|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
pic: Wheel
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
Wow, that's an amazing machining job! Did you machine it yourself just to get the diameter to 3.5 inches? I really like how you integrated the sprocket with the wheel.
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
Nice wheel Jeff.
Bryan showed me some earlier pictures of it and I'm glad to see you got it all done. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
I started with a 3.75" OD stock and Machined the sprockets as well as removed a lot of material from the other side.
|
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
Why?
What advantages does this offer over a more common, more flexible approach? |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
Quote:
That said it is definitely "cool" |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
I find it cool that the sprocket is part of the wheel... this allows for a rigid "mount" that cannot be beat.
Last edited by Sean Raia : 09-02-2012 at 13:32. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
It's definitely rigid at the expense of a huge amount of machining time and material waste. The sprocket also doesnt have the typical chamfer which could lead to interesting performance as well.
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
Quote:
In a way, it's built like an aircraft part: lots of material wasted to get a complex solid shape—but few fasteners and joints to worry about, and minimal weight. But it seems like if you're going to go to those lengths to save weight, you ought to do something about the rim thickness. (Or is it going to be sliced much narrower later, and/or turned down significantly?) |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
Quote:
Quote:
As far as material waste it uses an extra 3/4" of stock on the wheel. The lack of the chamfer is not that big of a deal I have ran sprockets like this over the past 3 seasons with no issues. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
Just think how much fun it'll be when you find out you need a slightly larger or smaller sprocket!
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
On the drive system between wheels the ratio should always be 1:1 (assuming same wheel size) and with one of the wheels being direct drive if there is a ratio issue it would be accounted for in the gearbox
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
Yeah, I'd be interested in how the sprocket without the chamfer would work out. I predict finikeyness if not executed properly...
|
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Wheel
What is the weight benefit for that? Is there another benefit besides weight? This just seems like a really impractical way to make a wheel.
|
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not to give the textbook mentor answer, but if students learned in the process, I see that it has more benefit than just weight saving. If they didn't... well it's still pretty nifty.
I too was wondering why the rim thickness was kept so thick, until I realized the center spokes of the wheel are only about 3/4" or so wide (relative to wheel width). I also realized that's what you meant by "a lot of material was removed from the back side". |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|