Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Excessive torque is what chips teeth off of meshed gears. That can be a direct effect from simply giving it way more than it can handle, or it can be a cumulative thing where the shaft bearings cop a flogging over time and then allow the shafts to move apart and load the gear teeth incorrectly. It can also happen where the case can't take the torque loads, deforms and allows shit to move to new and unexpected positions wrt each other.

Hamfisted shifting is what strips teeth off of synchros.

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/4/2019 at 6:44 PM, mlr said:

My old boat with 700nm and drag radials would kill a box to quick.

It basically chewed the surface off the gears turning the gearboxs into a screaming banshee

Than might have been a lubrication issue. What oil & how old? IIRC the guy from Award used to have a mod to help stop oil slopping to the back of the gearbox.

Or if the gears are case hardened perhaps the case hardening was worn through exposing the softer material underneath.

10 hours ago, MrStabby said:

Than might have been a lubrication issue. What oil & how old? IIRC the guy from Award used to have a mod to help stop oil slopping to the back of the gearbox.

Or if the gears are case hardened perhaps the case hardening was worn through exposing the softer material underneath.

Award built one after the car ate the original, with that oil mod thingie award does.

After that one was eaten they built another, that lasted a month or so, then after a run down the stip, that one started to whine.

Award said the OEM gears just weren't up to the level of torque. 

I found the torque rating for the box ages ago but I cannot recall what it was exactly, it was nowhere near 700nm though.

They recommened some brand of gears which were well out of my price range at the time, IIRC it was going to be $20k or something all up.

I sold the car at that point, it was to expensive to keep thrashing, one of the next owners put in that dog box.

It's a auto now though, doing roll racing at Eastern Creek. 

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...