----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Seaton
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:28 PM
To: Mike Munson
Subject: Re: Flywheel lightening, before and after
Mike & Shane,
Thank you much, it's good to hear from guys who know there stuff and not
guys like me who know just enough to get into trouble.
Like mentioned earlier this car won't be raced and revving over 6,000 that's
redline anyway. To me past red line means pistons through the hood.
I did have a Bugeye which was tacked up to 6 o'clock on the dial, and yes it
still held together. That 948 cc was bullet proof, thank goodness the motor
was strong enough for a 16 year old. Sorry just rambling again.
Any ideas on where I could get it x-rayed like Shane mentioned?
Thanks again,
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Munson
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:52 AM
To: 'SHANE Ingate'; rsh17@msn.com
Cc: 6pack@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: Flywheel lightening, before and after
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.
|