Jump to content
Haycock

Haycocks Busa Build (finally made it to the sand)

Recommended Posts

My chain setup isn't troublesome at all...

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

What is the price tag on these units? the r&p ratio would definitely not work with a 31'' tall paddle in the rear. Even at 12'' flange to flange, it's wide. The RPM box spread is 7.75'' and what I really like about it is how narrow the housing is. I am running a rear a-arm setup and with the narrow flange width, my separation of the arms is 8'' and I can tuck the box between the frame and close to flush with the bottom of the tube. That was the other consideration with the rear drive. Spread is one thing, but how high the shaft centerline is above the lower pivots is the other. Seeing as how I am running a camber of 5 degrees at full bump, the higher the CV is in the rear spindle, the more plunge I will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the price tag on these units? the r&p ratio would definitely not work with a 31'' tall paddle in the rear. Even at 12'' flange to flange, it's wide. The RPM box spread is 7.75'' and what I really like about it is how narrow the housing is. I am running a rear a-arm setup and with the narrow flange width, my separation of the arms is 8'' and I can tuck the box between the frame and close to flush with the bottom of the tube. That was the other consideration with the rear drive. Spread is one thing, but how high the shaft centerline is above the lower pivots is the other. Seeing as how I am running a camber of 5 degrees at full bump, the higher the CV is in the rear spindle, the more plunge I will see.

goal seeker

the QC would work with a 40+" tire :sha: ....

the R&P ratio is 4.11 . this ratio is a good compromise between ring gear strength but with a still fairly large pinion diameter (lower gear ratio = smaller diameter pinion = weaker)

the "final" gear reduction on a Quickchange is made with the rear mounted "spur gears".

for the Mini QC there are 32 different spur gear sets available. this way you can change the final gear ratio in minutes from 1: 1.95 to 1: 8.65 and just about every ratio in between.

i was just throwing out a somewhat different idea as a inspiration.....

the use of a differential could make it possible to use cutting brakes for the guys that like them (i dont :sha: )

Hayrooster is very talented ..... i bet he could easy figure out how to make the QC even narrower ;)

the QC center section is only about 5" wide and hanging 4.75" below CV center line .... it would be fairly easy to mount it low in between the frame rails

Edited by RoosterBooster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the mini quick change would be nice once it is narrowed up. i might have to look into that with some type of inline reverse box for my next project. thanks for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the price tag on these units? the r&p ratio would definitely not work with a 31'' tall paddle in the rear. Even at 12'' flange to flange, it's wide. The RPM box spread is 7.75'' and what I really like about it is how narrow the housing is. I am running a rear a-arm setup and with the narrow flange width, my separation of the arms is 8'' and I can tuck the box between the frame and close to flush with the bottom of the tube. That was the other consideration with the rear drive. Spread is one thing, but how high the shaft centerline is above the lower pivots is the other. Seeing as how I am running a camber of 5 degrees at full bump, the higher the CV is in the rear spindle, the more plunge I will see.

goal seeker

the QC would work with a 40+" tire :sha: ....

the R&P ratio is 4.11 . this ratio is a good compromise between ring gear strength but with a still fairly large pinion diameter (lower gear ratio = smaller diameter pinion = weaker)

the "final" gear reduction on a Quickchange is made with the rear mounted "spur gears".

for the Mini QC there are 32 different spur gear sets available. this way you can change the final gear ratio in minutes from 1: 1.95 to 1: 8.65 and just about every ratio in between.

i was just throwing out a somewhat different idea as a inspiration.....

the use of a differential could make it possible to use cutting brakes for the guys that like them (i dont :sha: )

Hayrooster is very talented ..... i bet he could easy figure out how to make the QC even narrower ;)

the QC center section is only about 5" wide and hanging 4.75" below CV center line .... it would be fairly easy to mount it low in between the frame rails

Sorry, I didn't see the ratio adjustibility on the website. I must have over read the part where it says it accepts standard 6 spline gears. I kept asking myself why they called a quick change. Actually, looking at it now, designing something specifically for off road use would be an awesome setup. My biggest concern would be weight, especially if it incorporated reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished my center hub carrier adjuster thingamajig so here's some pics... if it looks a little crooked or off center it probably is.... its just sitting there, still needs to be aligned. oh and the all-thread is not staying, i didn't have bolts long enough...

post-16051-1270697464_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270697612_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270697687_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270697802_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just finished my center hub carrier adjuster thingamajig so here's some pics... if it looks a little crooked or off center it probably is.... its just sitting there, still needs to be aligned. oh and the all-thread is not staying, i didn't have bolts long enough...

post-16051-1270697464_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270697612_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270697687_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1270697802_thumb.jpg

well that setup looks kinda familiar....... :sha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well that setup looks kinda familiar....... :sha:

you should take that as a compliment.... :ck:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I built a mc powered buggy years ago with an FZR1000 engine and actually made the engine mounts adjustable in an arc front to back to adjust chain tension.....that way my axle angles always stayed consistent for CV life. With a very short chain it doesnt take much in movement at all.....bad side is just a little chain stretch and it gets sloppy in a hurry.

Any way you cut it, the chains on these things are a pain in the (_|_). I still really don't understand it because you can have a modern MX bike with 12" of travel, a chain roller, a rear sprocket guide and a huge chain buffer on each side of the swingarm, everthing floppin' around and the damn things lasts forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I built a mc powered buggy years ago with an FZR1000 engine and actually made the engine mounts adjustable in an arc front to back to adjust chain tension.....that way my axle angles always stayed consistent for CV life. With a very short chain it doesnt take much in movement at all.....bad side is just a little chain stretch and it gets sloppy in a hurry.

Any way you cut it, the chains on these things are a pain in the (_|_). I still really don't understand it because you can have a modern MX bike with 12" of travel, a chain roller, a rear sprocket guide and a huge chain buffer on each side of the swingarm, everthing floppin' around and the damn things lasts forever.

Chain length makes a huge difference...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is ther a spacer or anything that is supposed to go in between the lower motor mounts? it seems like it would be easy to over tighten it and crack the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have the motor mounts almost finished, ther is still a couple more tabs and some gussets. i also started welding up some joints. almost nothing pisses me off more than when i put a tack weld in a bad spot and makes the whole joint entersection look like a bird pooped in the midde.... :nag:

post-16051-1271123041_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1271123058_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1271123074_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1271123091_thumb.jpg

post-16051-1271123441_thumb.jpg

Edited by Haycock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom and top mounts are differently sized as you discovered. I used spacers to equalize mounts to the FNR cradle in the car I'm finishing now.

The upper engine mount looks good. Does it use bushings and crush sleeves at the rear and front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude looks great. i have a question though. are ya sure its ok to rigid mount that thing? i know nothing about this, just seems like it might wanna rip those alumimum bosses right off.

just hit your bird weld there w/ the tig or torch and she will flatten right out :sha: been there waay more times than i will care to admit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bottom and top mounts are differently sized as you discovered. I used spacers to equalize mounts to the FNR cradle in the car I'm finishing now.

The upper engine mount looks good. Does it use bushings and crush sleeves at the rear and front?

no bushing or crush sleeve on any of the mounts. should ther be???

dude looks great. i have a question though. are ya sure its ok to rigid mount that thing? i know nothing about this, just seems like it might wanna rip those alumimum bosses right off.

just hit your bird weld there w/ the tig or torch and she will flatten right out :sha: been there waay more times than i will care to admit

im not sure its ok to rigid mount these motors. im guessing they are rigid mounted in the bikes though. i didnt really think to make a pass though there with the tig, that should flatten it out good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i picked up some tires and wheels! found a pretty good deal (i think). wheels and rear tires have under 2 hours on them and the front tires are well used. the fronts are apex 8.80. they are a little big so im gonna see if someone wants to trade for some 6.80's or similar. if not ill run them even though they look like balloons next to the chassis.

post-16051-1271210168_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

i like your thinking... i dont see why that wouldnt work....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

i like your thinking... i dont see why that wouldnt work....

It would work....But the down side is hp loss with more turning components. Plus shorter chains or tighter radius's that the chain goes around will shorten it's life.

Might still be a good trade off? I no know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

i like your thinking... i dont see why that wouldnt work....

;)

Most bearings set up like this take heavy loads for a 100k miles. Mill the shaft to fit the gear...ready to go? Some alignment will be needed but..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

i like your thinking... i dont see why that wouldnt work....

;)

Most bearings set up like this take heavy loads for a 100k miles. Mill the shaft to fit the gear...ready to go? Some alignment will be needed but..

im tellin ya look @ PAGE 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

i like your thinking... i dont see why that wouldnt work....

It would work....But the down side is hp loss with more turning components. Plus shorter chains or tighter radius's that the chain goes around will shorten it's life.

Might still be a good trade off? I no know

i think kraut n rice is talking about using a sproket as a chain roller instead of a standard wheel type roller. i think your thinking running two short chains with a counter shaft... i dont know, maybe you two are on the same page and im not...

Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

i like your thinking... i dont see why that wouldnt work....

;)

Most bearings set up like this take heavy loads for a 100k miles. Mill the shaft to fit the gear...ready to go? Some alignment will be needed but..

im tellin ya look @ PAGE 8

huh? page 8?

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:

Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

i like your thinking... i dont see why that wouldnt work....

It would work....But the down side is hp loss with more turning components. Plus shorter chains or tighter radius's that the chain goes around will shorten it's life.

Might still be a good trade off? I no know

i think kraut n rice is talking about using a sproket as a chain roller instead of a standard wheel type roller. i think your thinking running two short chains with a counter shaft... i dont know, maybe you two are on the same page and im not...

Why not use another counter-shaft sprocket and a sealed bearing (like a serpentine belt idler pulley) to change chain routing and/or adjustment?

i like your thinking... i dont see why that wouldnt work....

;)

Most bearings set up like this take heavy loads for a 100k miles. Mill the shaft to fit the gear...ready to go? Some alignment will be needed but..

im tellin ya look @ PAGE 8

huh? page 8?

theres a picture on pg 8, just look at it for a minute. i dont see why all the mini's dont do it. seems like it would solve all your ground clearance issues at least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also i think using a tapered bearing would be the better way to go. only because i believe they take a far greater load at less parasitic loss, but as always i could be wrong. heck its your car- i just really liked the idea when i saw it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh i gotcha... i was looking at that before i started the build. it would work pretty good. every one says ther would be a ton of power loss but i wonder if you could even notice that big of a difference.

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...