- 1. Re: Crank discussions (score: 1)
- Author: Unknown
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:02:25 -0400charset="iso-8859-1"
- With the current discussions re turning a crank I have the following question; I acquired a 1275 crank which shows signs that it has been recently worked on. The rod journals mike out at 1.6259 (act
- /html/spridgets/2000-10/msg00924.html (7,137 bytes)
- 2. Re: Crank discussions (score: 1)
- Author: Unknown
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:20:10 -0500
- I've heard Bon..... never mind
- /html/spridgets/2000-10/msg00930.html (7,167 bytes)
- 3. Re: Crank discussions (score: 1)
- Author: Unknown
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:13:35 -0700
- Ulix Ulix __/__,__ ___/__|\__ ..............................................(_o____o_)....<_O_____O_/... http://www.mirafiori.com/~ulix/ '67 Sprite '74 X1/9
- /html/spridgets/2000-10/msg00936.html (8,009 bytes)
- 4. Re: Crank discussions (score: 1)
- Author: Unknown
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
- SOunds to me like this thread is going down hill...I mean...comparing crank sizes and whose is bigger. Dan ..............................................(_o____o_)....<_O_____O_/... == Dan Dwelley 77
- /html/spridgets/2000-10/msg00945.html (8,712 bytes)
- 5. Re: Crank discussions (score: 1)
- Author: Unknown
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:46:44 -0400charset="iso-8859-1"
- I thought Iwas looking at the numbers for the main journal(s) but weren't!!!! Just went out and re-miked them and they are 2.0007, within spec. DAH Sorry, for the brainfart. Biff Jones Pasadena, MD
- /html/spridgets/2000-10/msg00949.html (8,649 bytes)
- 6. Re: Crank discussions (score: 1)
- Author: Unknown
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 05:23:47 -0500
- I wouldn't worry about it. Actually you've measured the mains to be half a thousandth OVER, not under. That's a pretty samll figure. You may be flirting with the limits of accuracy of your mike. You
- /html/spridgets/2000-10/msg00991.html (7,299 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu