|
|
|
I realise this company is in NZ but there may well be something ideal for what you're after... www.comac.co.nz/If they don't post to the UK then I'm happy to post something over... it will be lightweight after all...... Thanks for that, a very interesting site and one that I have bookmarked. Unfortunately, I can't see anything suitable for this particular project. Also, thanks for the shipping offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is the sort of lock I will be using to secure the doors (I had them on the Elan in its previous life, so I now just have to find where I put them for safe keeping :-) ) You can just see one below the door handle (this is around 1980).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it you liked having your photograph taken !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what you do to friends :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite pleased with the fit :-)
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 9, 2018 18:46:53 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
|
|
|
I know that a lot of people on here are p.ssing themselves with my weight obsession (if I gave a toss I wouldn't post :-) ) but here is the thing, (ignoring traction for the moment) weight slows you down, period.
Using my various drag sims (yeah, I know, they don't truly predict actual times due the the many variables, but they do accurately show you the differences between various power and weight scenarios) the 1kg I have taken out of the door locking mechanism shaves between 6/1000 and 1/100 second off the ET.
This may sound insignificant to many for all the work, but do that 10 times and suddenly you have reduced your ET by between 6/100 and 1/10 sec. Do it 100 times and you are looking at, in theory, between 6/10 and 1 sec.
For example, a car weighing 720kg with driver and 500bhp should run around 9.1. Removing 100Kg reduces that to 8.655 (weight loss doesn't equate exactly to time saved) based on the worst figures but it is 1/2 sec. Show me a drag racer that wouldn't want to reduce his ET by that? Discuss
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2018 1:04:06 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
|
|
|
Wiper arm and blade arrived for the Elan today. Tapered hole is smaller than the one on the motor (supposed to be the correct arm for this motor, I guess that's eBay for you) so I will have to redrill it, no big deal. More of an issue is that temporally fitting the arm highlighted that the motor has too much sweep, so I need to reduce this. Taking the motor cover off exposes the movement mechanism. I need to move the main arm nearer to the centre of the pink gearwheel by repositioning the drive hole nearer to the centre of the wheel. In order to work out by how much I need to do some CAD work.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2018 0:42:11 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
|
|
|
Right. OEM blade sweeps 180 deg with a 58 deg swing of the main gear arm. If my geometry is correct, reducing this angle to 35 deg will result in a swept angle of 110 deg. In order to achieve this I will have to move the hole in the gear wheel 5.38mm nearer the centre. Next job then :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just bought these for the Elan's windows. There are four so I will have two spare. They were in the States so I had them sent to my daughter's boyfriend who she is visiting. She will bring them back in January.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2018 0:40:49 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
jpr1977
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 656
Club RR Member Number: 18
|
|
|
Rather randomly i was with a friend of mine at the weekend discussing the finer points about mini wiper motors and it transpires that their gear mechanisms have a number of different specs that give between 90 - 120deg depending upon the age spec etc. We manged to cobble a correct system together using man maths, some basic trig, a collection of various gears and a file, very similar to your CAD predictions. All because he wanted 2 speed and a self park function for his wipers...
In relation to the weight issue, i and i'm sure most of the fellow RR's on here completely get where your coming from and admire your dedication to the lightness cause.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2018 1:03:33 GMT by jpr1977
|
|
|
|
|
Rather randomly i was with a friend of mine at the weekend discussing the finer points about mini wiper motors and it transpires that their gear mechanisms have a number of different specs that give between 90 - 120deg depending upon the age spec etc. We manged to cobble a correct system together using man maths, some basic trig, a collection of various gears and a file, very similar to your CAD predictions. All because he wanted 2 speed and a self park function for his wipers... In relation to the weight issue, i and i'm sure most of the fellow RR's on here completely get where your coming from and admire your dedication to the lightness cause. Nothing is a problem, only a challenge. I am always looking for where the next 10gms can be removed from, and I doubt that this will ever end. The pink gear wheel looks like it would benefit from a few holes :-)
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2018 1:12:22 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
jpr1977
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 656
Club RR Member Number: 18
|
|
|
The casing looks far too heavy as well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another advantage for weight loss performance advantage is that, in many cases, gains can be made at no cost apart from time taken! That aspect always appealed to me as I never could spend a lot of money racing.
|
|
|
|
gess
Part of things
Posts: 220
|
|
|
I was actually thinking about weight saving in our VW Eup! the other day. It is an electric car with very limited range, and I guess I could squeeze some more kilometers from the batteries if the car was lighter. I was using your car as an example in my head as I was contemplating where to loose the weight. The obvious would be to bin the glass roof and exchange it and the bonnet for carbon fiber items, but that is beyond my skills for the moment :-) Keep up the good work, you are inspiring the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was actually thinking about weight saving in our VW Eup! the other day. It is an electric car with very limited range, and I guess I could squeeze some more kilometers from the batteries if the car was lighter. I was using your car as an example in my head as I was contemplating where to loose the weight. The obvious would be to bin the glass roof and exchange it and the bonnet for carbon fiber items, but that is beyond my skills for the moment :-) Keep up the good work, you are inspiring the rest of us. Lose the heavy batteries? 😂
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2018 9:41:34 GMT by georgeb
|
|
|
|
|
The casing looks far too heavy as well... Yes. I was looking at that. The webs between the screw holes can be removed, along with the flat area. The actuating arms could be slimmed down a tad as well :-)
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2018 9:46:06 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2018 10:48:27 GMT
|
I was actually thinking about weight saving in our VW Eup! the other day. It is an electric car with very limited range, and I guess I could squeeze some more kilometers from the batteries if the car was lighter. I was using your car as an example in my head as I was contemplating where to loose the weight. The obvious would be to bin the glass roof and exchange it and the bonnet for carbon fiber items, but that is beyond my skills for the moment :-) Keep up the good work, you are inspiring the rest of us. Take the batteries out, they weight loads!! EDIT, did not see Georges reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2018 11:33:47 GMT
|
I know that a lot of people on here are p.ssing themselves with my weight obsession (if I gave a toss I wouldn't post :-) ) but here is the thing, (ignoring traction for the moment) weight slows you down, period. Using my various drag sims (yeah, I know, they don't truly predict actual times due the the many variables, but they do accurately show you the differences between various power and weight scenarios) the 1kg I have taken out of the door locking mechanism shaves between 6/1000 and 1/100 second off the ET. This may sound insignificant to many for all the work, but do that 10 times and suddenly you have reduced your ET by between 6/100 and 1/10 sec. Do it 100 times and you are looking at, in theory, between 6/10 and 1 sec. For example, a car weighing 720kg with driver and 500bhp should run around 9.1. Removing 100Kg reduces that to 8.655 (weight loss doesn't equate exactly to time saved) based on the worst figures but it is 1/2 sec. Show me a drag racer that wouldn't want to reduce his ET by that? Discuss I have a different but similar issue. A bit like going to Santa Pod and being told the time you have to hit or you can't compete. On this here railway, there's an end to end run time target. Fine. The ability to meet this, or not, dictates how many trains we need. The run time is, obviously, the total of the time taken between individual stations plus the waiting time at each one. However, given the train they are talking about, the gradients, the short distance between stations, and the need to hit 120kph between them, it ain't happening. Now, I haven't the option of waiting for the first train to arrive, with my trusty hole saw at the ready to shed a couple of tonnes and, as I can't hit the speeds required between stations to make the times, something has to give. Enter MOAR POWER. But nobody believes us, or more to the point, they do now after five weeks of proofs, both using my simulation tool and my colleague quoting pure physics. When we demonstrated how increasing the output of the motors (there are 16) in 50kW steps shows the reduction in elapsed time between stations, as you have seen with your weight reduction, they finally saw the light. Our Japanese colleagues wanted to use 170kW motors, the trains need 300 to operate. Not much difference, huh? A bit like your 100kg
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2018 11:35:43 GMT by georgeb
|
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2018 11:41:15 GMT
|
I know that a lot of people on here are p.ssing themselves with my weight obsession (if I gave a toss I wouldn't post :-) ) but here is the thing, (ignoring traction for the moment) weight slows you down, period. Using my various drag sims (yeah, I know, they don't truly predict actual times due the the many variables, but they do accurately show you the differences between various power and weight scenarios) the 1kg I have taken out of the door locking mechanism shaves between 6/1000 and 1/100 second off the ET. This may sound insignificant to many for all the work, but do that 10 times and suddenly you have reduced your ET by between 6/100 and 1/10 sec. Do it 100 times and you are looking at, in theory, between 6/10 and 1 sec. For example, a car weighing 720kg with driver and 500bhp should run around 9.1. Removing 100Kg reduces that to 8.655 (weight loss doesn't equate exactly to time saved) based on the worst figures but it is 1/2 sec. Show me a drag racer that wouldn't want to reduce his ET by that? Discuss I have a different but similar issue. A bit like going to Santa Pod and being told the time you have to hit or you can't compete. On this here railway, there's an end to end run time target. Fine. The ability to meet this, or not, dictates how many trains we need. The run time is, obviously, the total of the time taken between individual stations plus the waiting time at each one. However, given the train they are talking about, the gradients, the short distance between stations, and the need to hit 120kph between them, it ain't happening. Now, I haven't the option of waiting for the first train to arrive, with my trusty hole saw at the ready to shed a couple of tonnes and, as I can't hit the speeds required between stations to make the times, something has to give. Enter MOAR POWER. But nobody believes us, or more to the point, they do now after five weeks of proofs, both using my simulation tool and my colleague quoting pure physics. When we demonstrated how increasing the output of the motors (there are 16) in 50kW steps shows the reduction in elapsed time between stations, as you have seen with your weight reduction, they finally saw the light. Our Japanese colleagues wanted to use 170kW motors, the trains need 300 to operate. Not much difference, huh? A bit like your 100kg The trouble is that, often, the people holding the purse strings have no mechanical/electrical/real world experience. Trying to explain things to these people is like trying to herd cats, almost impossible :-)
|
|
|
|