I'm more than a little perturbed by the latest lock down of a thread I started. I presented a logical argument based on know physics principles (I do have a B.S. in Physics so I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable) that were my views on the subject. It contained no  personal attacks or rebuttal of any previous comments by any other person.

If these type of post becomes the subject of censorship simply because someone doesn't comprehend what was written or misreads what I posted, then I will not continue to waste my time or the time of others by posting here.

Goodbye!

Against my better judgment here goes.

Phil, I'm sorry but my premise and presentation didn't demonstrate that heavier is better or "makes" more horsepower. In fact other than four stroke motors, heavier flywheels/cranks are of little benefit in our application. Heavy reciprocating parts are the pits on most engines. The piston is constantly being accelerated and decelerated and F=ma says that's bad. I don't think we see this the same way. The sustainable horsepower of an engine is controlled by the combustion process. Bigger flywheels do not affect the sustainable power output of an engine.

Randy, my comment regarding comprehension was directed to you. Your "rebuttal" was filled with what you thought I said... not what I said.  The term inertia was used by the Suzuki guys. Inertia and mass are not the same but are related. If they increased the inertia 20% then it had to be done by either relocation of the mass farther from the center of rotation or adding mass. Either way that increases the kinetic energy of the rotating mass at any given angular velocity. I thought it was interesting but obviously others don't. End of story.

Wondered why I couldn't join in on previous thread!
Knowing commercial hypes and exaggerations and interpretations, "Increased torque delivery" could just mean smoother and more consistent, and due to the increased inertia of the system, i.e. stored energy, takes longer to slow down when a load is applied.

I suspect what Suzuki means by "increased torque delivery" is that on a peaky, hi-revving, high-horsepower bike, maybe with a smaller engine like a 250cc or so, the increased inertia in the system(whether from weight or repositioning of balances or what) lets the rider use that extra stored kinetic energy to get a smooth start, instead of killing the engine at every other stop light.  I haven't ridden in a long time, but I do remember that the smaller, peaky engines took some real practice with the clutch on the starts to get a smooth take off.

Some where this whole thing got off kilter, someone forgot that to increase HP or Torque means applying more energy. A flywheel, as used in cars, planes, and most internal combustion engines is a capacitor of sorts. It stores energy produced by the internal combustion process. Torque is a angular measurement of force. Somewhat like a lever. You can increase the force exerted by a lever by either applying more force to the lever or making the lever longer and applying the same force. A flywheel works the same way. Make it heavier and it will store more energy or you can make it a larger diameter and the effect is the same as the moment arm (lever) is longer. However in either case you have to inject more energy at a given RPM for this to happen. In a motorcycle and cars etc, torque multipliers are used, these are the gear boxes usiing the same principal as pully systems, I.E a smaller pully turning a bigger pully in efect multiplies the force (torque) at the larger pully, however the rotational speed is reduced. Heavier flywheels will not increase power unless a proportional amount of additional energy is applied (Burning more fuel or burning it more efficiently, or using a fuel that has a higher energy output / BTU) and of course this also means the HP will also rise.

the short explaination of why the max torque is reached usually at a lower RPM than HP, is because after a certain point the flywheel has stored all the energy it can and then any additonal gains are driven by RPM (you can pump more energy into the flywheel but you can make it spin faster) so the HP will still rise with the RPM increase, until the maximum combustion efficiency of the engine is reached and then HP falls off dramatically. So to keep everything running at the prime points of the RPM band gear boxes are used so the engine is spinning at the RPM where max torque is generated. It is a balancing act, between combustion efficiency, RPM and rotational mass. So if a engine builder wants to get more torque at a lower RPM they add some flywheel weight and for a given displacement, make the engine burn fuel better at a lower RPM, they actually take away from the combustion efficiency at higher RPM and add it lower down. either that or they would have otherwise they would have to increase the size of the bang at all RPM's. In the case of the suzuki it was probably not producing enough power down on the RPM band, because of any number of factors, so by tweaking the gearing, increasing flywheel mass and making the combustion more efficient (bigger bang) in the lower RPM's they got what they were after. But no matter what anyone says, that extra oomph at the bottom had to come from some where. Anyway my 2 cents without the brain numbing math

Dave A. - "Hi Guys. Flywheels are stored energy. They give up their energy in a transient (time averaged) event"

Tell us  what  concept you just described and the units that are used  when this  energy is "given up" on a time average basis.

I would have said Inject energy to get it spinning. Law of physics "An object that is in motion will tend to stay in motion until it ecnounters an external opposing force" In the weightlessness and vaccum of space that flywheel could spin forever (Stored energy) Another good one is "Energy can not be created or destroyed, it only changes form"

The short answer 

I agree with you Doug, senseless to argue about an add that was probably writen by the marketing department, based on what they thought the engineer said at the lunch meeting that they showed up late to.(just my experience in my line of business).
it did say something about crome moly rods. so they probably would be a weight reduction as well.
hey with all those cubes i would say torque isn't going to be a problem.

when that guy with the electric bike gets out of the hospital maybe he should try a burnout with this one as well !
Dave jr.