The part that you're not considering is that it also takes more energy to decelerate the greater mass. The more energy required to move the rod, the less energy there is to move the bike.

 

 

Who says Harley riders are just a bunch of beer drinking, slow-witted, dumb assess, barley able to spell their own name? Have them read this thread.

 

_______ _______

 

But we are still talking about rods that would be used in a Harley, ie we aren't talking about the difference in titanium and spent uranium rods... And the point I was making in that previous discussion is that energy used to accelerate the rod is still returned in deceleration of the rod, the energy is not gone. The question is vague anyway, since the answer could be based on ultimate peak power, rpm limited, unlimited, power at a given throttle setting or at WOT and specified rpm, or what happens, all other things the same, to the 1/4 mile time or dyno curves.

 

I didn't say anything about titanium rod's.

You said that the energy expended when accelerating a rod is recovered when decelerating the rod. My response is that it is not recovered, but in fact takes another shot of energy to decelerate the rod.

Think of pushing a car from behind to get it rolling, and then pulling on it to stop it. Both require energy, and no energy is recovered. The energy is spent doing work, first accelerating the mass, and then stopping it.

 

Stick a fork in me because I am done...

 

I say we all just agree to end the discussion for now, have a friday beverage, and watch dennyo's avatar for a minute

 

Sounds like a plan!

 

so hang on minute Deuce, you say the guy added "forged rods" and why would he do that due to the greater weight of said rod. So are you hypothesizing the forged rod is heavier or do you know that as fact???? You need to add way more info to this question if you want an answer that is correct not only in the engineering world but correct for the application. Teflon