Yes, a sprocket in place of a brake disk on the sidecar and a junk yard Toyota starter motor with just a thumb on/off button to modulate the speed. Although, a reverse polarity motor would also provide reverse.
Fly Sniper, I am talking about a motorcycle 2WD. I mentioned the massive Dana 70-80 type limited slip as a simple reference to cluch plate & driven disc surface area. You couldn't get it in the understanding. The Dana 70-80 is massive for a reason: the relative load. The Dana 70-80 is designed for a 7,000-9,000 lb vehicle. That design also references, or is relative to, the possible coefficients of traction, with possibly huge, wide, aggressive tread 4WD tires. The Dana 70-80 is designed to keep the pinion from snapping or walking up the ring gear when 400-500 HP or 400-500 ft/lbs of torque is applied. The carrier housing is designed to cope with extremely large rotational and dynamic forces. It is also designed to stay straight instead of wrinkled like a pretzel when all these combinations of forces are present at the same time, which calls for massive axle tubes, full floating axles, a monstrous carrier housing and sometimes even extra reinforcing ribs cast into carrier. Despite all those huge forces at work trying to disintegrate metal in all directions, the Dana 70-80 uses clutch frictions and steel driven discs of about 5.5" diameter and 1/8" and 1/16" thickness respectively. That was the point of reference: the RELATIVE diameter and thickness of friction materials used in successfully applying force from engine to wheels. A motorcycle sidecar rig does not weigh 7,000-9,000 lbs. It does not have 400-500 diesel HP or 500-600 ft/lbs of diesel torque applied to rear wheels. A diesel's low speed torque occurs at very close to off-idle rpm's so that the shock to drive system is much greater due to mass of vehicle not yet being accelerated: more inherent resistance to applied force. A sidecar rig does not have 42" tall x 13" wide extreme traction 4WD tires either. A motorcycle sidecar rig doesn't need a Dana 70-80 sized rear carrier or drive system because it is RELATIVELY tiny compared to the described Dana 70-80 equipped truck. Additionally, it has 1/10 -1/4 the amount of applied horsepower and torque. The applied force is far lower. I never described an unsupported clutch in any way, shape or form. You may have imagined it or interpreted that from what was written. Did you read the part about clutch hubs and bearing carriers/supports and spline shafts? Unsupported? Flex? How? Where? My original post was not perfect and I expected some folks to have questions about the areas of the design that were confusing because of wording or individual understanding of it. I would happily answer any questions the best I can. .
I'd be happy to 'let you understand', if it was possible. No, I didn't say I had patented this particular design, ever. That is hearsay, clap trap, unsubstantiated invalid rumor. I removed the original post information and modified another post because of the reasons I stated. That is, I had originally posted information on my own original mechanical design with the intent of giving some free help to others, strangers to me: to assist them in building their own system like mine. It was a free gift to bless others with no strings attached. Because of several replies and responses I decided that nobody around here was much interested in my original design. I have rewritten the original post to try and make it more understandable and have edited several thread replies I had made because they were unpleasant to read.
Hi, Claude! Well, that's one good way to look at this farce. However I don't really want my public reputation on the internet to be trashed into oblivion based on misinformation, misunderstanding or inability to comprehend what I wrote. I said nothing wrong, did nothing wrong and only tried to help others in the beginning post by giving a free gift. Take care, thanks.
And your point is??? When and where anyone can see your "gift" functioning on any sidecar?? Do you, by any chance, enjoy more typing your nasty answers than working on a prototype (in which people could have been interested in, if it was not only hot air!).
Yes, parts highlighted are correct. This is difficult to explain on the PTO & jackshaft without a picture but I'll try. The problem comes in keeping chains/sprockets aligned, yet adding a PTO. Come off the engine/gearbox output sprocket and run chain up to a sprocket on end of a jackshaft. This jackshaft can transmit power across chassis to other side of bike. On that same jackshaft mount a 2nd sprocket immediately inside on shaft & next to the 1st one, closer to frame center. Now run a chain from that 2nd sprocket to a sprocket on another short layshaft. The short layshaft also has an additional sprocket, properly aligned with the engine/trans output sprocket and rear wheel sprocket. From the layshaft's 2nd sprocket you're all lined up to carry power to rear wheel sprocket of bike per its original design, and the jackshaft has given a PTO to other side of bike wherever you want it. 2 small aluminum plates can hold bearings for the jackshaft & lay shaft and take up very little real estate. Plates may be done in a sort of box configuration for strengthening and easier mounting. The PTO shaft might be splined on outer end for u-joint to a driveshaft to chair. Yes, PTO & chain drive to hack rear wheel, using a bike swingarm and bike original rear wheel. Chain allows for hack swingarm travel. Not sure, just not convinced, that the PTO driveshaft over to hack wheel sprocket shouldn't have a universal joint, what with the slight flex in both chassis and possible engine/trans movement, but in most applications the splined shaft allowing that movement is enough. I do want a splined u-joint somewhere in the PTO/jackshaft, sorta just in case? There's movement. However bearing mounts/supports must keep driveshaft absolutely rigid for proper clutch plates/driven disc alignment, no skimping there. Stupidest thread ever? Yeah, now it sure is, but it sure as hell didn't start out that way. An honest, open-minded appraisal will judge how it got the stupid parts added later in large, nearly unlimited quantities, post by post.
XL-erate, you just described nearly an identical system as I proposed for my own rig more than a year ago. So, how is your design unique? And how is it cheaper, lighter, and stronger, as stated in your original first post?
Went to build a race car rear suspension for a stock car one time and found that torsion bars were not legal. So I did some limnkage things and made some bell cranks and stuff to be able to allow the car to think it had tosion bars on it but really it had coil over shocks....so...the thing did well at the track and it wasn't long before someone else had this same basic design advertized in the magazines. I am quite sure the guy who tried to sell this system never heard of or saw what we had done....but he did almost the same thing. We just laughed it off ....no biggie. What does all this mean...nuttin really. .
So what your saying is that we all have brains that basicly work the same way and 2 or more people can think up the same thing !!! RADICAL !!!!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok this is funny from your edited original post:: "It is copyrighted material, my brother is a lawyer, and we can always use some pocket change." WOW!! I love idle threats and you keep coming back for more cut your loses go lick your wounds and let the this thread die!!! This is an open forum not copyrighted material but wait some people have saved your original idea and now can use it but it won't work!!! Your idea is all over the internet contact your brother lawyer and have him get started he has a lot of work to do.
The point: to reply directly to the thread I quoted. Can't see what part of that is so blasted hard to figure out. It's past prototype but I chose to share it as I shared it. If folks were interested in what I originally posted, fine. If not, fine. Makes no difference to me, I just put it out there, that's all. Nasty anwers? My replies were all in keeping with the nature of posts which I quoted, to make it obvious who cast the first stone. It's real easy to sit back and post negative comments to belittle other's posts but most people value something of substance instead. I have edited several of my own responses to remove argumentative material. .
I see. Somehow I am expected to know what you 'proposed' for your own rig nearly a year ago. I didn't see a build thread or in depth description of that shared with details or anything, was that posted in ADV Rider nearly a year ago? I certainly have no idea how my design is superior to yours when I've never seen or heard of your design before today in this thread.
It's right here in the Hacks forum: http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12743075&highlight=2WD#post12743075 Of course I didn't expect you had seen it. But from your first post you described your design as being unique and superior to previous designs. It isn't. My guess is this basic concept has been done many times by many designers. I'm the 100th person to think of it, and you're maybe the 101st. Exactly, which is why it seemed strange for you to make such a claim, when it's impossible to know if your design is unique or not, and superior or not. Actually, I don't think what I described in the linked thread is anything special either. It may work great in one application, and poorly in another. I never imagined it to be an original idea, since I've seen so many innovative things done, starting with stuff created over a hundred years ago when the sidecar first came to exist. BTW, many if not most in this forum provide free information, free ideas, and free help on all kinds of subjects. It's something that goes on all day long here. There's nothing special about someone posting a helpful idea for anyone to use free of charge. There's no need to make a big deal about it, or defend it like it's the one and only golden egg. It was nice of you to put the idea out there. It was just done in a strange way.
Thing is, sometimes folks will read/scan over something and get an idea in their brain that's actually not a correct understanding of what was written. Then that incorrect concept and thought is held close and it effects all the rest of their understanding of what was actually written, skewing the entire thing in their mind. I know I do that at times until I reread. This is not sarcasm at all - It was expected that anyone with the moxie to build this system would know by the description that where one or more clutch discs are forced against one or more driven discs that there must be thrust washers, and that only bearings of a particular type would work, as in thrust bearings. It's theoretically and even literally impossible for me to correctly or completely describe exactly what bearing carriers, bearings, thrust washers, u-joints, shafts, splines, clutch discs, driven discs or anything else should be used. Why? Because I have no earthly idea what application someone is going to try to use it in??? The piece I wrote was a conceptual description, a semi [barely] technical description of a working concept of a design for Limited Slip 2WD that could be adapted, that's adapted, to virtually any sidecar by a well skilled gearhead/mechanic/fabricator. It was obvious that it was not a concise 'Insert tab A into Slot B' detailed build description and wasn't intended to be. Points listed per ORIGINAL post: 1] Yes, pretty close, but I think I said something more like 'virtually' or 'probably' or 'possibly' no machining required except for having splines cut? There is a difference from a flat statement that absolutely no machining processes are required; again because I have no idea how an individual would personally choose to build it. 2] Again I believe I included a qualifier like 'virtually' or 'possibly' salvaged parts or leftover parts? How can I possibly know what parts anyone has in their stash without a detailed inventory? Is it even logical to assume I could? 3] Yes, a dry clutch with adjustable spring tension to control rate of slip. Pretty hard to miss that part. "Flex MUST be controlled, therefore it must either have a housing or the entire structure must be extremely rigid (read:massive), even with a low torque motorcycle engine. A housing would be more practical... no machining (point 1) means we fall back to point 2 and source it from the boneyard. Now where in the heck to find a ready made diff/clutch housing suitable for something like this?? I've spent enough time in boneyards to know that gems like that refuse to materialize 99x10^23 times when you're looking for them." I have a golf cart rear differential that is very similar to what you haven't been able to find, I suggest you look in that direction. Old ones are really stout. As concerns the design described that's one of the primary things that's avoided because it isn't necessary, which is pretty much the basic premise of all of the rest of the whole description! Really, that was the main point: light weight, no differential or heavy carrier needed, no need to source such a difficult to find and expensive to buy part. The answer given by me: DIY, simple, and the post described how, which was point #2. Yes, I really meant no differential housing and bearings supported by bearing carriers, of one's own design when they build. Bad to assume, but the assumption is that the builder will fully know exactly what they are doing, either from prior experience or from a crash course and in-depth education, one or the other. You might be surprised to see how bearing carriers are used in automated industry and manufacturing to support tremendous loads, with astonishing horsepower applied under far from optimal conditions, running 24 hours a day for years and years. Another example is in the bowels of an ocean going ship of very large displacement, to see how the drive system, shafts, bearings and bearing carriers are configured. Some of the engines used for motive power dwarf the size of a locomotive with driveshaft supported in open bearing carriers with suitable thrust bearings. On the other hand, modern design practices and advancements mean that strong, inflexible and robust construction no longer has to rhyme with 'massive'. .
