THe NAC Lots-O-BFG KO2 Thread

Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

rhoybi had good shit like 5 years ago, now its all garbage, i can say that im very impressed with the kawasaki grinder i got from tsc for the price
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

i had a few friends tell me not to bother with ryobi as well. oh well, i'll keep looking. and keith, i've used the 20v dewalt... thing is serious.
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

cmelo said:
:doh:

I'm not sure how you get your results. The longer the arm the more force the bushing sees. The force is applied by the engine so the more leverage you give the engine the more force the bushing will see. How this could mean the engine would will move less is beyond me. I tend to think the more force you put into a bushing the more it will move, I dunno, maybe I'm crazy.
Click to expand...
Wrong

kastein said:
You're looking at it wrong, I think.

Torque = radius * force

so say the engine is capable of producing 300 foot pounds. That means it'll produce a force of 300 pounds perpendicular to a 1 foot long arm on the crankshaft.

Or, it means it'll produce a force of 600 pounds perpendicular to a 6" arm. Or 1200 pounds perpendicular to a 3" arm. Or if you go the other way and make the arm longer (the bushing further from the centerline of the crankshaft) the force seen by the bushing decreases, say the arm is now 2 feet, 300 foot pounds would result in a force of 150 pounds at 2 feet.

It's foot*pounds, not pound/feet or foot/pounds.

Hell, another example - a breaker bar... the further away from the axis of rotation (the crankshaft) you are, the less force is required to produce the same torque on the nut. Looking at it the other way, the same torque at the nut results in less and less force applied the further you get from the axis of rotation.
Click to expand...

Right
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

kastein said:
You're looking at it wrong, I think.

Torque = radius * force

so say the engine is capable of producing 300 foot pounds. That means it'll produce a force of 300 pounds perpendicular to a 1 foot long arm on the crankshaft.

Or, it means it'll produce a force of 600 pounds perpendicular to a 6" arm. Or 1200 pounds perpendicular to a 3" arm. Or if you go the other way and make the arm longer (the bushing further from the centerline of the crankshaft) the force seen by the bushing decreases, say the arm is now 2 feet, 300 foot pounds would result in a force of 150 pounds at 2 feet.

It's foot*pounds, not pound/feet or foot/pounds.

Hell, another example - a breaker bar... the further away from the axis of rotation (the crankshaft) you are, the less force is required to produce the same torque on the nut. Looking at it the other way, the same torque at the nut results in less and less force applied the further you get from the axis of rotation.
Click to expand...

:sad1:

I hate when you're right. In my defense I was certain you were wrong simply because you said it. I even double checked, brushed up on the definition of torque. Couldn't figure out how you were wrong(Pat quoted peterson's and Ross probably heard something from pirate), Ken Stein says something different? Must be wrong. Finally, I figured it out, torque was the torque the bushing would see(I couldn't picture the bushing twisting but it gave me what I was looking for) so I could multiply some arbitrary force the engine would produce by the arm. Had to be the answer, nope, now I look an idiot. Except, I can note Mark didn't say shit, until, conveniently you corrected me before he got the chance :thumbup:

SUCK MY DICK MARK

Anyway, I tried sounding smart and I was corrected by Ken so I'll have to kill myself. Nice knowing you guys.
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

I do however, like how you assumed I was just getting my units incorrect, and not thinking like an idiot. Which is actually what I was doing.
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

Begster said:
Wrong



Right
Click to expand...

Depends on what forces you look at. Rotational forces from the engine will be less with the bushing out further, you have to take into account the forces on the bracket/bushing from the weight of the engine bouncing around. In the end, those are the forces that are going to break the mount in our application. You need to build to the weakest point, in this case, thenumber of bolt holes on the block, meaning you want the bushing closest to the block as possible.
of course then you have to package it all in between the rails, and around the exhaust/starter ect.
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

Shit, a real mechanical engineer said I was right. I guess I'm qualified to talk about motor mounts but not IRO longarms, Colin poked holes in my arguments there and made me look like more of a retard than I did :doh:

XJLI said:
i had a few friends tell me not to bother with ryobi as well. oh well, i'll keep looking. and keith, i've used the 20v dewalt... thing is serious.
Click to expand...
I actually love my ryobi angle grinders (2 of them) and chopsaw (for wood/house shit, not metal.) Haven't had a bit of trouble out of any of them.

cmelo said:
:sad1:

I hate when you're right. In my defense I was certain you were wrong simply because you said it. I even double checked, brushed up on the definition of torque. Couldn't figure out how you were wrong(Pat quoted peterson's and Ross probably heard something from pirate), Ken Stein says something different? Must be wrong. Finally, I figured it out, torque was the torque the bushing would see(I couldn't picture the bushing twisting but it gave me what I was looking for) so I could multiply some arbitrary force the engine would produce by the arm. Had to be the answer, nope, now I look an idiot. Except, I can note Mark didn't say shit, until, conveniently you corrected me before he got the chance :thumbup:

SUCK MY DICK MARK

Anyway, I tried sounding smart and I was corrected by Ken so I'll have to kill myself. Nice knowing you guys.
Click to expand...
I am wrong at least two or three times a day. This just wasn't one of those times :jester:

Anyways, the spot where you ARE right is that a shorter motor to bushing bracket is probably more durable, because it doesn't put as much leverage on the bolts holding the bracket to the block. You can't really improve that bolt pattern without changing blocks, but you can improve the bushing and how it's attached to the frame any number of ways, so I'd put them as close to the block as possible without making it impossible to work on or putting the bushings right under the exhaust where they'll get melty or wear out way too fast from the heat.

edit: what I'm saying is that I agree with Tim on this one.
 
Last edited:
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

There is one other factor in this case. The engineer of the parts will be designing thew with his head OUTSIDE of his ass, unlike 99.99999999999% of all automotive engineers who will never work on what they design.
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

Rain pitter pattering on the roof sounds so nice. Too bad I'm listening to it while WIDE AWAKE!

Hey Chris, if you win big at black jack take a vacation up this way so we can hang out in the middle of the night sometime :thumbup:
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

Rain pitter pattering on the roof sounds so nice. Too bad I'm listening to it while WIDE AWAKE!

Hey Chris, if you win big at black jack take a vacation up this way so we can hang out in the middle of the night sometime :thumbup:
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

Remind me never to play blackjack again in Tahoe. $250 bought me nothing but the two most expensive jack n cokes ever.

That being said, I'd totally do a northeast vacation again. I'm gonna need somwhere to shoot my .308. :D
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

Hey Adam, they updated the Eliminator class rules for Southwick:

6.All glass/plastic windows and lenses other than a DOT approved windshield needs to be rolled down, removed or taped to eliminate the clean up of glass/plastic shards should there be breakage. This includes head/tail lights, running lights, turn signals, fixed rear/side windows, ect.

http://www.cc4w.org/eliminator-rulesinfo/

Tape your shit up and you're good to go.
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

first day back, first job even, from vacation and its a total cluster****. the guys are a half late and theres a dumpster in the way, I dont even have any room to setup. this sucks, I wanna go back to wyoming and ride snowmobiles.
 
THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

MoparManiac said:
Hey Adam, they updated the Eliminator class rules for Southwick:

6.All glass/plastic windows and lenses other than a DOT approved windshield needs to be rolled down, removed or taped to eliminate the clean up of glass/plastic shards should there be breakage. This includes head/tail lights, running lights, turn signals, fixed rear/side windows, ect.

http://www.cc4w.org/eliminator-rulesinfo/

Tape your shit up and you're good to go.
Click to expand...

****ING AWESOME!!!
 
Re: THe NAC Lots-O-Post Thread

someones trying to copy bill

23316_208506475955944_1771833707_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Congratulations to our new Leadership!
Replies
2
Views
160
STROKER
STROKER
B
Looking for an passenger side OFFSET tie rod, 7/8-18 left hand thread offset to front of vehicle,
Replies
13
Views
248
Evan03
E
SAMSET
Check out the MWC Store on Breasy Things
Replies
2
Views
160
lesslimited
lesslimited
Bent
The BEST Medicine
Replies
7
Views
193
Nimrod
Nimrod
Jeepguy91
MWC election - Nominations for MWC Director at Large
Replies
3
Views
132
REWSTER
REWSTER
Back
Top