The snawsage version---- something

[briejer]

Actually not even close

It was bi-polar math and not even close.

It is the 97th time in this thread that I have been wrong, and the 1342 time I have been wrong about my buggy ever since it was just some chalk marks on the concrete floor.

 

[briejer]

I still want it done

 

[Roccrawler]

It was bi-polar math and not even close.

It is the 97th time in this thread that I have been wrong, and the 1342 time I have been wrong about my buggy ever since it was just some chalk marks on the concrete floor.

actually you are roughly about 5.25" difference if tires measured true

 

[moto261]

:corn: i thought this was a buggy build thread or some thing what did i miss :corn:

 

[briejer]

actually you are roughly about 5.25" difference if tires measured true

with the front in hi with 38's and the rear in low with 49's what would the rpm difference be?

3.8 t-case and 6.5 axles

 

[TreeClimber]

with the front in hi with 38's and the rear in low with 49's what would the rpm difference be?

3.8 t-case and 6.5 axles

Since both axles have 6.5 gears the only difference in RPM would be ...


wait for it.


...


3.8 :fawkdancesmiley:

edit.... the front's in high range would go 38 inches per revolution of the drivetrain (circumference = diameter x pi )

and the rears would go 49 inches / 3.8 gear ratio or 12.9 inches.

taking into consideration that both are multiplied by 3.14159...

sooooo, the fronts would travel approximately 38/12.9 = three times faster

 

[Roccrawler]

with the front in hi with 38's and the rear in low with 49's what would the rpm difference be?

3.8 t-case and 6.5 axles

IF i figured it right for every revolution the 38's would be drug 14.7"

 

[Roccrawler]

Since both axles have 6.5 gears the only difference in RPM would be ...


wait for it.


...


3.8 :fawkdancesmiley:

edit.... the front's in high range would go 38 inches per revolution of the drivetrain (circumference = diameter x pi )

and the rears would go 49 inches / 3.8 gear ratio or 12.9 inches.

taking into consideration that both are multiplied by 3.14159...

sooooo, the fronts would travel approximately 38/12.9 = three times faster

2.8 difference right?

the front got one rev. and the back got 3.8 the difference is 2.8

 

[TreeClimber]

2.8 difference right?

the front got one rev. and the back got 3.8 the difference is 2.8

No.

The front goes one rev, but the rears are reduced by 3.8 times. So the front goes once, the rears go 1 / 3.8 or .26316 rev.

Since the front is a 38, it goes 38
Since the back is a 49, it goes 49 X .26316 = 12.89473

And since he's really looking for the ratio between the two,

38 / 12.9 = 2.94573 , or about 3 times further.

Unless of course, my math is as bad as Robin's. Which is entirely possible as I'm an old fart who hasn't opened his slide rule in many moons

 

[crazybluerider1]

Close

The 49 is 153.93 inches rollout and
The 38 is 119.38 inches rollout

rollout is distance traveled per rotation

so with the front in high and the rear in low. for every 119.38 inches the fronts go the rears go 40.51 inches.

The fronts would need to be about 13 inches tall to go the same distance as the rears.

:eeek:

 

[dirk]

I'm an old fart who hasn't opened his slide rule in many moons

I can't say I have ever seen a slide rule...when I was in school, we had these magical things called calculators :awesomework:

 

[dirk]

Close

The 49 is 153.93 inches rollout and
The 38 is 119.38 inches rollout

rollout is distance traveled per rotation

so with the front in high and the rear in low. for every 119.38 inches the fronts go the rears go 40.51 inches.

The fronts would need to be about 13 inches tall to go the same distance as the rears.

:eeek:

If I understand you correctly...front in high range (1:1) & rear in low (3.8:1). The set up would work if he had 13 inch tires in the front & 49 inch tires in the rear :haha: :haha: :haha:

 

[crash2]

Ok robin--gots your wish---all 4 pins are out.....

 

[briejer]

Ok robin--gots your wish---all 4 pins are out.....

you always make me happy

 

[Poohbair]

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=716992

 

[TreeClimber]

No.

The front goes one rev, but the rears are reduced by 3.8 times. So the front goes once, the rears go 1 / 3.8 or .26316 rev.

Since the front is a 38, it goes 38
Since the back is a 49, it goes 49 X .26316 = 12.89473

And since he's really looking for the ratio between the two,

38 / 12.9 = 2.94573 , or about 3 times further.

Unless of course, my math is as bad as Robin's. Which is entirely possible as I'm an old fart who hasn't opened his slide rule in many moons

Close

The 49 is 153.93 inches rollout and
The 38 is 119.38 inches rollout

rollout is distance traveled per rotation

so with the front in high and the rear in low. for every 119.38 inches the fronts go the rears go 40.51 inches.

The fronts would need to be about 13 inches tall to go the same distance as the rears.

:eeek:

and simple math says that 119.38 / 40.51 equals a ratio of 2.946 which leads me to believe that my slide rule math was indeed correct.

and if I had to guess, the front tire should be aboooouuuutt 16.6 inches tall for it to work equally.... but that's just a guess

 

[briejer]

and simple math says that 119.38 / 40.51 equals a ratio of 2.946 which leads me to believe that my slide rule math was indeed correct.

and if I had to guess, the front tire should be aboooouuuutt 16.6 inches tall for it to work equally.... but that's just a guess

ATV tires are cheap......and I'll stll have more axle clearance than most.

 

[briejer]

i'm thinking of the options.....a front burn in highrange and a rear burn in low at the same time

front in high rear in low while climbing wet rock

 

[TreeClimber]

ATV tires are cheap......and I'll stll have more axle clearance than most.

true dat

 

[TreeClimber]

i'm thinking of the options.....a front burn in highrange and a rear burn in low at the same time

front in high rear in low while climbing wet rock

Before you put that to a practical test, you owe it to yourself to look at the power-flow diagram inside that gearbox. It wouldn't surprise me if it just grenades itself as two different sets of gears are engaged at the same time, completely binding the case. At least look at how the torque flows thru the case on paper first. Not sayin' it will or won't. I don't know. But as expensive as that case is.....