Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
We have tested that bell with good results ,But they dont last that long ,,Be great for sprint car ,,,,,:thumbsup:
Well Bob i guess i will have to take your word.Hard coat anodized or Carbide coated.Maybe a steel sleeve.
The thing is if made with the same wall thickness as steel.I got a year and a half out it.If the wall is thicker it will last alot longer.There is enough room for a thicker wall.I can't give out all the secrets..

Bob just kidding with you about secrets.:thumbsup::wave:
Back to the footbal game
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
Just in case someone doesn't know this, clutch bells are an Impact Part and, to the best of my knowledge, no aluminum ones have been approved yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Just in case someone doesn't know this, clutch bells are an Impact Part and, to the best of my knowledge, no aluminum ones have been approved yet.
Yes Brent I know.I just used it for a topic.To see If there was a possiblity.For future Use.

Who does one call?For the Impact Rules.A few years back. It was on the QSAC website.I thought it was under Contact Us.Not now.


Not picking just asking.:wave::cool:

Thanks ED
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
This a is another interesting topic . I played with this my self (aluminum clutch bells ) but very high maintenance with very little or no benefit.The Qsac rules cover impact parts on page 21, Ed
Thanks Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
This a is another interesting topic . I played with this my self (aluminum clutch bells ) but very high maintenance with very little or no benefit.The Qsac rules cover impact parts on page 21, Ed
Thanks Bill
Thanks Bill,
If the high maintenance.Means keeping the bell Dirt Free.You are right.I always hear about rotating mass.If the bell is lighter?Will that improve performance?


Just asking.I know the answer.Just looking for opinions.:wave:

ED
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
"1/4 Scale" is right. Less rotating weight is the supposed advantage but I did this with clutch shoes and couldn't find the benefit. The shoes and brake tear up the aluminum in short order then aluminum eats the shoe and brake material. I haven't seen one used with a good hard coat so I don't know if that would work. But why go though all the expense for no appreciable benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
We used to try them back in the 1 1/2 horse days with the pipe, and
lightened clutches ( the hard coated version ) They worked well but
as soon as something starting cutting through the plating it ate it self
alive. We saw no signifacant performance gain.
Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
"1/4 Scale" is right. Less rotating weight is the supposed advantage but I did this with clutch shoes and couldn't find the benefit. The shoes and brake tear up the aluminum in short order then aluminum eats the shoe and brake material. I haven't seen one used with a good hard coat so I don't know if that would work. But why go though all the expense for no appreciable benefit.
Hi Brent

Hard coating will not work.The shoes are too abrasive.Almost Like using sand paper or emery cloth.The aluminium bell will work.Not to the avantage.One might think.Did show the bell to Mark A. and Gary C. the first time i meet them.
RPMS did not go higher. Like i thought it would.With the bell being lighter.

Brent i agree that one would think.That they could get an advantage.It was on a WCM Sprint Car and a GN.It was just an idea that worked for a 1.5 years.
On your Cracker you must have tried. Bells with steel and aluminum shafts.Did you see a difference?If not.
Then we both know that rotating mass.Is not that important.Like making hubs lighter.Or an aluminum axle compared to steel.

I have my head gear and kevlar body gear on.Incase bombs start coming my way.LOL


Not picking, you know i like to ask questions.

Tom hi.The bell i made was used on the 230.

Thanks Ed:wave:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
No Ed I've never tried an aluminum bell but I've seen it used and it was not pretty. I based my information about less rotating weight using lightened and aluminum shoes.

The other reason for playing with the shoes, besides rotating weight, was to see if the clutch could be made to slip, muiltipling the torque coming out of the corners. The results were that there is a very fine line between slipping out of the corners and not engaging at all! The only way I can see this working is with an externally adjustable clutch which, per QSAC rules, is not allowed. I hope posting this saves somebody a lot of work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
No Ed I've never tried an aluminum bell but I've seen it used and it was not pretty. I based my information about less rotating weight using lightened and aluminum shoes.

The other reason for playing with the shoes, besides rotating weight, was to see if the clutch could be made to slip, muiltipling the torque coming out of the corners. The results were that there is a very fine line between slipping out of the corners and not engaging at all! The only way I can see this working is with an externally adjustable clutch which, per QSAC rules, is not allowed. I hope posting this saves somebody a lot of work.
Brent i hope you did not think i was picking on you?I was agreeing with you.
I understand the rules about an adjustable clutch.The lighten shoes.Were used years ago. O agree to do what you described.The motors these days have the HP and torque.

On the Cracker there was bells all steel.Then steel bell and aluminum shaft.Did you see a difference?Just Asking not picking.

ED:wave::cool:
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top