Hi, joe thank you for the compliments. I think highly of your skillz and intellect as well. This idea actually spawned from our first conversation through chat. We talked about ways of adding weight and it was said adding weight inside the wheel cavity is very possible although difficult to achieve without interference. From that conversation we both hit the work bench like men possessed. It was surreal for me to be working on this and at the same time seeing you doing your thing from your posts. I have always believed these weights would produce speed however, the first time I felt real confidence in them is when joel hit me up after running "slimetime" saying he liked my weights. I built another car as an exercise in design "Double Vision". Then John hits me up about them which was really exciting for me and further validated the weights. During this time I knew joe was working on it too so I contacted him to tell him who was interested because I thought he had the rite to know. After QuickTime won with them and I took my first top 10 joe and I came together on this along with John's sage advise and input the 3 of us developed what became the final product. Thank you Joe and John. I would also like to thank Joel for recognizing the potential and taking a chance on building a car using them.
New Items More secrets released!
- Thread starter DerbyDad4Hire
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
There is no doubt that you are the man Scott
Certainly the most creative, brilliant builder I have come across in these forums
The ideas we bounced back and forth, along with some insider knowledge from you about the excitement the idea was generating, moved this project to where it is today
Congrats
PS. I remember that chat we had, but for some reason (probably because I was new and did not remember who was who) I attributed it to GX.
Never forget when I emailed him saying "I may have figured it out!" He was like "What are you talking about?" LOL
Certainly the most creative, brilliant builder I have come across in these forums
The ideas we bounced back and forth, along with some insider knowledge from you about the excitement the idea was generating, moved this project to where it is today
Congrats
PS. I remember that chat we had, but for some reason (probably because I was new and did not remember who was who) I attributed it to GX.
Never forget when I emailed him saying "I may have figured it out!" He was like "What are you talking about?" LOL
So you guys that use these cavity weights ... how do you remove the wheels? I ask because I usually push inside the wheel with my thumb and finger as close to the hub as I can. But with these weights installed - I wouldn't be able to do that.
Cut relief holes from below to expose the axle tip and use a thin screwdriver to push the axles out.
Maglev
Maglev
Great background story on how these weights came to life D4D.
Hey Joe nice packaging on the weights.
Hey Joe nice packaging on the weights.
laserman said:
We've chatted many times Joe and I do agree, there were a few emails that you and I had that honestly I didn't know what you were talking about, it all makes sense now. I had an inside scoop and didn't even realize.
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
LightninBoy said:
Hi Tom,
Please keep us updated as to the verdict from the Northern Star Council.
Thanks,
Joe
Just looking at these wheels weights again, for those of you that adjust with gap gauges, you don't need them anymore. There is no place that I can see where you can insert them to measure gaps. It will become more of a feel than a measurement. So practice getting a feel for the gaps you currently run so when you do acquire a set of these weights you'll know where you're at with the gaps. Just FYI.
G
Guest
Guest
I assume the notch on the weights should be at the top and face out? If the weight is mounted at 90* to the body, then the cant on the wheels would interfere? Correct??
On the bottom face in so they do not rub the rail. If the hub is cut right the wheel will not rub when canted. Unless you went crazy on the cant. You can also angle the body slightly to match the cant.BSB racing said:
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
Chiming in on this mesmerizing thread w/ my experience and thoughts. Joe let me in on this a while back and sent me some samples, I managed to get a SS and SR built and they ran slightly faster than the cars without.
Been thinking a lot about the benefits and one of the biggies I see is the rotational inertia through the transition. This setup seems to be the optimal shape and placement to expend the least amount of energy, since the transition is circular and the weights are moved through the exact same arc, it just makes sense. I like to picture spinning/twisting a baseball bat vs rotating it helicopter style and how it takes way less energy.
Joe, your balance beam description is great but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around seeing how it is applicable here. I picture a balance beam equalizing the weights by being able to elevate/lower the beam. The car is fixed on a tripod and not on a bottom pivot point able to rock back and forth. The wheels stay planted meaning the weight is unable to physically travel out of that level plane unless a bump is encountered. If a bump is encountered on only one side of the car, it seems that more energy would be expended riding over it having to "lift that weight" versus having it more centered and therefore lifted with less energy. These cars only wobble side to side, not up and down. With that said- I still see the benefits of using them far outweighing (no pun intended) not using them. I plan on running them from here on out and think you guys did awesome bringing this about. Not trying to start an argument- just trying to follow the true scientific method of questioning everything. Please expand more on your "outrigger" concept in lieu of stability.
Another thing I'm confused about is why fender flairs to trap out the air haven't been the norm. I built two cars with them but scrapped them since they weren't being used by the vast majority. I figured that was because the "footprint" of the car was now bigger and would push more air. Seems the big difference here is that the weights are completely tucked away and do not have any effect on the overall "footprint". But then the flairs are only a a 1/32" , does it really hurt that much widening the footprint that guys chose to instead not use them and allow wind to get sucked into the wheel?
Been thinking a lot about the benefits and one of the biggies I see is the rotational inertia through the transition. This setup seems to be the optimal shape and placement to expend the least amount of energy, since the transition is circular and the weights are moved through the exact same arc, it just makes sense. I like to picture spinning/twisting a baseball bat vs rotating it helicopter style and how it takes way less energy.
Joe, your balance beam description is great but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around seeing how it is applicable here. I picture a balance beam equalizing the weights by being able to elevate/lower the beam. The car is fixed on a tripod and not on a bottom pivot point able to rock back and forth. The wheels stay planted meaning the weight is unable to physically travel out of that level plane unless a bump is encountered. If a bump is encountered on only one side of the car, it seems that more energy would be expended riding over it having to "lift that weight" versus having it more centered and therefore lifted with less energy. These cars only wobble side to side, not up and down. With that said- I still see the benefits of using them far outweighing (no pun intended) not using them. I plan on running them from here on out and think you guys did awesome bringing this about. Not trying to start an argument- just trying to follow the true scientific method of questioning everything. Please expand more on your "outrigger" concept in lieu of stability.
Another thing I'm confused about is why fender flairs to trap out the air haven't been the norm. I built two cars with them but scrapped them since they weren't being used by the vast majority. I figured that was because the "footprint" of the car was now bigger and would push more air. Seems the big difference here is that the weights are completely tucked away and do not have any effect on the overall "footprint". But then the flairs are only a a 1/32" , does it really hurt that much widening the footprint that guys chose to instead not use them and allow wind to get sucked into the wheel?
G
Guest
Guest
Hi Dog,
Thanks pal.
Well, the way I figure it all objects have a COM, and the lower it is to the ground in relation to it's height the more stabile it is. This is why the pyramids are shaped the way they are.
This is probably one of many reasons why negative cant is used on the rears.
It is in an effort to lower the COM in relation to the point of support. (the wheel bore)
Also to spread out the distance between the wheels to give them a more stabile platform.
We have both read about builders weighting the side behind the DFW in an effort to equalize the weight on the rears. This I believe was a way of hedging ones bet. It is better to have all wheels contacting the track so therefore by overweighing the side that wants to lift one will at least achieve that end.
It is my theory (and I am going out on a limb here) that the car wants to be equally weighted with the weight pushing as far out as possible.
The car must certainly rock even if the wheels don't come off the track when doing so.
This just might be the micro vibrational detail fella.
This probably contributes to wiggle
Thanks pal.
Well, the way I figure it all objects have a COM, and the lower it is to the ground in relation to it's height the more stabile it is. This is why the pyramids are shaped the way they are.
This is probably one of many reasons why negative cant is used on the rears.
It is in an effort to lower the COM in relation to the point of support. (the wheel bore)
Also to spread out the distance between the wheels to give them a more stabile platform.
We have both read about builders weighting the side behind the DFW in an effort to equalize the weight on the rears. This I believe was a way of hedging ones bet. It is better to have all wheels contacting the track so therefore by overweighing the side that wants to lift one will at least achieve that end.
It is my theory (and I am going out on a limb here) that the car wants to be equally weighted with the weight pushing as far out as possible.
The car must certainly rock even if the wheels don't come off the track when doing so.
This just might be the micro vibrational detail fella.
This probably contributes to wiggle
GravityX said:
Ha! I was working on adding wheel covers (the legal kind that are attached to body) late last night and things were going great until this setting the gap issue hit me. I didn't leave enough room between my cover "supports" to set the gap. Oh well, that's why I experiment with double sided tape and not glue ...
G
Guest
Guest
Joe, when you put it like that I totally agree. Having that weight down low and so close to the track seems like it would be extending a lever arm giving it more of a catapulted thrust slingshot effect. And we all agree that weight on a car is best to be low slung rather than higher, so, these weights theoretically should only add to the stability. I picture a canoe with outriggers and how they help keep it so much more stable.
The car, riding on a cushion of oil and being contaminated with Micro Vibrations must cause the car to rock up and down so these weights probably help keep the car more stable in that regard. In a nano scale, the rocking up and down most likely causes a suction effect slowing it down and the oil is probable like a hurricane full of micro vortexes, if that's the case this condition may cause the oil to bubble up and not perform as well, if the bubbles pop it may propel the oil sideways disturbing its natural flow of rotation. We're on the same wavelength and I'm digging the name on these bad boys.
Now that cars will be thinner, MVD absorption may come into play more and wood selection and ways of sealing the block up to reduce MVD may be added factors. I read that someone claimed that the cars that ran these are very quiet- to me that means a hearty reduction of Micro Vibrations.
I can't believe you guys lately, every time I turn around someone is raising the bar, stepping up their game or coming out with a nifty gadget or trick. Good times to be a Derby Dog! Can't wait to see what is next on the menu/images/boards/smilies/smile.gif It used to be a big debate about canting the rears, but with cars like Wasabi running flat rears rather than canted and being a BigDog it's really no wonder. I did learn that it was running a straight rear axle and that was before people were widely using the Silver Bullet Method of drilling so his spot on alignment must've superceded any gains other cars gained from running canted rears.
The car, riding on a cushion of oil and being contaminated with Micro Vibrations must cause the car to rock up and down so these weights probably help keep the car more stable in that regard. In a nano scale, the rocking up and down most likely causes a suction effect slowing it down and the oil is probable like a hurricane full of micro vortexes, if that's the case this condition may cause the oil to bubble up and not perform as well, if the bubbles pop it may propel the oil sideways disturbing its natural flow of rotation. We're on the same wavelength and I'm digging the name on these bad boys.
Now that cars will be thinner, MVD absorption may come into play more and wood selection and ways of sealing the block up to reduce MVD may be added factors. I read that someone claimed that the cars that ran these are very quiet- to me that means a hearty reduction of Micro Vibrations.
I can't believe you guys lately, every time I turn around someone is raising the bar, stepping up their game or coming out with a nifty gadget or trick. Good times to be a Derby Dog! Can't wait to see what is next on the menu/images/boards/smilies/smile.gif It used to be a big debate about canting the rears, but with cars like Wasabi running flat rears rather than canted and being a BigDog it's really no wonder. I did learn that it was running a straight rear axle and that was before people were widely using the Silver Bullet Method of drilling so his spot on alignment must've superceded any gains other cars gained from running canted rears.
laserman said:
Sure thing Joe. The NSC rules will be finalized this month so I won't know until about September.
However, I'm 90% certain the Puma weights won't be allowed. The rule language is clear that inside wheel lettering and numbers must be visible, and we don't do tear downs so its really the only logical conclusion.
G
Guest
Guest
Lightnin boy, could custom Puma Wheel Weights be used with a small hole that is directly over the inside lettering. The hole could have a clear magnifier embedded so the wheel can be rotated and the lettering clearly seen? Technically it would be visible/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif
Corvid Racing said:
LOL! Yup - that would be legal!
Seriously, the intent of making the inside lettering/numbers visible is not really about checking the letters/numbers, its about being able to see the inside of the wheel to detect lightened wheels. So if something like the above was done, it would be legal, but we'd have to adjust the NSC rules in response because we wouldn't be able to detect the lightened wheels. So it would only be legal for a while.
.
Similar threads
