Author Topic: Rear end efficiency  (Read 66970 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fastman614

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #75 on: March 24, 2011, 10:13:09 AM »
flattie,
I have been looking at the idea of going to a winters quick change.... I am told that the "V8" style Winters QC is more than up to the task of handling the power i am putting to the ground at Bonneville....But for a new cost of $3000 and probably more, I am having a hard time getting myself interested in spending that.

One of the problems I am facing with the lakester is that it has pretty well got to maximum power at the 3 1/2 mile mark.... it was good for the record,  mind you.... but it only picked up 5 mph from the middle mile to the last mile. I think I could easily use 2 to 3 precent more gearing. The best I can do with a Ford 9" is a 10% jump (from the present 2.75 to 1 up to 2.50 to 1) . The car may surprise me and pull the ratio but, having raced at Bonneville all these years has taught me a few things..... one of those things is that 10% in the rear end ratio is to Bonneville racing as what a light year is to astronomers- a large increment!  So,the Olds rear end keeps coming back as a possible choice due to the availability of 2.69 to 1 and 2.56 to 1 gearing.

Another problem is that we have another lakester that is in the works and well along. It is more of a "laydown" seating position and probably a little more aerodynamic than the present car. It has a "champ" quick-change in it. Our plan was to use the present lakester as a test bed for a running gear combination and then transfer the running gear and knowledge acquired to the new car. I expect that the new car will run in 2012. So, I have very little interest in doing any massive rebuilding to the present lakester in order to accomodate a different design rear axle.....

The rebuilding that would need to be done would include, of course, building a new differential and axle assembly and possibly changing the engine/transmssion height in the car by the pinion offset differences between the Ford 9" and whatever other rear axle that is selected to replace the 9". However, I figure that the 3/4" difference between the Ford and the GM axles would be an amount that I can live with as the rear of the car is presently a slight bit lower (about 3/8") than the front end (a design error when building/installing a new front axle 2 years ago - and, as usual, it is a long story).... the 3/4" difference would raise the rear of the car to be about 3/8" higher than the front of the car.... with 218" wheelbase and 24 degrees of caster (with the car at level), it looks like the caster angle change would be way less than one degree - perhaps not even a measureable amount of change..... but to do it all and to use the car for only one more season .... I'm just having a hard time getting excited about doing it.

Thus the desire to know the pinion offset dimension for the Olds rear end....

 
No s*** sticks to the man wearing a teflon suit.

Offline SPARKY

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6924
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #76 on: March 24, 2011, 10:58:25 AM »
One can split the "factory gears" 10% steps by using different tires--
Miss LIBERTY,  changing T.K.I.  to noise, dust, rust, BLUE HATS & hopefully not scrap!!

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."   Helen Keller

We are going to explore the racing N words NITROUS & NITRO!

Offline maguromic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
    • http://www.barringtontea.com
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #77 on: March 24, 2011, 11:18:16 AM »
If you have the room you could run a quick change in your 9", like Russ Meeks roadster. Tony
“If you haven’t seen the future, you are not going fast enough”

Offline fastman614

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #78 on: March 24, 2011, 12:43:00 PM »
I have never seen the quick change 9" in Russ Meeks' car.... I would like to know about it though. The only thing I did find on the internet was a unit that bolted to the front of a 9" carrier and seemed to require disassembly to change the gears.... it was a pic on a forum for coba cars....

Sparky, you are correct, of course about tires.... I own a pair of M/T 30 LSR tires and I would need to have rims made ... we have sources for wheel blanks.... dhecking the numbers, that would seem to be the easiest way to go.... and I could use 2.80 to 1 gears to get half way between the "ratio" change again.....

No s*** sticks to the man wearing a teflon suit.

Offline maguromic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
    • http://www.barringtontea.com
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #79 on: March 24, 2011, 01:16:13 PM »
The one on the Cobra forum ( you would think they would read the manufacturers name instead of trying to guess what it is, sheees) is the style I Was referring to.  It was made by Jones engineering for NASACR before getting outlawed in the 60's.  To change the gears you take off the front cover and change the two gears like a traditional quick change and it takes all standard off the shelf quick change gears.  The only problem is they only made a handful of them, but I do have one for sale or trade.  Tony
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 01:17:44 PM by maguromic »
“If you haven’t seen the future, you are not going fast enough”

Offline 4-barrel Mike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3173
  • Any fool can drive a V8
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #80 on: March 24, 2011, 01:21:34 PM »
Russ Meeks' business: http://www.finishlinecoatings.com/

Mike
Mike Kelly - PROUD owner of the V4F that powered the #1931 VGC to a 82.803 mph record in 2008!

Offline 38flattie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
    • http://www.flatcadracing.org/
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #81 on: March 24, 2011, 02:36:23 PM »
Tony, is this the same style unit?
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925

You can't make a race horse out of a pig. But if you work hard enough at it you can make a mighty fast pig. - Bob Akin

http://www.flatcadracing.org/
http://youtu.be/89rVb497_4c

Offline maguromic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
    • http://www.barringtontea.com
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #82 on: March 24, 2011, 02:51:48 PM »
That's it.  Less than a handful made though, and between Russ and myself we have half the production run. Tony
“If you haven’t seen the future, you are not going fast enough”

Offline Stan Back

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5956
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #83 on: March 24, 2011, 03:24:08 PM »
Tony et al --

The disadvantage I see to that one is that you combine the power loss of another gear set with the supposed power loss inherent with the 9" pinion's location.  I could see an advantage for stock cars that run one track one night and another the next, but seems like too much to give up with an LSR vehicle.  Please give me a clue, for as usual I may be clueless.

Stan
Past (Only) Member of the San Berdoo Roadsters -- "California's Most-Exclusive Roadster Club"

Offline Rex Schimmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2675
  • Only time and money prevent completion!
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #84 on: March 24, 2011, 03:36:27 PM »
Tony,
Any info on how efficient this quick change set up was? Looking at it there has to be two sets of gears, the change gears and a set of 1:1 gears to get the rotation in the right direction, these combined with the inherent inefficiency of the 9 inch it looks like you could easily loose 5%+ power through this set up.

Rex
Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.

Offline SPARKY

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6924
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #85 on: March 24, 2011, 04:15:52 PM »
I would bet on 8%
Miss LIBERTY,  changing T.K.I.  to noise, dust, rust, BLUE HATS & hopefully not scrap!!

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."   Helen Keller

We are going to explore the racing N words NITROUS & NITRO!

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #86 on: March 24, 2011, 04:43:05 PM »
But if Fastman's running a 2" long driveshaft, I'm seeing clearance problems.

And cheers to Fastman614 - it takes a brave soul to go on line with this crowd and announce he has a 2" driveshaft. 

There's an example of absolute confidence.  :wink:

 :cheers:
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline Stan Back

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5956
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #87 on: March 24, 2011, 04:51:17 PM »
Now I understand the Fastman, the 614 must be metric or Whitworth.
Past (Only) Member of the San Berdoo Roadsters -- "California's Most-Exclusive Roadster Club"

Offline maguromic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
    • http://www.barringtontea.com
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #88 on: March 24, 2011, 05:01:49 PM »
Stan,  I don’t know the efficiency of these units, but I would venture that you are correct in your assumptions.  The whole idea of this was for us to use a 2.50 gear and the qyickchange to get into the 1.70-1.80 gear range.  We were going t make up the lost efficiency in making the aero more efficient and throw more Hp at it. 

Rex, I never ran this on the sled or did any other tests to see how it sis. But I would agree with you.  Tony
“If you haven’t seen the future, you are not going fast enough”

Offline fastman614

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Rear end efficiency
« Reply #89 on: March 24, 2011, 06:29:10 PM »
huh?????.... i don't understand your comments at allmilwaukee midget and stan....

so like .... could you explain please?
No s*** sticks to the man wearing a teflon suit.