I might have more faith in the article's author if he had shown some actual
test data to back up his claim.
Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Kirkwood" <saltfever@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:34 PM
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Subject: [Land-speed] Cam Belt-Drives
> Mayf's timely question has raised another issue. If one was to believe
> advertising you would think that a belt drive was a magic excelsior to
> dampen all the bad harmonics coupled to the cam. Not being an engineer it
> sounded like a plausible solution. However, as a technocrat suspicious of
> unsubstantiated advertising, I am always looking for good data proving the
> supposition. I am still neutral about belt drive claims. Testing and
> engineering analysis to prove belt-drive claims is non-trivial and
> expensive. In Experimental Aviation a belt-drive-prop-reduction-unit has
> always claimed, among other things, to be beneficial due to its dampening
> characteristics. So, in absence of good data, it is refreshing to see an
> interesting article that appears to debunk the status quo.
>
> http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-10_beltdrive.asp
>
>
>
> Knowledge is horsepower. Too much is a good thing :-)
_______________________________________________
Land-speed@autox.team.net
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
|