Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now

Now available from EcoModder: ScanGauge II fuel economy gauge.  Click for details.  

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-25-2011, 09:46 PM   #1 (permalink)
pavement pounder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 34

Smurf - '011 Civic LX Sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 33.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
wheel decision rotating mass vs. aero

ok so I currently have steel wheels with this cap on them:


I have an opportunity to get these alloy wheels that are the EXACT SAME SIZE OEM manufacture and weigh 4 pounds less that have this spoke pattern:


it looks like it might have more drag on it. but all else being equal, tires, backspacing etc.
do I have the potential to get better mileage with the second wheel???

thank you!


(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 10:03 PM   #2 (permalink)
I are aerodynamic kitteh!
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Canton, OH
Posts: 625

2000 Fiat Dakota Quad Cab - '00 Dakota Quad Cab SLT
90 day: 18.33 mpg (US)

Dakota A-B-A HAI - '00 Dakota Quad Cab SLT
90 day: 19.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 219
Thanked 150 Times in 86 Posts
Get the alloy rims, then slap on aero covers on them. Then, you'd have less unsprung rotating weight, and better aerodynamics.
__________________

2000 Dodge Dakota Quad Cab
2002 Chrysler Sebring Convertible GTC with transplanted 3.5L LH engine
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 10:55 PM   #3 (permalink)
ooo ooo ooo ah ah ah
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 7,357

Blue - '93 Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 F150 XLT
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 636
Thanked 848 Times in 591 Posts
The fe differences will be so slight you likely won't be able to measure them.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 08:07 AM   #4 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,537

Blackfly - '98 Metro
Team Metro
90 day: 67.07 mpg (US)

ForkenSwift - '92 Metro EV
90 day: 125.37 mpg (US)

U.F.O. - '00 Insight
Team Honda
90 day: 85.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 302
Thanked 1,020 Times in 568 Posts
Frank - that's true of many mods. I wouldn't discourage people from doing them though, since taken together they eventually add up to something measurable.

---

Agreed on t_vago's comment: have your cake and eat it too. Put smooth covers on the lighter wheels.
__________________
Latest project: removable Geo Metro boat tail
Latest test: Massive cardboard air dam on a Geo Metro


www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 01:20 PM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,479

PaleCivic - '96 Civic DX Sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 74.33 mpg (US)
Thanks: 148
Thanked 138 Times in 97 Posts
The mass only makes a meaningful difference if you waste their momentum by braking. If you adjust your driving to eliminate using the brakes, it won't matter. This is the real world, though, and that's not always possible. I like the solution offered above - light weight and aerodynamic at the same time.
__________________
- - - - -Best 11-mile commute: 105 mpg
- - - - -Best tank: 88.5 mpg / 1133 miles
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 02:37 PM   #6 (permalink)
I are aerodynamic kitteh!
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Canton, OH
Posts: 625

2000 Fiat Dakota Quad Cab - '00 Dakota Quad Cab SLT
90 day: 18.33 mpg (US)

Dakota A-B-A HAI - '00 Dakota Quad Cab SLT
90 day: 19.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 219
Thanked 150 Times in 86 Posts
Actually, it's more accurate to state that, given some rotational acceleration, more massive wheels take more energy to change their rotational momentum than less massive wheels do.

In other words, you'll use more gas if you speed up with the heavier wheels than if you used the lighter wheels, if you sped up at the same acceleration in both cases. Also, your brakes would work harder to slow down the heavier wheels than the lighter wheels, if you braked at the same deceleration in both cases.

Conversely, if you used the same amount of throttle to accelerate, the car with heavier wheels would take longer to get to speed. If you used the same amount of braking force, the car with heaver wheels would take longer to slow down.

Classical physics in action.
__________________

2000 Dodge Dakota Quad Cab
2002 Chrysler Sebring Convertible GTC with transplanted 3.5L LH engine
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 02:50 PM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,479

PaleCivic - '96 Civic DX Sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 74.33 mpg (US)
Thanks: 148
Thanked 138 Times in 97 Posts
Correct - it takes more to accelerate the heavier wheels. Since we're talking about angular momentum, it takes much more.

However, if you don't use your brakes, you get all that momentum back in increased coasting distance. If you're not using the brakes, they can't be working harder.

In the real world where we sometimes do have to use brakes, it's better to build up and then waste a smaller amount of momentum, so lighter wheels are a good thing.
__________________
- - - - -Best 11-mile commute: 105 mpg
- - - - -Best tank: 88.5 mpg / 1133 miles
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 03:47 PM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,479

PaleCivic - '96 Civic DX Sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 74.33 mpg (US)
Thanks: 148
Thanked 138 Times in 97 Posts
Even in the real world, you can get very close to zero brake usage. On a good day, I can do my 10 mile commute with 5 brake applications. 4 stop signs and one when I park at work. On a bad day if I hit red lights that adds 5 more for a total of 10. If I'm looking ahead and anticipating correctly, I can almost guarantee I'll arrive at a green light.
__________________
- - - - -Best 11-mile commute: 105 mpg
- - - - -Best tank: 88.5 mpg / 1133 miles
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PaleMelanesian For This Useful Post:
johnlvs2run (03-10-2011)
Old 01-26-2011, 04:29 PM   #9 (permalink)
pavement pounder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 34

Smurf - '011 Civic LX Sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 33.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I notice that my worst fuel economy by far is when accelerating from a stop, I drive 40+ miles a day to work and 37 of those are on the freeway. My average mileage plummets when I start the vehicle and get the vehicle moving and slowly creeps back up as I'm cruising with very little gas and brake application. I figure lighter wheels will decrease the moment of inertia therefore allowing me to get up to speed with less energy expended. I also figure that aerodynamic drag on the whole vehicle will slow the vehicle down significantly more than and difference in rotational momentum.

keep typing, I'm liking the opinions/ ideas
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 04:53 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Failed State Belgium
Posts: 2,959

Hägar - '05 V50 1.6L Diesel
Diesel
90 day: 52.27 mpg (US)

Snert - '06 S40 1.6L Diesel
90 day: 58.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 87
Thanked 283 Times in 228 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian View Post
On a good day, I can do my 10 mile commute with 5 brake applications. 4 stop signs and one when I park at work.
I've done the 1 brake application thingy on my 30 mile commute - though a large part of that is on the motorway, and it was done using the less efficient technique of engine braking (DFCO) to slow down.


On Topic :

Last september, I've gotten a set of aerodynamic wheels designed by Volvo for their more frugal DrivE models, but they're a lot heavier - a whopping 7.5 lbs apiece !
Their weight can be felt in the steering even though it's heavily assisted.
So if you're planning to remove the power steering, get the lighter wheels !

I'm now getting similar fuel consumption on lighter rims with winter tyres.
Granted, my driving habits have changed a bit, but it's also a lot colder.

It appears the extra weight cancels out the aerodynamic improvement.

I'd go light - though it's unlikely you'll regain the cost in reduced fuel consumption.


(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 
__________________



Lifetime fuel consumption :

Last edited by euromodder; 01-26-2011 at 06:19 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com