Tried again with upload failure, both from computer and iPhone. Will attempt to start another thread next week, or ask one of you to post for me. Any volunteers? Email nav27k at Comcast.net
Thanks!
Printable View
Tim
Email to me and I will try. I have found lately, past month after the site went down, that it very size critical. I have to convert the size of all my pic now.
This forum softaware needs fixing and updating. I see errors everytime when posting or uploading.
Another forum I visit does not allow pictures to be posted. Instead we put our pictures on web hosting site and post a link to the picture. Would that work here? In fact I will give it a try.
http://i67.tinypic.com/2ypnamp.jpg
There it is.
kk
The only way my last four pictures would post was after I used Microsoft "Paint" program to reduce the width & height to 25% of the original picture, which put my pictures just under 100 kilobytes... Then it worked.
Tom
I will now try to uoad Tims narrative.
Many thanks to all readers for your kind input. It's a great demonstration of the power of this forum! As a result, the links will be grounded carefully for tack welding to protect the little B65 pivot pin roller bearing (.375" pin dia.). Also, as you'll see in the images below, a B97 roller bearing (.562" pin dia.) is used for the wrist pin end of the link. As noted, this eliminates the need to heat treat, and guarantees a hardened roller surface.
The pivot bearing selected is large as possible given space constraints. The wrist pin bearing is .437" wide pressed into in a .446" rod (same width as factory). Factory thrust washers are retained; they are the top-guided rod bearing surfaces. Unless the cylinder bore spacing is off (unlikely),
From a weight and balance perspective, the factory rods selected were all 164.5 grams (+/- 0.5 g). The 888 modified rods with tab and bearing are 182.0 (+/- .5 g). The first link is 111.0 with wrist pin bearing, and the pin is 18.0 g. So, the combined weight of the tab, link, and pin is 146.5 g (+/-). This is 18 grams less than the factory rod. The question is: Should it be lightened?
Attachment 60978
Attachment 60979
Attachment 60980
The balance of the 2nd paragraph. These are uploads for Tim.
the plan is to support the rod from each end such as not to induce diagonal loading through the journal bearings, and to maintain alignment between the counterweight cheeks. 888 fork rod width is .575", and the space between cheeks is .640", which leaves only .032" clearance per side (crank end play is .010").
There are serious issues with uploading. Seems to be size issues of text or pics.
Your biggest issue is going to bucking of the new rod. The good thing is that the rod is shorter, and bucking failure is a square of the length so you won't require as much of a section as the OE rods. In looking at the pictures a few pages back you've got a lot more meat in this rod than you will likely need. Remember that bucking is a function of moment of inertia and modulus and not strength. That is the strength isn't an issue for bucking, it's modulus and steel is steel. You could calculate the bucking force necessary for the stock rod and then do the same calculation for your rod and that should tell you the story. If you maintain the same bucking capability you should be fine. If you've still got the rod that is in the picture you can clearly make it into an I beam on one direction or the other. Be careful though, the stock rod increases section near the bottom and that changes the section in the areas where the bending stress is the highest, so that's an issue too.