[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
cups v. coilovers then 4spd. vs. 5 spd, now gears.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_02A5_01C2CF2F.A858A730
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gears with less pitch (smaller teeth) tend to be both slightly more =
efficient and quieter. They are also slightly smoother in their power =
delivery, though I doubt that would have much impact on this =
application.
Larry
sandiego16v
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Ron Pieper=20
To: Dan Bubb ; scirocco-l@scirocco.org=20
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: cups v. coilovers? Now weight & 4spd. vs. 5 spd.
--- Dan Bubb <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I haven't really known how to respond to this what with the trend to
> more
> and more gears in the latest high performance cars.
> One suggestion is to lay out a graph of torque or HP vs. MPH
> available for
> all the gears and then overlay the two graphs. This should give you =
a
> good
> idea of which combination will give better acceleration in the speed
> range
> of interest and if there are going to be huge holes in acceleration
> if the
> gear spacing is too wide.
The 0-60 figures I'm predicting based on Jason Camissa's spreadsheet
all point, naturally, to the 4K setup: 3.94 F/D, 3.45, 2.12, 1.44 (1st
- 3rd are the only ones of interest) being the fastest. I can build
that into a 4-speed I'm sure, but highway driveability becomes a big
issue. =20
> As far as the difference in handling and braking as a result of
> saving 20lb.....?
IMO the advantage of a 20lb savings would be significant for autocross
purposes only. There are many factors in this decision including my
own automotive future.
> One other thought, (since you must have available any f/d you care =
to
> pick from) is why use a 3.89? The 3.89 gear set has 93 teeth vs. 84 =
>
teeth for the 3.94 or 3.67 gear sets. Bigger teeth are stronger!
Interestingly, the 2H I just built for Tobias (via Eric S) had a =
3.94:1
made of a 63R + 16P =3D 79 total. The choice of which ~3.9 R&P combo
would be an issue if rings and pinions tended to fail, but IMO they're
pretty robust. But to dive in anyway, are few big teeth really
stronger? or more small ones (less polar moment on each tooth, less
time engaged, although less material supporting it)? Since my
knowledge of mechanics and gears is waaaay old, I'll defer to one of
the ME's on the list...(is that you?). =20
Practical observation: why didn't VW continue the use of the 63/16 2H
3.94 combination above if it was stronger? Fewer teeth =3D less gear
grinding therefore cheaper to make. =20
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Scirocco-l mailing list
Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
------=_NextPart_000_02A5_01C2CF2F.A858A730
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3504.2500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gears with less pitch (smaller teeth) =
tend to be=20
both slightly more efficient and quieter. They are also slightly =
smoother=20
in their power delivery, though I doubt that would have much impact on =
this=20
application.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Larry</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>sandiego16v</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:rapieper@yahoo.com"; title=3Drapieper@yahoo.com>Ron =
Pieper</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
href=3D"mailto:jdbubb@ix.netcom.com"=20
title=3Djdbubb@ix.netcom.com>Dan Bubb</A> ; <A=20
href=3D"mailto:scirocco-l@scirocco.org"=20
title=3Dscirocco-l@scirocco.org>scirocco-l@scirocco.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, February 08, =
2003 4:40=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: cups v. coilovers? =
Now=20
weight & 4spd. vs. 5 spd.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>--- Dan Bubb <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:jdbubb@ix.netcom.com";>jdbubb@ix.netcom.com</A>> =
wrote:<BR>>=20
I haven't really known how to respond to this what with the trend =
to<BR>>=20
more<BR>> and more gears in the latest high performance =
cars.<BR>> One=20
suggestion is to lay out a graph of torque or HP vs. MPH<BR>> =
available=20
for<BR>> all the gears and then overlay the two graphs. This should =
give=20
you a<BR>> good<BR>> idea of which combination will give better=20
acceleration in the speed<BR>> range<BR>> of interest and if =
there are=20
going to be huge holes in acceleration<BR>> if the<BR>> gear =
spacing is=20
too wide.<BR><BR>The 0-60 figures I'm predicting based on Jason =
Camissa's=20
spreadsheet<BR>all point, naturally, to the 4K setup: 3.94 F/D, 3.45, =
2.12,=20
1.44 (1st<BR>- 3rd are the only ones of interest) being the =
fastest. I=20
can build<BR>that into a 4-speed I'm sure, but highway driveability =
becomes a=20
big<BR>issue. <BR><BR>> As far as the difference in handling =
and=20
braking as a result of<BR>> saving 20lb.....?<BR><BR>IMO the =
advantage of a=20
20lb savings would be significant for autocross<BR>purposes =
only. There=20
are many factors in this decision including my<BR>own automotive=20
future.<BR><BR>> One other thought, (since you must have available =
any f/d=20
you care to<BR>> pick from) is why use a 3.89? The 3.89 gear set =
has 93=20
teeth vs. 84 ><BR> teeth for the 3.94 or 3.67 gear sets. =
Bigger teeth=20
are stronger!<BR><BR>Interestingly, the 2H I just built for Tobias =
(via Eric=20
S) had a 3.94:1<BR>made of a 63R + 16P =3D 79 total. The choice =
of which=20
~3.9 R&P combo<BR>would be an issue if rings and pinions tended to =
fail,=20
but IMO they're<BR>pretty robust. But to dive in anyway, are few =
big=20
teeth really<BR>stronger? or more small ones (less polar moment on =
each tooth,=20
less<BR>time engaged, although less material supporting it)? =
Since=20
my<BR>knowledge of mechanics and gears is waaaay old, I'll defer to =
one=20
of<BR>the ME's on the list...(is that you?). <BR><BR>Practical=20
observation: why didn't VW continue the use of the 63/16 2H<BR>3.94=20
combination above if it was stronger? Fewer teeth =3D less=20
gear<BR>grinding therefore cheaper to make. =20
<BR><BR>__________________________________________________<BR>Do you=20
Yahoo!?<BR>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.<BR><A =
=
href=3D"http://mailplus.yahoo.com";>http://mailplus.yahoo.com</A><BR><BR>_=
______________________________________________<BR>Scirocco-l=20
mailing list<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:Scirocco-l@scirocco.org";>Scirocco-l@scirocco.org</A><BR><A=
=20
=
href=3D"http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l";>http://neubayer=
n.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_02A5_01C2CF2F.A858A730--