the flywheel helps to get over its compression..If you have any questions, no problem, always able to help ..and it's also cool that people are talking about it, I knew this but not many know it, it's been like this for a long time... thank you for putting this on board in a video
Learning by themselves without interference of others is the best way nowdays.. because everyone wants to know better but in reality they haven't tried a single thing they claimed it works. It may take longer and is an harder way but you can be proud of it afterwards because you can be sure of your own experience. AYO keep it up old man! Greetings from Austria
Thank You for acknowledging this. I have never been afraid to try different things. Sometimes it works out great, and sometimes not so much. But with each new trial I always learn something that I did not really know before I started.
@@FrancisMcNally24 This is what it means to be human isn't it ? To try out things you don't even know the outcome of, when it fails you can improve, try again and succeed. That is why we've come so far, the neverending drive of making it better and learning other things along the way.
I am not an engineer. I'm 75 and retired. For the last 30 years I had my own welding and fabrication shop. Before that, I was a certified welder and machinist repairman for a division of ITW. Having been around punch presses, cold headers and nut formers for many years you learn why the flywheel it's so heavy. It is an energy storage unit. Its size and weight is related to the energy released during operation. The flywheel of an engine is no different. It is a calculated weight designed to distribute energy or power. Any rotating mass that is altered in any way, change the power distribution and harmonics. It also changes the balance and will eventually lead to bearing failure.
I'd like to see the result of this on the road - drop a link for me if you made a follow up video. Taking 16 lbs off the flywheel will not slow the car down - you have something else different between your two cars if the heavier one will out run this one. That was one very interesting bed-iron splash system there, with bolts between just some of the paddles.... Did you get the flywheel balanced after either modification?
"Same but different?" Fuel economy story- My brother has a 90's ish F-250. It came with the venerable 302. Poor truck struggled with EVERYTHING. Got about 12 to 16 mpg. Long story short, original 302 was not so slowly dyeing, time to rebuild or replace. Bro was already horrified bout MPGs in 302 when I offered him a 360 I had layin around. But $ bein $, we went 360. And guess what-truck no longer struggled, no need for heavy throttle, it get 20+ mpgs (best yet was 24) with the BIGGER engine... Better MPGs with the bigger motor.
Several of your commenters have identified the issue here. Physics tells us that a rotating mass described here as a flywheel on your engine is there to store energy and offset the pulses of each cylinder. Now consider the original design with multiple magnets spaced around the circumference of the flywheel. The number of them creates much less disturbed air than your four "Slingers". Think of it this way... Air is a fluid just as water is. Here is an experiment for you to try that will illustrate your problem with your "Slingers". Look at your hand palm up with your fingers flat out and your fingers touching. Your hand is not perfectly flat. But it is a relatively smooth surface. Look at the spacing of your magnets interspersed across the face of the flywheel. Not a perfectly flat surface but similar to your flattened hand. Now for the fun part... put your hand in a container of water and move it quickly through the water as if you were chopping something with your hand. Take note of the amount of resistance you felt from your hand in that position. Then turn your hand 90 degrees so when you move your hand through the water you are using a "Pushing" motion rather than the "Chopping" motion you used previously. Even common sense will tell you it will be much harder to "push" your hand through the water! Then look at your "Slingers" the problem should now be obvious? Think of your four "Slingers" as four flattened hands trying to push through water! Your poor engine was doing so much work trying to overcome the resistance to air that your "Slingers" added that of course it had very little left over horsepower to bring the car up to speed never mind go up an incline! I am far from an engineer and the math to describe this is way beyond me but I am willing to bet that everyone of us here has stuck their hand out a moving car window and moved their hand different ways and felt the effects!
Thank you so much for your reply. What you say makes a lot of sense after thinking about it. Like I said in replying to a few of the comments, I could not believe the difference in the power. Your comment makes me wonder, if I just took off the magnets and only put in 16 cap screws to hold the starter ring gear onto the flywheel so only the heads were sticking out, if that would be enough to sling oil enough, and that would have almost no resistance, because the heads are about 3/16" diameter, and only stick out about 3/16".
@@FrancisMcNally24 Unfortunately my main experience with engine flywheel alteration is on V8 and other racing engines where any liquid (oil, trans fluid or otherwise) would mean some sort of failure so any advice I could offer about your oiling issue would be irrelevant. If I were you I would consult with your fellow enthusiasts about their experiences and possibly there is relevant research about the oiling requirements? The main engineering consideration is the turbulence involved and where the oil is introduced into that system and where the oil is ultimately required? Then tailor your design to your needs. As a practical matter your "Slingers" were acting as massive air brakes rather than "slingers". The bolt heads might very well be enough but without some experimentation you cannot say for sure? Unfortunately if they are inadequate you will have an expensive mechanical failure! Your other issue you need to consider is your flywheel purpose and how you are altering it? Again if you go too far you risk severe engine damage. Considering how much advice you have and will receive (even from myself) think of its simplest use on an engine. Yes it evens out pulses and and many other things but remember it needs energy to increase its speed and maintain its speed and it receives that energy from the engine burning fuel and conversely from the engine when you take your foot off the gas or when the car goes downhill. (Think regenerative braking on an electric vehicle). So in your situation your flywheel design (Mass, radius etc) is matched to the needs of your purpose. Your engine shouldn't accelerate too quickly and needlessly overrun causing your engine to fly apart or accelerate too slowly causing very slow acceleration. Here is a simple experiment that demonstrates a "Simple" flywheel design. Think of a set of weights that a weightlifter uses... Put 5 pound weights at each end of a typical weight bar. Assume the two weights are 4 feet apart. Now pick up that bar with one hand at its middle. Now twist the bar by rotating your arm. You will find that it takes quite a bit of force to get those weights moving! Then try to stop the rotation using one hand! It's not easy!!! Now put the same weights on either end of a one foot long bar and repeat the experiment. Same weights but the efforts required to start and stop their rotation is much less and the speed of the rotation is much higher and much easier to slow down! This demonstrates some of the tenets of "Polar Moments of Inertia". This demonstrates why flywheels are designed the way they are and why the placement of the mass is so important. And why your redesign wrecked havoc on your engine performance. Forgive my wordiness but at least you might have some interesting flywheel thoughts to discuss at your next cocktail party!
More rotating mass does not give you more power. It is there to give you more kinetic energy to start out and when you shift and to dampen power strokes.
Never believe what people say believe what they've done. Your first clue it was a bad idea should of been the fact the crankshaft has no counter weight. Modern engines have counter weights so having a lighter flywheel is beneficial but only in certain circumstances.
I told you all in my intro video I am not a videographer, I am just an old hillbilly with a cell phone doing what I love to do and just sharing it with the world. I am sorry if you see in my nostrils or ears or my back end or whatever. There is no take 2 on any of these videos!!
Hi, I'm not an engineer either but I did train as a 'precision machinist' in mid 1970's (5 micron tolerances although I could usually hit 3 micron when my eyesight was better) I worked on motorcycles, (at dealerships, etc) As 'we' always want more, I have studied engine designs quite intensively (I can't do the math for 'real' engineering either) Adding weight to flywheel won't and cant give more power, you mentioned the mass just adds inertia (but power is needed to accelerate mass.) What it may be doing is smoothing out power pulses (or more of the 'gaps' between power pulses?) and maintaining more even rotation. It was 'in vogue' several years ago in relation to rear tyre grip, inline fours at high rpm were losing drive earlier than similar weight bikes with similar power output V-twins (basically Ducati's in World Superbike, all were around 210bhp) A weighted disc around outside edge of flywheel would probably be even more effective plus cut 'windage' which could give a slight power increase. Moving weight to outside would require less of it to have the same effect, maybe 10~12 lbs instead of 16lbs. As a toolmaker you will be aware of rotational mass effects of larger diameters. The only real problem would be the work involved to do everything over again and the cost of a big flat plate to cut a hole in. (although if it works as expected you could probably have a sideline making them?) Is the 'fan effect' needed to cool anything?
Thanks for the explanation and your thoughts. As far as the question on if the fan effect is needed. Yes you need the fan effect to move the oil in the pan. There is no oil pump in these engines, and the bearings rely on this fan effect to get oil.
The point I heard about one of those plug in fuel saver devices and you get 10 more miles per gallon of gas. Someone said, "You know how many billions of dollars car companies spend to increase fuel efficiency? If they could just plug something in and get 10 more mpg -why wouldnt they do that instead?" The engineers back in the day figured something out with those magnets and their intelligence should be respected even if it seems antiquated in today's high tech world .
If you believe this I've got an iceberg to sell ya. With almost every car on the market you can buy a programmer and increase horsepower and mpg. There has been water horsepower in almost every motor made. I'm guessing you don't work on engines? If there goal was best fuel consumption that would be the same as having a goal to reduce profits of the Titan oil companies. No large corporation is going to have a goal to ruin another corporation outside it's industry. You are asking for a war you don't want to fight. This isn't common sense, it's common fact.
A flywheel stores energy. A heavier flywheel stores more, but it's not that much energy. I'll spare you the formula, but the energy is a product of the square of the RPM, so a low speed engine needs a heavier flywheel. What can happen with a low speed engine, and a light flywheel, is that the engine slows enough between power strokes that the intake stroke is negatively affected, the cylinder is under-filled and power falls off. Light flywheels are helpful at high engine speeds and a T is hardly a high speed engine.
Thank you for this informative comment. What you are saying makes sense after your explanation. I also own an old hit and miss engine, and it is rated at only 5 hp., but the flywheels are massive. They each weigh 80 or 90 lbs., and that engine runs a lot slower than the model t.
No problem with removing the magnets as long as they were replaced with weight to keep the flywheel at the same weight. Ford engineers designed the flywheel and magnets as one to do what a flywheel does 'store torque' and smooth out power strokes and keep momentum during shifting
Almost thinking that another a power related issue has occurred at the time of the paddle/magnet change. Unless your paddles are creating more drag and are slinging much more oil than the original magnets did. You need to produce the power to turn that flywheel, weather light or heavy.
That is confusing, a common modification is to remove as much rotational weight as possible to accelerate faster, sometimes on a drag car a heavier flywheel helps the launch because of its stored energy. There has got to be something else going on here, maybe the way the oil is interacting..
You need a certain amount of flywheel weight so that the compression stroke doesn't take away all the energy from the previous power stroke. It's why you can't run without a flywheel.
@@KC9UDX if it manages to run at all than that will have happened, at low speed a light flywheel will tend to stall easier but after that is just along for the ride and takes energy to spin and change speed
@@obbyjep7597 and gives back most of the energy you put into it. Either way, I'm sure the engineer who put those magnets on it knew what he was doing. A too light flywheel can make an engine run, but not with any power to spare.
If Ford thought the engine would run better without flywheel magnates they would have done so. The use of heavy flywheels most likely trace back to hit and miss engine tec?
The energy stored by the spinning mass is insignificant relative to the work of lifting the car up a hill of any appreciable distance. (Demonstrate this by turning the ignition off at high rpm while climbing a hill..you will only go a few feet, it just doesn't store that much energy.) BUT- what is the source of ignition timing on that now? Being an inline 4 four stroke, there are only 2 compression and power strokes per rotation. At any instant, RPM and rotational acceleration are varying. If something with any play is used for ignition timing, for example, straight cut gears with a bit of play, removing weight and the resulting increased speed variations could cause "spark scatter"...inconsistent ignition timing. The same thing could be occurring with cam timing, although I would guess that ignition timing variations would become noticeable with smaller variations. Even if there is not scatter, the piston speed is slowing more on the compression stroke with a lighter flywheel, possibly necessitating an ignition timing change, I would guess in the "retard" direction. A little premature ignition will cause a real power loss. Combustion and the accompanying pressure rise happening on the compression stroke is "negative work". The retard suggestion does not apply if there is spark scatter, in that case, when the spark occurs on any given cycle would be unknown and inconsistent. I am unfamiliar with "t's", and what they have for ignition timing, or how yours is, so might be totally wrong about that part, but I am certain that the stored energy in a few extra pounds of flywheel going 2000 rpm might help you get up a hill about as much as being rear ended by a running deer. Technically, it's helpful, just not much.
I appreciate your commenting on this, and I do not want to sound ungrateful for the time you put in on this comment, but I must say this sounds like a read an engineering book answer. A Model-T timing is adjusted by a lever on the left side of the steering wheel while you are driving. I can retard and advance the spark, and have to retard it a little when going up a hill and advance it at higher speeds. Just like the throttle is a lever on the right side of the steering wheel. I do have a distributor with NO centrifugal weights or NO vacuum advance for an ignition. I also have a high compression head, and a 13 tooth pinion in the rear axle, which is a Ruckstell 2 speed rear end. The standard pinion tooth is 11. I can tell you right now, that having that extra weight on the flywheel of MY Model- T makes a huge difference going up a hill, and top speed. I would not have taken the 5 days it takes to remove and tear down the engine to replace the magnets, and then put it all back together if there was not that much difference. You can believe me or not, but this is MY experience with this issue. I am very happy with the magnets back in, and I would recommend anyone try it that has the time, and a Model-T.
I'm familiar with the fact that you can adjust the advance while driving, and that it used a vibrator, but didn't know what actually timed it relative to the crank...I looked it up..interesting "points" device...it sounds like maybe you now use a 12v points/coil/distributor Kettering type ignition. With either, the timing is operated with one or two (with your distributor?) Gearsets, both with a little backlash. Vibration in the crank could Rattle the crap out of those gears, MAYBE causing spark scatter, and might be dampened by more flywheel. Old rolls royce 30hp did this in like 1905, wore out cam gears. Royce added a heavy big crank pulley, solved the gear wear. Now the crankshaft broke, oops. Eventually, he invented the harmonic damper to fix it, and also a much stiffer crank. Your 17 lb of weight, spinning at 1600 rpm, has a bit under 3000 foot pounds of energy. That will lift-...you guessed it- 3000 lb to a height of one foot, and not one inch more. Or, take your pick, 1500lb to two feet, or 1000lb to three feet. That is all the energy that is in 17.2 lb at 1600 rpm...I assumed that the mass spins in a circle 15" diameter to simplify the math, and might be off a little. Point is, the added mass is having some other effect. The spark, or maybe the other comment here by "joshie2256" about it affecting intake stroke efficiency might be it. Another possibility is minute clutch slippage on each power stroke..just a few degrees. Power would be wasted as clutch heat. I see you still have the planetary transmission...could the band for that gear (high?) Be a little loose? If you could see the band, you could check it with an IR thermometer or thermal imager right at the hill top. Or could have back when it was slow. I'm not an engineer, I work on cars, motorcycles and airplanes, and am a hobby machinist/welder. But to guess at lifting one weight (your car up a hill) using energy stored in a moving mass, is just e=1/2mV^2. Don't forget to turn the 17.2 lb into 0.534 Slugs. Since pounds aren't mass. Because of this, I ordered a used model t service manual from ebay...don't know if I'll ever work on one. Yours looks nice. I hope you figure out the reason it was slow, maybe someone else knows. The 2915 ft lb energy would be the same energy as 54.6 lb of stuff in the back while going 40 mph...not that that means anything, just a way to visualize it. Also, a 180 grain bullet going 2700fps is about the same...a typical 30-06 round. Squaring the velocity has a big effect.
I forgot to ask a question..why add those "slingers"? Why not just remove the magnets? Did you want a fan effect? I doubt that it was the source of power loss, and the magnets probably moved a lot of air, too. But I have an International 3800 bus I made into an RV. It's a DTA360 diesel, 195hp. Slow vehicle..the fan clutch works very well, and when the fan spools up, I loose at least 5 mph if on highway going like 75..I bet it takes 10-15-20 hp to run that fan. Noisy, too.
Simple solution is to add lead weights in place of your slingers! Another thing your not taking into account is balance! Your slingers both acted as fins causing drag and I'm pretty sure the flywheel was not balanced which reduces power due to vibration!
Why would I put weights and have to fabricate them to fit when I have the magnets that fit in the first place. Also, I balance everything in the transmission and engine. I did it when I put in the slingers, and I did it when I changed to the magnets. Don't you think the magnets act as fins also, but instead of 4 of them I now have 32. That is 16 magnets that are formed into a V so they each have 2 paddles!! I could not believe the difference either when I started this, but after driving the roadster several thousand miles with magnets and driving it several hundred miles with the slingers, I know that it has a lot more hill climbing power and 10 mph faster on a straightaway, I don't care what some engineer that has only read a book and passed a test in collage says, I know what works from trying it out, and I am dammed glad I did!!
Hmm...,Wouldn't have expected that much difference....Heavy Flywheels smooth the Disengaged idle engine speed to coupled engaged vehicle acceleration Transition....One heavy Flywheel speed slows down, is Much more difficult to Re-acquire accelerating engine speed...,Sounds like Something else (Besides shear Flywheel Weight) is going on (like air resistant Fin effects)
Sorry about that. I will not attend a videographers class, because I just don't give a shit about that. This channel is mostly recording me rebuilding a Model-T Ford, or if I learn something I will share it. Most of my content does not have my face in it anyway, but I will try to not shoot at that angle again.
Adding weight to a motor can’t make it more powerful or faster. That defies physics. Just cause one do and one don’t have magnets don’t mean physics doesn’t work.
That’s a very very old engine. Not nearly as well balanced or advanced as newer engines. The extra weight on the flywheel helps a lot between power strokes and helps to keep the momentum up during strain
I don't know what to tell you except I put on about 95 miles yesterday on the roadster and it is back to have the over 50 mph speed and able to climb hills much easier most of the time without downshifting!! My wife couldn't believe the difference between with the magnets on this ride, and without the magnets on the last ride we took a few weeks ago. I am adding weight to the flywheel which is spinning, not just loading up the trunk with bricks or something, so I don't know if that has something to do with it, but all I can tell you is what I see.
It seems that you are correct. Thank You. After reading your comment I asked Chat GPT the following question, and it gave me this answer right away. I said: will less weight on an automobile flywheel mean less torque, therefor less power ChatGPT said: Yes, a lighter flywheel in an automobile will generally result in less torque and, therefore, less power during certain phases of engine operation, particularly when it comes to maintaining momentum and smoothing out power delivery. Here's why: 1. Torque and Inertia: The flywheel stores rotational energy due to its inertia. A heavier flywheel has more inertia, which helps maintain engine speed (RPM) during periods when the engine might otherwise slow down (like between power strokes). A lighter flywheel has less inertia, so it can't store as much energy. This means that the engine may lose RPM more quickly, particularly when under load or during gear changes. 2. Impact on Torque: With less inertia, a lighter flywheel can result in less torque during situations where the engine needs to maintain RPM, such as accelerating from low speeds or driving up a hill. The engine may feel less powerful in these situations because it requires more effort to keep the flywheel spinning. 3. Power Delivery: While a lighter flywheel can allow the engine to rev up more quickly (since there's less mass to spin), it also means that power delivery may be less smooth, and the engine may struggle more to maintain torque in situations where consistent power is needed. 4. Overall Power: The actual peak power output of the engine (measured in horsepower) is not directly affected by the weight of the flywheel. However, the ability to apply that power effectively, particularly in real-world driving conditions, can be compromised by a lighter flywheel, leading to an overall feeling of reduced power. In summary, while a lighter flywheel can make the engine more responsive and rev quicker, it can also result in less torque being delivered effectively, which can make the car feel less powerful under certain conditions.
@@louisesamchapman6428 best thing would be to reach out to one of the physics guys on RUclips and get them to put together demonstration to explain the differences
I know what your saying. It doesn't make sense to me either. That is why I posted this. All I know is my car climbs hills way better, and goes 10 mph faster with the heaver, (17 lbs.), magnets on the flywheel. Maybe it has something to do with the old flathead engine.
you lose torque I knew this for a long time the weight around its swing it was all discovered on a moped they thought they were smart and turned off the flywheel on a Honda Camino and this was also all discovered
I "LSed" my Volvo 940. Ls2/t56. It's fun. And, currently broken. Driveshaft. I thought the skinny tires would protect it, but was wrong. Making a 1350 jointed shaft now.
![ТРЕШ ОБЗОР фильма УРОДИНА [теперь пластические операции бесплатные, но и обязательные]](/img/1.gif)
the flywheel helps to get over its compression..If you have any questions, no problem, always able to help ..and it's also cool that people are talking about it, I knew this but not many know it, it's been like this for a long time... thank you for putting this on board in a video
Learning by themselves without interference of others is the best way nowdays.. because everyone wants to know better but in reality they haven't tried a single thing they claimed it works.
It may take longer and is an harder way but you can be proud of it afterwards because you can be sure of your own experience.
AYO keep it up old man!
Greetings from Austria
Thank You for acknowledging this. I have never been afraid to try different things. Sometimes it works out great, and sometimes not so much. But with each new trial I always learn something that I did not really know before I started.
@@FrancisMcNally24 This is what it means to be human isn't it ?
To try out things you don't even know the outcome of, when it fails you can improve, try again and succeed.
That is why we've come so far, the neverending drive of making it better and learning other things along the way.
I am not an engineer. I'm 75 and retired.
For the last 30 years I had my own welding and fabrication shop. Before that, I was a certified welder and machinist repairman for a division of ITW. Having been around punch presses, cold headers and nut formers for many years you learn why the flywheel it's so heavy. It is an energy storage unit. Its size and weight is related to the energy released during operation.
The flywheel of an engine is no different.
It is a calculated weight designed to distribute energy or power. Any rotating mass that is altered in any way, change the power distribution and harmonics. It also
changes the balance and will eventually lead to bearing failure.
I'd like to see the result of this on the road - drop a link for me if you made a follow up video. Taking 16 lbs off the flywheel will not slow the car down - you have something else different between your two cars if the heavier one will out run this one. That was one very interesting bed-iron splash system there, with bolts between just some of the paddles.... Did you get the flywheel balanced after either modification?
"Same but different?" Fuel economy story- My brother has a 90's ish F-250. It came with the venerable 302. Poor truck struggled with EVERYTHING. Got about 12 to 16 mpg. Long story short, original 302 was not so slowly dyeing, time to rebuild or replace. Bro was already horrified bout MPGs in 302 when I offered him a 360 I had layin around. But $ bein $, we went 360. And guess what-truck no longer struggled, no need for heavy throttle, it get 20+ mpgs (best yet was 24) with the BIGGER engine... Better MPGs with the bigger motor.
GMT400s with the 350 get the exact same gas mileage as the 262 V6. Horsepower difference is substantial.
383 do better mileage.
Talk to Merlin at Merlin's Old School Garage he does a lot of work on A's and T's, he has a pretty good RUclips channel.
Thank you for sharing
Don't assume someone on line is smarter than you, often they are not! Use your own common sense!
That is why I tried this.
Several of your commenters have identified the issue here. Physics tells us that a rotating mass described here as a flywheel on your engine is there to store energy and offset the pulses of each cylinder. Now consider the original design with multiple magnets spaced around the circumference of the flywheel. The number of them creates much less disturbed air than your four "Slingers". Think of it this way... Air is a fluid just as water is. Here is an experiment for you to try that will illustrate your problem with your "Slingers". Look at your hand palm up with your fingers flat out and your fingers touching. Your hand is not perfectly flat. But it is a relatively smooth surface. Look at the spacing of your magnets interspersed across the face of the flywheel. Not a perfectly flat surface but similar to your flattened hand. Now for the fun part... put your hand in a container of water and move it quickly through the water as if you were chopping something with your hand. Take note of the amount of resistance you felt from your hand in that position. Then turn your hand 90 degrees so when you move your hand through the water you are using a "Pushing" motion rather than the "Chopping" motion you used previously. Even common sense will tell you it will be much harder to "push" your hand through the water! Then look at your "Slingers" the problem should now be obvious? Think of your four "Slingers" as four flattened hands trying to push through water! Your poor engine was doing so much work trying to overcome the resistance to air that your "Slingers" added that of course it had very little left over horsepower to bring the car up to speed never mind go up an incline! I am far from an engineer and the math to describe this is way beyond me but I am willing to bet that everyone of us here has stuck their hand out a moving car window and moved their hand different ways and felt the effects!
Thank you so much for your reply. What you say makes a lot of sense after thinking about it. Like I said in replying to a few of the comments, I could not believe the difference in the power. Your comment makes me wonder, if I just took off the magnets and only put in 16 cap screws to hold the starter ring gear onto the flywheel so only the heads were sticking out, if that would be enough to sling oil enough, and that would have almost no resistance, because the heads are about 3/16" diameter, and only stick out about 3/16".
@@FrancisMcNally24 Unfortunately my main experience with engine flywheel alteration is on V8 and other racing engines where any liquid (oil, trans fluid or otherwise) would mean some sort of failure so any advice I could offer about your oiling issue would be irrelevant. If I were you I would consult with your fellow enthusiasts about their experiences and possibly there is relevant research about the oiling requirements? The main engineering consideration is the turbulence involved and where the oil is introduced into that system and where the oil is ultimately required? Then tailor your design to your needs. As a practical matter your "Slingers" were acting as massive air brakes rather than "slingers". The bolt heads might very well be enough but without some experimentation you cannot say for sure? Unfortunately if they are inadequate you will have an expensive mechanical failure! Your other issue you need to consider is your flywheel purpose and how you are altering it? Again if you go too far you risk severe engine damage. Considering how much advice you have and will receive (even from myself) think of its simplest use on an engine. Yes it evens out pulses and and many other things but remember it needs energy to increase its speed and maintain its speed and it receives that energy from the engine burning fuel and conversely from the engine when you take your foot off the gas or when the car goes downhill. (Think regenerative braking on an electric vehicle). So in your situation your flywheel design (Mass, radius etc) is matched to the needs of your purpose. Your engine shouldn't accelerate too quickly and needlessly overrun causing your engine to fly apart or accelerate too slowly causing very slow acceleration. Here is a simple experiment that demonstrates a "Simple" flywheel design. Think of a set of weights that a weightlifter uses... Put 5 pound weights at each end of a typical weight bar. Assume the two weights are 4 feet apart. Now pick up that bar with one hand at its middle. Now twist the bar by rotating your arm. You will find that it takes quite a bit of force to get those weights moving! Then try to stop the rotation using one hand! It's not easy!!! Now put the same weights on either end of a one foot long bar and repeat the experiment. Same weights but the efforts required to start and stop their rotation is much less and the speed of the rotation is much higher and much easier to slow down! This demonstrates some of the tenets of "Polar Moments of Inertia". This demonstrates why flywheels are designed the way they are and why the placement of the mass is so important. And why your redesign wrecked havoc on your engine performance. Forgive my wordiness but at least you might have some interesting flywheel thoughts to discuss at your next cocktail party!
More rotating mass does not give you more power. It is there to give you more kinetic energy to start out and when you shift and to dampen power strokes.
Never believe what people say believe what they've done. Your first clue it was a bad idea should of been the fact the crankshaft has no counter weight. Modern engines have counter weights so having a lighter flywheel is beneficial but only in certain circumstances.
My man, you might wanna consider another camera angle so that we are not looking up your nostrils. Not a good look.
I told you all in my intro video I am not a videographer, I am just an old hillbilly with a cell phone doing what I love to do and just sharing it with the world. I am sorry if you see in my nostrils or ears or my back end or whatever. There is no take 2 on any of these videos!!
😅
Hi, I'm not an engineer either but I did train as a 'precision machinist' in mid 1970's (5 micron tolerances although I could usually hit 3 micron when my eyesight was better)
I worked on motorcycles, (at dealerships, etc)
As 'we' always want more, I have studied engine designs quite intensively (I can't do the math for 'real' engineering either)
Adding weight to flywheel won't and cant give more power, you mentioned the mass just adds inertia (but power is needed to accelerate mass.)
What it may be doing is smoothing out power pulses (or more of the 'gaps' between power pulses?) and maintaining more even rotation.
It was 'in vogue' several years ago in relation to rear tyre grip, inline fours at high rpm were losing drive earlier than similar weight bikes with similar power output V-twins (basically Ducati's in World Superbike, all were around 210bhp)
A weighted disc around outside edge of flywheel would probably be even more effective plus cut 'windage' which could give a slight power increase.
Moving weight to outside would require less of it to have the same effect, maybe 10~12 lbs instead of 16lbs.
As a toolmaker you will be aware of rotational mass effects of larger diameters.
The only real problem would be the work involved to do everything over again and the cost of a big flat plate to cut a hole in. (although if it works as expected you could probably have a sideline making them?)
Is the 'fan effect' needed to cool anything?
Thanks for the explanation and your thoughts.
As far as the question on if the fan effect is needed. Yes you need the fan effect to move the oil in the pan. There is no oil pump in these engines, and the bearings rely on this fan effect to get oil.
The point I heard about one of those plug in fuel saver devices and you get 10 more miles per gallon of gas. Someone said, "You know how many billions of dollars car companies spend to increase fuel efficiency? If they could just plug something in and get 10 more mpg -why wouldnt they do that instead?" The engineers back in the day figured something out with those magnets and their intelligence should be respected even if it seems antiquated in today's high tech world .
If you believe this I've got an iceberg to sell ya. With almost every car on the market you can buy a programmer and increase horsepower and mpg. There has been water horsepower in almost every motor made. I'm guessing you don't work on engines?
If there goal was best fuel consumption that would be the same as having a goal to reduce profits of the Titan oil companies. No large corporation is going to have a goal to ruin another corporation outside it's industry. You are asking for a war you don't want to fight.
This isn't common sense, it's common fact.
Rotating mass is stored energy in the form of useful torque, pretty much. 🤔👍
A flywheel stores energy. A heavier flywheel stores more, but it's not that much energy. I'll spare you the formula, but the energy is a product of the square of the RPM, so a low speed engine needs a heavier flywheel. What can happen with a low speed engine, and a light flywheel, is that the engine slows enough between power strokes that the intake stroke is negatively affected, the cylinder is under-filled and power falls off. Light flywheels are helpful at high engine speeds and a T is hardly a high speed engine.
Thank you for this informative comment. What you are saying makes sense after your explanation.
I also own an old hit and miss engine, and it is rated at only 5 hp., but the flywheels are massive. They each weigh 80 or 90 lbs., and that engine runs a lot slower than the model t.
No problem with removing the magnets as long as they were replaced with weight to keep the flywheel at the same weight. Ford engineers designed the flywheel and magnets as one to do what a flywheel does 'store torque' and smooth out power strokes and keep momentum during shifting
Almost thinking that another a power related issue has occurred at the time of the paddle/magnet change. Unless your paddles are creating more drag and are slinging much more oil than the original magnets did. You need to produce the power to turn that flywheel, weather light or heavy.
That is confusing, a common modification is to remove as much rotational weight as possible to accelerate faster, sometimes on a drag car a heavier flywheel helps the launch because of its stored energy. There has got to be something else going on here, maybe the way the oil is interacting..
You need a certain amount of flywheel weight so that the compression stroke doesn't take away all the energy from the previous power stroke. It's why you can't run without a flywheel.
@@KC9UDX if it manages to run at all than that will have happened, at low speed a light flywheel will tend to stall easier but after that is just along for the ride and takes energy to spin and change speed
@@obbyjep7597 and gives back most of the energy you put into it. Either way, I'm sure the engineer who put those magnets on it knew what he was doing.
A too light flywheel can make an engine run, but not with any power to spare.
@@KC9UDX old jd 2 cyl tractors have really heavy flywheel s and run slow with relitavlly high torque so maybe your on to something
Man you are doing great🎉❤😂
Thank You!
Did the slingers weigh the same as the magnets?
No. The magnets weigh 17 lbs. and the slingers weigh 2 lbs.
If Ford thought the engine would run better without flywheel magnates they would have done so.
The use of heavy flywheels most likely trace back to hit and miss engine tec?
👍👍
The energy stored by the spinning mass is insignificant relative to the work of lifting the car up a hill of any appreciable distance. (Demonstrate this by turning the ignition off at high rpm while climbing a hill..you will only go a few feet, it just doesn't store that much energy.)
BUT- what is the source of ignition timing on that now? Being an inline 4 four stroke, there are only 2 compression and power strokes per rotation. At any instant, RPM and rotational acceleration are varying. If something with any play is used for ignition timing, for example, straight cut gears with a bit of play, removing weight and the resulting increased speed variations could cause "spark scatter"...inconsistent ignition timing.
The same thing could be occurring with cam timing, although I would guess that ignition timing variations would become noticeable with smaller variations.
Even if there is not scatter, the piston speed is slowing more on the compression stroke with a lighter flywheel, possibly necessitating an ignition timing change, I would guess in the "retard" direction. A little premature ignition will cause a real power loss. Combustion and the accompanying pressure rise happening on the compression stroke is "negative work".
The retard suggestion does not apply if there is spark scatter, in that case, when the spark occurs on any given cycle would be unknown and inconsistent.
I am unfamiliar with "t's", and what they have for ignition timing, or how yours is, so might be totally wrong about that part, but I am certain that the stored energy in a few extra pounds of flywheel going 2000 rpm might help you get up a hill about as much as being rear ended by a running deer. Technically, it's helpful, just not much.
I appreciate your commenting on this, and I do not want to sound ungrateful for the time you put in on this comment, but I must say this sounds like a read an engineering book answer.
A Model-T timing is adjusted by a lever on the left side of the steering wheel while you are driving. I can retard and advance the spark, and have to retard it a little when going up a hill and advance it at higher speeds. Just like the throttle is a lever on the right side of the steering wheel.
I do have a distributor with NO centrifugal weights or NO vacuum advance for an ignition. I also have a high compression head, and a 13 tooth pinion in the rear axle, which is a Ruckstell 2 speed rear end. The standard pinion tooth is 11.
I can tell you right now, that having that extra weight on the flywheel of MY Model- T makes a huge difference going up a hill, and top speed. I would not have taken the 5 days it takes to remove and tear down the engine to replace the magnets, and then put it all back together if there was not that much difference. You can believe me or not, but this is MY experience with this issue. I am very happy with the magnets back in, and I would recommend anyone try it that has the time, and a Model-T.
I'm familiar with the fact that you can adjust the advance while driving, and that it used a vibrator, but didn't know what actually timed it relative to the crank...I looked it up..interesting "points" device...it sounds like maybe you now use a 12v points/coil/distributor Kettering type ignition.
With either, the timing is operated with one or two (with your distributor?) Gearsets, both with a little backlash. Vibration in the crank could Rattle the crap out of those gears, MAYBE causing spark scatter, and might be dampened by more flywheel.
Old rolls royce 30hp did this in like 1905, wore out cam gears. Royce added a heavy big crank pulley, solved the gear wear. Now the crankshaft broke, oops. Eventually, he invented the harmonic damper to fix it, and also a much stiffer crank.
Your 17 lb of weight, spinning at 1600 rpm, has a bit under 3000 foot pounds of energy. That will lift-...you guessed it- 3000 lb to a height of one foot, and not one inch more. Or, take your pick, 1500lb to two feet, or 1000lb to three feet. That is all the energy that is in 17.2 lb at 1600 rpm...I assumed that the mass spins in a circle 15" diameter to simplify the math, and might be off a little.
Point is, the added mass is having some other effect.
The spark, or maybe the other comment here by "joshie2256" about it affecting intake stroke efficiency might be it.
Another possibility is minute clutch slippage on each power stroke..just a few degrees. Power would be wasted as clutch heat. I see you still have the planetary transmission...could the band for that gear (high?) Be a little loose? If you could see the band, you could check it with an IR thermometer or thermal imager right at the hill top. Or could have back when it was slow.
I'm not an engineer, I work on cars, motorcycles and airplanes, and am a hobby machinist/welder. But to guess at lifting one weight (your car up a hill) using energy stored in a moving mass, is just e=1/2mV^2. Don't forget to turn the 17.2 lb into 0.534 Slugs. Since pounds aren't mass.
Because of this, I ordered a used model t service manual from ebay...don't know if I'll ever work on one. Yours looks nice. I hope you figure out the reason it was slow, maybe someone else knows.
The 2915 ft lb energy would be the same energy as 54.6 lb of stuff in the back while going 40 mph...not that that means anything, just a way to visualize it. Also, a 180 grain bullet going 2700fps is about the same...a typical 30-06 round. Squaring the velocity has a big effect.
I forgot to ask a question..why add those "slingers"? Why not just remove the magnets? Did you want a fan effect? I doubt that it was the source of power loss, and the magnets probably moved a lot of air, too.
But I have an International 3800 bus I made into an RV. It's a DTA360 diesel, 195hp. Slow vehicle..the fan clutch works very well, and when the fan spools up, I loose at least 5 mph if on highway going like 75..I bet it takes 10-15-20 hp to run that fan. Noisy, too.
Simple solution is to add lead weights in place of your slingers! Another thing your not taking into account is balance! Your slingers both acted as fins causing drag and I'm pretty sure the flywheel was not balanced which reduces power due to vibration!
Why would I put weights and have to fabricate them to fit when I have the magnets that fit in the first place.
Also, I balance everything in the transmission and engine. I did it when I put in the slingers, and I did it when I changed to the magnets.
Don't you think the magnets act as fins also, but instead of 4 of them I now have 32. That is 16 magnets that are formed into a V so they each have 2 paddles!!
I could not believe the difference either when I started this, but after driving the roadster several thousand miles with magnets and driving it several hundred miles with the slingers, I know that it has a lot more hill climbing power and 10 mph faster on a straightaway, I don't care what some engineer that has only read a book and passed a test in collage says, I know what works from trying it out, and I am dammed glad I did!!
Usually things are there for a reason. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it
Hmm...,Wouldn't have expected that much difference....Heavy Flywheels smooth the Disengaged idle engine speed to coupled engaged vehicle acceleration Transition....One heavy Flywheel speed slows down, is Much more difficult to Re-acquire accelerating engine speed...,Sounds like Something else (Besides shear Flywheel Weight) is going on (like air resistant Fin effects)
I turned off when I started to count nose hairs. Please attend a videographers class.
Sorry about that. I will not attend a videographers class, because I just don't give a shit about that. This channel is mostly recording me rebuilding a Model-T Ford, or if I learn something I will share it. Most of my content does not have my face in it anyway, but I will try to not shoot at that angle again.
Adding weight to a motor can’t make it more powerful or faster.
That defies physics.
Just cause one do and one don’t have magnets don’t mean physics doesn’t work.
That’s a very very old engine. Not nearly as well balanced or advanced as newer engines. The extra weight on the flywheel helps a lot between power strokes and helps to keep the momentum up during strain
I don't know what to tell you except I put on about 95 miles yesterday on the roadster and it is back to have the over 50 mph speed and able to climb hills much easier most of the time without downshifting!! My wife couldn't believe the difference between with the magnets on this ride, and without the magnets on the last ride we took a few weeks ago.
I am adding weight to the flywheel which is spinning, not just loading up the trunk with bricks or something, so I don't know if that has something to do with it, but all I can tell you is what I see.
It also can't make it (much) less powerful. It *will* slow down acceleration.
Simple. Less weight = less torque
Less torque you will lose pulling power.
It seems that you are correct. Thank You.
After reading your comment I asked Chat GPT the following question, and it gave me this answer right away.
I said:
will less weight on an automobile flywheel mean less torque, therefor less power
ChatGPT said:
Yes, a lighter flywheel in an automobile will generally result in less torque and, therefore, less power during certain phases of engine operation, particularly when it comes to maintaining momentum and smoothing out power delivery.
Here's why:
1. Torque and Inertia:
The flywheel stores rotational energy due to its inertia. A heavier flywheel has more inertia, which helps maintain engine speed (RPM) during periods when the engine might otherwise slow down (like between power strokes).
A lighter flywheel has less inertia, so it can't store as much energy. This means that the engine may lose RPM more quickly, particularly when under load or during gear changes.
2. Impact on Torque:
With less inertia, a lighter flywheel can result in less torque during situations where the engine needs to maintain RPM, such as accelerating from low speeds or driving up a hill. The engine may feel less powerful in these situations because it requires more effort to keep the flywheel spinning.
3. Power Delivery:
While a lighter flywheel can allow the engine to rev up more quickly (since there's less mass to spin), it also means that power delivery may be less smooth, and the engine may struggle more to maintain torque in situations where consistent power is needed.
4. Overall Power:
The actual peak power output of the engine (measured in horsepower) is not directly affected by the weight of the flywheel. However, the ability to apply that power effectively, particularly in real-world driving conditions, can be compromised by a lighter flywheel, leading to an overall feeling of reduced power.
In summary, while a lighter flywheel can make the engine more responsive and rev quicker, it can also result in less torque being delivered effectively, which can make the car feel less powerful under certain conditions.
No flies no go..😂😂.. some live some live and learn.. not a racing machine so it stands to reason it needs the weight to give it grunt..
You’re slingers when acting like a paddles try making them shorter….
Yes, I wonder if it was churning butter with those slingers !
@@louisesamchapman6428 best thing would be to reach out to one of the physics guys on RUclips and get them to put together demonstration to explain the differences
heavier flywheel = more climbing power 🤔🤔🤔🤔sorry man ya lost me.
I know what your saying. It doesn't make sense to me either. That is why I posted this. All I know is my car climbs hills way better, and goes 10 mph faster with the heaver, (17 lbs.), magnets on the flywheel. Maybe it has something to do with the old flathead engine.
you lose torque I knew this for a long time the weight around its swing it was all discovered on a moped they thought they were smart and turned off the flywheel on a Honda Camino and this was also all discovered
Thankyou for not putting an LS in it.
What is an LS?
Chevy crate engine. It yoostaby "SBC" now it's all "LS"
"Chop it drop it LS swap it", what everyone does to every old car these days, It's annoying.
I "LSed" my Volvo 940. Ls2/t56. It's fun. And, currently broken. Driveshaft. I thought the skinny tires would protect it, but was wrong. Making a 1350 jointed shaft now.