home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Mechanical > performance & modifications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-12-2011, 10:35 AM   #26
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doherty_340 View Post
some very helpful/informitive replies...thank you all.

tho, some new questions have arised....

i've watched a computer generated video on youtube of this diff, how it works, and it in 'exploded' views. ( i guess its the video posted? i haven't tried it as the media player on this laptop is rubbish. plays videos in robotic/ strobelight type jumps.)

if i go the welded weights route, and i suffer slip and a hot housing, can i still get it split to replace my clutchpacks??

could it be possible to install a single extra 'disc' to the worn pack to tighten them up? or best replacing all of the pack? i'd guess even with the extra 'disc' in the worn pack, the worn discs could still slip against one another but grip the single new 1, thus still giving slip/possibly more heat??

if the weights are welded, they still have to rotate to generate the lock-up, right? and if i just weld the pawl to the casing, the weights would still expand and...lock-up?? or bust into pieces?? lol.
When the weights are spinning, the diff is unlocked. Weights stopped=diff locked. You want to try to find a way to keep the weights from spinning.

Quote:
at first, i'd thought about shaving/champhering the weights at each end, increasing the centrifugal force needed to expand them out...then i thought that would just heighten the difference in speed needed between the wheels to achieve the lock-up?? am i understanding this correctly??
Your second thought is correct.

Quote:
sstory: i'd prefer to do this mod right, ie dissamble/cut the pawl/reassemble. tho only if its a better option. if welding the weights has the exact same outcome and is obv the quicker/easier option, then i'l do that...

also to clarify, the complete axle is out. i bought it on its own as my 940 is non locking. after upping the boost to 0.8 bar its funny, but not much 'fun' leaving 70ft long 1 wheeler lines. i like 11's and arse out achshun.
The more I think about it, the more disassembling/cutting off the pawl counterweight would be the best way to go. THe complete original function of the diff is retained, and the only thing you are changing is you are deleting the high-speed unlock. I think if you weld the spinning counterweights to the carrier, there will always be a lot more preload on the clutch packs than they were designed for, and they will wear prematurely.
__________________
Original Turbobricks mailing list member!
'07 XC90 3.2 AWD Black/Taupe<<--New!
'02 V70 T5M: Koni FSD's, Cut Springs, 18" Pegs Black/Graphite<<--Daily Driver
'91 745 V8 LT1 Swap Gray/Black 13.9@99.3mph, engine bone-stock<<--Sold, going to AZ!
'79/'82 Conglomerated 242 GT/GLT People<<--Next project. Crazy don't-care-about-reliability, hyperboosted build to come!
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 10:49 AM   #27
kildea
Board Member
 
kildea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sstory0626 View Post
I think if you weld the spinning counterweights to the carrier, there will always be a lot more preload on the clutch packs than they were designed for, and they will wear prematurely.
This is correct, but nobody is suggesting he do this.

The piece to weld is the large counterweight - welding that does the exact same thing as cutting it off, absolutely no change in the operation between the two methods - the operation of the bits inside are left completely untouched since the hooks simply stay in one place either way.
In each case the diff will unlock if the wheel that originally had traction looses traction - no matter what you do, if the flyweight axle changes rotation direction (traction goes from one wheel to the other) it will tend to back off.
kildea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 10:53 AM   #28
kendogg
V8 Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default

I've already looked into it, there's no way to make this pile work like a real clutch-type LSD.
kendogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 11:03 AM   #29
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

If you weld the pawl to the spinning counterweights, the spinning weights will no longer spin. Yeah, I see what you're talking about there. But where I disagree is in the difference between welding and cutting. If you cut the pawl counterweight, the spinning weights will still be able to spin and the diff will be able to function as an open diff. If you weld the pawl to the spinning weights, there will be no unlocking action and it will function as a standard clutch-type diff with a significant amount of preload, or at least a really touchy engagement. I think that will be the difference here--ability to function as an open diff until a certain axle speed difference is reached vs. only a torque difference required for lockup. Maybe the welded pawl is better for all-out performance applications where a progressive lockup is required, and the cut pawl better for daily drivability and longevity?
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 11:04 AM   #30
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

If you weld the pawl to the spinning counterweights, the spinning weights will no longer spin. Yeah, I see what you're talking about there. But where I disagree is in the difference between welding and cutting. If you cut the pawl counterweight, the spinning weights will still be able to spin and the diff will be able to function as an open diff. If you weld the pawl to the spinning weights, there will be no unlocking action and it will function as a standard clutch-type diff with a significant amount of preload, or at least a really touchy engagement. I think that will be the difference here--ability to function as an open diff until a certain axle speed difference is reached vs. only a torque difference required for lockup. Maybe the welded pawl is better for all-out performance applications where a progressive lockup is required, and the cut pawl better for daily drivability and longevity?
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 11:37 AM   #31
towerymt
the real Towery
 
towerymt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, USA
Default

Disassembly is not difficult. Cutting the weight was not difficult with a 4.5" grinder w/cutoff wheel. A little smokey, as the metal seemed to bleed gear oil as it was cut, making the familiar hot differential smell. But I wouldn't necessarily say it was easier or harder than welding the big weight into place. You'd want to do some clean and prep before welding, so that would take some time too.

I could have probably cut off more, and I might when we pull the diff to inspect the plates

towerymt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 11:43 AM   #32
Doherty_340
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default

again, thank you all for the informitive replies!

to clear up some of the confusion that has arised.

the place to weld is here:



this is pawl-casing gap to be bridged and welded, yes?


not:



or the gap from the pawl to the weight?

jus' so everyone ( myself included ) understands.

again tho, if i weld the pawl as per the pic. what effect will the weights still expanding have??
Doherty_340 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 11:43 AM   #33
kildea
Board Member
 
kildea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sstory0626 View Post
If you weld the pawl to the spinning counterweights, the spinning weights will no longer spin. Yeah, I see what you're talking about there. But where I disagree is in the difference between welding and cutting. If you cut the pawl counterweight, the spinning weights will still be able to spin and the diff will be able to function as an open diff. If you weld the pawl to the spinning weights, there will be no unlocking action and it will function as a standard clutch-type diff with a significant amount of preload, or at least a really touchy engagement. I think that will be the difference here--ability to function as an open diff until a certain axle speed difference is reached vs. only a torque difference required for lockup. Maybe the welded pawl is better for all-out performance applications where a progressive lockup is required, and the cut pawl better for daily drivability and longevity?


No, nobody is suggesting welding anything to the spinning weights.

The only welding would be at one point - the outside of the larg weight, welded at its tip to then outside case.
the spinning counterweights will still spin, they will still catch the pawl hooks in either direction.

Nobody has suggested welding ANYTHING to the spinning counterweights.
kildea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 11:46 AM   #34
kildea
Board Member
 
kildea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doherty_340 View Post
again, thank you all for the informitive replies!

to clear up some of the confusion that has arised.

the place to weld is here:



this is pawl-casing gap to be bridged and welded, yes?




yes
kildea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 12:06 PM   #35
Doherty_340
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default

excellent, thank you.

2 wheeling here i come..... provided my clutchpacks aint toast.
Doherty_340 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 12:08 PM   #36
sdturbo
Board Member
 
sdturbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego CA
Default

You weld the counter weight to the case, not the pawls.
__________________
Josh
92 245 (TDI diesel powered.)
84 242 (16vT beater/track slut)397whp/11.6@118mph Sold
97 Land Rover Discovery (Mercedes om606 swap)
65 Mini Cooper (B18 powered)
www.yoshifab.com Volvo performance parts.
(760)468-7002
sdturbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 12:11 PM   #37
Doherty_340
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdturbo View Post
You weld the counter weight to the case, not the pawls.
could you highlight the area you mean?? or is that the end inside the casing, that you can't see in that pic.
Doherty_340 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 12:44 PM   #38
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kildea View Post
This is correct, but nobody is suggesting he do this.

The piece to weld is the large counterweight - welding that does the exact same thing as cutting it off, absolutely no change in the operation between the two methods - the operation of the bits inside are left completely untouched since the hooks simply stay in one place either way.
In each case the diff will unlock if the wheel that originally had traction looses traction - no matter what you do, if the flyweight axle changes rotation direction (traction goes from one wheel to the other) it will tend to back off.
OK, gotcha. Sorry about the confusion--I'm not sure where I got the idea that you were saying to weld the large counterweight to the spinning weights.
Need more coffee.
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 05:44 AM   #39
Turbeam
Board Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Default

What I recon we could do with is more detail on how the disengagement speed increases with different incremental cutting of the main disengagement centrifugal mass.

These diffs are really just designed to provide improved traction on very slippery surfaces, and take approximately 1/2 of a revolation of the slipping tyre before the small rotating centrifugal weights kick in. Primarily just to get the car moving when on snow, ice, etc.

Once on the move, the big more visible weight is designed to move outwards against spring pressure above around 25mph and disengages the lockup function. The reason for this is safety, to avoid any push-on understeer issues on road cars. There is a good video explanation of how exactly the same thing is done and for the same reason but by electronic control instead of mechanically on the Porsche 928.

The G80 system suits my own needs well on my car, but the disengagement speed is just a little low for my purpose as its early disengagement allows the more lightly loaded inside wheel to spin up in some corners in use. I'm keen to retain this diff, but increase the disengagement speed to around 50mph, but still allow it to disengage above this point.


The big mass only effects the cut-off speed, and has no bearing on the engagement speed or even if the unit engages at all. If there is no speed differential between the half shafts the diff will not lock up at ANY speed.

Either welding the unit up to the diff housing or cutting out the whole of the mass will effectively prevent disengagement if that is the goal, but it still won't engage at first until the same speed difference is detected between the half shafts by the small rotating weights.

This works very well with big rear slicks to avoid putting large scrub friction loads through the axle when the diff isn't needed.

Before altering my own diff in combination with a possible ratio change, I'm curious if anyone has information from cutting off only PART of the big disengagement mass?

As the mass closer to the end will have a greater centrifugal effect than that nearer the pivot, perhaps removing the first 1.5" might increase cut-off to 50mph, and removing 2.25" raise disengagement to 70mph....??

I believe these diffs are actually capable of quite high torque transmission, with the clutch discs actually there mostly to provide initial friction and to smooth the engagement action a little. It is the loading of the ramps that provides the lock-up effect, and this is related to the torque that is being transmitted therough them with increased torque producing an increase in locking pressure.


I know many people modding these units just want them to stay locked up at any speed for drifting etc, but note that they still require the half shaft speed difference to lock up initially, so they are not really the same as a plate type LSD or locker in action at all.

Just wondering if anyone has info from experimenting or R+D on these units before I make my own first experimental cut on the big mass.

It is of course a major pain to have to keep removing and dismantling the unit to slice another little bit off every time if the disengagement speed is still too low, so any info on results from cutting off smaller amounts of the big mass would be very helpful.

I'm not sure if any of you guys will have bothered trying to remove only part of the disengagement mass for what you will want to use the cars for?
Turbeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 08:23 AM   #40
kildea
Board Member
 
kildea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbeam View Post
The big mass only effects the cut-off speed, and has no bearing on the engagement speed or even if the unit engages at all. If there is no speed differential between the half shafts the diff will not lock up at ANY speed.
Watch the video again, when the large outer weight swings out the hooks that catch the flyweights (stopping the spinning of the countershaft, and engaging the ramp mechanism) are out of reach - above a certain speed the ENGAGEMENT is disabled.
kildea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 08:47 AM   #41
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

Above a certain speed the ENGAGEMENT is disabled, yes, but it is also disengaged if it was previously engaged as well. The video does not show this happening, but in my experience it is, in fact, disengaged as well. Kildea, I know you said previously that the angle of the pawl-engagement "hook" doesn't seem to be sufficient to allow disengagement, but there's no other way to explain what some of us are experiencing. When my diff unlocks, it is not progressive. You can instantly hear one wheel spinning up faster than another, and you're not going sideways anymore. The locking action is very good. If any wear was present in the diff, wouldn't the lockup "quality" be affected?
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 08:47 AM   #42
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

Above a certain speed the ENGAGEMENT is disabled, yes, but it is also disengaged if it was previously engaged as well. The video does not show this happening, but in my experience it is, in fact, disengaged as well. Kildea, I know you said previously that the angle of the pawl-engagement "hook" doesn't seem to be sufficient to allow disengagement, but there's no other way to explain what some of us are experiencing. When my diff unlocks, it is not progressive. You can instantly hear one wheel spinning up faster than another, and you're not going sideways anymore. The locking action is very good. If any wear was present in the diff, wouldn't the lockup "quality" be affected?
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 09:20 AM   #43
kildea
Board Member
 
kildea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sstory0626 View Post
Kildea, I know you said previously that the angle of the pawl-engagement "hook" doesn't seem to be sufficient to allow disengagement, but there's no other way to explain what some of us are experiencing. When my diff unlocks, it is not progressive. You can instantly hear one wheel spinning up faster than another, and you're not going sideways anymore. The locking action is very good. If any wear was present in the diff, wouldn't the lockup "quality" be affected?
Sure there is - the thing that keeps it locked is the static friction between the plates, when the ramp sandwiches them together the increase in normal force is abrupt. If the wheel that initially had traction looses traction - the ramp mechanism will be disengaged. If the threshold (dictated by the normal and the surfaces of the plates) is lower, due to worn out plates, it will be easier to un-sandwich the ramps. I explained this above I think, if you don't see why then watch that video again - the ramp backs off and the flyweights disengage when the direction of rotation of the spiders changes. If the threshold is lower the torque required to do this will be lower.

Maybe the best thing would be to measure the lever arm of the hook contact point vs the moment of the weight and produce some numbers, that will answer this question one way or the other, since speculating about it isn't really very useful anyways - I'll do this on the weekend and report back. That angle of engagement should tell us a lot, it may pull the pawl back after all - it's silly of me to try to determine that by looking at pictures.

Last edited by kildea; 07-13-2011 at 09:36 AM..
kildea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 09:41 AM   #44
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

A bit of analysis:
If you want to, say double the speed at which the diff disengages/is prevented from locking, you would want to have the same amount of action by the counterweight but at the higher speed. Since the counterweight is generating centripetal force, you could go about it like this:

Fc=(mv^2)/r,
where FC = Centripetal Force,
m = mass of acting part of the counterweight
v = rotational velocity, or just the speed since the units on this cancel anyway
r = radius from center of the diff to the center of mass of the counterweight

Since we want to keep Fc the same, we can set two equations equal to each other:
(m1 v1^2) / r=(m2 v2^2) / r
where m1 = initial counterweight mass
m2 = modified counterweight mass required for diff unlock at desired speed
v1 = initial unlock speed
v2 = desired unlock speed

And solve for the second mass:
m2 = (m1 v1^2) / v2^2

As a quick example, you could look at a an unlock speed of 50mph, or 2x the original unlock speed . Since in this case v2 = 2 x v1, we can substitute it in and solve for m2:
m2 = m1 / 4

So you can see that the amount of mass required to disengage the diff at twice the speed would be 1/4 it's original weight. Now you can't go just hacking off 3/4 of the length of that large counterweight, because the pawl acts as a counterweight. You would need to set up the pawl so the shaft was frictionlessly supported (kind of like when balancing an R/C airplane prop), and have the large counterweight resting on a fairly precise scale. Re-weighing as you go, cut off progressively more of the counterweight until the desired mass is achieved.

Practically, I'm not sure how many of us: A. Do enough of our own work like this and B. Have access to a scale sensitive enough for this requirement?
And also, I know this is all theoretical talk its function in the real world will vary a bit from theory, but I think the ability to weigh the counterweight is key to being able to tune it.

And as for my DD, it has an open diff. My racecar, it will probably have a welded diff because I'm too cheap to get a decent limited-slip, and I don't have the time for all the junk mentioned above
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 09:55 AM   #45
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

As for wear and the unlock function, think of the ramps like this: as the side gear moves up the ramps, the contact area between the two becomes less and less, while the amount of force between the two becomes more, wearing the tops of the ramps like a cam lobe. I would venture that if anything wears out (besides the clutch packs), it would be the tops of these ramps. If the ramps are worn, the angle relative to the clutch packs decreases, and the force between the two becomes higher. Therefore, wouldn't the tendency to stay locked after release be increased with wear? And if the clutch plates wear, they would allow the "ramp washer" to sink farther away from the side gear, exacerbating the problem? Or are you seeing another area of wear that I'm not?
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 09:55 AM   #46
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

As for wear and the unlock function, think of the ramps like this: as the side gear moves up the ramps, the contact area between the two becomes less and less, while the amount of force between the two becomes more, wearing the tops of the ramps like a cam lobe. I would venture that if anything wears out (besides the clutch packs), it would be the tops of these ramps. If the ramps are worn, the angle relative to the clutch packs decreases, and the force between the two becomes higher. Therefore, wouldn't the tendency to stay locked after release be increased with wear? And if the clutch plates wear, they would allow the "ramp washer" to sink farther away from the side gear, exacerbating the problem? Or are you seeing another area of wear that I'm not?
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 10:08 AM   #47
kildea
Board Member
 
kildea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sstory0626 View Post
As for wear and the unlock function, think of the ramps like this: as the side gear moves up the ramps, the contact area between the two becomes less and less, while the amount of force between the two becomes more, wearing the tops of the ramps like a cam lobe. I would venture that if anything wears out (besides the clutch packs), it would be the tops of these ramps. If the ramps are worn, the angle relative to the clutch packs decreases, and the force between the two becomes higher. Therefore, wouldn't the tendency to stay locked after release be increased with wear? And if the clutch plates wear, they would allow the "ramp washer" to sink farther away from the side gear, exacerbating the problem? Or are you seeing another area of wear that I'm not?

The ramps don't come into contact at their tops, so I do not think they are going to wear enough to change the angle of contact, however keep in mind the normal is also decreased when you change that angle (at a given lock-up wheel torque) so I'm not sure it would make a difference as you propose.
When I took mine apart there was no wear on the ramps - I'll do another disassembly on the weekend, I'm happy to get pics of all of the related parts.
I think you need to get your hands on one of these things, take it apart and spend time tinkering with it a bit, it's difficult to use text to explore the workings. I do understand what you are getting at, keep in mind the ramps are straight-lined, so getting deeper into the ramp you don't change the angle of contact - unlike with a cam lobe. It's just the ramps are a rather hard and smooth metal, and they only see any wear when the actual thing is engaged, since the nubs are there they are in their rest position at all other times.



That's what they looked like before I started in with my initial hair-brained scheme - I have a fresh one though too, ready for disassembly (it's the new type from a v90). I was thinking similarly though, I thought if I could get the thing to have a progressively shallower angle that the ramps would wedge together easily and hold tight, I removed the nubs and added shims hoping it'd engage on its own and be more like an lsd - turns out it just constantly wore the clutch packs down until they wouldn't stay locked at all. Made for a rather embarrassing attempted donut in a (nearly) abandoned parking lot on the cape in fact.

Last edited by kildea; 07-13-2011 at 10:30 AM..
kildea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 10:19 AM   #48
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

Good stuff. Man, I wish I had more time. I have a two girls, 1 1/2 and 4 yrs old. Going back to school to finish my degree, working full time. 'Nuff said.
It is really nice to see all the discussion about this though!
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 10:19 AM   #49
sstory0626
Board Member
 
sstory0626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eastern Iowa
Default

Good stuff. Man, I wish I had more time. I have a two girls, 1 1/2 and 4 yrs old. Going back to school to finish my degree, working full time. 'Nuff said.
It is really nice to see all the discussion about this though!
sstory0626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2011, 01:15 PM   #50
Turbeam
Board Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kildea View Post
Watch the video again, when the large outer weight swings out the hooks that catch the flyweights (stopping the spinning of the countershaft, and engaging the ramp mechanism) are out of reach - above a certain speed the ENGAGEMENT is disabled.
That is true, but I was making the assumption that the initial engagement had already taken place. REDUCING the mass would have no effect on the engagement speed.

I can't imagine the ramps themselves wearing as such, and even the friction plates have a much easier duty than those in say a normal plate type LSD.

As for the calculation to increase cut-off speed by reducing the mass of the big centrifugal weight, I don't think this takes account of either the fulcrum length from the pivot axis of any removed mass, or even the fact that the weight doesn't have a uniform section but tapers towards the end furthest from the pivot axis. Material removed from near the tip of the mass will have a much greater effect than any removed from closer to the fulcrum.

No doubt there will be a calculation to work out the mass/ distance from pivot that needs to be removed, but it is a much more complex one that is beyond my math.

This brings us back to the old-school laborious trial-and-error method of just removing a small amount of weight from the thin end (furthest from the pivot axis), reassemble, and 'such it and see' how much difference it makes before repeating the process.

This idea opens up the possibility of making an adjustable centrifugal system, by moving the same overall mass further from the pivot point to increase its centrifugal effect and vice versa. it could be done by an overlap and clamp bolt arrangement or possibly by screw adjustment and locknuts holding a two-piece mass together, but I don't fancy the thought of either failing in service and coming adrift.

The simplest and safest method (if the most time consuming) must be just slicing off a little material from the end and trying it out before taking a calculated guess at how much more weight if any needs to be removed the next time.

I guess there isn't too much data around on the effect of removing different smaller amounts of material from nearer the tip of the centrifugal mass?
Turbeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.