Because of this..I will buy a Lightweight Crank Pulley
02-28-2007, 07:16 AM
#21
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 960
Why do the claimed gains matter if they're proven by engineering physics to be impossible?
If you take weight off of a rotating mass, it will spin up faster. However, due to the lower mass, it will slow down easier. That's why with a lightened flywheel it becomes slightly more difficult to rev-match, as the RPMs drop quicker than they do with the oem flywheel.
The effects are the same, albeit less drastic, with a lighter weight pulley. A flywheel is most certainly not a power modification.
Think of it like a spinning top. You take one made of metal and set it spinning. It will take more finger effort, but it will spin for a good 30 seconds. Then take one made of plastic. A lot less effort to make it spin, but since there's less mass, that means there is less energy keeping it moving, so it will slow down quicker.
I've never taken a physics class in my life, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate.
Like some random tuner shop is going to out-engineer Toyota? Please. I'll trust a company that can afford to take 1000+ prototype cars and just crash them for research over what amounts to some guy in a garage with a cnc machine.
If you take weight off of a rotating mass, it will spin up faster. However, due to the lower mass, it will slow down easier. That's why with a lightened flywheel it becomes slightly more difficult to rev-match, as the RPMs drop quicker than they do with the oem flywheel.
The effects are the same, albeit less drastic, with a lighter weight pulley. A flywheel is most certainly not a power modification.
Think of it like a spinning top. You take one made of metal and set it spinning. It will take more finger effort, but it will spin for a good 30 seconds. Then take one made of plastic. A lot less effort to make it spin, but since there's less mass, that means there is less energy keeping it moving, so it will slow down quicker.
I've never taken a physics class in my life, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate.
I called ZPI before installing the pulley and asked them what the pulleys tolerences were and they said that it was much closer the the stock pulley.
02-28-2007, 03:56 PM
#22
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,726
I'd take Toyota over the guys at NST and UR too.
Toyota only got so much money by being as cheap as possible without sacrificing too much reliability. Toyota is not going to build a dampened pulley unless they need to.
If anyone is still confused on why pullies don't make power: Reducing pulley weight does the same thing as reducing the wheels' weights. If you get lighter wheels, you will not get more power.
Toyota only got so much money by being as cheap as possible without sacrificing too much reliability. Toyota is not going to build a dampened pulley unless they need to.
If anyone is still confused on why pullies don't make power: Reducing pulley weight does the same thing as reducing the wheels' weights. If you get lighter wheels, you will not get more power.
02-28-2007, 05:59 PM
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by engifineer
First, a damper and balancer are two different things. Funny that unorthadox either is too uneducated to know this, or just decided to confuse the un-knowing with the harmonic balancer crap, which is not applicable to this conversation. They mention it so as to confuse people regarding which is which and what they both do (they are different things) Our engines are internally balanced, so of course they have no harmonic balancer. But that does abosolutely nothing to affect resonance, or "ringing" to set up in the crank.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Second, a company selling crap mods that take none of the design engineering that toyota spent time and money to incorporate will say anything to sell a pulley.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Third, I have yet to see one company selling these, defend them with a shred of physics knowledge.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Fourth, some very minute design changes would have kept the tacoma narrows bridge from falling into the river. Same concept. So that "little peice of rubber" is pretty important for the long life of your engine.
Originally Posted by engifineer
It is called torsional vibration, and can destroy anything from an engine, to a turbine to a full sized bridge, without proper damping.
Originally Posted by engifineer
People all have thier own opinions, but they should at least read a little physics before trying to defend something.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Been discussed a million times. And I will take physics and REAL engine builders like dinan and ati over these little parts sellers anyday. You can read what those three say all over the web.
Respectfully,
Shawn Baumgartner
President
Unorthodox Racing Inc.
02-28-2007, 06:02 PM
#24
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 10
UR's full Answer to Dinan "White Paper" (LONG)
Response to: The Danger of Power Pulleys & Understanding the Harmonic Damper by Steve Dinan
Before making judgments with such wide implications it is important to recognize the fact that long-term real world use outweighs theoretical assumptions. Simply stated we have two years of pre-production testing under our belt and an additional four years of real world data (over 300 million miles). Not once in this period have we ever had even the slightest problems in regard to engine longevity, not one claim or call. The fact is that if there were a problem with our product we could never have kept it from the public because of the Internet Unfortunately we have taken the brunt of many rumors flying around the Internet about our products, like this article. Now we spoke with Mr. Dinan and he apologized for any undue problems this article may have caused us as he never directed it towards Unorthodox Racing Inc. That aside we have tried to take the time to educate our owners and potential owners of our products about the facts. It always seems to be that someone's cousin whose girlfriend’s brother has a friend that had a problem with our product. Needless to say we never get a phone call, which we would think would be the first thing an owner would do if they have a problem with our product or any product they use that causes a failure. We wish that everybody would try to learn and think for themselves like the old adage “Believe non of what you hear and only half of what you see.”
First mistake is that the majority of our gains do not come from underdriving. The majority of the gain from our product comes from weight loss, removal of rotational mass from the rotational assembly. We also do not cause problems with accessory output either, as each model we manufacture is tested to maintain factory acceptable parameters accessory output. So each vehicles underdrive is tailored to what the specs call for and never exceeds 20%. This is also concurrent with information we have received for CARB (California Air Research Board) stating that as long as we do not push beyond 20% underdrive we will remain within acceptable parameters set by the factories. They also mentioned that products exceeding 25% underdrive would not pass emissions requirements because all late model cars would run in a limp mode because of reduced voltage. So Steve Dinan theory one is wrong when applied to Unorthodox Racing products. Secondly the gains are not small, we have seen on BMW E36's 5-9 HP regularly and from 13-18 HP maximum. The stock crank pulley/damper is what is called an audible harmonic damper, in laymen’s terms that means control of harmonics you would hear in the occupant compartment. Similar example is the factory use of baffles and resonators in the intake manifold. These methods are used because of the factories fanaticism about quiet in the occupant compartment. They have nothing to do with engine longevity. The flywheel has dramatically greater effect on engine longevity.
We have our own engineering and design team but we have also had direct contact with many of the OE manufacturers on this subject. We have worked with engine builders, many of who have been in the industry since the mid fifties. We also have worked with many Speedvision racecar teams with a number of different vehicle models. One was Last Minute Racings E36, driven by Alain Chebeir. Last Minute Racing ran our 4-piece pulley kit including the crank pulley for the entire 1999 season. Not once did he ever encounter a problem with our product. We also worked with The Wheel Source/Hikari Supra, driven by David Schart. That engine is very similar in many of its characteristics when compared to the BMW straight 6. They ran our 4-piece pulley kit for the entire season, and their motor as turbocharged, making considerably more power than stock, 500-550 HP compared to 320 HP stock. They never had any problems with the use of our product. We also worked with Trac Racings two VW cars, running the VR6 engine. They have run our pulleys for two seasons now with no problems. We also worked with High Speed Racings two VW's and they have had no problem whatsoever. All of these teams have disassembled their engines at various times throughout their race seasons and have found no abnormal wear or crankshaft cranking. Now those were just the road course teams. We also work with many drag racers and one Pikes Peak car (Rod Millens Supra) and none of these teams have ever had problems. Not only these facts but the fact that we have had over 100+ sets in the field on street and street/strip BMW's including some turbo models without ever having any problems leaves you to believe that Steve did not intend to include Unorthodox Racing. All of our pulleys for other vehicles have never once caused any problems, in fact aside from the examples stated above, we have over 250+ million owner driven miles out there with our product.
Steve's association of the stock crank pulley being the primary damper is incorrect, it is the dual mass flywheel that accomplishes this task. But even replacing this dual mass damper with an aluminum flywheel would not cause long-term damage as long as the flywheel were properly balanced. To give an example lets look at the Turner Motorsports Speedvision cars. Those vehicles were running underdrive pulleys from another source. To regress slightly for historical value, we had originally engineered two designs for the BMW crank pulley section, but both kits were four pieces in total. One crank pulley design was a six-bolt pulley section replacement like the way the factory designed theirs. The other design was a complete one-piece replacement of pulley sections and the hub that mounts to the crank snout. We had sent some pulleys up to Mr. Turner for evaluation. The prototype design sent to him replaced the pulley section and the steel hub section with one unit that attaches directly to the crank, as described previously. This once piece design help eliminate the weight from the heavy steel hub. Unfortunately we could not use this design for production because the aluminum would crack shortly after installation due to the high torque specification for the bolt that attached that hub to the crank snout. Now Mr. Turner instead of working with us decided he would not tell us this, which we found out at about the same time from another local owner that worked with us. Mysteriously the following race season, with other pulleys on his car they began to have crank cracking problems. Multiple motors were broken, all at the main journal before the last rear cylinder from what we understand. It was also amazing to find out that they were also using an undampened solid aluminum flywheel. It seems amazingly odd now that the breakage occurred at the rear of the crankshaft closest to the lack of damping component. But as stated before if a properly balanced flywheel would have been used the failures would not have occurred. This is supported by the fact that all the Speedvision teams, described above, we have worked with use aluminum flywheels and have had no problems whatsoever.
We have seen a few of these products and they would not even pass inspection for factory fitment even if they had the rubber isolator. The machining quality is frightening and the products are also unbalanced. These companies cut the factory timing ring off the stock pulley and remount it, for 95 or older model year BMW's, this assumes the balance of the ring once it is removed. We laser cut our timing ring and check balance during machining and after assembly. Our tolerances are held to .001" in critical areas, where we have seen regular tolerances of .005" or more from these other manufacturers. As stated before we have tried to address these issues at various times over the years through education to our dealers to FAQ's on our web page. It unfortunately comes down to the old adage that you get what you pay for when it comes to quality. There are offshore and on-shore copies of our other pulley models out there. All of these pieces are sub-standard and would not even meet factory specifications. So why do owners keep buying them, unfortunately its lack or education/understanding and plain old dollars and cents. The same problem occurs with cam sprockets with tolerances of other products, even at supposed 0 degree factory settings, not being up to even OE specifications. Meanwhile our own sprockets are held to again .001" tolerances and have timing marks that are down to the minute (60 being in a degree). Its price that drives the consumer, so unawares they are buying product that they cannot properly adjust or product that comes loose. Our pulleys are 60-70% more expensive than the offshore and onshore copies and other underdrive only products offered. Our top of the line sprockets are 60-70% more expensive than these others. We have even introduced an entry-level sprocket, which is 15% more expensive in order to be more price competitive while offering the functional quality of our top of the line without some of the additional lightening machining and extra hardware.
One other important issue is the rather random attack on a specific performance adder without looking at power adders in general. If we wish to get technical about this type of issue then all power adders must be looked at under a more rigid standard. Based on factory testing and design even changing the oil to a non-factory used oil puts the power plant or driveline into a completely different set of parameter results. Lets use intakes systems as the first example. By increasing the intake airflow response parameters are changed to some completely different set of parameters from what the factory tested or designed too. Now this does not even take into account the change in intake resonance frequencies, which again creates deviations from the factory design. This does not even take into account that the engine may make more power from this modification, which again leaves us with a deviation from parameters the factory designed the vehicle to be within. Now to be fair lets look at supercharging or forced induction for normally aspirated cars, which dramatically affects every aspect of engine function. More boost of course means more power, which in turn means more engine and drivetrain stress. This is a product that the factory never designed the vehicle to be used in conjunction with. The drive of the supercharger puts more stress on the front of the crankshaft. Turbos put more stress on the exhaust valves from backpressure and heat. Turbos are also less dependable as far as control goes, tending to spike which causes severe engine strain. Turbos also require additional expensive products like boost controllers and turbo timer. This additional stress was encompassed into the factory design of the crankshaft or the pulley system. If the factory pulley were a damper in the traditional sense the additional stress from any modifications would eliminate any special function that the factory pulley may have had because it was never designed for the additional flex of the crankshaft nor the faster spool up of the engine. Looking at other engine systems the fuel pump was never designed to deliver the amount of fuel needed based on the new demands the supercharger puts on that system. Flow might be adequate as a function of output but is the pump up to the day-to-day stress. Another parameter the factory never designed into that system. We can go on and on with how non-factory parts, even regular service parts which are non-factory can effect a vehicle. The fact is that owners that want more power assume the risks of their desire. All the products they desire to achieve these improvements where never entered into the design equation of the factory designers.
Before making judgments with such wide implications it is important to recognize the fact that long-term real world use outweighs theoretical assumptions. Simply stated we have two years of pre-production testing under our belt and an additional four years of real world data (over 300 million miles). Not once in this period have we ever had even the slightest problems in regard to engine longevity, not one claim or call. The fact is that if there were a problem with our product we could never have kept it from the public because of the Internet Unfortunately we have taken the brunt of many rumors flying around the Internet about our products, like this article. Now we spoke with Mr. Dinan and he apologized for any undue problems this article may have caused us as he never directed it towards Unorthodox Racing Inc. That aside we have tried to take the time to educate our owners and potential owners of our products about the facts. It always seems to be that someone's cousin whose girlfriend’s brother has a friend that had a problem with our product. Needless to say we never get a phone call, which we would think would be the first thing an owner would do if they have a problem with our product or any product they use that causes a failure. We wish that everybody would try to learn and think for themselves like the old adage “Believe non of what you hear and only half of what you see.”
First mistake is that the majority of our gains do not come from underdriving. The majority of the gain from our product comes from weight loss, removal of rotational mass from the rotational assembly. We also do not cause problems with accessory output either, as each model we manufacture is tested to maintain factory acceptable parameters accessory output. So each vehicles underdrive is tailored to what the specs call for and never exceeds 20%. This is also concurrent with information we have received for CARB (California Air Research Board) stating that as long as we do not push beyond 20% underdrive we will remain within acceptable parameters set by the factories. They also mentioned that products exceeding 25% underdrive would not pass emissions requirements because all late model cars would run in a limp mode because of reduced voltage. So Steve Dinan theory one is wrong when applied to Unorthodox Racing products. Secondly the gains are not small, we have seen on BMW E36's 5-9 HP regularly and from 13-18 HP maximum. The stock crank pulley/damper is what is called an audible harmonic damper, in laymen’s terms that means control of harmonics you would hear in the occupant compartment. Similar example is the factory use of baffles and resonators in the intake manifold. These methods are used because of the factories fanaticism about quiet in the occupant compartment. They have nothing to do with engine longevity. The flywheel has dramatically greater effect on engine longevity.
We have our own engineering and design team but we have also had direct contact with many of the OE manufacturers on this subject. We have worked with engine builders, many of who have been in the industry since the mid fifties. We also have worked with many Speedvision racecar teams with a number of different vehicle models. One was Last Minute Racings E36, driven by Alain Chebeir. Last Minute Racing ran our 4-piece pulley kit including the crank pulley for the entire 1999 season. Not once did he ever encounter a problem with our product. We also worked with The Wheel Source/Hikari Supra, driven by David Schart. That engine is very similar in many of its characteristics when compared to the BMW straight 6. They ran our 4-piece pulley kit for the entire season, and their motor as turbocharged, making considerably more power than stock, 500-550 HP compared to 320 HP stock. They never had any problems with the use of our product. We also worked with Trac Racings two VW cars, running the VR6 engine. They have run our pulleys for two seasons now with no problems. We also worked with High Speed Racings two VW's and they have had no problem whatsoever. All of these teams have disassembled their engines at various times throughout their race seasons and have found no abnormal wear or crankshaft cranking. Now those were just the road course teams. We also work with many drag racers and one Pikes Peak car (Rod Millens Supra) and none of these teams have ever had problems. Not only these facts but the fact that we have had over 100+ sets in the field on street and street/strip BMW's including some turbo models without ever having any problems leaves you to believe that Steve did not intend to include Unorthodox Racing. All of our pulleys for other vehicles have never once caused any problems, in fact aside from the examples stated above, we have over 250+ million owner driven miles out there with our product.
Steve's association of the stock crank pulley being the primary damper is incorrect, it is the dual mass flywheel that accomplishes this task. But even replacing this dual mass damper with an aluminum flywheel would not cause long-term damage as long as the flywheel were properly balanced. To give an example lets look at the Turner Motorsports Speedvision cars. Those vehicles were running underdrive pulleys from another source. To regress slightly for historical value, we had originally engineered two designs for the BMW crank pulley section, but both kits were four pieces in total. One crank pulley design was a six-bolt pulley section replacement like the way the factory designed theirs. The other design was a complete one-piece replacement of pulley sections and the hub that mounts to the crank snout. We had sent some pulleys up to Mr. Turner for evaluation. The prototype design sent to him replaced the pulley section and the steel hub section with one unit that attaches directly to the crank, as described previously. This once piece design help eliminate the weight from the heavy steel hub. Unfortunately we could not use this design for production because the aluminum would crack shortly after installation due to the high torque specification for the bolt that attached that hub to the crank snout. Now Mr. Turner instead of working with us decided he would not tell us this, which we found out at about the same time from another local owner that worked with us. Mysteriously the following race season, with other pulleys on his car they began to have crank cracking problems. Multiple motors were broken, all at the main journal before the last rear cylinder from what we understand. It was also amazing to find out that they were also using an undampened solid aluminum flywheel. It seems amazingly odd now that the breakage occurred at the rear of the crankshaft closest to the lack of damping component. But as stated before if a properly balanced flywheel would have been used the failures would not have occurred. This is supported by the fact that all the Speedvision teams, described above, we have worked with use aluminum flywheels and have had no problems whatsoever.
We have seen a few of these products and they would not even pass inspection for factory fitment even if they had the rubber isolator. The machining quality is frightening and the products are also unbalanced. These companies cut the factory timing ring off the stock pulley and remount it, for 95 or older model year BMW's, this assumes the balance of the ring once it is removed. We laser cut our timing ring and check balance during machining and after assembly. Our tolerances are held to .001" in critical areas, where we have seen regular tolerances of .005" or more from these other manufacturers. As stated before we have tried to address these issues at various times over the years through education to our dealers to FAQ's on our web page. It unfortunately comes down to the old adage that you get what you pay for when it comes to quality. There are offshore and on-shore copies of our other pulley models out there. All of these pieces are sub-standard and would not even meet factory specifications. So why do owners keep buying them, unfortunately its lack or education/understanding and plain old dollars and cents. The same problem occurs with cam sprockets with tolerances of other products, even at supposed 0 degree factory settings, not being up to even OE specifications. Meanwhile our own sprockets are held to again .001" tolerances and have timing marks that are down to the minute (60 being in a degree). Its price that drives the consumer, so unawares they are buying product that they cannot properly adjust or product that comes loose. Our pulleys are 60-70% more expensive than the offshore and onshore copies and other underdrive only products offered. Our top of the line sprockets are 60-70% more expensive than these others. We have even introduced an entry-level sprocket, which is 15% more expensive in order to be more price competitive while offering the functional quality of our top of the line without some of the additional lightening machining and extra hardware.
One other important issue is the rather random attack on a specific performance adder without looking at power adders in general. If we wish to get technical about this type of issue then all power adders must be looked at under a more rigid standard. Based on factory testing and design even changing the oil to a non-factory used oil puts the power plant or driveline into a completely different set of parameter results. Lets use intakes systems as the first example. By increasing the intake airflow response parameters are changed to some completely different set of parameters from what the factory tested or designed too. Now this does not even take into account the change in intake resonance frequencies, which again creates deviations from the factory design. This does not even take into account that the engine may make more power from this modification, which again leaves us with a deviation from parameters the factory designed the vehicle to be within. Now to be fair lets look at supercharging or forced induction for normally aspirated cars, which dramatically affects every aspect of engine function. More boost of course means more power, which in turn means more engine and drivetrain stress. This is a product that the factory never designed the vehicle to be used in conjunction with. The drive of the supercharger puts more stress on the front of the crankshaft. Turbos put more stress on the exhaust valves from backpressure and heat. Turbos are also less dependable as far as control goes, tending to spike which causes severe engine strain. Turbos also require additional expensive products like boost controllers and turbo timer. This additional stress was encompassed into the factory design of the crankshaft or the pulley system. If the factory pulley were a damper in the traditional sense the additional stress from any modifications would eliminate any special function that the factory pulley may have had because it was never designed for the additional flex of the crankshaft nor the faster spool up of the engine. Looking at other engine systems the fuel pump was never designed to deliver the amount of fuel needed based on the new demands the supercharger puts on that system. Flow might be adequate as a function of output but is the pump up to the day-to-day stress. Another parameter the factory never designed into that system. We can go on and on with how non-factory parts, even regular service parts which are non-factory can effect a vehicle. The fact is that owners that want more power assume the risks of their desire. All the products they desire to achieve these improvements where never entered into the design equation of the factory designers.
02-28-2007, 06:14 PM
#25
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by engifineer
None of them do. It is against all laws of physics for a lighter flywheel to increase or "free up" hp. They either dyno them on an inertial dyno, which is fooled by changes in rotational mass, or they simply skew thier dyno numbers.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Again, a uniform disc acts like a flywheel, which stores kinetic energy. This is why every increase in revving is accompanied by a decrease in inertia, meaning the engine is just as easilly slowed back down due to the lighter pulley not carrying as much momentum.
Originally Posted by engifineer
A lightweight pulley or flywheel does nothing but make the engine rev quicker, it does absolutely nothing to increase hp to the wheels. For that part, you dont need company links, you can simply look up and read up on the laws of physics governing moments of inertia, rotating masses, etc.
Respectfully,
Shawn Baumgartner
President
Unorthodox Racing Inc.
02-28-2007, 06:18 PM
#26
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by mattvs
Why do the claimed gains matter if they're proven by engineering physics to be impossible?
If you take weight off of a rotating mass, it will spin up faster. However, due to the lower mass, it will slow down easier. That's why with a lightened flywheel it becomes slightly more difficult to rev-match, as the RPMs drop quicker than they do with the oem flywheel.
The effects are the same, albeit less drastic, with a lighter weight pulley. A flywheel is most certainly not a power modification.
Think of it like a spinning top. You take one made of metal and set it spinning. It will take more finger effort, but it will spin for a good 30 seconds. Then take one made of plastic. A lot less effort to make it spin, but since there's less mass, that means there is less energy keeping it moving, so it will slow down quicker.
I've never taken a physics class in my life, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate.
Like some random tuner shop is going to out-engineer Toyota? Please. I'll trust a company that can afford to take 1000+ prototype cars and just crash them for research over what amounts to some guy in a garage with a cnc machine.
If you take weight off of a rotating mass, it will spin up faster. However, due to the lower mass, it will slow down easier. That's why with a lightened flywheel it becomes slightly more difficult to rev-match, as the RPMs drop quicker than they do with the oem flywheel.
The effects are the same, albeit less drastic, with a lighter weight pulley. A flywheel is most certainly not a power modification.
Think of it like a spinning top. You take one made of metal and set it spinning. It will take more finger effort, but it will spin for a good 30 seconds. Then take one made of plastic. A lot less effort to make it spin, but since there's less mass, that means there is less energy keeping it moving, so it will slow down quicker.
I've never taken a physics class in my life, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate.
I called ZPI before installing the pulley and asked them what the pulleys tolerences were and they said that it was much closer the the stock pulley.
Apples and oranges! A spinning top relies on you spinning it, no constant power source. An engine is a constant source of power and every time you hit the gas pedal you are accelerating and thus lighter wieght means that every time you hit the gas pedal you are accelerating faster, FACT.
Respectfully,
Shawn Baumgartner
President
Unorthodox Racing Inc.
02-28-2007, 06:21 PM
#27
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by mattvs
You can feel the difference by sticking your hand in a blender too. First it's there, then it's not! What a bargain!
If the pro-undampened crank pulley folks want to defend their claim, try navigating beyond the "gut feeling" bull____, because none of it means anything.
If the pro-undampened crank pulley folks want to defend their claim, try navigating beyond the "gut feeling" bull____, because none of it means anything.
Respectfully,
Shawn Baumgartner
President
Unorthodox Racing Inc.
02-28-2007, 07:27 PM
#28
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 216
There's some hardcore pwnage going on here.
I don't want to get in to the technical aspects of this...but I will say I had a UR pulley on one of my previous cars, I installed it around 30,000 miles and sold the car at 140,000 miles with no problems. This car was driven on the street as well as raced hard several nights a week. I never experienced any problems with the engine.
I don't want to get in to the technical aspects of this...but I will say I had a UR pulley on one of my previous cars, I installed it around 30,000 miles and sold the car at 140,000 miles with no problems. This car was driven on the street as well as raced hard several nights a week. I never experienced any problems with the engine.
02-28-2007, 07:54 PM
#29
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,731
You first comment was enough to get me laughing unorthadox. So you apparently do not know a thing about the differences in dynos??? An inertial dyno shows a change in hp if you even change wheel weight. That is an UNTRUE calculation because it is calculating power from changes in speed over time of the drum. This is the exact reason that many shops will never use an inertial dyno for serious measurement. Static point measurement using a load dyno is a more accurate measure, and any GOOD shop would know that. So your first point is 100% WRONG. Hell.. go search around, there are plenty of sites talking about this. And if you take a physics class some day, you will understand it as soon as you look at how inertial dynos work. I would hope that anyone knowing better would have just lost faith in you with that remark.
Next... Ummm history would serve you well. HARMONIC VIBRATIONS set up in the bridge due to poor design caused the entire bridge to fail. That would be comparing apples to apples to anyone with a high school physics class under thier belt.
Third.. I explained why you have not had a single issue "attributed to your product". READ
Fourth.. yep experience engineers. Lets compare yours to every engineer designing every engine that comes with a damper stock... that is nearly every normal production engine and nearly all performance engines. Honda is one of the few that designed around it that I know of. So you just contradicted yourself there.
Physics has nothing to do with it??? So they added cost to thier production for planned obsolescence by adding a part designed to increase life??? Wow.. nice logic there
Only at top speed? Are you crazy? How about ANYTIME the engine tries to drop below the rpm it is currently running (like under load). Again, you REALLY need some science classes, because your statements show zero knowledge of the principles you so readilly design around. Do you know anything about moments of inertia, rotating mass, the principles of a flywheel, etc?? Cause you are no where near following them with your explanations.
The increased acceleration acheived from such a small rotating mass change is near negligible in real life. Again.. no one seems to hop up with these amazing gains, or at least proof of them. Funny huh? A flywheel change typically amounts to small gains (which is not why you really do it. It is much more useful for rev matching, not acceleration), and that is a much larger change.
And I fail to see how that would be in ATI's best interest. They could easilly produce and sell a nondampened pulley and gain all the unknowing tuner business in the world. They dont because apparently they want to produce good parts.
And ownange??? Yeah, they really owned me with tons of incorrect info. Sorry UR, but save your physics related talk for when you understand the concepts. Funny you flinch away from responding to these types of threads on other forums filled with people who have spent lifetimes building engines, cause they all would tell you the same thing. You come to forums with a higher percentage of younger, less experienced people and try to "own" people that actually know what the hell they are talking about.
Accelleration gains from these pullies? VERY small from all the "data" posted so far. The small reduction in rotating mass on a tiny diameter is washed out by the larger rotating mass of the other components, as well as the wheels and tires. So acceleration improvement is small.
Will it kill your engine at X number of miles? No, some will fail sooner, some later, and most will probably seem to last a decent amount of time. But for the minute gains, I would rather my car last 200,000 miles rather than 160,000 or 120,000 rather than 100,000, etc.
Next... Ummm history would serve you well. HARMONIC VIBRATIONS set up in the bridge due to poor design caused the entire bridge to fail. That would be comparing apples to apples to anyone with a high school physics class under thier belt.
Third.. I explained why you have not had a single issue "attributed to your product". READ
Fourth.. yep experience engineers. Lets compare yours to every engineer designing every engine that comes with a damper stock... that is nearly every normal production engine and nearly all performance engines. Honda is one of the few that designed around it that I know of. So you just contradicted yourself there.
Physics has nothing to do with it??? So they added cost to thier production for planned obsolescence by adding a part designed to increase life??? Wow.. nice logic there
Only at top speed? Are you crazy? How about ANYTIME the engine tries to drop below the rpm it is currently running (like under load). Again, you REALLY need some science classes, because your statements show zero knowledge of the principles you so readilly design around. Do you know anything about moments of inertia, rotating mass, the principles of a flywheel, etc?? Cause you are no where near following them with your explanations.
The increased acceleration acheived from such a small rotating mass change is near negligible in real life. Again.. no one seems to hop up with these amazing gains, or at least proof of them. Funny huh? A flywheel change typically amounts to small gains (which is not why you really do it. It is much more useful for rev matching, not acceleration), and that is a much larger change.
And I fail to see how that would be in ATI's best interest. They could easilly produce and sell a nondampened pulley and gain all the unknowing tuner business in the world. They dont because apparently they want to produce good parts.
And ownange??? Yeah, they really owned me with tons of incorrect info. Sorry UR, but save your physics related talk for when you understand the concepts. Funny you flinch away from responding to these types of threads on other forums filled with people who have spent lifetimes building engines, cause they all would tell you the same thing. You come to forums with a higher percentage of younger, less experienced people and try to "own" people that actually know what the hell they are talking about.
Accelleration gains from these pullies? VERY small from all the "data" posted so far. The small reduction in rotating mass on a tiny diameter is washed out by the larger rotating mass of the other components, as well as the wheels and tires. So acceleration improvement is small.
Will it kill your engine at X number of miles? No, some will fail sooner, some later, and most will probably seem to last a decent amount of time. But for the minute gains, I would rather my car last 200,000 miles rather than 160,000 or 120,000 rather than 100,000, etc.
02-28-2007, 08:03 PM
#30
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,731
And the spinning top explanation is a perfect example above for those with an education.
Read up on dynamic physics principles as well as statics (very useful when comparing forces on an object) and you will see this.
Again the discussion is always the same. A few spout of seat of the pants measures, and a few try to explain away newton and the laws of physics that all professional engine designers follow to design a car. And of course, what the "tuner" world wants to hear is that they can buy a cheap part with magical results and no trade offs, so they side with the company whose motivation is to sell parts to said market.
Read up on dynamic physics principles as well as statics (very useful when comparing forces on an object) and you will see this.
Again the discussion is always the same. A few spout of seat of the pants measures, and a few try to explain away newton and the laws of physics that all professional engine designers follow to design a car. And of course, what the "tuner" world wants to hear is that they can buy a cheap part with magical results and no trade offs, so they side with the company whose motivation is to sell parts to said market.
02-28-2007, 08:49 PM
#31
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Profile No Longer Exists
Posts: 297
from my expirence on my 1nz-fe the ligthend crank pulley from perrin does little in accelrating quicker and faster et's
however, i severely doubt the fact that a "non dampening pulley" will be the direct cause of engine failure.
here is my view
a. UR is a company trying to back their product, their dyno gain numbers are off the exceptional vehicles, with rare increases in horsepower. Don't try to bs us with HUMONGOUS HP GAINS!! You know on these little 1.5 and 2.5 liter engines with 6.5 k redline and n/a we will see little gain.
b. wanna scan your physics degree engifineer? maybe people would believe you more.
Both of you are so adament of proving each other wrong, but none of you can just agree on REAL facts.
1. less rotational mass will increase speed, no matter how minute.
for example spin a cd taped to a pencil, and now spin a peaice a paper cut like a cd taped on a pencil, the paper will spin faster with LESS force. Less force wasted on spinning rotational mass means more force in accelrating. BUT because of the engine designs of today this is LOW gain in hp.
2. I am looking at my stock crank pulley right now for my scion xa and there is aboslutey no rubber anywhere on it, so that blows your "rubber dampner" theory out of the water on the 1nz-fe.
come on guys, were all car enthusiasts here, and no one here works for toyota as an engineer or has mutliple engineering degrees.
UR accept the fact that your product produces small gains.
engifineer accept the fact that the pulley will not decrease engine life.
cant we all just get along?
however, i severely doubt the fact that a "non dampening pulley" will be the direct cause of engine failure.
here is my view
a. UR is a company trying to back their product, their dyno gain numbers are off the exceptional vehicles, with rare increases in horsepower. Don't try to bs us with HUMONGOUS HP GAINS!! You know on these little 1.5 and 2.5 liter engines with 6.5 k redline and n/a we will see little gain.
b. wanna scan your physics degree engifineer? maybe people would believe you more.
Both of you are so adament of proving each other wrong, but none of you can just agree on REAL facts.
1. less rotational mass will increase speed, no matter how minute.
for example spin a cd taped to a pencil, and now spin a peaice a paper cut like a cd taped on a pencil, the paper will spin faster with LESS force. Less force wasted on spinning rotational mass means more force in accelrating. BUT because of the engine designs of today this is LOW gain in hp.
2. I am looking at my stock crank pulley right now for my scion xa and there is aboslutey no rubber anywhere on it, so that blows your "rubber dampner" theory out of the water on the 1nz-fe.
come on guys, were all car enthusiasts here, and no one here works for toyota as an engineer or has mutliple engineering degrees.
UR accept the fact that your product produces small gains.
engifineer accept the fact that the pulley will not decrease engine life.
cant we all just get along?
02-28-2007, 08:56 PM
#32
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by engifineer
You first comment was enough to get me laughing unorthadox. So you apparently do not know a thing about the differences in dynos??? An inertial dyno shows a change in hp if you even change wheel weight. That is an UNTRUE calculation because it is calculating power from changes in speed over time of the drum. This is the exact reason that many shops will never use an inertial dyno for serious measurement. Static point measurement using a load dyno is a more accurate measure, and any GOOD shop would know that. So your first point is 100% WRONG. Hell.. go search around, there are plenty of sites talking about this. And if you take a physics class some day, you will understand it as soon as you look at how inertial dynos work. I would hope that anyone knowing better would have just lost faith in you with that remark.
You also don't READ since I made it clear that the factory pulley is for NVH not engine protection. How do you explain the poster previous to you and the ten of thousands of users just like him that have not had a failure after many tens of thousands of miles.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Next... Ummm history would serve you well. HARMONIC VIBRATIONS set up in the bridge due to poor design caused the entire bridge to fail. That would be comparing apples to apples to anyone with a high school physics class under thier belt.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Third.. I explained why you have not had a single issue "attributed to your product". READ.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Fourth.. yep experience engineers. Lets compare yours to every engineer designing every engine that comes with a damper stock... that is nearly every normal production engine and nearly all performance engines. Honda is one of the few that designed around it that I know of. So you just contradicted yourself there.
Physics has nothing to do with it??? So they added cost to thier production for planned obsolescence by adding a part designed to increase life??? Wow.. nice logic there.
Physics has nothing to do with it??? So they added cost to thier production for planned obsolescence by adding a part designed to increase life??? Wow.. nice logic there
.[quote="engifineer"]Only at top speed? Are you crazy? How about ANYTIME the engine tries to drop below the rpm it is currently running (like under load). Again, you REALLY need some science classes, because your statements show zero knowledge of the principles you so readilly design around. Do you know anything about moments of inertia, rotating mass, the principles of a flywheel, etc?? Cause you are no where near following them with your explanations.
Most people who race would rather have the responsiveness of reduced mass. Some areas of example are road racing, rallying, auto crossing, street. Drag racing is the only area that the need for rotational weight is determined by the class for hard launches.
Originally Posted by engifineer
The increased acceleration acheived from such a small rotating mass change is near negligible in real life. Again.. no one seems to hop up with these amazing gains, or at least proof of them. Funny huh? A flywheel change typically amounts to small gains (which is not why you really do it. It is much more useful for rev matching, not acceleration), and that is a much larger change.
Originally Posted by engifineer
And I fail to see how that would be in ATI's best interest. They could easilly produce and sell a nondampened pulley and gain all the unknowing tuner business in the world. They dont because apparently they want to produce good parts.
Originally Posted by engifineer
And ownange??? Yeah, they really owned me with tons of incorrect info. Sorry UR, but save your physics related talk for when you understand the concepts. Funny you flinch away from responding to these types of threads on other forums filled with people who have spent lifetimes building engines, cause they all would tell you the same thing. You come to forums with a higher percentage of younger, less experienced people and try to "own" people that actually know what the hell they are talking about.
Originally Posted by engifineer
Accelleration gains from these pullies? VERY small from all the "data" posted so far. The small reduction in rotating mass on a tiny diameter is washed out by the larger rotating mass of the other components, as well as the wheels and tires. So acceleration improvement is small.
Will it kill your engine at X number of miles? No, some will fail sooner, some later, and most will probably seem to last a decent amount of time. But for the minute gains, I would rather my car last 200,000 miles rather than 160,000 or 120,000 rather than 100,000, etc.
Will it kill your engine at X number of miles? No, some will fail sooner, some later, and most will probably seem to last a decent amount of time. But for the minute gains, I would rather my car last 200,000 miles rather than 160,000 or 120,000 rather than 100,000, etc.
Respectfully,
Shawn Baumgartner
02-28-2007, 09:02 PM
#33
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,731
Well, my bachelors and masters are in electronics engineering.. if you want a copy of my transcripts, grades and all I would be happy to provide it.
My engine experience comes from learning from a man with more experience than most of you have years of life (my father), building engines with and for him, and more importantly fixing them, which gives you much more input as to what does what. So I would have to say from memory I started learning and working on all my own stuff (dirt bikes to all my cars) when I was about 7 years old.
Then on top of that, while obtaining my degrees I tutored the physics majors in some of thier classes for two years.
I cant see why me posting info that anyone can look up and verify requires me to send you my degree though. Nothing I have posted is info that cannot be readilly obtained with a little reading and searching. And some people will call it wrong no matter what. My response is to either directly argue why these principles are wrong or stop all together.
And I wont agree that engine life will not be affected to some degree.. because that is not true. Funny everyone is so willing to call me wrong, yet no one is got the time or energy to pick up a couple of books or spend some time on the web searching. We even posted very good links earlier in this thread. It is not even high level physics, late high school and early college is more than enough to understand the concepts. Then simply apply them.
But, next someone will come back and find other reasons to say I know nothing.. I could reply, then they will try to make up more, etc. All I ask is that people look up what I have said and make up your own mind rather than blindly believing the company that is trying to make your money.
I love comments from these companies like "we have made these parts for 10 years, so we are experts". Wow.. I have taken craps for nearly 31 years.. does that mean I am a gastrointerologist? I can make you a cai out of a peice of tubing, does that make me an intake and induction expert?
My engine experience comes from learning from a man with more experience than most of you have years of life (my father), building engines with and for him, and more importantly fixing them, which gives you much more input as to what does what. So I would have to say from memory I started learning and working on all my own stuff (dirt bikes to all my cars) when I was about 7 years old.
Then on top of that, while obtaining my degrees I tutored the physics majors in some of thier classes for two years.
I cant see why me posting info that anyone can look up and verify requires me to send you my degree though. Nothing I have posted is info that cannot be readilly obtained with a little reading and searching. And some people will call it wrong no matter what. My response is to either directly argue why these principles are wrong or stop all together.
And I wont agree that engine life will not be affected to some degree.. because that is not true. Funny everyone is so willing to call me wrong, yet no one is got the time or energy to pick up a couple of books or spend some time on the web searching. We even posted very good links earlier in this thread. It is not even high level physics, late high school and early college is more than enough to understand the concepts. Then simply apply them.
But, next someone will come back and find other reasons to say I know nothing.. I could reply, then they will try to make up more, etc. All I ask is that people look up what I have said and make up your own mind rather than blindly believing the company that is trying to make your money.
I love comments from these companies like "we have made these parts for 10 years, so we are experts". Wow.. I have taken craps for nearly 31 years.. does that mean I am a gastrointerologist? I can make you a cai out of a peice of tubing, does that make me an intake and induction expert?
02-28-2007, 09:06 PM
#34
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Profile No Longer Exists
Posts: 297
i was merely stating to scan the degree so that people will belive you!
i agree on the little gains on our scion egnines, but not on the engine life reduction
but, so some degree, you could claim loss of engine life, because of now harder acceleration because of people willing to put these pulleys in their car.
they wont upgrade pulleys to drive slow! so yes in a way, because of the driver not the engine, the engine life will decrease, soley on the fact that the driver will now drive harder more.
i agree on the little gains on our scion egnines, but not on the engine life reduction
but, so some degree, you could claim loss of engine life, because of now harder acceleration because of people willing to put these pulleys in their car.
they wont upgrade pulleys to drive slow! so yes in a way, because of the driver not the engine, the engine life will decrease, soley on the fact that the driver will now drive harder more.
02-28-2007, 09:08 PM
#35
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 10
[quote="engifineer"]And saying you ran it on the track some and had no problems shows you are still not reading the info we linked. The vibrations dampened by a harmonic damper affect long term engine life. There are instances (the supra guys found this out) of it causing damage fairly soon, but the most common issue is premature bearing failure, oil pump failure, etc. The even better part is that in those long term cases it is virtually impossible to attribute it to the pulley to the point you can sue the manufacturer, which is why they are so willing to back thier product. quote]
The Supra guys who had problems were the one with Automatic transmissions. They did not hurt their engines they hurt the flex-plate, torque converter and trans. These geniuses expected their stock transmissions to hold 500+ WHP. Guess what the factory never intended the trans components to go that far. I guess these guys finally got smartand that is why a conversion kit for the Supra was designed to replace the stock auto with a GM based auto. I have a 1993 Supra TT 6spd, I bought my car with 30K and I have close to 70K and all with the solid pulley. No problems! A good friend of ours, Vinny Ten, ran our pulley for years in his Supra on his way to 1600HP and never had a problem. Oh and a group that used to be out of Columbus Ohio, Passen Motorsports, ran our crank pulley for a year in the Speedvision Series, they accumulated a few millions crank cycles over that year and personally told me their internals were perfect for the age.
Respectully,
Shawn Baumgartner
President
Unorthodox Racing Inc.
The Supra guys who had problems were the one with Automatic transmissions. They did not hurt their engines they hurt the flex-plate, torque converter and trans. These geniuses expected their stock transmissions to hold 500+ WHP. Guess what the factory never intended the trans components to go that far. I guess these guys finally got smartand that is why a conversion kit for the Supra was designed to replace the stock auto with a GM based auto. I have a 1993 Supra TT 6spd, I bought my car with 30K and I have close to 70K and all with the solid pulley. No problems! A good friend of ours, Vinny Ten, ran our pulley for years in his Supra on his way to 1600HP and never had a problem. Oh and a group that used to be out of Columbus Ohio, Passen Motorsports, ran our crank pulley for a year in the Speedvision Series, they accumulated a few millions crank cycles over that year and personally told me their internals were perfect for the age.
Respectully,
Shawn Baumgartner
President
Unorthodox Racing Inc.
02-28-2007, 09:09 PM
#36
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,731
Really UR? I know of plenty of people who have built for years and know more than I ever could that also think you are a joke. Post over on ystc all the info you just did and you will get a pile or responses just like mine from older, wiser builders. As well as some who have seen catastrophic failures due to removed dampers on street driven cars.
Again, you seem to stay away from the large groups who actually back up thier argument with fact and stick to communities with a higher percentage of less experienced people.
We can go around and around all day, and still never agree. Hopefully some (and from some posts, it looks like some already have) will go look up the info themselves. Again, I am only posting readilly available info.
Again, you seem to stay away from the large groups who actually back up thier argument with fact and stick to communities with a higher percentage of less experienced people.
We can go around and around all day, and still never agree. Hopefully some (and from some posts, it looks like some already have) will go look up the info themselves. Again, I am only posting readilly available info.
02-28-2007, 09:14 PM
#37
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,731
Well, since I am 1000 miles from home sitting in an airport, I dont have a degree on me 
But if you want some proof, here is a link you can go to from a previous project:
http://academy.gsfc.nasa.gov/2003/ra...son/index.html
Now, if you want to think that I faked my degrees, was hand chosen out of hundreds of applicants and NASA GSFC didnt check my background, then go ahead.
But if you want some proof, here is a link you can go to from a previous project: http://academy.gsfc.nasa.gov/2003/ra...son/index.html
Now, if you want to think that I faked my degrees, was hand chosen out of hundreds of applicants and NASA GSFC didnt check my background, then go ahead.
02-28-2007, 09:14 PM
#38
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Profile No Longer Exists
Posts: 297
i got it 
UR sponser me and give me a set of xA pulleys, and I will put them on and drive hard and 20 miles or more per day, then in 10 years we will see for sure if the pulleys caused my engines failure! I will also dyno monthly to see if gains stay or dissapear!
seriously, can i have a set of pulleys?
engifineer, i dont think your lying on the degree part, it wouldnt benefit you to lie. i merely suggest when you can post a small scan to show the little newblits in here
UR sponser me and give me a set of xA pulleys, and I will put them on and drive hard and 20 miles or more per day, then in 10 years we will see for sure if the pulleys caused my engines failure! I will also dyno monthly to see if gains stay or dissapear!
seriously, can i have a set of pulleys?
engifineer, i dont think your lying on the degree part, it wouldnt benefit you to lie. i merely suggest when you can post a small scan to show the little newblits in here
02-28-2007, 09:18 PM
#39
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, NY
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by engifineer
Well, my bachelors and masters are in electronics engineering.. if you want a copy of my transcripts, grades and all I would be happy to provide it.
Respectfully,
Shawn Baumgartner
02-28-2007, 09:27 PM
#40
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by engifineer
Well, since I am 1000 miles from home sitting in an airport, I dont have a degree on me But if you want some proof, here is a link you can go to from a previous project:
http://academy.gsfc.nasa.gov/2003/ra...son/index.html
Now, if you want to think that I faked my degrees, was hand chosen out of hundreds of applicants and NASA GSFC didnt check my background, then go ahead.
But if you want some proof, here is a link you can go to from a previous project: http://academy.gsfc.nasa.gov/2003/ra...son/index.html
Now, if you want to think that I faked my degrees, was hand chosen out of hundreds of applicants and NASA GSFC didnt check my background, then go ahead.
At the end of the day you need to be open minded about any aftermarket mod. They are supposed to be improvemnts to the cheaply designed factory part. Take a look at the crappy cast factory pulley on my Xa then look at my tight tolerance UR pulley and you'll easily see teh difference in quality. And it makes power, on any dyno!
Some people just like to talk about how smart they are but remember YOU CAN"T TEACH COMMON SENSE.