Lift & Driveline problems
12-30-2003, 07:15 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
Hi Tim,
Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle, so Real
Jeep may clock their transfer cases up higher out of harms way. And
allow you to aim the differential pinion straight at the higher transfer
yoke: http://www.4xshaft.com/driveline101.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Tim Hayes wrote:
>
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle, so Real
Jeep may clock their transfer cases up higher out of harms way. And
allow you to aim the differential pinion straight at the higher transfer
yoke: http://www.4xshaft.com/driveline101.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Tim Hayes wrote:
>
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
12-30-2003, 07:15 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
Hi Tim,
Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle, so Real
Jeep may clock their transfer cases up higher out of harms way. And
allow you to aim the differential pinion straight at the higher transfer
yoke: http://www.4xshaft.com/driveline101.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Tim Hayes wrote:
>
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle, so Real
Jeep may clock their transfer cases up higher out of harms way. And
allow you to aim the differential pinion straight at the higher transfer
yoke: http://www.4xshaft.com/driveline101.html
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Tim Hayes wrote:
>
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
12-30-2003, 07:58 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:3FF21535.23170617@***.net...
> Hi Tim,
> Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle,
No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
news:3FF21535.23170617@***.net...
> Hi Tim,
> Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle,
No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
12-30-2003, 07:58 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:3FF21535.23170617@***.net...
> Hi Tim,
> Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle,
No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
news:3FF21535.23170617@***.net...
> Hi Tim,
> Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle,
No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
12-30-2003, 07:58 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:3FF21535.23170617@***.net...
> Hi Tim,
> Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle,
No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
news:3FF21535.23170617@***.net...
> Hi Tim,
> Yes, the Constant Velocity will also allow a greater angle,
No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
12-30-2003, 08:04 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
Tim, a TJ does have two u-joints on the conventional (non-CV) factory
driveshaft, one at each end. But you're right, the angles on the two
u-joints need to be the same on a conventional driveshaft in order for the
two u-joints to accelerate and decelerate in sync with each other in order
to keep things running smoothly. If you go to Tom Wood's website at
http://www.4xshaft.com/ and click on the Tech Info page, you'll see a ton of
great information. Some of which even puts to rest some old wive's tales
propogated once in a while. :)
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"Tim Hayes" <thayes@remove-me.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:3ff20db9@rutgers.edu...
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> > Tim, it's not the slip yoke itself that causes vibrations, it's only the
> > driveshaft angle that does. That the Rubicon has moved the slip yoke to
the
> > driveshaft doesn't change the lift height that will cause drivetrain
> > vibrations. That the Rubicon has a slightly longer driveshaft due to the
> > elimination of the t-case slip yoke will help though. :)
>
driveshaft, one at each end. But you're right, the angles on the two
u-joints need to be the same on a conventional driveshaft in order for the
two u-joints to accelerate and decelerate in sync with each other in order
to keep things running smoothly. If you go to Tom Wood's website at
http://www.4xshaft.com/ and click on the Tech Info page, you'll see a ton of
great information. Some of which even puts to rest some old wive's tales
propogated once in a while. :)
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"Tim Hayes" <thayes@remove-me.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:3ff20db9@rutgers.edu...
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> > Tim, it's not the slip yoke itself that causes vibrations, it's only the
> > driveshaft angle that does. That the Rubicon has moved the slip yoke to
the
> > driveshaft doesn't change the lift height that will cause drivetrain
> > vibrations. That the Rubicon has a slightly longer driveshaft due to the
> > elimination of the t-case slip yoke will help though. :)
>
12-30-2003, 08:04 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
Tim, a TJ does have two u-joints on the conventional (non-CV) factory
driveshaft, one at each end. But you're right, the angles on the two
u-joints need to be the same on a conventional driveshaft in order for the
two u-joints to accelerate and decelerate in sync with each other in order
to keep things running smoothly. If you go to Tom Wood's website at
http://www.4xshaft.com/ and click on the Tech Info page, you'll see a ton of
great information. Some of which even puts to rest some old wive's tales
propogated once in a while. :)
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"Tim Hayes" <thayes@remove-me.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:3ff20db9@rutgers.edu...
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> > Tim, it's not the slip yoke itself that causes vibrations, it's only the
> > driveshaft angle that does. That the Rubicon has moved the slip yoke to
the
> > driveshaft doesn't change the lift height that will cause drivetrain
> > vibrations. That the Rubicon has a slightly longer driveshaft due to the
> > elimination of the t-case slip yoke will help though. :)
>
driveshaft, one at each end. But you're right, the angles on the two
u-joints need to be the same on a conventional driveshaft in order for the
two u-joints to accelerate and decelerate in sync with each other in order
to keep things running smoothly. If you go to Tom Wood's website at
http://www.4xshaft.com/ and click on the Tech Info page, you'll see a ton of
great information. Some of which even puts to rest some old wive's tales
propogated once in a while. :)
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"Tim Hayes" <thayes@remove-me.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:3ff20db9@rutgers.edu...
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> > Tim, it's not the slip yoke itself that causes vibrations, it's only the
> > driveshaft angle that does. That the Rubicon has moved the slip yoke to
the
> > driveshaft doesn't change the lift height that will cause drivetrain
> > vibrations. That the Rubicon has a slightly longer driveshaft due to the
> > elimination of the t-case slip yoke will help though. :)
>
12-30-2003, 08:04 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
Tim, a TJ does have two u-joints on the conventional (non-CV) factory
driveshaft, one at each end. But you're right, the angles on the two
u-joints need to be the same on a conventional driveshaft in order for the
two u-joints to accelerate and decelerate in sync with each other in order
to keep things running smoothly. If you go to Tom Wood's website at
http://www.4xshaft.com/ and click on the Tech Info page, you'll see a ton of
great information. Some of which even puts to rest some old wive's tales
propogated once in a while. :)
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"Tim Hayes" <thayes@remove-me.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:3ff20db9@rutgers.edu...
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> > Tim, it's not the slip yoke itself that causes vibrations, it's only the
> > driveshaft angle that does. That the Rubicon has moved the slip yoke to
the
> > driveshaft doesn't change the lift height that will cause drivetrain
> > vibrations. That the Rubicon has a slightly longer driveshaft due to the
> > elimination of the t-case slip yoke will help though. :)
>
driveshaft, one at each end. But you're right, the angles on the two
u-joints need to be the same on a conventional driveshaft in order for the
two u-joints to accelerate and decelerate in sync with each other in order
to keep things running smoothly. If you go to Tom Wood's website at
http://www.4xshaft.com/ and click on the Tech Info page, you'll see a ton of
great information. Some of which even puts to rest some old wive's tales
propogated once in a while. :)
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"Tim Hayes" <thayes@remove-me.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:3ff20db9@rutgers.edu...
> Isn't the angle only an issue in two ways?
>
> 1) a u-joint has a maximum angle it can operate through
>
> 2) the angle on both ends of a 2 u-joint driveshaft must be the same
>
> Since a stock TJ doesn't have a second u-joint won't you always violate
> #2 except at one specific ride height (and even then whenever you flex
> over a bump)?
>
> Couldn't you correct #2 by adding the second u-joint without lengthening
> the driveshaft provided you don't violate #1?
>
> This is all from my mechanical engineering classed in college so maybe
> I've got it wrong. It isn't like i've ever actually built a drivetrain
> myself, but I thought I understood the theory pretty well.
>
> Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> > Tim, it's not the slip yoke itself that causes vibrations, it's only the
> > driveshaft angle that does. That the Rubicon has moved the slip yoke to
the
> > driveshaft doesn't change the lift height that will cause drivetrain
> > vibrations. That the Rubicon has a slightly longer driveshaft due to the
> > elimination of the t-case slip yoke will help though. :)
>
12-30-2003, 10:00 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
WRONG, as any high school Hot Rodder could tell you! Because of
it's design, "Constant Velocity" it may rotate without shaking it's self
apart at about twice that of a Cardan joint, at about thirty degrees.
Did someone else put that 44 in for you?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
> conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> To email, remove 'me' from my email address
> KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
it's design, "Constant Velocity" it may rotate without shaking it's self
apart at about twice that of a Cardan joint, at about thirty degrees.
Did someone else put that 44 in for you?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
> conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> To email, remove 'me' from my email address
> KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
12-30-2003, 10:00 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lift & Driveline problems
WRONG, as any high school Hot Rodder could tell you! Because of
it's design, "Constant Velocity" it may rotate without shaking it's self
apart at about twice that of a Cardan joint, at about thirty degrees.
Did someone else put that 44 in for you?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
> conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> To email, remove 'me' from my email address
> KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
it's design, "Constant Velocity" it may rotate without shaking it's self
apart at about twice that of a Cardan joint, at about thirty degrees.
Did someone else put that 44 in for you?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry Bransford wrote:
>
> No, a CV (double-Cardin) joint does not allow a greater angle than a
> conventional joint does, that is an old wive's tale.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Jerry Bransford
> To email, remove 'me' from my email address
> KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
> See the Geezer Jeep at
> http://members.***.net/jerrypb/