Carbinite coating to help belt slip?
11-07-2017, 05:33 PM
#11
TECH Fanatic
I run a ZPE 3.1 and it has zero dust in over 1,500 miles so far. I've beat on it too, plus multiple dyno sessions. Great product...
11-09-2017, 08:08 PM
#16
TECH Fanatic
That thing is super light weight so that's got to help out with reduced rotational mass, if the carbonite coated pullies are steal that's a waste IMO.
11-10-2017, 06:15 AM
#18
TECH Fanatic
I'll weigh the pullies and see what the actual difference is but look at how much of an impact light wheels make vs heavy in power to the ground.
11-10-2017, 07:11 AM
#19
i found this info on another forum, I cut a lot of info out, but if anyone wants to read the site I can give them the link.
Since they are steel, there is a difference in mass. The steel sheaves are definitely going to have more mass. That isn't necessarily a problem, however. Lower mass sheaves are only an advantage on acceleration. Once the mass is spinning, there is no advantage to a lighter sheave set. Very rudimentary physics.
Quote:
why is billet more desireable?
To me, the white metal sheaves are NOT desireable. A far superior set would be lightweight steel, not aluminum. Normal belt friction will wear the aluminum surfaces much faster than steel. You'll be replacing the sheaves (or living with the slippage) eventually.
As for the underdrive sheave systems, a car with even a 140amp alternator putting out 13.8-14.1 volts, which equates to a maximum output of 1974 watts, or 2.6471 horsepower to run the alternator. So, accounting for the inefficiencies, your alternator is only pulling 3HP at peak output (all accessories running). More often, it's more like 1.5HP at a 70A output, where a 1/3 underdrive sheave would save you only about 0.5HP. At best, you'll save 1.0 HP. If you only have a 70A alternator, you can cut those "gain" figures in half.
The belt tensioner is basically an idler, and its only inefficiency is in the frictional losses from the roller bearing in the hub. If you have measurably higher frictional losses at higher RPMs, it's time to start shopping for a new tensioner, not underdrives..
It would make far more economic and performance sense to install a electric water pump drive. The pump can them be operated at a constant speed, or the clever enthusiast can install a variable speed drive based on coolanttemperature, not engine RPM. The real beauty of this system is that even at idle RPM, the enginecan be cooled quickly by increasing pump speed. Conversely, at higher RPM, the power saving would be far greater than the underdrive sheaves could ever allow. For those who cannot bring themselves to abandoning the belt driven water pump concept, you could always use the old trick of cutting down the impeller vanes on a stock water pump. The unfortunate part of that is that at low RPMs, overheating is very likely with any kind of load whatsoever.
Consider the fact that thousands of qualified engineers at many large auto manufacturing corporations, with limitless education and resources, test facilities, test vehicles, and time to experiment have been trying to increase fuel efficiency of their fleets for over ten years to improve the CAFÉ results and save money for their employers (not to mention sell more vehicles and make themselves look good). Belt accessorydrives are relatively easy to change and redesign. Obviously, we can go the aftermarket and already buy a variety of drives. These people specify and MAKE the drives by the millions every year. They change them as necessary to accommodate all manner of layout and design changes, additions, new accessories, and the like. Doesn't it stand to reason that they would experiment with the drives to provide the most output power for the least energy input? We want the same thing, but for different outcomes - more peak power. The concept is the same. They have carefully chosen the drive sizes to accomplish the task without sacrificing anything. Re-engineering that systemmakes little sense, especially when the exercise would result in operational problems and a 2.0HP gain for all that time and effort (and cash). Instead or reinventing the wheel, we should be inventing a replacement (like an electric drive). These companies have gone so far as to reduce the oil pump volume to the point of barely holding pressure at idle for a few pennies in fuel saved. To me, risking engine protection for that minimal saving is ridiculous, but when a manufacturer delivers millions of cars, it all adds up, and the warranty risk is theirs to take. It's easy to reason that they would have done the same thing with the accessory drives if there were ANY benefits.
For those who have made it this far, I'll make this simple. If you have the mechanical ability to change your drive sheaves in an attempt to make more peak power, and the wherewithal to spend £100 or more on the parts, you can easily handle changing your own oil and oil filter. Fair statement? Instead of a best-case potential of 2-3 HP at peak RPM, save your money and buy five quarts of synthetic engine oil and a decent filterfor $20.00. You'll get a verifiable gain of 6HP, less engine wear, and better fuel efficiency at all RPMs. For the cost of one set of underdrives that will wear out in 30,000 miles, you can buy at least 20,000 miles worth of synthetic oil changes and enjoy a better power advantage all along the way. At the end of that time, your engine will have worn less, and the fuel savings will allow you to purchase another couple of synthetic changes. Best of all, you won't have to fight a slipping beltfrom a worn sheave for the next 10,000 miles before you spend another $100+ to repair the problem, again temporarily.
If you want the best of both worlds, lighten a good, unworn stock set of sheaves, then powdercoat them in your favorite color.
That's just my opinion, though.
Since they are steel, there is a difference in mass. The steel sheaves are definitely going to have more mass. That isn't necessarily a problem, however. Lower mass sheaves are only an advantage on acceleration. Once the mass is spinning, there is no advantage to a lighter sheave set. Very rudimentary physics.
Quote:
why is billet more desireable?
To me, the white metal sheaves are NOT desireable. A far superior set would be lightweight steel, not aluminum. Normal belt friction will wear the aluminum surfaces much faster than steel. You'll be replacing the sheaves (or living with the slippage) eventually.
As for the underdrive sheave systems, a car with even a 140amp alternator putting out 13.8-14.1 volts, which equates to a maximum output of 1974 watts, or 2.6471 horsepower to run the alternator. So, accounting for the inefficiencies, your alternator is only pulling 3HP at peak output (all accessories running). More often, it's more like 1.5HP at a 70A output, where a 1/3 underdrive sheave would save you only about 0.5HP. At best, you'll save 1.0 HP. If you only have a 70A alternator, you can cut those "gain" figures in half.
The belt tensioner is basically an idler, and its only inefficiency is in the frictional losses from the roller bearing in the hub. If you have measurably higher frictional losses at higher RPMs, it's time to start shopping for a new tensioner, not underdrives..
It would make far more economic and performance sense to install a electric water pump drive. The pump can them be operated at a constant speed, or the clever enthusiast can install a variable speed drive based on coolanttemperature, not engine RPM. The real beauty of this system is that even at idle RPM, the enginecan be cooled quickly by increasing pump speed. Conversely, at higher RPM, the power saving would be far greater than the underdrive sheaves could ever allow. For those who cannot bring themselves to abandoning the belt driven water pump concept, you could always use the old trick of cutting down the impeller vanes on a stock water pump. The unfortunate part of that is that at low RPMs, overheating is very likely with any kind of load whatsoever.
Consider the fact that thousands of qualified engineers at many large auto manufacturing corporations, with limitless education and resources, test facilities, test vehicles, and time to experiment have been trying to increase fuel efficiency of their fleets for over ten years to improve the CAFÉ results and save money for their employers (not to mention sell more vehicles and make themselves look good). Belt accessorydrives are relatively easy to change and redesign. Obviously, we can go the aftermarket and already buy a variety of drives. These people specify and MAKE the drives by the millions every year. They change them as necessary to accommodate all manner of layout and design changes, additions, new accessories, and the like. Doesn't it stand to reason that they would experiment with the drives to provide the most output power for the least energy input? We want the same thing, but for different outcomes - more peak power. The concept is the same. They have carefully chosen the drive sizes to accomplish the task without sacrificing anything. Re-engineering that systemmakes little sense, especially when the exercise would result in operational problems and a 2.0HP gain for all that time and effort (and cash). Instead or reinventing the wheel, we should be inventing a replacement (like an electric drive). These companies have gone so far as to reduce the oil pump volume to the point of barely holding pressure at idle for a few pennies in fuel saved. To me, risking engine protection for that minimal saving is ridiculous, but when a manufacturer delivers millions of cars, it all adds up, and the warranty risk is theirs to take. It's easy to reason that they would have done the same thing with the accessory drives if there were ANY benefits.
For those who have made it this far, I'll make this simple. If you have the mechanical ability to change your drive sheaves in an attempt to make more peak power, and the wherewithal to spend £100 or more on the parts, you can easily handle changing your own oil and oil filter. Fair statement? Instead of a best-case potential of 2-3 HP at peak RPM, save your money and buy five quarts of synthetic engine oil and a decent filterfor $20.00. You'll get a verifiable gain of 6HP, less engine wear, and better fuel efficiency at all RPMs. For the cost of one set of underdrives that will wear out in 30,000 miles, you can buy at least 20,000 miles worth of synthetic oil changes and enjoy a better power advantage all along the way. At the end of that time, your engine will have worn less, and the fuel savings will allow you to purchase another couple of synthetic changes. Best of all, you won't have to fight a slipping beltfrom a worn sheave for the next 10,000 miles before you spend another $100+ to repair the problem, again temporarily.
If you want the best of both worlds, lighten a good, unworn stock set of sheaves, then powdercoat them in your favorite color.
That's just my opinion, though.
Last edited by trxmxzx; 11-10-2017 at 05:11 PM.
11-10-2017, 07:16 AM
#20
My point was that I have aluminum pullies and I was wondering if they would do aluminum because the pulley in the video looks like steel and the process kind of looks like stick welding.
Of course the difference in rotational mass between steel and aluminum would make almost no difference with such a small diameter, especially turning the mass in blower internals.
The reason that light wheels make such a big difference is because of their diameter. A one pound lighter blower pulley would make almost no difference, one pound less swinging around a 22" diameter wheel would make a big difference.
Of course the difference in rotational mass between steel and aluminum would make almost no difference with such a small diameter, especially turning the mass in blower internals.
The reason that light wheels make such a big difference is because of their diameter. A one pound lighter blower pulley would make almost no difference, one pound less swinging around a 22" diameter wheel would make a big difference.