Offset wrong under load? Video

[Soupy]

Video isn't perfect, I think I can mount the camera solid and get better video if needed. Doesnt the belt look doglegged under acceleration? Or am I seeing things?

Dtya-1's, Dalton bronze w glide washers, stock 35 helix and Dalton b/o at 6-1. Offset 60.7, center to center was 262mm about a month ago.

Still hot clutches & blowing belts. As always, any help is greatly appreciated!

 

[stevewithOCD]

I got dizzy.
When i sat back, i see what you are talking about.
So hard to verify in that video.
Although under load is true test, can you take a straight vid on stand. We'd still see the dog leg

 

[WVTurboLTX]

Have you checked the rollers in both clutches? I had a bushing slip in one of my primary rollers recently. It locked that roller up causing weird issues and increased temps.

 

[Soupy]

Video on the stand, taken an hour after the other video. The belt appears much straighter to me, which is why I started this thread. What would cause the offset to change under load? I'm still working on resolving stub shaft issues too.

 

[jaydaniels]

Only thing I can think of is that under load the 2 clutches aren’t staying parallel to each other? Maybe jackshaft is flexing or motor twisting slightly?

 

[SuperTurbo]

Secondary needs to go in more!
Both vids are doglegged. Here is a segmant still frame of your vid on the stand

 

[Beerman]

Watching

 

[NOS-PRO]

Soupy, on your video in post 4, the clutches looked perfectly aligned when the belt was at the top of the primary in the beginning of the video. This was at full shift which is what you want. Part throttle is different and I will explain more.

Hang with me for a second.....
The heavy weights, no matter which ones they are.....keep the primary in the "full shift" mode while the secondary is trying to bring the belt back. You will see this more with the heavier weights forcing the moveable sheave in longer, causing it to look "doglegged". At part throttle, the weights are trying to close the sheaves as fast as possible. IMHO, I still believe the heavier weights or weights with flatter profile are where the problem is.

So you are still blowing belts from what I see posted....hmmmm, very interesting

 

[saskattakman]

I'd like to know why the primary moves in more after retorquing it? something has to be moving on yours soupy your primary sure looks close to your engine

 

[NOS-PRO]

I'd like to know why the primary moves in more after retorquing it? something has to be moving on yours soupy your primary sure looks close to your engine

There is about a 1/16" between the head of the bolts and the primary when torqued. Yes, they are very close.

 

[saskattakman]

There is about a 1/16" between the head of the bolts and the primary when torqued. Yes, they are very close.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is something moved on my sled. was at 61.1mm with a shim from new now after blowing a belt and retorquing primary I'm at 61.4 mm with no shim which is a hair out of specs. to me it has to be the primary moving in

 

[NOS-PRO]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is something moved on my sled. was at 61.1mm with a shim from new now after blowing a belt and retorquing primary I'm at 61.4 mm with no shim which is a hair out of specs. to me it has to be the primary moving in

Gotcha, I know some of the 1st winders weren't torqued to 108 initially from when they were built.

 

[Soupy]

Soupy, on your video in post 4, the clutches looked perfectly aligned when the belt was at the top of the primary in the beginning of the video. This was at full shift which is what you want. Part throttle is different and I will explain more.

Hang with me for a second.....
The heavy weights, no matter which ones they are.....keep the primary in the "full shift" mode while the secondary is trying to bring the belt back. You will see this more with the heavier weights forcing the moveable sheave in longer, causing it to look "doglegged". At part throttle, the weights are trying to close the sheaves as fast as possible. IMHO, I still believe the heavier weights or weights with flatter profile are where the problem is.

So you are still blowing belts from what I see posted....hmmmm, very interesting

Does my post 4 video really matter though because it's on the stand with no load? Especially if there's an offset problem when shifting under load? Or are you saying that it only "looks" doglegged but it's really not? I know my stub shaft is in too far and it's going to the dealer for that soon but offset was still 60.7, which I thought was reasonable.

Oh yeah, a belt every wknd, 15 exploded now in the past 2700 miles.

 

[Soupy]

There is about a 1/16" between the head of the bolts and the primary when torqued. Yes, they are very close.

My clutch is rubbing on the bolt heads, I started a different post about that. Stub shaft is in too far.

 

[XP123]

Soupy, on your video in post 4, the clutches looked perfectly aligned when the belt was at the top of the primary in the beginning of the video. This was at full shift which is what you want. Part throttle is different and I will explain more.

Hang with me for a second.....
The heavy weights, no matter which ones they are.....keep the primary in the "full shift" mode while the secondary is trying to bring the belt back. You will see this more with the heavier weights forcing the moveable sheave in longer, causing it to look "doglegged". At part throttle, the weights are trying to close the sheaves as fast as possible. IMHO, I still believe the heavier weights or weights with flatter profile are where the problem is.

So you are still blowing belts from what I see posted....hmmmm, very interesting

When you say heavier weights or flatter profile are talking about stock weights?