cost of production

[amphibious drew]

Holy CR@P my attention span will not even allow me to begin to read the novel that was just posted.

[mudNmallards]

I was under the impression that chain was pretty good at energy transfer. (http://www.gates.com/facts/documents/Gf000202.pdf).

I’m sorry- I must have overlooked your post due to focusing on other things and if I had seen it would have addressed your points much earlier. I address this issue all the time and it’s a long discussion so I’m going to cut it down and hit just the high points. I hope you find it beneficial and useful.

Yeah, they all tell you that and they are all correct- and they are all incorrect. (or to be “PC” they are selectively picking the data to tell you the side of the story they want you to know and kinda disregarding the rest of the story)

You see this everyday especially in politics and advertising. It gets even worse when companies sell both products or have strategic alliances with those who do- or even fear damage to their reputation by being viewed by the world as “aggressive” or demeaning to another company or product. (or for liability reasons).
Gee it looks like I contradicted myself because they cant be telling you the whole story and not at the same time can they?
I’ll give you all sides of that argument and you can decide for yourself.

If you ever saw the movie “My Cousin Vinny”- remember his brick discussion with the playing card. Allow me to show you the “thin” side to those claims on chains.
You see this everywhere. Product claims are basically useless unless the testing data and criteria for the claim is released along with it to qualify and quantify whatever claim they give. Even then you have to be careful because the question then becomes: “Does their test and performance claim match the application I’m thinking about using”- if it doesn’t then you still have nothing.

Guns use undercut barrels and specialty loads to publish weapons ballistics.

Batteries use cold cranking amps/cranking amps/marine amps ( all with different meanings defined by BCI) .

Some oils advertise themselves as “synthetic” ( when in reality they are just grade III mineral oils highly refined and do NOT deliver the results of a true synthetic but that can advertise that way because of a SCOTUS decision that said if they met the baseline characteristics of a synthetic they could call themselves such) to promote their products and so forth.

Ask the question- If chains were so effective and efficient, not to mention have a 150 odd year proven history and relatively cheap compared to other systems, why is almost every manufacturer who uses them in their widget trying to replace them? ( belts and drive shafts on motorcycles, timing belts on cars and the list goes on to almost infinity)

The standard talking points are weight, size, maintenance, lifespan, in some cases strength and so forth. They are all true and the chain loses to the belt in most applications in all of those areas with increasing frequency- but theres more.

There are also applications where a chain because they are metal and almost impervious to everything will never be replaced. Attachments, extreme environmental or thermal hazards, applications where there is a high risk of debris and many “run-to-fail” applications are some examples of these.

But, lets focus on efficiency and energy transfer since that the parameter being discussed.

Before we go any further there has to be an alignment on a few things so there is no misunderstanding, misleading and we are on the same page. (critically important if you or any other reader doesn’t do R&D or controlled experiments in laboratory conditions)

Parameters like torque, energy transfer are very broad terms and have to be defined with strict definitions when talking in terms of applications of the methods to determine them and interpolate data get skewed.

When you build the DOE (design of experiments) you have to not only define what you are measuring but how and also note what is EXCLUDED from the experiment. (untested or unevaluated which could also have an influence on the result)

Controlled testing almost always has an objective they are testing for (or against) so most tests are focused rather than broad ranged or open ended. ( for example testing a machine for performance under arctic conditions and the results may have no bearing whatsoever on that same machine in use in a desert)

Testing criteria- that has to be detailed with all methodology and exclusions and how the test is falsified ( or if it is- many are not)

Combination testing- in most every case, one single test or parameter never tells the whole story and many just conduct one so the results may be “true” but misleading.
Component testing- (one of the things I have done) Component testing must be qualified by the application it is tested on or the results are wholly useless because I could take a #50 chain and test it on a motorcycle and get one set of data and put it on a 1000hp motor pulling a mile long conveyor and get another.

Comparison testing- This is the “mother” of all tests to be wary of because it takes custom metrics and numerous correlation factors to establish accurate criteria to test multiple dissimilar items to and has more booby-traps in it than a desert road in Iraq. Its one thing to test one dishwashing liquid against another but its another thing to test apples against alternators in terms of miles-per-gallon. (with chains V. belts that’s almost what you are doing)

Secret testing ( the best one of them all)- this is where companies contract people like me to test their products in real world or specific applications so they know the “truth”. These type tests are used for litigation or for honest 3rd party evaluation and are almost always TOP SECRET because they often reveal things a product manufacturer doesn’t want people to know. FEW companies will ever release these but they all have them and do them routinely.

Sorry for the long list but to see and understand where I’m coming from you need to know that I know how companies do things and for what I’m going to say to make sense.

Motivations

Chain companies sell chains which are a tangible product and promote their strengths (only natural) and the product has a well known history.

I sell “reliability” and “performance” which can be a tangible (when measured against reduced downtime/maintenance cost in real dollars) or intangible when measured against concepts like “safety” when we reduce safety costs because the machine doesn’t break down as often so the risk by exposure is reduced or “performance” when we often only focus on a piece of a machine like upgrading from a chain drive to a belt drive but you cannot isolate that from the aggregate machine output and we have an established history too.

The difference is that we often have to “prove” ourselves against entrenched ideas and products and as an industry we are very good at it.

Now to the chains and their claims ( and for purposes of correlation we are ONLY comparing a cogged belt and not a V belt or other design- yes, that makes a difference)

Energy transfer- Chains publish the high range( around 98%ish depending on which manufacturer you look at and the specific type of chain) and that’s true but misleading. These measurements are derived from point to point on the sine as a chain is at TDC on the sprockets under full stretch. These measurements are the delta between a calibrated electric motor ( usually a DC but can be AC) and a calibrated dyno or other braking device. I promise you those readings are 100% true and correct- it just doesn’t tell the whole story. The funny thing is that I could nail a broom handle to 2 wheels and get you 99.99% with the same test.

Heres what they didnt tell you- That’s all done with a virgin chain and when a “seasoned” chain is tested it drops substantially because of the resistance between the chain and sprockets. They also don’t do a “spin test” where the load is removed and the train coasts to see the transfer weight when backlash is introduced and adjust their load figures accordingly. Belts tend to even out where chains “clack” back and forth.

Torque- on chains they publish the starting torque at the moment of full load. That’s not the full cycle. What they didn’t tell you was the ramp up losses and the ‘lock” when it closed all clearances and subtracted it from that figure. Cogged belts are almost immune to this effect. Its easy to measure a rope when its tight at the moment of tension but try it when its all curled up.

Heres what they didn’t tell you- Everybody loves to quote “start up” torque but that’s only part of the story. They didn’t mention the weight factor for running torque. Somewhere in the equation it was not mentioned the losses when RPM changes and chains slap around eating up that wheel energy.

Motive properties- Chains ( and V belts) have this torque eating property too. (V belts have it but to a lesser extent because they do flex and grab- chains don’t) Chains engage power like gears do ( about 3 teeth doing all the pulling) and have a “slack” side that does virtually nothing. This has to do with continuous torque over a circle and load dispensation. What is created is the “pendulum” effect where an object is running “out of balance” rather than distributing true motive forces through all arc seconds in motion. This robs you of energy transfer because energy is expended in the wave in a spike every time the pendulum crosses the line of zero potential then contributes little to the wave because it “coasts” the rest of the way hoping inertia sees it through the process. ( not to mention the additional strains on the rest of the drive train) Thermal imaging and vibration ( normally 2 plane) studies show this clearly.

Cogged belts are different because they are “timed” by the cogs and at proper tension they “push” as well as “pull” the load.( about a 70:30 relationship) This is probably best described here in terms people can relate to as a winch with a straight pull V. a winch with a snatch block. Chains and V belts are linear pull and cogged belts are more snatch block. ( completely discounting uniform loading and taking full advantage of the circle of the sprocket/pulley)

I could go on for hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of words going into every detail so I’ll cut it off here and just to sum it up.

Advertising claims are nothing more that variations on the “unsinkable” Titanic theme and mean nothing if you don’t dig deeper into the physics. They can be true/false and right/wrong at the same time or not even apply to the subject on the table.

If you don’t know the facts/data/specific parameters of the tests these claims are addressing and then further know how that affects your specific application you actually know less than nothing.

Theres an old Vulcan proverb: Be wary of Romulans bearing gifts. Salesmen ( and women) as well as product marketing are absolute experts and masters of their domain when they are selling but at the end of the day they are closer to “serpents in the garden” and only tell you the broad side of that playing card ( which is in their best interest to make a sale) and not tell you the rest. They play all these games and millions more.

Again, let me reiterate that there are always plusses and minuses for chains V. belts and which is “best” because there are multiple considerations but in this conversation the subject was specifically and only torque/direct energy transfer and the losses associated with it and nothing else. With all things being equal, chains lose almost every category repeatedly- that’s why they are being replaced over every industry they can except in applications where their unique qualities reign supreme. I also need to state than in NO WAY am I “anti chain” but in most applications its simply not the best choice when all things are considered.

To falsify my post- get your local chain vendor ( who does not sell belts) and your local belt vendor (who does not sell chains) so we don’t have a conflict of interests together in your office for a net conference and presentation.

When I’m don’t putting the inalienable industry proven facts on the table for all to see( they already probably know them anyway)- watch which one experiences whatever their respective sex does for “excitement” and then observe who is trying to find the closest way to the door. The truth will be self-evident then.

[mudNmallards]

Addendum- Please accept my apology, I get running my mind and mouth and writing to cover all the important stuff that I usually forget something and I omitted an important piece you mentioned.

“New style” and “heavy duty”- First, those claims mean whatever they mean and are wholly worthless in most cases because they are advertising terms and not engineering functions. In bearings specifically I can answer that and I consider it truly “need to know” because in many cases “new and improved” and “heavy duty” can be the single fastest way to get the WORST possible solution and create more problems than they solve.

A bearing is locked into several constants that cannot be changed. ( normally the ID,OD and width because it still has to fit in whatever it has to fit without substantial re machining)

A bearing only does one thing- it rolls. The only 2 other considerations ( which affect it) are does it roll fast or roll under a lateral load. Go back to the simple ( and not fully complete because there are hundreds of potential considerations) specification list above. In most cases “heavy duty” simply means they reduced the inner/outer race and installed beefier rolling media. That may or may not help you ( and can work against you) depending on the specific reason YOUR bearing in YOUR application failed.

It can also mean other things like different heat/cold treatment, finer finish for vibration reduction or specialty lubrication, has a different race design to accommodate some kind of load and so forth.

See, these “new improvements” are rarely anything new or improved. ( or heavy duty because the APPLICATION, not the bearing, defines the “duty” and whether its “heavy” or “light” and since bearings are broad based and fit many radically different machines and because they are fitted by dimension any given manufacturers bearing such as a 6205 may or may not meet all the other criteria you need for “your” application depending on the rest of those numbers)

You get these “improvements’ ( for lack of a better term) because all end users work with component manufacturers and give them all kinds of failure data, customer complaints and conduct testing ( again against that list earlier for bearings) so they conduct or revise their design FMECA (failure mode effect and criticality analysis)and find out the failure mode for that application ( greater load capability, increased heat tolerances, greater misalignment capability and so forth) and as a result they go back and address whatever is in the baseline design and “augment” it.

The specifics are really infinite so just be careful when you are retrofitting anything or considering stuff like “new and improved, “heavy duty” and whatnot because UNLESS you specifically why YOUR bearing is failing and then you know EXACTLY what property(s) were changed from the baseline design- you may wind up in a worse predicament with anything “new and improved” or “heavy duty” because they have strengthened a different parameter ( and as a result weakened the one that is causing your specific failure) so despite all good intentions you can make your particular situation worse.

Just friendly advice from one who deals with this every day.

[mudNmallards]

Hey M&M can you tell me anything about this bearing stamping is RHP T1035-1.1/4G=102 65 nothing else is visible,now this is the bearings that were supplied to me in a HDI Argo axle bearing upgrade,the obvious question are they of any significant quality at all and would I be able to Cryro them,before I go ahead with a complete axle bearing change out this is the best time to get it done,FYI this is the new style bearing they have changed their heavy duty models to and claimed to be the "answer" as always Iam Johnny Skeptical on that claim.And here is wishing you luck in November,dont think you should move up here they are now printing our money on plastic bill,s perhaps they will come in handy to patch up a hole in my boat not much good for anything else.LOL N.C.T

Oh absolutely I can assist you with that. I can tell you right off the bat from memory it’s probably a Ransom Hoffman Pollard ( British manufacturer owned by NSK if memory serves) They are not very common in NA but over here in the world of Oz with a heavy European influence they are. That’s good news because that tells me its not some kind of knock off but a mainline product which means its manufactured to world class standards of the ABMA with a traceable quality history.

So, you can put any “quality” skepticism you have to bed right now permanently. The bearing proper is a mainline world class product.

Now for the bad news. ( this applies to any bearing in any application) The question on the table is does the bearing meet or exceed the requirements of the application and that’s more important than everything else because no bearing made will survive in anything if it’s the wrong design for the application.

Heres a problem I’ve run into before and my gut tells me its going to be the case here too. That application data from the manufacturer may not exist.

When I scope out a bearing for a design and work with the manufacturer to decide the proper sku ( which in my case is always SKF unless a client specifies a different one) I have to give them the ISO shaft fit I intend to use ( most of mine are the tight .003 interference fits and not press ons and that enlarges the inner race to hold running clearances) , RPM, force to load, torque, expected temperature, axial/radial loads (including any shock loads), gross application weight, lubrication type, alignment vectors, seal configurations, required vibration signatures, overhung weights and a whole lot of other specialty information. This costs a LOT of money. Smaller manufacturers mostly use the “it fits the hole and shaft so lets go with it” method of bearing selection.( trade secret time-a HUGE part of my success and reputation comes simply from doing exactly that and retrofitting a machine with the CORRECT bearing/seal/hardware it SHOULD HAVE HAD from the beginning, LOL)

Your Argo may or may not have their half of the information to give you. (but what I listed above is the bare minimum you need to ask for) They are not “bad guys” if they don’t have it because it can cost well over a half mil in engineering and tests to get it and many companies simply cannot afford it. Since I’m focusing on an Argo to purchase for me- I would appreciate you giving me any of the information you get because it would have a major influencing factor on what I wind up purchasing.

Now to your bearing- I don’t have any of their numbers or catalog or deal with RHP directly but I emailed what you posted to my NSK guy so I expect an answer in a few days or so. I’ll let you know or ask you for additional information. Most manufacturers stamp the basic sizing information on their bearing and hand engrave specifics. Also, some use symbols or other criteria to “hide” trade secrets or application specific IP with their client. So, I may be giving you an additional RFI depending on what else he tells me he needs. The good news is that in theory I should be able to tell you everything from the raw material supplier to who QC’d it and put it in the box.

I’ll tell you another little trade secret. “A” anti-friction bearing in “A “ application should have a service life from 1 to 10 million revolutions. (so all manufacturers say) with proper lubrication, application and alignment. Everybody in the bearing, engineering and reliability industries knows this coming out of the gate- its no secret. What this means is we all know where to look when that doesn’t happen. We already know from millions of studies those life expectancies are real and not exaggerated. Going along with that it must be stated that in many cases its not feasible to design in every parameter to ensure that life because of cost, weight, dimensions and whatever so it’s a calculated trade off. We know that too.

OK, so in these little vehicles, only your great great great great grand children should be concerned with replacing them. With all the greasing threads I’ve seen here I seriously doubt “maintenance” is the reason for their premature failures. I can see alignment being a major contributor but based on what I’ve seen here and in some of the manuals I have obtained ( which is great but wholly incomplete) I would bet a weeks pay that all the bearings are not the proper fit for the loads they are subject to based on the normal criteria bearings are spec’d out with. (that’s a huge thing I’m looking into)

Cryo treatment- DO NOT CRYO ANY BEARING UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WITHOUT KNOWING THE FOLLOWING. There was a day when I could tell you that only high end, spindle bearings for machining centers, helicopter rotor bearings and other specialty bearings were cryo treated. THAT IS NO LONGER TRUE. With bearings having to be “smaller”, run at greater loads, cheaper and everything else- Cryo is a normal part of the manufacturing process in a large percentage of cases.

They do this to make smaller bearings carry higher loads and to hold tighter tolerances. ( kinda dovetailing my shaft answer above- if you ever wonder how they load the race and rolling media into precision bearings ( or we take them apart for root cause analysis) with .005 or less clearances, they put them in presses and squeeze the races to egg shape and have a sweet spot they load the media one element at the time. They can do this because cryo is one way that allows the steel to do this and spring back with no molecular damage) They generally DO NOT allow "people" to see or know about that process because if they let the generic non engineering public watch how they were put together you would "swear" they "broke" the bearing putting it together.

So, if a bearing was cryo treated as part of manufacturing process and factored in the heat/cold treatment of the steel and you send it out for “generic’ treatment and change any of those properties- you have DESTROYED that bearing. You must contact the manufacturer and see if the specific bearing you have is a candidate for cryo treatment.

Hope this helps you.

[North Country Tough]

have to remember toilet paper would not want to have to use one of those ice fishing

Come to think about it,would make a real good gitch liner,prevent them nasty rust stains.

[azz7772]

.And here is wishing you luck in November,dont think you should move up here they are now printing our money on plastic bill,s perhaps they will come in handy to patch up a hole in my boat not much good for anything else.LOL N.C.T

have to remember toilet paper would not want to have to use one of those ice fishing

[North Country Tough]

Hey M&M can you tell me anything about this bearing stamping is RHP T1035-1.1/4G=102 65 nothing else is visible,now this is the bearings that were supplied to me in a HDI Argo axle bearing upgrade,the obvious question are they of any significant quality at all and would I be able to Cryro them,before I go ahead with a complete axle bearing change out this is the best time to get it done,FYI this is the new style bearing they have changed their heavy duty models to and claimed to be the "answer" as always Iam Johnny Skeptical on that claim.And here is wishing you luck in November,dont think you should move up here they are now printing our money on plastic bill,s perhaps they will come in handy to patch up a hole in my boat not much good for anything else.LOL N.C.T

[mudNmallards]

in that scenario not sure how well it would turn maybe with a feature like a supacat where the front wheels actually steer might be better. If a person or a company needed to cover a lot of ground where traction and obstacles are not an issue then maybe a high range road gear with just the front two pulling would work here is a link to see a supacat
Alvis Supacat 6x6 1600 MK II // Ex Military vehicles for sale SUPACAT. MOD Trucks

I’ve actually seen a couple of those at Leatherneck. The Brits had a handful of them gunned up and there were a few more at the air strip on the British side. From what I saw they looked pretty cool but I never got to drive one.

The way I see the 2 wheel drive- any steering configuration will have to involve combination braking and power so there wouldn’t be a difference if it was front or rear steer.

If not you would run into the same steering problem encountered in all half track type vehicles. You either have to have 50+% of the wheels turning or have a long body to drive ratio where the vehicle can arc steer. Otherwise the tractive power of the remainder would push the vehicle straight and overpower the steering.

[mudNmallards]

The best thing to do for your situation would be to get behind the sticks of as many different machines as you can and log as many hours as you possibly can so you can see the ups and down of each machine.

I would love nothing better but I have a severe constraint that there really is no work around for.

I only come to the states for about 25 days a year ( gotta maintain that 330 day rule for the IRS) and at most sites I work at its not safe to go outside the wire. The ones I can dont have an AATV population.

I'm kinda screwed in that aspect but theres nothing I can do about it.

[jpswift1]

Well speaking for me personally- between all my jeeping, heavy equipment usage, tanking, 4 wheeling and motocross on about every type of terrain on the planet at one time or another- I think I have the broad based experience in general enough to get the gist of the concept.

That said, your point that there is no substitute for experience in a specific type vehicle is well taken because every vehicle has unique quirks that others do not have. Since I'm in the process of quoting these with the intent to buy ( so far the Argo 750 HDI is leading the pack but the jury is still out)- I intent to address that AATV experience deficit I have in the not too distant future.

The best thing to do for your situation would be to get behind the sticks of as many different machines as you can and log as many hours as you possibly can so you can see the ups and down of each machine.

[azz7772]

Well i was thinking about the 2 wheel drive (front or rear) just for use as a road gear for a flat plain type usage and not really a choice on any given trail

The suspension question is still up in the air (no pun intended)

in that scenario not sure how well it would turn maybe with a feature like a supacat where the front wheels actually steer might be better. If a person or a company needed to cover a lot of ground where traction and obstacles are not an issue then maybe a high range road gear with just the front two pulling would work here is a link to see a supacat
Alvis Supacat 6x6 1600 MK II // Ex Military vehicles for sale SUPACAT. MOD Trucks

[mudNmallards]

That's a HUGE factor to consider. Theory is one thing......talking about it, and designing it on paper and what not, but driving an AATV in extreme terrain is an entire differently different story. That's the best way to see both the positive and negative aspects of a machine.

Well speaking for me personally- between all my jeeping, heavy equipment usage, tanking, 4 wheeling and motocross on about every type of terrain on the planet at one time or another- I think I have the broad based experience in general enough to get the gist of the concept.

That said, your point that there is no substitute for experience in a specific type vehicle is well taken because every vehicle has unique quirks that others do not have. Since I'm in the process of quoting these with the intent to buy ( so far the Argo 750 HDI is leading the pack but the jury is still out)- I intent to address that AATV experience deficit I have in the not too distant future.

[mudNmallards]

ok personally I think you need the middle wheels for traction because with no suspension when going over rough terrain the front and rear tires are actually in the air a lot. If there was a suspension with a lot of travel like on a quad, 4 wheeler, etc you could keep your tires on the ground for traction.

Well i was thinking about the 2 wheel drive (front or rear) just for use as a road gear for a flat plain type usage and not really a choice on any given trail

The suspension question is still up in the air (no pun intended)

[jpswift1]

before I answer this question I have a question " have you had the opportunity to drive a 6x6 or 8x8 yet and if so did you put it through its paces with obstacles to overcome or just a test drive in a field" ?

That's a HUGE factor to consider. Theory is one thing......talking about it, and designing it on paper and what not, but driving an AATV in extreme terrain is an entire differently different story. That's the best way to see both the positive and negative aspects of a machine.

[azz7772]

ok personally I think you need the middle wheels for traction because with no suspension when going over rough terrain the front and rear tires are actually in the air a lot. If there was a suspension with a lot of travel like on a quad, 4 wheeler, etc you could keep your tires on the ground for traction.