ok does stacking gears = less drive train stress like if you have a 203and 205 doubler will it put less stress on say a 350 turbo than a 4to1 dana 300 .this is a comparasin to this theory not intended as the main topic.i know i have had bad luck with auto trannys but when i went to the double reduction rockwell i have tosted no trannys .so does mutiple gear stacking releave stress of whats before it ?here is a real life result it's a forklift but its about this theory .a forklift axle was overloaded almost every day and it was breaking drive lines and axles and somtimes ring and pinion's and we changed the axle over with planatarys and changed the 3 rd member with the ratio to acamadate the original final drive ratio and walla no more breaking so it did releave stress on this machine of the parts before it so every time you use a mutiplacation in a drive train is there some kind of releaf? and if so why and is this theory the reasone portals are so strong they have a reduction past the chunck and joints?so chew on this for a little bit:D

Hmmmm

Originally posted by Daniel
the stress is only reduced previous to any reduction... yes that is my theory;)

Okay, thought about it for a minute...

I know that gear reduction relieves stress on every component before it. Example: you have 2 vehicles with 100:1 crawl. I will use even nubers for easy math-

Vehicle A - tranny = 5:1, then 203, then 205, then R&P=5:1

Vehicle B - tranny = 5:1, then 205, then R&P=10:1

OK, now vehicle B should put less stress on the 205, because there is more reduction after it. But both vehicles should put the same amount of stress on the tranny, because overall reduction after the tranny is the same.

Now you are saying that vehicle A should put less stress on the tranny, because there are more components to absorb the overall stress. I agree with this opinion, but i can't spout out a bunch of physics to back it up. Other than saying that - there is more steel btwn the engine and the tire, so each piece of steel takes a bit less stress.

Does this mean that if you were to use 100 1.01:1 reduction boxes to get the 101:1 reduction, then you would have an unbreakable drivetrain????

Ohh and if a man gets on a train in Chicago, headed west to LA at 60 mph, and a man gets on a train in LA headed east to Chicago at 70 mph, then how many lb/ft of torque does it take to break a rockwell????

i'm still trying to break rockwell i will keep you posted on my efforts:D

me too, frankie, me too...

Yea I agree with Elf...makes sense. More gearing options with dual cases too. :D

I would have to say no and then yes! :D No because if you have a motor that has let's say 400 hp and 500 ft pounds of torque no matter what is behind it that is what it produces for totals. But here is my explanation of why yes it can help reduce the stress on the tranny. It's 1:50 am here so if the numbers are off or I ramble get over it!! :D


For example: The TTC where they had to pull that load up the steep hill.

Both trucks same motor as above. Truck #1 just has a 203, he needs to use all 100% of his available power to move the load. Truck #2 has a 203/205 doubler. He only needs 1/2 throttle to move the same load.

Kinda like that stuck bolt you can't get loose, put the breaker bar on the ratchet and it breaks loose. The bolt, socket, wrench all see the same stress to get it loose with or without the 4 foot breaker bar but your arm sure does thank you for using it! Likewise your tranny with a doubler.

But all that gets thrown out the window when you drive from what I hear! You going to use all 100% whatever combo is behind the motor! :flipoff2:

well mattS

you seem to have a grasp of the concept, but in the TTC HILL CLIMB, there are more factors present. If you can assume 100% traction from the tires, then what you say is true. But that is not really what this thread is about. We all know how gearing gives you more power, you just move slower. What we are trying to ascertain is whether having gearing down the drivetrain only affects those things before it, or affects the entire drivetrain????

I am no physics scientist, but I think your correct frankie and have thought that for a long time actualy. But to put into comparison think about rideing a 10 speed peddle bike when in a low gear take much less energy from you to move forward. So in affect your tranny would not be worked so hard and your motor would have power to spare. But like noted you go slower, but in rock crawling Im sure that isn't a big concern.

Yes, more gearing = less stress forward of the gearing. Lets get away from axles for a minute as an example. The output shaft from a winch motor in an 8K winch is maybe 3/8" in diameter. How big do you think that shaft would have to be if it was geared at 1:1? Another example was the prop shafts on the last ship I was stationed on. The output shaft between the v-16 2550 hp diesel engines and the reduction gears was about 4" in diameter, coming out of the reduction gears which were a 2.72 ratio the shaft was over a foot across. Gearing saved stress from working back forward of the reduction gears so that a smaller shaft could be used. Just a different application of the same theorie to think about.

Kwrangln

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
me too, frankie, me too...

A little different situation.....

Frankie-600 HP

Elf-100 HP

My money is on Frankie :flipoff2:

Elf-100 HP

Hey now!!!

I'm squeezin that 2F for all it's worth...
probably 150HP - Mr. V8!!!

Now you think you can talk smack about 6bangers, you've only had that new motor what?? 2 months??

Originally posted by frankie finland
ok does stacking gears = less drive train stress like if you have a 203and 205 doubler will it put less stress on say a 350 turbo than a 4to1 dana 300 .

The D300 would be less stress than the doubler 3.96:1 vs 4:1 Lower the gears, the easier it is to move. Simple. I doubt you had 6.7:1 gears in your previous axles, thats why you are having a easier time moving, and less stress on you up stream drive line componets.

I got a question for you, you have a heavy right foot, and a healthy small block, why in the hell would you run a TH350? Seems like quite a weak link.

why? avalability lower 1st gear shorter and in the corect geard aplacation very strong.you are corect i did not have 6.72 gears before but one time at band camp.:D and my theory is for every time you add a x in the drive line it will unload more stress of whats before it and i am comparing two drive trains that equal the same final ratio .

Originally posted by elf_cruiser

Now you think you can talk smack about 6bangers, you've only had that new motor what?? 2 months??

But that *is* a bad-ass motor!

I'll try to get a few pics of some "damaged" rockwells.....my bud has a tendancy to "snap" the planataries off the housings....yeah he's running 1800-2000 HP....:D

Originally posted by Shaker
I'll try to get a few pics of some "damaged" rockwells.....my bud has a tendancy to "snap" the planataries off the housings....yeah he's running 1800-2000 HP....:D is it a monster truck?what size rockwell 2.5 0r 5 ton i have never seen a 2.5 ton planatary rock well dam can you imagin 20.16 gear ratio:eek:

Originally posted by frankie finland
is it a monster truck?what size rockwell 2.5 0r 5 ton i have never seen a 2.5 ton planatary rock well dam can you imagin 20.16 gear ratio:eek:

Yeah.."Grave Digger"...he even snaps the axles with custom 4140 tubes.....:p :D

The stress on the tranny would be reduced when driving, but increased on compression braking

no, it sees the same stress with given throttle to the engine, however if X amount of ft lbs are needed to move the vehicle, then the extra 2:1 reduction of the 203 means that a lesser X value is needed to be produced at the engine because the 2:1 multiplies it out.

make sense?

Stacking gears is stronger, assuming the couplings are up to snuff. When you reduce in one big step, you have a really small gear driving a big gear. When you reduce in steps, you have a medium gear driving a big gear twice. No little gear to fail.

Given the same overall reduction, 3.54 gears are harder to break than 7-something rears (really small pinion).


Also, I don't think it matters if the reduction is up or down stream..I think "equal but opposite reaction" comes into play. everything between the power source and the resistance has the same load.

Give it hell and the weakest link is gonna break whether it is a u-joint or an input shaft.

Frankie you have some damn good topics.........and your right... I like to use this explanations gear reduction is leverage.... lets say 2:1 is a breaker bar... 12:1 is a breaker bar with a 10 foot cheater bar. it takes less energey to move but travels further... hence lots more RPMs to get where ya want to go. now in compression braking that bars is pushing back at ya.. keep that in mind

You guys all missed the boat, and the titanic has sunk!

this is an ongoing discussion the frankie and i have been having. frankie claims that that 2 gear boxes wil 2:1 gears relieves more stress from the trans, than 1 gear box with 4:1. he also claims that rockwells place less stress on a drive shaft than a dana 60 would if it had 6.72 gear, because it has a double reduction. i think that frankie is full of it, and 4:1 = 4:1 and 6.72:1 =6.72:1 and anyone one who thinks different= idiot.:flipoff2:

reduction is reduction just like the lever explanation the longer the lever the further you have to go.

But to assit frankie

the reduction (lets use the word reduce) dosent happen unilt it hits that gear set so the 2:1 now we reduce 2:1 then we go down drive shaft and reduce (whatever the first gear is) then we reduce whatever the next gear does. the over all is the same at the end. but there is as many differences as there are reduced areas. Each section has its own stress's due to the amount of reduction. so technicle Frankie is right. but its the same at the ends.

You guys all missed the boat, and the titanic has sunk! this is an ongoing discussion the frankie and i have been having. frankie claims that that 2 gear boxes wil 2:1 gears relieves more stress from the trans, than 1 gear box with 4:1. he also claims that rockwells place less stress on a drive shaft than a dana 60 would if it had 6.72 gear, because it has a double reduction. i think that frankie is full of it, and 4:1 = 4:1 and 6.72:1 =6.72:1 and anyone one who thinks different= idiot.


You don't know Jack NEWBIE!!

I tend to agree with frankie on this one, more components simply give more points to absorb the same amount of stress, therefore each component takes less stress. Guys running rockwells always break the axleshafts, think about it...

[



Frankie is right. but its the same at the ends. [/B][/QUOTE]

if what you are saying is true, then frankie is wrong.

with frankies example of the 203/205 vs 4:1 dana 300, the 2 ends are the driveshaft, and the transmission. frankie claims that the driveshafts will have the same stress, however frankies says that thetrans hooked to the 203/205 will have less stress than the 4:1 dana 300. the discussion that we have been having is excluding any factors due to rotational inertia, or any durability factors of the gear boxes.

You don't know Jack NEWBIE!!

I tend to agree with frankie on this one, more components simply give more points to absorb the same amount of stress, therefore each component takes less stress.


PLEASE PAY ATTENTION IF YOU ARE GOING TO JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION! frankie is not talking about the durability of the gear box making the 4:1 redution, he is talking about the TRANSMISSION that comes before it.


FOR ALL OF YOU THAT DON'T GET IT YET WE ARE NOT ASKING IF A 205/203 IS STRONGER THAN A 4:1 DANA 300, WE ARE DISCUSSING THE STRESS ON THE TRANSMISSION!!!!!

Originally posted by heep86
[



Frankie is right. but its the same at the ends.

if what you are saying is true, then frankie is wrong.

with frankies example of the 203/205 vs 4:1 dana 300, the 2 ends are the driveshaft, and the transmission. frankie claims that the driveshafts will have the same stress, however frankies says that thetrans hooked to the 203/205 will have less stress than the 4:1 dana 300. the discussion that we have been having is excluding any factors due to rotational inertia, or any durability factors of the gear boxes. [/B][/QUOTE]


yes and no, he is wrong about the stress on the transmission it will be the same. no matter how many gears make up the difference say the total of the reduction is 25:1 no matter how many gears get there it will be 25:1 ... now there will be smaller increments if you use more gears to get there and less stress on each one. but the total will be the same.

yes and no, he is wrong about the stress on the transmission it will be the same. no matter how many gears make up the difference say the total of the reduction is 25:1 no matter how many gears get there it will be 25:1 ... now there will be smaller increments if you use more gears to get there and less stress on each one. but the total will be the same. [/B][/QUOTE]


IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE, THEN FRANKIE IS WRONG THE DISCUSSION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH STRESS INSIDE THE TRANSFERCASES, ONLY TO DO WITH THE TRANSMISSION OUTPUT SHAFT

Guys running rockwells always break the axleshafts, think about it... [/B][/QUOTE]

HOW MANY ROCKWELL AXELS HAVE YOU BROKEN?

frankie and i have been tring to break his, but we keep breaking transmissions and motors.

Originally posted by heep86
Guys running rockwells always break the axleshafts, think about it...

HOW MANY ROCKWELL AXELS HAVE YOU BROKEN?

frankie and i have been tring to break his, but we keep breaking transmissions and motors. [/B][/QUOTE]mike tell them why the tranny is broken in half.
ok if you have a doubler you are reducing the gears twice i feel that every time you make a reduction it does releave stress and heep 86 you sank with the titanic the main topic was not about auto trannys if if i'm wrong what about the forklift axle wheres your real world test oh i forgot you have only been wheeling for 2 years with that fawkin rust bucket pos that you are building this theory i have may have more to do with axles unloading stress than auto trannys unloading stress but if you are correct why do peaple use planatarys on heavy machinary and dont say lower gear reduction because most i have seen still equal the same gear ratio of a givin axle.ask heep 86 how much stress can a 10 bolt main cap can take he has real world results on this :flipoff2:there is real world and then there is the book world if you are going science on me then why does a bumblebee fly.

why does a bumblebee fly.

Duh Frankie!!! How else is it gonna sting you in the ASS!!

Originally posted by frankie finland
ok does stacking gears = less drive train stress like if you have a 203and 205 doubler will it put less stress on say a 350 turbo than a 4to1 dana 300 .

Well, the doubler gives a 3.92:1 ratio, so I think the 4:1 D300 will reduce the stress on the trans more...my math could be faulty though:flipoff2:

Originally posted by elf_cruiser
Ohh and if a man gets on a train in Chicago, headed west to LA at 60 mph, and a man gets on a train in LA headed east to Chicago at 70 mph, then how many lb/ft of torque does it take to break a rockwell????

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

and a side note......just wondering...but how do you get 3.92:1 out of a 2:1 203 reduction box and a 1.96:1 205? is that algebra?

Frankie do you use allot of compression braking?or let the idle run the forward gears untill you goose it and then let off fast?

what are the circumstances for the tranny destructions

Originally posted by SCOTTS_4X
and a side note......just wondering...but how do you get 3.92:1 out of a 2:1 203 reduction box and a 1.96:1 205? is that algebra?

No algebra, simple multiplication. You were probably absent that day:rolleyes:

Originally posted by frankie finland
ok does stacking gears = less drive train stress like if you have a 203and 205 doubler will it put less stress on say a 350 turbo than a 4to1 dana 300

No.if the gear ratio is the same then so is the stress reduction. Only difference is the 4:1 in a D 300 is a weaker link.
If you used a 4:1 gear box out of a earth mover it's still 4:1 and the forces are the same but that box won't be the weak link just due to brute strength.
Also, the stress taken away fron the trans is just moved to all the components behind the T case or cases.
It's still possible to get all torque to the trans and it still may be the weak link if everything else is bullitt proof.

Originally posted by ItsaCJ6
Frankie do you use allot of compression braking?or let the idle run the forward gears untill you goose it and then let off fast?

what are the circumstances for the tranny destructions 4 link faild and the shaft was binding and the tranny broke in half :D

Now thats carnage!!!!!!!!

might not even have much to do with the gear stress LOL

Originally posted by frankie finland
4 link failed and the shaft was binding and the tranny broke in half :D
I'm sure lower gears will fix that :D

On a side note, would you people PLEASE learn to use the quote feature? Once in a while is okay, but about eighteen in a row got a little... difficult to follow, shall we say?