You said you spin something in space 100 rpm then leave it alone. That's not even remotely the same case as rotational inertia's effects on an engine accelerating. So no, I'm not arguing that the space gyroscope won't stay the same speed. This is just another one of your rabbit-holes intended to distract from the actual issue at hand.
I did put them into math and they are significant, to the tune of a 10% effect on acceleration in 1st gear, which changes the optimal shift speed by a couple hundred rpm in the direction that matches what racers already knew.
Not when determining shift points. Friction is a function of speed, not acceleration. You want to apply friction, that's fine. I just know it won't affect shift points. And when you can't seem to get your head around how rotational inertia affects acceleration and, thus, shift points, why complicate the issue talking about something that won't?
This is like your space-gyroscope example; not even remotely related to rotational inertia that must accelerate in a rotating fashion in order for the car to accelerate in a linear fashion. It's a ridiculous comparison.
You're right, that it's a gross oversimplification. Heck, if the 2 lb is situated to have a very low moment of inertia, it might only add 2.0001 lb. The geometry and speed ratio (e.g. gear ratio) also matter.
No one is arguing against this either. It's another rabbit-hole that has nothing to do with shift points.
The car intends to go straight due to momentum in that direction. Friction acts against intended motion, causing the car to turn.
Holy moly, that's not what he's talking about in the least. When he says mass-equivalent he's talking about the car's resistance to accelerate due to the flywheel effect of the engine's rotating parts. The mass doesn't increase, but the resistance to acceleration does in low gears. Energy is going into the rotating mass, which increases its kinetic energy. That simple. Increasing the KE quickly (low gears) takes more power than increasing it slowly (high gears).
Yep, a good 2nd year college physics demonstration. Nothing in there counters anything I've posted. Since you posted the video, am I to assume that you don't disagree with it? Did you notice in Demo 3 (4:30) that reducing torque input resulted in slower acceleration of the rotor? One might conclude that increased torque would result in faster acceleration of the rotor. Taking it one step further leads you to...accelerating a constant-I rotor faster requires more torque input. I don't think anyone would disagree with this. Now apply that exact concept to the crankshaft and torque converter of a car engine, and you see that it requires more torque input to that rotor in order to accelerate it faster. The crankshaft accelerates faster in 1st gear than 2nd, therefore it takes more of the engine's torque to spin it up in 1st than 2nd, and that is torque that can not also be used to accelerate the car.
Yep, friction force = coefficient of friction x normal force. With near-zero gravity, there wasn't much normal force there, so there wasn't much friction force. It makes perfect sense. This is still just a distraction so you can avoid answering the simple flywheel question I posed.
I never said there can't be a slope at a point. I just said it's not what your VCMScanner math is doing, or even what you thought it was doing. Yours is looking at average acceleration over the prior 1 second and timestamping it 1/2 second offset.The slope of a point.
Direct me to the post where you said how to account for the acceleration difference that gear ratio makes on engine moment of inertia.
That's my takeaway too. He's not saying it adds weight, he's saying it equivalent too. Like fighter pilots during a 9g maneuver. You're mass is still 200lbs, but the effects of said mass are 9 times that.
