Blower belt slip problem fix?
#16
#17
#18
Originally posted by wydopnthrtl
Some of you guys will deny anything that does'nt fit the paradigm in *YOUR* head!
OK..? lets have a little fun JimJr & grinomyte.
What exactly DOES "mean much" for spinning a belt driven FEAD component?
Rich
Some of you guys will deny anything that does'nt fit the paradigm in *YOUR* head!
OK..? lets have a little fun JimJr & grinomyte.
What exactly DOES "mean much" for spinning a belt driven FEAD component?
Rich
Rich is the man!
oh BTW,
Teh Cobra R waterpump can neva loose!
#20
#22
Ayrton
Personally I think its suicide but that is just my opinion.
The stock balancer only registers on about 3/4" of the crankshaft nose and the 12 mm bolt isn't big enough in IMO either.
The stock balancer is iron and being dissimilar to the steel crankshaft it does a pretty good job......it moves around but it doesn't wear, the two metals seem to be compatible.
I put an SFI steel balancer on the nose of my steel crankshaft and within less than 300 miles it was already welding itself to the crank. And this was with a JDM caged pulley on there. What I don't know it if the caged pulley caused the balancer to walk around or would it actually have been worse with out it. At any rate it cost me a new crankshaft and a new stock balancer.
Now back to the cog setup......the damper isn't registering on very much crankshaft and the bolt isn't that big and it ain't that strong, even if you use ARP clamping hardware they don't give you the thread engagement you need. So my long winded point is the only thing we got going for us is belt slip....without it...we would be screwed , IMO.
Dale
PS....I hope I'm wrong about this cause that is a cool setup and I wouldn't mind having one
Personally I think its suicide but that is just my opinion.
The stock balancer only registers on about 3/4" of the crankshaft nose and the 12 mm bolt isn't big enough in IMO either.
The stock balancer is iron and being dissimilar to the steel crankshaft it does a pretty good job......it moves around but it doesn't wear, the two metals seem to be compatible.
I put an SFI steel balancer on the nose of my steel crankshaft and within less than 300 miles it was already welding itself to the crank. And this was with a JDM caged pulley on there. What I don't know it if the caged pulley caused the balancer to walk around or would it actually have been worse with out it. At any rate it cost me a new crankshaft and a new stock balancer.
Now back to the cog setup......the damper isn't registering on very much crankshaft and the bolt isn't that big and it ain't that strong, even if you use ARP clamping hardware they don't give you the thread engagement you need. So my long winded point is the only thing we got going for us is belt slip....without it...we would be screwed , IMO.
Dale
PS....I hope I'm wrong about this cause that is a cool setup and I wouldn't mind having one
#24
I`ve used both belts. In fact I use to stock gaterbacks when I had my shop. The horizontal grooves in the gaterback belts are for ease of wrapping around pullies better and not for belt traction. I believe "MISTERgadget" is correct, the grooves on the gatorbacks are a marketing thing. Personally, I now use the Gates belt. It`s more thicker than the Goodyear and Dayco belts. The grooves are full and that gives you more surface area for better belt traction.
#26
I think that maybe the answer is not quite as simple as the "surface area" argument might assume. The important aspect is total friction, right?
A slick tire grips better, other things being equal, to a treaded tire, because more surface area, true. But it is gripping a rough surface. The soft rubber comforms to the gravel in the asphalt and grabs the front edge of each rock, which allows the tire to "push off" from the collection of these tiny rock faces. At least that's how my weed-addled mind sees it.
On my slick painted garage floor, there is almost no grip at all, because there is nothing sticking up for the tires to grip and push off on.
The RR pulley seems to give better grip, yet it has less surface area than a smooth pulley.
The Gatorback has been reported to solve belt slippage problems, yet it also have less surface area than a smooth belt.
Could it be that the irregularities in the RR pulley and Gatorback create pressure points where the grip is increased at those points sufficient to provide an overall increase in traction, even with less surface area?
If not, how does the RR pulley work? Or does it?
I'm not saying that one side or the other is wrong -- I'm just wondering if the "surface area" issue is being framed in two dimensions when it maybe should be framed in three.
A slick tire grips better, other things being equal, to a treaded tire, because more surface area, true. But it is gripping a rough surface. The soft rubber comforms to the gravel in the asphalt and grabs the front edge of each rock, which allows the tire to "push off" from the collection of these tiny rock faces. At least that's how my weed-addled mind sees it.
On my slick painted garage floor, there is almost no grip at all, because there is nothing sticking up for the tires to grip and push off on.
The RR pulley seems to give better grip, yet it has less surface area than a smooth pulley.
The Gatorback has been reported to solve belt slippage problems, yet it also have less surface area than a smooth belt.
Could it be that the irregularities in the RR pulley and Gatorback create pressure points where the grip is increased at those points sufficient to provide an overall increase in traction, even with less surface area?
If not, how does the RR pulley work? Or does it?
I'm not saying that one side or the other is wrong -- I'm just wondering if the "surface area" issue is being framed in two dimensions when it maybe should be framed in three.
#27
#29