luhbo Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Errr? Well? the way I read it was, "No, it's not right, but don't worry about it. It won't do any harm." In my humble opinion this is incorrect an dangerous information so I'll argue against it till I'm blue in the tits. Please don't tell me that you're now going to get up on some pompous high horse about me being 'Common' and using 'Bad Language'. That would simply be the icing on the cake Pete Your 'Bad Language' is welcome That's one reason, besides others, that I read your posts, this forum. Alas, being not an English native speaker I'm not able to use all what I can pick up here myself. I could buy the colors - using them would not necessarily always give an acceptable picture. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve G. Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Here a Hubert only will do, thanks. Anyway, my posting has nothing to do with you personally or with any principles. How come? It's only what you write. The content is wrong, that's all, not the name below it. We had this once already. If you had really understood what's going on at the ends of such a misaligned driveshaft you'd be more carefull with bringing this in context with a snapped off pinion, wildly guessing about enormous forces. Remember, the beemers always used one u-joint only, and they did go up and down, especially under load. What did they do to eliminate those "enormous forces" you're talking off? Hubert BMW's use two u-joints on their shaft. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete roper Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 BMW's use two u-joints on their shaft. Steve I think he's talking about the early R series twins without the reactive drive. I'm not overly familiar with them but I believe they only use a single coupling. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guzzirider Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belfastguzzi Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Funny, I was riding that bike just 5 minutes before the photo was taken. Can't understand how it ended up like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Jaap Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 With CARC this wouldn't have happened... or..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete roper Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 With CARC this wouldn't have happened... or..? Dunno. You can't misalign the trunnions on a CARC bike shaft as the shaft is a one piece unit. It is retained at the front by a circlip on the output shaft that retains the yoke on the shaft and the bevelbox end is free to move it's yoke on the pinion shaft. Unlike the Bimmer system where the whole bevelbox pivots on a couple of bearings at the front of the box with the CARC the crownwheel 'Bridge' for want of a better word sits inboard of the bearings that carry the crownwheel and moves with it. It's hard to explain, very easy to understand when you look at it. I've got one in bits at the moment, would you like me to post some pics? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luhbo Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 ....Can't understand how it ended up like that. ..... Sintered brake pads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstallons Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Is this an "active" or "reactive" rear end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luhbo Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Is this an "active" or "reactive" rear end? At least the u-joint points on six. This reminds me of some stories of cruel accidents whereafter people whispered to each other: "The needle still stood blocked at 180 !" Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Field Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 What's the story behind that photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guzzirider Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Not sure- just found it on Google images- was looking for something to do with Triumphs and it popped up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belfastguzzi Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Sintered brake pads? Not enough grease on the temperature sensor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luhbo Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Not enough grease on the temperature sensor? Or a problem with his new PCIII USB. Map mismatch probably. Edit: of course that's nonsense, sorry. In that case the rear wheel would have been found in front of the bike, not behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeeve Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Dunno. You can't misalign the trunnions on a CARC bike shaft as the shaft is a one piece unit. It is retained at the front by a circlip on the output shaft that retains the yoke on the shaft and the bevelbox end is free to move it's yoke on the pinion shaft. Unlike the Bimmer system where the whole bevelbox pivots on a couple of bearings at the front of the box with the CARC the crownwheel 'Bridge' for want of a better word sits inboard of the bearings that carry the crownwheel and moves with it. It's hard to explain, very easy to understand when you look at it. I've got one in bits at the moment, would you like me to post some pics? Pete What kind of stupid question is that? OF COURSE! Guzzi crack.... stop teasing & gimme my fix! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now