Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jere Lull" wrote
I may be hyper-sensitive to noise and vibration, but the drivesaver makes my motoring time more enjoyable.... Okay, less objectionable. I have no doubt that it does. My point was that setting up everything PROPERLY would very likely produce an even smoother running system. The key word is properly. Few boats have their shaft systems machined properly which makes a good market for the Drivesaver. At least this is the opinion of the people who have set up the demanding drive trains in my 1400+ HP boats so they run far smoother than my sailboat. Doing it right probably would cost quite a bit more than a drivesaver which may also help keep those folks in business. One thing I hadn't thought of: The shafts on the boats I'm used to dealing with are very conservatively designed and I've almost never heard of one breaking, even when the wheels are totally trashed. With the small shafts common on many yachts, it might make sense to have a "fuse" in the system that is cheaper than the shaft. I'll have to confess that I don't deal with the nitty gritty details of shafts; just the basic layout and sizing. I'm simply passing on what a guy who has solved shaft problems that others couldn't on boats from fast patrol boats to aircraft carriers told me when I said, "shouldn't we have a Shaftsaver?" I'm sure opinions vary. The shaft shop you talk to may love to just take stuff out of boxes and sell it to you alone with a Shaftsaver for the same price as doing it the right way. They may not even know the right way in which cast the Shaftsaver is your best option. Like I said, taking the one out of my shaft line is about item number 6374 on my list of things I'd like to do. -- Roger Long |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm sort of disagreeing with Roger here with his suggestion (I think)
of flexibly mounted engines but a rigid shaft coupling. On all the vessels that we design, 95% use flexible mounts. We like Lo-Rez because they are very soft (~0.5" static deflection). But to use them you HAVE to have a flexible coupling because otherwise all that vibration will get into the structure via the shaft and stuffing box. Evan Gatehouse |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Evan Gatehouse" wrote
I'm sort of disagreeing with Roger here with his suggestion (I think) of flexibly mounted engines but a rigid shaft coupling. It's probably not a disagreement but having lost track here of a point in the thread. I'm talking about a specific drive train configuration which is common on sailboats. There must be a flexible stuffing box or shaft seal and there must be no other bearings other than the stern strut. The engine can be on very soft mounts. There is then nothing except the cutlass to pick up any shaft vibration. The shaft is long enough to flex and accommodate the engine motion. The full length version of this video http://marine.unh.edu/Images/Gulf%20Challenger.wmv shows a cup of coffee sitting on the quarter bit while the boat is going 20 knots and there isn't a ripple on the surface. The struts pick up very little vibration. As soon as you introduce a second bearing into a the shaft system with soft engine mounts, you have to have something flexible between the gear and the shaft. I've made the shafts slightly oversize on my fast research vessels to eliminate the need for a second bearing, way, way, cheaper than installing and lining up that second bearing. BTW there is a direct relationship between how much the engine can move and the frequency of vibration isolated. Thin rubber pads take out the high whine but getting the low throb and rumble out requires letting the engine move 3/8" to 1/2" as you say you are doing. -- Roger Long |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Evan,
I'm curious. What kind of boats does a phone company design or is your header showing something odd for an organization? -- Roger Long "Evan Gatehouse" wrote in message ... I'm sort of disagreeing with Roger here with his suggestion (I think) of flexibly mounted engines but a rigid shaft coupling. On all the vessels that we design, 95% use flexible mounts. We like Lo-Rez because they are very soft (~0.5" static deflection). But to use them you HAVE to have a flexible coupling because otherwise all that vibration will get into the structure via the shaft and stuffing box. Evan Gatehouse |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|