You reminded me of when I was a mechanic's apprentice at a motorcycle shop. There was a group of guys who raced GXSR 750s and were obsessed with weight loss. (One guy even took it to the extreme of a titanium swing arm). Anyway, a guy came in asking about a newer version of a rear sprocket that came out that was 1lb less than the one he had already. He wanted to spend $400 to save 1 lb on his bike weight. My boss instead told him to go take a dump before he raced and it would accomplish the same thing. Funny how we like to do things the hard way.
man if my mav doors are considered light i'd hate to see the 74 doors then, i thought mine were heavy
Weight savings on rotating parts like wheels, tires and driveline sprockets on a bike, have additional performance benefit as there is less rotational mass to accellerate. Not sure how much the benefit is, but it is more then the simple "pinch off a loaf" alternative.
You should have that method name patented. "I used FishnRace's pinch off a loaf program and my track times have improved dramatically". I can just imagine the infomercials now.
I'm all for better times ... just don't "lighten up" between rounds. Wouldn't want to screw up that dial in. :16suspect
Based on my experience I think you would shave about .1 of a second off your quarter mile e.t. for every 100 pounds. So about .2
i have a 73 with the big front bumper, i took the out the reinforcements and pushed the bumper back 3 inches. the weight loss was so great, the front suspension didn't line up, i had to get the car realigned. good weight loss right there
I had a 73 with reinforcements in the doors. I'm currently using one of those doors as a repair to the destroyed 72 passenger side door. 5mph collision drove the outer panel to the inner and buckled the ends. I'll take the beam to save my keester.
I know this is an old thread resurrection, but I'd like to point out that the door beams were added in 72. You need 70-71 doors to lose that weight... Fwiw: Rule of thumb used by racers... 100# = 10 rwhp = .10 second in the quarter Unsprung weight loss is slightly more beneficial than sprung, from what I have heard... No practical experience on my part. Unsprung weight being anything that 'hangs' when you jack up the car body. Another weight rule of thumb... Weight off the front of the car is better than weight loss off the rear. Weight transferred from the front to the rear is next best thing to losing that weight. Battery to trunk, for example, helps handling and traction. Weight lost in the driveline is good in many ways, but can make the car 'feel' less torquey. The loss of rotating mass 'throwing it's weight around' (so to speak) makes for less engine braking and rotational torque production.
Oh, and for those that love the big bumpers... Fairmonts/Zephyrs have aluminum big bumpers that are almost identical to ours. My son has a Fairmont and the bumpers are light as a feather. We did all sorts of measuring to compare, and it sure looks like they would swap pretty easy. Another point on big bumpers is the 'shock absorbers'... If you love the big bumpers, but didn't care about the 5 mph absorbers, you could always keep the big bumpers, but build mounts for them that replace the absorbers. Those things weight a ton! And yet another point... The big bumpers, if you decide against aluminum, have a very large and heavy internal structure that may be able to be gutted for weight savings. If I were to want the big bumper look, I believe I would use aluminum bumpers, gutted, and mounted with home made mild steel brackets.
