and friction / rolling resistance, virtually zero effect beyond the actual weight.