2WD design thoughts

[Prmurat]

Originally Posted by XL-erate

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, which you apparently missed or couldn't understand. 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.

The reponses were mostly insults, or inconsiderate thread trashing, or entirely of topic, or unrelated, or a thread-crapping combination of all four at once. That is the same as spitting in the face of a stranger who walks up and hands you a free gift [that could be very valuable to you]. Would you appreciate that if you had been the gift giver? No, you wouldn't.

Because of those replies and responses I decided that nobody around here was much interested in my original design offered or was not the sort of person I wanted to share with afterall, plain and simple.

Your own snide remarks based on more misinformation just come with the territory around here I guess.

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!).

[XL-erate]

Originally Posted by ag_streak

For some godforsaken reason, I decided to punish myself, and try once again to see if I could comprehend what the original poster is/was proposing. I think I have it now...

The uniqueness of his design (I think) is this: The transverse shaft providing power to the hack wheel comes from a PTO from the bike's engine (somehow), that's ahead of the hack wheel, and has a sprocket on the end driving a chain back to the hack wheel, which is a standard bike rear wheel with a sprocket.

As opposed to a PTO from the rear wheel/diff of a shaft-drive bike, with the transverse shaft to the hack wheel and u-joints at both ends to allow for suspension movement.

My question is: How the hell to you get/create a "PTO" from a bike engine that doesn't have one? How could that possibly be done with off the shelf components?

But I'll give the idea one theoretical advantage: Look at the second picture in Bieb's post #2. The gearbox is rigidly mounted to the hack frame, which is fixed in relation to the bike frame. Therefore, both jack shafts have to account for suspension travel (with four u-joints).

XL-erate's design, if I understand it correctly, would keep the drive shaft fixed in relation to the hack frame and the bike frame, and only the chain to the hack wheel is needed to allow for the suspension travel. That is pretty simple, and doesn't require u-joints. I just don't know how you spin a shaft off the motor of a stock bike.

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.

[HogWild]

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?

[claude]

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.
.

[NortwestRider]

Originally Posted by claude

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

[Biebs]

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.

[XL-erate]

Originally Posted by Prmurat

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!).

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.

.

[XL-erate]

Originally Posted by HogWild

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?

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.

[HogWild]

Originally Posted by XL-erate

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?

It's right here in the Hacks forum:
http://advrider.com/forums/showthrea...D#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.

Originally Posted by XL-erate

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.

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.

[XL-erate]

Originally Posted by FlySniper

If nothing else, you are very obtuse.

Try to focus here....

My original point from the very start has been: Your "limited slip differential" as you originally described it (dry clutch, no housing, no machine work, adjustable springs to control slip, junkyard parts) won't work.

My reasoning: You said (and I'm repeating myself)
1. No machining except for maybe cutting splines.
2. All salvaged/junkyard parts.
3. Dry clutch with adjustable spring tension to control slip.

I took exception to this because I know how finiky LSDs can be. 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.

But you really meant no housing and shafts supported only with pillow blocks, right?

Duck, sidestep and dance around as you will. You presented your idea as being complete and workable... and worse, as being the best thing since sliced bread.

Now you claim to have presented it looking for suggestions on ways to make it better....(which was not the way it was originally presented)


And now you whine that I have mortally insulted you and continue to do so... Hmmm... I'm actually not couching anything, no hidden insults or agendas. An Ace is an Ace and a Spade is a Spade... a stinker of an idea is a stinker of an idea....

And there is no one here I'm worried about impressing. If you and I were locked together in an abandoned box factory in Siberia... in the winter with only one, threadbare blanket and no electricity or internet and you presented this same idea in the same manner, I'd still say you don't know what you're talking about and make fun of you.


Can you build it?

For all I know you may be a true mechanical genius/McGyver and able to crank out this thing one handed while drunk, blindfolded, naked and entertaining the Swedish Bikini Team. If so I will recant every mean thing I said...


So far though, I've seen no indication that I'll ever need to recant the things I've said.


Build one that works and I'll give you some mature, polite conversation if that's all you're after.


EDIT:... Maybe I'm not being fair. Maybe I am doing a poor job of understanding or you a poor job of explaining. I'll be more civil and hit you up with some reasonable, mature questions later... polite? eh... That varies from individual to individual, but I will tone it down some since your threshold seems a bit low.

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'.

.

[Prmurat]

How people could have complained about Bokad...

[matman1972]

Originally Posted by Prmurat

How people could have complained about Bokad...

[matman1972]

Originally Posted by XL-erate

Once again I find it necessary to defend myself against erroneous, unfounded accustations. I don't know if the copy I have of the writeup for this design has the last few paragraphs but in it I did not use the word differential. To me that descibes a single unit of axles and carrier and my design has no carrier so I never said differential and didn't describe one.

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. The rest seems to be a mystery to you.

"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.

It's pretty obvious from the nature of all your replies that the two main, foundational points of my original post were missed by you, for whatever reason: then I was held hostage because you misunderstood! I get painted like a lame brained wannabe super hero jerk because YOU misinterpreted what was written.

Moving on, where you add more insult to injury: 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.

Apparently your own exposure to bearing carriers is fairly limited. In that case you would be surprised, even shocked, 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 place of amazement for you is in the bowels of an ocean going ship of very large displacement, to learn 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'.

"Duck, sidestep and dance around as you will. You presented your idea as being complete and workable... and worse, as being the best thing since sliced bread."

BULL! TOTAL INVENTED BULL CRAP! I did NOT present the idea as COMPLETE! Thats miles from the truth, which is apparently a stranger to you. It couldn't be more obvious in what's written that how a person chose to build it is 100% open according to their skills, experience, available materials and all the other known variables.

Neither did I get haughty and conceited and proud and boastful, no, I did not! I humbly presented a concept, a design, an idea I wanted to freely share, in the first post, that's ALL! In a follow-up post I defended myself and listed why the design was good, and why it's better than many others, which I obviously think it is or I wouldn't have posted in the first place. That's a long ways from a pumped up ego and some kind of personal image problem. Again, your own inventions and misunderstanding fuels your attacks and insults while it ignores what I actually posted, in the first post.

"Now you claim to have presented it looking for suggestions on ways to make it better....(which was not the way it was originally presented)"

I'm having extreme difficulty discovering any part of my original post which you actually did understand. Within that the joke is on you, because many people copied it to their hard drive and know exactly what was written, and many understood it and all of them can clearly see your 100% failure to comprehend [along with a few others here, but thank God not all!] while at the same time throwing insults because of your own confusion. Too bad I can't post some of the messages I've received to show who's laughing now.

I did NOT claim to have presented it looking for suggestions to make it better. That is another figment of your imagination, not based at all in truth, yet again. I expected people to come back with questions or even suggestions on how they think it might work for them in their application. I thought there might be an interaction and exchange of information on the subject. I believe there would have been, if the thread didn't get blown clear out of the water with ridiculous replies, huge useless pictures, plus other people's entirely unrelated ideas for sidecar drive systems and then uncalled for insults and on and on: thread destroyed by the first page!

"But I do get sick of Internet people claiming to know a great deal about a thing they know nothing about. Your post struck me as such and I've seen nothing to change my mind."

What a shame and a pity that you aren't possessed of common decency, manners or some idea of internet protocol and code of conduct. If you didn't like the design nobody was twisting your arm to build it. Beyond that, there was nothing in the original post that earned any outright insults from you, because all it was is a suggestion on how to accomplish 2WD L/S in a sidecar DIY build. The problem here is that you leap off a cliff of blind assumptions, thinking I know nothing of what I speak. You have no idea at all what my direct experience is, none, but you're apparently an expert on me. For a fact I have over 50 years of direct, hands-on mechanical experience, training etc. including 50 years of fabrication experience including countless drive systems.

"And there is no one here I'm worried about impressing. If you and I were locked together in an abandoned box factory in Siberia... in the winter with only one, threadbare blanket and no electricity or internet and you presented this same idea in the same manner, I'd still say you don't know what you're talking about and make fun of you."

The sad but truly hilarious part in the way of sick humor is that your problem isn't actually in me not knowing what I'm taking about. It is with YOU not knowing, grasping, understanding or having a clue about what I'm talking about! Because you cannot understand, you throw insults, rather than simply asking for clarification or further explanation! That's called normal conversation, give and take, friendly repertoire, a civilized exchange of ideas. It's seemingly foreign to you.

What a pity. You've spent so much band width critiquing, criticizing, insulting, trying to make a fool out of me and yet you have not posted up a superior design from your own imagination and you cannot mentally grasp this one.

"EDIT:... Maybe I'm not being fair. Maybe I am doing a poor job of understanding or you a poor job of explaining. I'll be more civil and hit you up with some reasonable, mature questions later... polite? eh... That varies from individual to individual, but I will tone it down some since your threshold seems a bit low."

Yes indeed, maybe you aren't being fair. Save yourself the mental anguish on that one. I have no further desire to communicate with you, wouldn't now except to defend myself.

.

And, the award for most bunched pair of panties ever known goes to.....

[skippy1970]

to be honest i is quite worn out reading it let alone writing it

get a room and be done with it

[HAYVIATOR]

I read that entire thread. I don't know why. Another 15 minutes I'll never get back...