was reading this in the post "another ds" so is this true--and if so man im going on a diet to!!

 

Roughly yes.

 

Well than if thats the case ive already gained about 4 hp! yea!!![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

If I understand it correctly, it does matter where the weight is being removed. Removing 5 lbs. of rotation weight such as tires, axles, chains, sprockets, etc will have a greater effect then removing 5 lbs. of weight that is bolted to the frame.

 

Exactley rotating weight has more effect than static weight. Static weight causes the machine to fight friction where rotating requires more power to make inertia.

 

What about weight SITTING on the frame..[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] I could gain 60HP if I wanted and STILL not be called thin!!
Seriously, I have heard the same thing. Of course it would not sho up on the Dyno. It really would be the HP "equivalent" while you are racing, duneing....etc. Now the rotating mass theory, that might show up on the dyno. Not sure. It would be interesting to see some test both ways.

 

Rotating mass will show up on the dyno....[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

1 lb of rotating weight is equivelent to 7 lbs of "dead" weight elsewhere on the quad. If the machine runs say a 4.60, it would take approx 1 more HP to achieve that same time if 10 lbs were added to the machine.

At least this is my understanding.

Loss of rotating mass will mean less torque/HP needed to move the mass in the same amount of time. You will not see as much of an increase in the peak HP numbers on a dyno as you will the HP being achieved much sooner.....There should yes be a slight peak number increase as well, at the wheels if the weight savings were done after the crank, and all over of it were done internally of the engine.

I may very easily be wrong, so if you have any different vews, please correct me.