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.

 

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.

 

"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/

 

"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/

 

"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/

 

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. :)
>

 

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. :)
>

 

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. :)
>

 

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/

 

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/