Jump to content
Haycock

Haycocks Busa Build (finally made it to the sand)

Recommended Posts

I decided to build a hayabusa sandrail a few weeks ago and started collecting parts. last week i started building the chassis...

Im not trying to building anything too fancy, my goals are to keep it on a somewhat decent budget, make it simple and make it strong. Here are a few pics of it so far.

Let me know what you think

Thanks

Bryan

post-16051-1270517802_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270517633_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270517719_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270517872_thumb.jpg

Edited by Haycock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I want you to sell it to me when your'e finished!! Everybody says a low budget buggy can't be built for under $15k

Hopefully you can prove em wrong. Looks good so far!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everybody says a low budget buggy can't be built for under $15k

im hoping im within 20% of that! probally wont be though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good. What are your expected stats? Length, WB, Travel, etc.? What size tubing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you may need to lower down the rear sprocket some. I know that will make it under the frame but If you leave it that high your angle on your CV degree is going to be too much with not much travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I want you to sell it to me when your'e finished!! Everybody says a low budget buggy can't be built for under $15k

Hopefully you can prove em wrong. Looks good so far!!

i think i proved em wrong on my last build.... this one will be under 15k also.

Looking good. What are your expected stats? Length, WB, Travel, etc.? What size tubing?

thanks, the WB is 110", around 20" of travel the main chassis is 1.5" .095 wall DOM and the bracing is 1.25" .095/.083 DOM. im shooting for 1200lbs all said and done.

I think if you may need to lower down the rear sprocket some. I know that will make it under the frame but If you leave it that high your angle on your CV degree is going to be too much with not much travel.

yep. the sprocket in the pics is just sitting there for a visual... im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

Edited by Haycock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks good. keep us posted on the build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure to be another sweet build!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

No you won't, but you'll find out why soon enough.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

No you won't, but you'll find out why soon enough.... :D

I think your going to need to drop it more... My engine and sprocket sit 3"+ under bottom of the frame rails and I am struggling with CV angle/ plunge issues as it is.

Even with the rear at 90" wide your axles will be 25-28" long depending on you carrier width. You will max out your CV angle with 12" of wheel travel.

If you can lower your sprocket you gain more droop, better axle angles and you should have enough axle plunge to get you 16" plus.

U-joint axles could solve some of that but that's another story. I would look at dropping the sprocket, rear wheel back spacing and getting your axles as long as possible.

my 2 cents....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried a 2 stage reduction on a chain drive to eliminate the huge rear sprocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

No you won't, but you'll find out why soon enough.... :D

Sand trap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone tried a 2 stage reduction on a chain drive to eliminate the huge rear sprocket.

Would probably work just fine, just the HP loss is the thing. 10-20-25% depending on who you ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone tried a 2 stage reduction on a chain drive to eliminate the huge rear sprocket.

Would probably work just fine, just the HP loss is the thing. 10-20-25% depending on who you ask.

I've heard those numbers frequently but I would have a hard time believing it unless someone had data. Even at that, what numbers are they comparing it to, the rwhp of the bike. Chain drives are very efficient. Just because there is a 20-25% decrease in power from the flywheel to the rear wheel does not mean it's all coming from the rear drive. I'm actually surprised that the FNR gearbox manufacturers have not measured the efficiencies of their units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the way you have the frame currently, your not going to run trailing arms. so i assume a-arms or 5 link, then you could run u-joints. is that the plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

No you won't, but you'll find out why soon enough.... :D

hmmm.... how about you elaborate on what i am and im not going to do....

im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

No you won't, but you'll find out why soon enough.... :D

I think your going to need to drop it more... My engine and sprocket sit 3"+ under bottom of the frame rails and I am struggling with CV angle/ plunge issues as it is.

Even with the rear at 90" wide your axles will be 25-28" long depending on you carrier width. You will max out your CV angle with 12" of wheel travel.

If you can lower your sprocket you gain more droop, better axle angles and you should have enough axle plunge to get you 16" plus.

U-joint axles could solve some of that but that's another story. I would look at dropping the sprocket, rear wheel back spacing and getting your axles as long as possible.

my 2 cents....

i measured how much travel i will have with the sprocket hanging below the frame 2", with 4" at full bump (frame not sprocket) and 29" axles and 30" tires it came out to about 18" of travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

No you won't, but you'll find out why soon enough.... :D

hmmm.... how about you elaborate on what i am and im not going to do....

lol, stick a chain on there before you set the sprocket. Shifter output shaft prevents the big sprockets from going below the motor on a busa, will actually be higher than the motor. Good reason to go with a reverse so you can get the flanges quite a bit lower..

And don't run a roller tensioner to try and clear the output shaft, busa will shread anything you stick on there. Make the carrier adjustable, either sliding back, or pivoting like the pics of my carrier I sent you......

Edited by yoshi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

No you won't, but you'll find out why soon enough.... :D

hmmm.... how about you elaborate on what i am and im not going to do....

lol, stick a chain on there before you set the sprocket. Shifter output shaft prevents the big sprockets from going below the motor on a busa, will actually be higher than the motor. Good reason to go with a reverse so you can get the flanges quite a bit lower..

And don't run a roller tensioner to try and clear the output shaft, busa will shread anything you stick on there. Make the carrier adjustable, either sliding back, or pivoting like the pics of my carrier I sent you......

Yosh my sst ran a roller tensioiner and after 5 hard trips the chain was still tight and the roller still looked like new. Why did I not have issues with it and he will?

If you look close you where the radiator overflow tubs comes down you will see the bracket and the roller tensioner.

post-444-1270579949_thumb.jpg

post-444-1270580000_thumb.jpg

post-444-1270580070_thumb.jpg

post-444-1270580146_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im going to drop it 2" under the frame rails then build a pocket in my skid pan for it.

No you won't, but you'll find out why soon enough.... :D

hmmm.... how about you elaborate on what i am and im not going to do....

lol, stick a chain on there before you set the sprocket. Shifter output shaft prevents the big sprockets from going below the motor on a busa, will actually be higher than the motor. Good reason to go with a reverse so you can get the flanges quite a bit lower..

And don't run a roller tensioner to try and clear the output shaft, busa will shread anything you stick on there. Make the carrier adjustable, either sliding back, or pivoting like the pics of my carrier I sent you......

Yosh my sst ran a roller tensioiner and after 5 hard trips the chain was still tight and the roller still looked like new. Why did I not have issues with it and he will?

If you look close you where the radiator overflow tubs comes down you will see the bracket and the roller tensioner.

I never could get them to last. I either trashed the roller, or the bearings got so hot they seized up. I tried everything, even making my own out of delron, nothing worked, plus they make a lot of noise. You don't have a lot of trips on yours, but so far, your prob. the only person I know of that hasn't had any problems. They are a weak link and everyone eventually has problems so it's best not to run one at all. Having the carrier adjustable is not hard and a far better design IMO..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the way you have the frame currently, your not going to run trailing arms. so i assume a-arms or 5 link, then you could run u-joints. is that the plan?

im planning on running a 3 link, trying to keep it simple... i thought about running u-joints but thats alot more rotating mass for this little busa motor. so i decided to run cv's

lol, stick a chain on there before you set the sprocket. Shifter output shaft prevents the big sprockets from going below the motor on a busa, will actually be higher than the motor. Good reason to go with a reverse so you can get the flanges quite a bit lower..

And don't run a roller tensioner to try and clear the output shaft, busa will shread anything you stick on there. Make the carrier adjustable, either sliding back, or pivoting like the pics of my carrier I sent you......

i was planning on making a pivot style tensioner and having a non tensioning roller as well. i dont mind changing a roller every other trip if needed...

the guy i bought the motor and center from gave me a 70T sprocket. is this a good size? i see most use smaller so it made me wonder how it would work.

Edited by Haycock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryan

i have no experience with MC powered minis ... but from a builder and engineering standpoint i just dont get it why you mini guys stick with the troublesome chain setup

if i would build a mini i would turn the engine 90 degree (with the output shaft pointing back) like a "Legend" race car and run a inverted (upside down) Mini Quickchange.

check out "Partybargepilot`s" Midi buggy build thread over at Minibuggy.net.... he is using a goldwing (shaft driven) engine with a SE Mini ;)

here is the Speedway Engineering link to the Mini (with dimensions); Mini QC

8400(left).jpg

i have never seen a busa up close but it looks like the QC could be direct mounted to the housing (maybe with a spline coupler and a billet housing adapter piece ?!?)

the Mini would solve the short (numerical tall) gear ratio problem... the Mini has a strong 4.11 R&P and uses 6 spline "midget" QC gears that result in a available "final drive" ratios as low as 1:8.65 :sha:

Ken @ SE designed the Mini without concern for long travel (so it is wide) and IMHO excessive stout in the side-bell area ... but by switching to low profile side bell bearings as well as custom one piece stub axles the overall dimension could be reduced down to at least 12" flange to flange.

the mini is available with different ring gear carriers like aluminum spool, open diff, detroit locker, and IIRC some kind of LS as well.

i guess the complete setup would not be any longer then the existing chain setup. the "offset" weight of the engine could be balanced out by mounting the fuel tank/battery low on the right side of the engine... this would also reduce the C of G drastically compared to a top mounted tank

just some food for thought :ck:

edit; here is a cutaway of a Legend racer with a Yamaha FJ engine (chain converted to shaft drive) to illustrate the 90 degree rotated engine location ;)

legends_car_cutaway-660x494.jpg

Edited by RoosterBooster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the guy i bought the motor and center from gave me a 70T sprocket. is this a good size? i see most use smaller so it made me wonder how it would work.

I like between a 5.2:1 and a 5.4:1 ratio on my busa rails.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im planning on running a 3 link, trying to keep it simple... i thought about running u-joints but thats alot more rotating mass for this little busa motor. so i decided to run cv's

IMHO 3 link is a good idea; avoid the (in my opinion) horrible plunge and miserable handling of trailing arms.

this way you can also use "non plunging" CV`s (at least at the wheel side) that are good for 40+ degree so you can play with "short/long, non-parallel" links for a "scrub reducing" camber change without sacrificing travel

.... i dont know if you are aware that the Ford 28 spline CV star is the same as the 930 CV star spline .... that fact opens the door for some nice and compact (and low budget) stub axle/ wheel bearing alternatives ;)

Edited by RoosterBooster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn!!!!!!!!!!!!! this thread turnned into some great info. got me thinking of some stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did anybody see the pic on pg 8 of sand sports? if that is what i think it is, might solve some of your problems. seems easy enough to build :sraptor:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Preview Post

More Links

©2001 GlamisDunes.com.
All rights reserved.

×
×
  • Create New...