yeah Tspeed,,, you`re right,,, i didn`t... i certainly didn`t say that the flywheel """Produces""" the torque,,, Ian (1071) typed something along the lines of that being what i was suggesting... that`s why i kept on about missing "my point" ,,,& please forgive my arrogance & my persistance with this

Obviously the flywheel (whatever weight it is) will just sit there , do nothing, & not turn,,, unless a force is acted upon it (the engine)

But once that force has been acted upon it, then a heavier flywheel will turn for longer & will have more energy behind it to climb hills (another force but acting against it`s turning motion) ----> "try to stop that massive concreat pottering wheel with your hands" (un-quote)

my point all along has been more about that 100hp engine (the original topic) & it`s characteristics not being that well suited to NG`s iparticular ntended use,,, in NG`s quite heavy "ROAD" mini stn wagon--> IE: not well suited to a cammy & light flywheel-ed 100hp mini engine

If everyone who reads this thread would look back to the start & re=read "ALL" the material,,, they should see the progress of the situation & my meaning throughout all this ---> to "attempt" to show that "Horses for Courses" & "This Goes With That at Susan"

a 100hp race engine (at the wheels) is not a pleasant "Road" engine,,, the cammy-ness, & The lightweight flywheel, etc--> all inherantly built into the average 100hp race engine, simply wouldn`t suit a "Road" going heavy mini stn wagon

That is why i asked NG to sort out what people tell him with regards to the 100hp engine that he enquired about,,, is it at the engine or at the wheels???--> 2 totally different engines right?

& to re-hash,,, i suggested that a bigger capacity engine, with milder cam will produce more torque compare to a smaller capacity (cammy) engine, the flywheel thing is just part of the type of engine "Package" i was describing

some people just read a little & then breeze over the other stuff without getting the whole picture painted,,, often my posts are too long for people & i know (& have been told many times) that often people sift through without reading the """whole lot""",,, obviously it`s happened again (i expect)

sorry to everyone for being so arrogant, blunt & pig-headed

& I appologise to 1071 for being this way,,, it may seem like i was being nasty, I`m sorry,,, i cetainly didn`t mean to be

But i stand by my point here,,, the flywheel isn`t just for a clutch surface & somewhere to mount a ring gear to start the engine,,, they have weight in them for many purposes & that is to keep the engine running,,, oppose the little forces acting upon them in the opposit direction, , , for climbing hills,,,, & keeping the engine smooth is but a few of those reasons... ---> for a """ROAD""" engine """Package"""

otherwise (like i said earlier) All the major "ROAD" car manufacturers would be wrong to fit a flywheel of any sort right????,,, sorry , yes there i go exagerating again

& Mattsmadmini,,, changing the bike engine cams & adding weight to the flywheel would obviously help the situation you`re thinking about,, sort of,,, But doesn`t that defeat the purpose that """you`re""" (& MrOrange) is talking about??? ballistic lightweight race car type engined mini??? not what NG was enquring about initially hey? again they`re 2 totally different engine "Packages"

this is where i was heading with all this,,, sorry i blabber too much about it but it`s important to understand that you can`t have a screaming full race engine on the road & expect it to be civilised, smooth & lovey drivable (unless it`s turbo charged )

at the same time it would be fairly pointless to try to "Race" a std road engine & expect to win against full race prepped lightweight RACE cars yeah???

"""Horses for courses"""

or should i not discuss anything with these questions,,, should i not try to help people understand the major differences in the 2 different types of engine builds/packages

should i just simply type """Horses for Courses""" (& leave it at that) on every thread relating to this type of topic instead???

I think you will find that this is one of the big reasons that GR doesn`t jump on board here too much , he knows his stuff & is a big help (obviously) ,,, but i can guarantee you that he just doesn`t like the people taking his typings out of context & then spending most of his day trying to explain it all, only to have someone "Pick" at one thing he says (meant in one particular context) then be represented by another person & basically generalised over a broad spectrum,,, making it seem like he would fit heavy flywheels to all his engines , being road or race (sorry GR,,, only used this particular topic to show what you & i have already discussed about these forums & their inherant problems)

ok,,, if anyone hasn`t got my point here then i`m sorry,,, bad luck,,, i`m done

again sorry to Ian (1071) it may have seemed like i jumped down your thoat,,, i didn`t mean to mate... just felt like my point was dis-placed,,, probly all my fault.

I`ll quit while i`m drowning

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

It was probably our fault by asking completely the opposite thing half-way through the thread.

Thanks for your insight, Matt!

Yea, I thought that's what you meant Matt.
You may want to re-phrase your earlier post and replace torque with 'Momentum' or 'inertia' or something.



Just a bit confusing otherwise.

Syd

ah,,, i see your point,,, i`ll "attempt" to correct that by asking people to accept my amendment to that first quote by changing the word "Gain" to the word "Maintain" then,,, ok with everyone???



But i`m not going to change the 2nd statement you`ve quoted,,, heavy flywheels do help hold (or maintain) torque for hill climbing ability,,, this is actually fact!!

Edit--> & not your or anyone elses fault but my own Mr Orange ,, Tspeed picked up on (i expect) what 1071 is pickin on too,

again i appologise to all & especially 1071 for that one mistaken word

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Bah
I was going to give you a couple of wagon wheels if you changed it the way I wanted it (small lightweight wagon wheels not the big heavy ones you get up there) Now I'm going to eat them myself

Syd

hee hee,,, they will give you more inertia/momentum

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Not sure if it has been made clear earlier in this thread, but obviously a flywheel - of any weight - must have energy put in to to to spin it and store it. At some point too this energy must be disapated;-

Heavy Flywheel - more energy to spin it up, more energy stored, more energy to take out of it to slow it.

Light Flywheel - less energy to spin it up, less energy stored, less energy to take out of it to slow it.

As you go higher in the gears or if you have a tall diff (less torque multiplication), the weight of the flywheel - heavy or light - has effect.

<EDIT> Heavy flywheels are fitted to Mum & Dad cars to dampen engine response. It makes them easier and smoother to drive <END EDIT>

Many moons ago (early 80's) I did the spanner work on a Racing Mini. It was only 1293 however it had 114 HP at the wheels. Being of the era of technology that it was, in particular head and cam, it was a pig. Under 4000 RPM it wouldn't do a dam thing, very easy to stall, difficult to move around the pits etc..but over 4000 hang on up to 8000.....I would have to say (although never tried) you could not drive this engine on the road - period.

_________________

Its all right Matt, stick to your sig line.

I tried.

Cheers, Ian

This has gone around and around like a washing machine

So if, for example in a standard 1100 , with a hot cam ( example Kent 276 ) and a heavier flywheel from a Morris 1100, you would be able to hold each gear ( 1,2,3 ) for longer, the torque spread would be wider, it would be slower off the line but would have a linear power curve, in traffic it would be smooth, on the highway and in the hills lots of grunt for overtaking and climbing.

And then the opposite, a standard 1100 with a hot cam ( example Kent 276 ) and a light flywheel, it would be quicker through the gears, the torque spread would be from 2,000 to 4,000 rpm, it would be quicker of the line but with a " peaky " power curve, less smooth in traffic , on the highway and in the hills you would use more gears to use the available torque.

Am I getting this right ?

As Matt says its about the application and how you want to use the available torque
.

_________________

a 1415cc roady stroker with 25-65 cam,,, std head, 9:1 comp ratio, std flywheel, std head, std valves, std everything else... eats most other engines on the road & does it with easy & dignity

the suns commin up i got cakes on the gill

thanks Ian(1071) ,,, you`re a beter rman than me,,, & i know you tried & you`re right,,, i`m half wrong cause i worded things a bit wrong, again sorry bout that,,, glad you actually knew what i meant anyway,,, i`m actually glad you picked me up on it,,, i`m too pig headed & casual & & arrogant & should really pull my head in

i aught to know better by now,,, damn i`m nearly 50 & i`m still awake, still playin guitar & still drinking,,, but the rest of the crew from tonight went home about 45 thousand years ago,,, only Archie, Stew, & Bek are still happening

the rest of you guys have got nothing

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

If you build a warm 1100 and stick a bloody heavy 1300 flywheel on, it will be a slug. Particularly in the lower gears.
It's like adding a fat chick or 2 to the back seat.
You won't see any difference on hills really. It's all bad news.
BMC allegedly came up with this overweight flywheel in Morris 1100S to cure shudder during takeoff.

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

Deano,,, you`re very close to the money

Doc,,, Morris 1100`s used big fat heavy flywheels "Because" they`re big fat heavy slugs of a car

we`ve run those very same big fat heavy slugs of flywheels on plenty of road cars both in small-bores & 1275s "specifically" for those people who would rather a smooth drivable engine that only needs light throttle, for those who would rather leaving the car in top gear & idling around

sure , i understand that you & plenty of other people would rather some accelleration,,,some performance,,, but if you ever get the time , the money & the inclination to build an A-series with a heavy flywheel, & then stick it into a (comparitively lighter than a morris 1100) std-ish mini sedan.... then you actually will see & feel exactly what i`m talking about,,, you really don`t need to change the gears much at all,,, leave the thing in top gear & trundle around , light throttle, smooth as a babys bottom "cruising" up the hills with ease

If it were a clutch shudder issue Doc (rather than the weight of the car & the lack of torque produced by the engine for the weight of that car) then all A-series powered cars would have got that big fat heavy flywheel too right? But they didn`t,

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Did they ever use this flywheel on a 1098? I've only seen them used on the 1275 Morris 1100S....

[waits for Morris 1100, el guru...]

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

But, it there was a clutch shudder problem in an 1100 it may not have been a problem in a Mini due to the totally different way of mounting the engines. So the heavy flywheel may have been a solution for the 1100S.


Dunno.

but morris 1100's were a high performance car so they needed a heavy flywheel to slow them down a bit

_________________
Research is the difference between speculation and investment. Anyone who copys some one else will always be second
www.minisprintgt.com