Hmmmm......
I think I'm about to pay $150.00 to have my TR250 flywheel "lightened"
to 22#. :-)
Maybe I better weight it... Is it that simple -- gear ring and all on
the bathroom scale?
Don Malling
Mike Munson wrote:
>
> Guys,
> The long snout crank in the 250 & early 69-6 did have a lighter flywheel
> 21#s here in the south (less gravitational pull I guess). Later cars
> with the short snout crank had a 27# flywheel.
>
> Physicists say that every thing has a resonant frequency, or specific
> rate of vibration. The resonant frequency of the TR6 crankshaft is 6200
> RPMs. There is .5" of crankshaft wobble at that RPM. That's what causes
> the flywheel bolts to stretch and brake and the flywheel to come off.
> Vibrations will happen at other RPMs if the crankshaft is not balanced
> with the rods, pistons and with the clutch and flywheel.
>
> Richard if I were you I would first limit the RPMs to 6000 with a rev
> limiter and do as Shane said and run a scatter shield. If you must go
> over 6000 then stay away from the 6100 to 6300 range for expended
> periods of time (over 5 seconds).
>
> Tilton used to make aluminum flywheels for early 6's.
>
> Mike Munson
> Snellville, Ga.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-6pack@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-6pack@autox.team.net] On
> Behalf Of SHANE Ingate
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:39 PM
> To: rsh17@msn.com
> Cc: 6pack@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Flywheel lightening, before and after
>
> Richard Seaton wrote:
>
> >The before weight was 22 lbs w/ ring gear and 14lbs after.
>
> Richard, if this is cast-iron, I would not use this flywheel at all. I
> consider that too much material has been removed. I *strongly*
> encourage you to wrap several layers (up to 1" thick) of kevlar around
> the bell housing to act as a scatter shield if you wish to use this
> wheel.
> I would contend that this is highly dangerous, especially in a high
> revving motor.
>
> Perhaps I am wrong here, but Richard states that his early stock
> flywheel weighed 22 lbs (w/ring gear). This is 7 lbs lighter than
> late-model cast-iron flywheels. Is this correct? Or does Richard
> have a wheel that had been prevously lightened, or maybe even
> an aftermarket flywheel? Conventional wisdom states that the
> lightest the cast-iron wheels can be cut down to is 22 lbs.
>
> Revington (and Cambridge and Moss UK) offer steel flywheels.
> Steel flywheels are expensive, simply because there is a lot of material
> to cut with a lathe. The starter-teeth are cut directly into the wheel.
>
> Aluminum flywheels are considerably cheaper because aluminum is
> softer and easier to mill. Costs are kept even lower because the ring
> gear is pegged to the aluminum disk (aluminum teeth would never
> last). They can only be refaced a small number of times before
> becoming an expensive lawn ornament. And finally, yes, they do walk
> on the crank nose bolts, regardless of how many pegs you use. I don't
> recall Kastner calling aluminum wheels "junk", but his statements made
> about them were equally evocative.
>
> Shane Ingate, researching front disk rotor alternatives, in Maryland
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
|