Advantage of no reverse
08-01-2006 | 01:24 PM
#17
What do you mean its not where you want it. Any weight savings on a 10+ pound truck is a positive.
Your post seems to contradict itself. Why would you not want to lose 168 grams out of the tranny. We are not racing 1/12 pan cars where the heavier tranny would keep your momentum going, these trucks need no help there.
You are right that mass in important in that a lighter tranny will help engine response, but again weight savings are weight savings.
Your post seems to contradict itself. Why would you not want to lose 168 grams out of the tranny. We are not racing 1/12 pan cars where the heavier tranny would keep your momentum going, these trucks need no help there.
You are right that mass in important in that a lighter tranny will help engine response, but again weight savings are weight savings.
08-01-2006 | 01:36 PM
#18
Tech Master
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,675
From: Richland, WA
what he is saying is the 168 grams of weight to lose is where you do not want that extra weight anyways. Do not forget that when you make it forward only you are also loosing a servo's worth of weight as well.
" 168 gram saving yes....
But 168 grams right where you dont want it!! Rotating mass is the key.
Lower rotating mass in driveline = snappier response from engine!"
Add a few words -But that 168 grams is right where you don't want it!!
HTH
Rod
" 168 gram saving yes....
But 168 grams right where you dont want it!! Rotating mass is the key.
Lower rotating mass in driveline = snappier response from engine!"
Add a few words -But that 168 grams is right where you don't want it!!
HTH
Rod
08-01-2006 | 04:05 PM
#19
Tech Fanatic
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 765
From: Adelaide, South Australia
Hehe, yeah thanks rod - exactly what i meant.
Amazing how much difference 6 letters makes to context
Being an aussie, my native tounge is metric - so a 168 gram weight reduction in a 4.5kg truck is something along the lines of 3% of the total truck's weight.
If it were weight reduction from the chassis, frankly i wouldnt bother unless i could get something more substantial... but from the driveline, that's a big difference on the rotating mass and a fair bit of load off the motor.
Big difference for a two stroke which doesnt really like load in its lower RPM ranges.
Amazing how much difference 6 letters makes to context
Being an aussie, my native tounge is metric - so a 168 gram weight reduction in a 4.5kg truck is something along the lines of 3% of the total truck's weight.
If it were weight reduction from the chassis, frankly i wouldnt bother unless i could get something more substantial... but from the driveline, that's a big difference on the rotating mass and a fair bit of load off the motor.
Big difference for a two stroke which doesnt really like load in its lower RPM ranges.
08-01-2006 | 04:14 PM
#20
Had a feeling, just making sure. sorry for the confusion. 
Actually, 168 is with servo I believe. Check out this page:
http://www.fatbearscave.net/lst/weight.htm
Great site w/alot of useful info
Actually, 168 is with servo I believe. Check out this page:
http://www.fatbearscave.net/lst/weight.htm
Great site w/alot of useful info
08-01-2006 | 04:50 PM
#21
Tech Regular
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 299
From: San Antonio, TX
Aw, that is a great site. I was trying to figure out where the 168g was coming from, it must be the servo also. I was weighing my bench FOC tranny against a full on tranny. In the LST1/2 you not only remove reverse but you remove the high low gears also. 
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
