liam.mccaffrey
|
| posted on 17/8/04 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
i have asked this question before more than once, and have not got any answer.
i'm thinking this conversation is sounding like a plan/challenge
Build Blog
Build Photo Album
|
|
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 17/8/04 at 09:56 PM |
|
|
great! we can both add this project to the LIST OF IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO SOON.
i'll let you know within 10 years how it goes... 
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 17/8/04 at 10:14 PM |
|
|
heres a link for bearings:
http://www.rmbearings.co.uk/zkl/contents.htm
i think a suitable one would be the single row deep groove ball bearings, 13mm thick, 30 shaft diameter and 55 outside diameter. Rated up to 3000
pound feet and 12000 rpm.
any thoughts on this, anyone?
also, anyone know what rs stands for on these diagrams:
http://www.rmbearings.co.uk/zkl/B2_15.PDF
[Edited on 17/8/04 by JoelP]
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 18/8/04 at 05:59 AM |
|
|
I believe rs has something to do with the sealing of the bearing(side flanges)
Could be miles off though
|
|
|
Hugh Jarce
|
| posted on 18/8/04 at 06:32 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
anyone know what rs stands for on these diagrams:
2RS and 2RKdenote contact type seals, ZZ denotes shielded type and 2RD denotes light contact seals.
The pay isn't very good , but the work's hard.
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 18/8/04 at 06:37 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
also, anyone know what rs stands for on these diagrams:
Joel,
I suspect it's the shoulder radius - on the second page it's ra and the dimensions list shows abutment and fillet dimensions.
That's why it's shown where it is on the diagrams and why the numbers are so small.
Could be wrong too
Dominic
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 18/8/04 at 06:59 AM |
|
|
good point dom. i might just buy one and see!
[Edited on 18/8/04 by JoelP]
|
|
|
pbura
|
| posted on 18/8/04 at 11:05 AM |
|
|
Isn't the Sierra track 57"? That would give you 91" for the wheelbase for 1.6:1.
Job done
Pete
Pete
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 18/8/04 at 05:35 PM |
|
|
umm... possibly. i was measuring fron the center of each wheel, which would explain the difference!
|
|
|
BenRelle
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 08:30 AM |
|
|
You might want to get down to the Brighton speed trials later this year. Last year there was a twin 'busa engined car with a mid mounted config
driving rear wheels. He had both the engines driving a common shaft via their normal sprocket and chains, and then another sprocket and chain to the
diff and so to the wheels. It was an awesome machine. From the look of that car and the times it posted, you won't need those turbos.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 02:32 PM |
|
|
Know where we could see pictures of this? Sounds very impressive... and very expensive. Two dry-sumps?
|
|
|
sgraber
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kb58
Know where we could see pictures of this? Sounds very impressive... and very expensive. Two dry-sumps?
I did actually once see a photo of this car. But it wasn't a very good angle, all you could see were the two engines... I wish I could remember
where I saw it. Some hillclimb page... This was about a year ago.
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
BenRelle
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 03:29 PM |
|
|
I'll look, but 2 dry sumps shouldn't necessary as the engines were mounted the same orientation as in the bike. I think you're right
on the expense side - not a cheap build....
I've had a quick google and nothings coming up. I can't believe that nobody's got a picture. You'll know it, it's a
'clubman' type car, like the one below, and it's burgundy in colour.
http://sports.racer.net/chassis/oms/gallery4.htm
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 05:01 PM |
|
|
thanks for the pointer ben, sounds like an ok idea. i take it he used a chain to the crown pinion in the diff, rather than to the flange? mine will
have a prop off the flange, and this turned by a pair of longtitudanally mounted enignes via sprocket and chain.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 05:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenRelle
I'll look, but 2 dry sumps shouldn't necessary as the engines were mounted the same orientation as in the bike.
Except the bike leans, keeping the local "gravity" always straight down, so the oil doesn't slosh from side to side. But in a
car.....
|
|
|
BenRelle
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 07:37 PM |
|
|
Not sure I follow your 'gravity' thing, Kurt. If the bike is leant over to one side, and gravity points down, the oil will be on the side
of the engine nearest the inside of the turn, won't it? Only looking for where I'm missing something.
OOI, Fisher are using accusump with their latest Blackbird motor'd Fury. They report that they don't need a dry sump with this system.
On the drive for the 2 engined hayabusa car that I can't find pictures for, the engines drove a shaft with a sprocket for each engine on it and
a sprocket in the middle that went to one of the chain driven diffs that quaife make for that type of car. Jedi's and OMS's and the like
use them.
Cheers,
Ben
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
ah but....
gravity pointing down + centrifugal force outwards = ("local gravity"..right KB?)=sloping oil level...approx parallel with sump base...
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
Exactly. In a bike the oil will always be very close to parallel to the bottom of the sump (when cornering.) If the bike is leaning it means it is
cornering, hence the side force. Gravity is straight down, while the cornering force is straight off to the side. The net force through the oil will
always be perpendicular to the pan.
Think of it this way. When you corner on the bike, do you fall off the seat? Is there force throwing you sideways? No, the combined forces push you
deeper *straight down* into the seat.
[Edited on 19/8/04 by kb58]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 19/8/04 at 10:01 PM |
|
|
yup, im with Kurt here. unless the rider is hanging off, the oil will be level. When the rider is off on side, the bike is more upright, but their
compined centers of mass combine with the centrifugal (centripedal?) force to balance, but the oil will slosh to perpendicular to the combined centre
of mass, rather than just the bikes!
simple, yes?!
NOW GET BACK ON TOPIC YOU GITS!!!!
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 20/8/04 at 12:31 PM |
|
|
Erm...remind me what the topic was...
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 20/8/04 at 06:05 PM |
|
|
ah... good point alan! its been OT for 4 pages!
did i tell anyone about the dead spider i found in my postbox?!
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 20/8/04 at 06:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
did i tell anyone about the dead spider i found in my postbox?!
Not me....do elaborate....
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 20/8/04 at 06:23 PM |
|
|
it was huge and flat, and the next day it came out stuck to some mail... bloody horrible thing
might i take this opportunity to say that this thread has been very fun, inspiring and... er fun. once this beast is finished and OTR, i shall
implement some of these plans.
|
|
|
Stuart Walker
|
| posted on 20/8/04 at 08:55 PM |
|
|
Theres no such thing as Centrifugal force.... Centripetal
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 20/8/04 at 09:30 PM |
|
|
I hope that's not Rowan Atkinson's real McLaren!
|
|
|
