(Note: Donations are not tax deductible)

This is a public forum. The opinions expressed here don't
necessarily reflect the feelings of The Folks That Run The Site (that's us)
unless we explicitly say so, ok?


Forum's been "upgraded".
Things will look a bit different.
A *few* posts might have gotten lost in the crossover.
PM bobc with problems, or post in "Website Suggestions".

Author Topic: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners  (Read 801923 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Jack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3658
  • Age: 75
  • Location: Calgary, Alberta
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1590 on: February 15, 2014, 03:08:17 PM »
The fact is that on most of the lathes that we use in our home shops we're better off using the original style tool bits that need to be formed and sharpened rather than insert tooling. They're run at lesser feeds and speeds than the insert tooling normally uses but they leave a better finish. I think it's because they cause lighter loads for the machine. My own feeling is that the home sharpened tools are actually sharper than the commercial insert tooling because we aren't sharpening them with the thought of applying heavy loads.

Pete

Offline Peter Jack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3658
  • Age: 75
  • Location: Calgary, Alberta
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1591 on: February 15, 2014, 03:15:00 PM »
Bo, you may want to look into a die holder that fits into your tail stock. Most are held by a drill chuck held in the tail stock. I built my own and milled three flats on the shank so it wouldn't rotate in the chuck.

If you check in the KBC Tools catalogue you'll see the item I mean. If you don't have a KBC catalogue go into their web site and order one. It's free, about the size of a telephone book, and you'll find all sorts of stuff you never knew you needed.  :-D :-D :-D

Pete

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1592 on: February 16, 2014, 01:30:30 PM »
I found this problem, too, Peter.  That tail stock bit holder looks like a good birthday present for me to buy for myself.  There is some modern carbide insert tooling in my cabinet.  Special sharp bits can be ordered for it.  They are a specialty item and they are very expensive.  Too costly for me.

In Oregon we are in a backwater as far as machine tooling is concerned.  There is nowhere I know where I can walk in, toss some money on the counter, and get much of any tooling.  Everything has to be ordered.  Our local catalog outlets have no stock in their warehouses.  They order everything.  I place an order and wait for the package to be shipped twice before I get the part.  The modern carbide insert systems require that a lot of stuff be bought in order to make changes in setup.  It is easy for me to experiment around with grinding my own bits and tilting the tool holder at different angles to figure out the best setup.  No need to order anything.  Like Peter says, the old stuff works better.  This is really true when cost is a concern.

Anyone with an aversion to Mickey Mouse should go to onto another thread right now.

The bolts were parted from the rod stock with a sawzall.  That is sorta primitive.  The picture shows the little parting bit that fits my tool holder at the top of the column of raked bits.  It was like a Dachsund trying to bring down a bull when it was used to part the ti.  Something stronger was needed.  I drove up to Portland to the big machinist supply and they had two or three parting blades.  One of them is shown in the tool holder.  It is a cobalt steel blade with no back rake.  There is a good section in Wickedpedia about back rake and tool bits if anyone is interested.  No rake seems to be the best setup for this ti alloy.  The top of the tool bit set at dead level with its elevation the same as the part's axis of rotation.

The picture shows a column of bits with back rake and another column of them with no rake.  The no rake ones are what I use on ti.
           

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1593 on: February 16, 2014, 01:34:01 PM »
The bit is squared up using a little square.  The adjustment is made by tightening and loosening the bolts as shown.  The cutoff tool is upside down in relation to the blade.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1594 on: February 16, 2014, 01:40:22 PM »
The blurry photo shows me holding a gage block against the part and the blade to make sure the blade is perpendicular to the part.  The second photo shows the parting being done.  The c-clamp on the end of the parting tool give some weight to dampen out the singing sound it makes when it chatters.  The blade is fed in manually.  The feed rate is varied until one is found that cuts well with no chatter. 

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1595 on: February 16, 2014, 01:50:35 PM »
The surface of this ti alloy tends to work harden from the cutting stresses.  This is a big problem when parting cause each cut is directly under the previous.  A solution is to drill a hole down the parting line.  This way the blade has an opportunity to dig down to soft metal each revolution.  This makes the parting much easier.

The bits I have been using vary from HSS steel through carbide.  All work OK.  The secret with the steel bits is to keep the speeds low so the bit is not burned.  None of my work is dry.  Oil is used as a cutting fluid.  It is the leftovers from everything else, so it is motor oil, atf, fork oil, etc.
   
Hopefully some of you will read this and give ti a try. 


Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1596 on: February 17, 2014, 11:30:19 AM »
The banjo bolts were what I needed to finish the brakes and shifter.  Corrosion is a big problem on the rear brake caliper with street use.  It is a worse issue when salt racing.  It is on the lower edge of the disc and water on it drains down into the caliper.  Also, the caliper is upside down so it collects water.  The folks in Dorset that reprogrammed the ignition modules and developed the map for the street bike EFI make this bracket to mount the caliper on top of the disk.

The photo of the caliper in place shows a dull finish.  This is residue from a wax based chain lube that is applied to all steel and painted parts except the disc surface.  The wax minimizes corrosion and it is easier to remove the caked salt.       

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1597 on: February 17, 2014, 11:37:29 AM »
This build started years ago and I am stiffer and fatter now.  It is hard to tuck down with the pegs forward.  A rigorous lifestyle change is needed to promote weight loss and flexibility with exercise, proper eating, and stretching.  Or, I can forget about doing that, move the pegs back, and that is what I did.

Offline tauruck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4883
  • Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1598 on: February 17, 2014, 12:17:23 PM »
Bo, I just learned a lot. The info on the carbide inserts vs the traditional is excellent.

Actually all the work you did on the ti taught me a whole bunch of things I won't forget.

Thanks man. That was great. :cheers:

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1599 on: February 22, 2014, 11:41:45 AM »
Hi Mike.  The old style carbide inserts fused to the end of the tool bit work good.  The tooling for the little detachable inserts is quite expensive.  One thing I learned is the old style cutting tools, including high speed and cobalt steel, will work with ti if cutting speeds are kept low.

The oil seal around this aluminum rear wheel spacer wears out quite fast.  The spacer is a loose fit in the worn seal and water can get inside of the wheel assembly.  This is bad for the wheel bearings and the corrosion it causes makes it hard to remove the axle.  The solution has been to pack all crevices with blue waterproof boat trailer wheel bearing grease.  This works and it is a messy and mickey mouse solution.  It is time to make a legitimate repair.

The worst thing a builder can do is to hop to conclusions about oil seals.  The obvious are checked first.  The seal is the correct size, type, and material.  It is installed properly and the seal material is compatible with the outside environment and the goop it needs to contain.  No problems here.

Next, seal info is obtained.  This is a page off of the i-net.  Shaft tolerance is checked first.  The writing on the seal says it is made for a 35mm diameter shaft.  The shaft diameter is the outside diameter of the spacer and it is less than 4 inches.  The shaft tolerances are 35mm plus or minus 0.003 inches.  This is 1.375 to 1.381 inches.  The spacer O.D. is 1.372 inches diameter.  It is 0.003 inches too small.  A problem is found.

The seal rests in its own circular bore.  The bearing fits in another bore.  The centerlines of these two holes should be close together.  The Shaft Offset table on the technical information page says the offset between the two centerlines should not be more than 0.008 inches for a 1.38 inch diameter shaft.  This measurement is made by removing the seal, installing the axle, and measuring the distances between the sides of the axle and the seal housing at different locations.  The measurements show the seal housing and axle centerlines to be really close, and within 0.0001 inches.  No problem here.

Now all of the items under the "Configuration of the Bore" heading on the technical paper are checked.  This is pretty straight forward.  All are OK.

Shaft runout is checked last.  Silicon rubber seals are the blue line on the graph.  The other seal types are on the red line.  This seal is NBR as best as I can tell by looking at it.  The wheel turns just over 2,000 rpm at 150 mph.  The chart says the maximum shaft runout is 0.007 inches for this speed and material.

The clearance between the axle and the inside diameter of the spacer is 0.017 inches.  This means the spacer can be installed in a way that makes the shaft runout as great as 0.017 inches.  This is far too much.  The excessively offset spacer was wearing out the oil seal.

The solution is to make a new spacer.  It is turned to 1.378 inches OD and this is right in the middle of the recommended tolerance range.  The inner diameter of the spacer is turned to give 0.005 clearance between it and the axle.  Problem solved.  It is always good practice to check all of this stuff before putting anything together.  It saves a lot of trouble later on.     

Offline firemanjim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
  • Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1600 on: February 22, 2014, 03:06:43 PM »
Make sure that the extension rod you used on the shifter linkage does not deflect or bend under a hard shift, had to go back and reinforce the one on our 750 when we moved pegs back. Shaft was OK at stock length but too weak at the extended length.
Bonneville 2001,2002,2003,2004,and NO stinking 2005,DLRA 2006, next?
Well,sure can't complain about 2008--6 records over 200 and 5 hats from Bonneville,Bubs, and El Mirage for the team!

Offline JimL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
  • Age: 73
  • Location: Sutherlin, Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1601 on: February 23, 2014, 05:45:50 PM »
Bo, page 14 shows response of your Bosch sensor.  Yours is actually used on an 81mm bore Volvo, but detection range is acceptable if you follow the mounting torque and wire routing info.  I think your primary KNK will be about 6.5-6.8 kHz for your 96 mm bore; that is what the scope patterns show for the 93.5 bore in a Prado.

http://360.haubits.net/VolvoRacing.se/Sensors.pdf

Never bolt these onto a painted surface, or your voltage output will be greatly diminished.  We blew up some perfectly good engines because the blocks looked so nice with an extra coat of shiny paint!

Thanks for your time, today.

JimL

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1602 on: February 23, 2014, 09:50:08 PM »
Thanks, Jim.  This is a big help.  Next Saturday I will post what all of this means.

The last post discussed the wheel spacer on one side of the rear axle.  It is an excessively sloppy fit and it is aluminum.  The spacer on the other side is correctly sized.  It is steel, it corrodes badly, and I need to clean and paint it every year.  Both of these bad actors need to exit the stage.  Last summer a scrap of titanium alloy rod was purchased to make new wheel spacers.

The forces and loads on these spacers are not great enough to permanently deform them.  They spring back after they are loaded.  This is called elastic deformation.  We are accustomed to dealing with rates for suspension springs.  The equivalent of these rates for metals are the Young's moduli.  They are listed under "E" in the table.  Note that steels are three times more rigid than aluminum and steels are twice as rigid as titanium alloy, approximately.

Most all Triumph axle spacers are steel.  This aluminum one is an anomaly.  My figuring is it is made from this springier metal to absorb and reduce tensile shock loads on the axle when the wheel hits a bump.  The replacement spacers should not be stiffer than the originals is a design goal.

The spacers carry compression loads during use and I do not want them to flex more than they did before.  The bike handles goofy enough the way it is now, so the other design goal is to make the replacement spacers as strong as they are now.

The spacers are shown on the axle.  Note the ti spacer on the right is beefier than the steel one it replaces.  The next three posts will go through the way these dimensions were figgered.

 

 

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1603 on: February 23, 2014, 10:02:44 PM »
The equation used is a simplistic one to determine the compression of an axially loaded column where there is no buckling or permanent metal deformation.  It is not exact.  It is good enough.  This is a Triumph and not the space shuttle.  A one ton load is used.  The load is picked because it is easy to remember.  It does not need to be the actual load.  This is simply a comparison of deflection between metal types so a convenient value can be used.

The original aluminum spacer is analyzed first.  It compresses 0.000088 inches under a 1 ton load.  The original steel spacer has a complex shape.  Deflection of three parts will be calculated and all will be added to get the total deflection.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #1604 on: February 23, 2014, 10:10:11 PM »
Firemanjim, the rod seems plenty stout, I just checked it.  It is 1/4 inch dia stainless.  Thanks for mentioning this.

Compression of the three parts of the steel spacer are analyzed next.  All three parts, along with the aluminum spacer, compress 0.000177 inches under a one ton load.

The right spacer, which has been made, compresses 0.000055 inches under a ton load.