Gear Ratios for Speedmaster #3's

[BluFin]

Originally Posted by Matt

I'd say my 1er looks safe at the moment.

I'd tend to agree if we went for #6's as the transom work would delay the project. thing is they would only need to arrive before testing & setup, ones that are on there could move the boat , fwd, & back at 1:1 for 2 mins if required. M. had a result on the props call you later.

[BluFin]

Pash Fundraising today at Covent Garden

Note the Drives replacement collection plate

Back to Drives & Ratios playtime over

[Jon Fuller]

BTW, I know this was discussed a while back, and the definition of a running boat was thrown around quite a bit, but I do feel there should be a completely independant judge to decide if it really is a runner, or just a load of old bits nailed together haphazardly for the purposes of unfairly winning a bet.

How about Jim Brooker?

lets not forget the original bet materialised from the reaction to the announcement of an official launch for testing

[Matt]

For the sake of a 1er, I know I wouldn't go to the aggro of nailing a load of bits together, probably take more than a hundred quid's worth of nails, but Pash does seem to rather have taken it to heart and is determined.

[Pash 1]

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

BTW, I know this was discussed a while back, and the definition of a running boat was thrown around quite a bit, but I do feel there should be a completely independant judge to decide if it really is a runner, or just a load of old bits nailed together haphazardly for the purposes of unfairly winning a bet.

How about Jim Brooker?

lets not forget the original bet materialised from the reaction to the announcement of an official launch for testing

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

but I do feel there should be a completely independant judge to decide if it really is a runner, or just a load of old bits nailed together haphazardly for the purposes of unfairly winning a bet.

Your totally entitled to your opinion but its sad to hear this feed back from you when someone is trying their best to get an old boat back on the water with a very limited budget...

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

lets not forget the original bet materialised from the reaction to the announcement of an official launch for testing

Wrong again on See Post 17 below.. No mention of testing


Not wishing to pour cold water on your thought Jon but..... This is a very interesting Thread so to end this hilarity I draw your attention to:

Under the Thread A Good Curry
I would draw your attention to the following Audit trail:

Post 16 By Matt - "So, when's the planatec gonna be ready then?"

Post 17 By me "Still on original completion date end May this year, am thinking about repairing the Scarab and calling it "Short Sleved Shirts" think it would make a good Long Distance boat"

Post 21 By Matt -"I bet you 100 quid to the charity of your choice it won't be running by end of May."

Post 27 By Matt -"So we're agreed then. Your boat running by end of may.
Not motors running on the shore
Not sitting stationary in the water.
Don't try and play any silly word games."

Post 36 (Conditions of Wager) By me -"Right...

The Wager/Bet is.....

£100

Conditions are:

Pash 1 will Pay to the Charity of Matts Choice the sum of £100 Gift Aided if the boat known as Double 2 Shirts a Planatec 41 is not :
a) running on both engines
b) capable of both forward and reverse motion under the power of the said engines without being tethered to any shore based restraint.
c) Floats without the assistance of any artificial devices

Matt will Pay to the Charity of Pash 1's choice the sum of £100 Gift Aided if any of the above stipulations are not met by sunset on the 31st May 2009

Any amount to be paid will be paid in full on the 1st June 2009 copy receipts to be posted on this website.....


Is that clear enough for you Matt (in the light hearted spirit of Charity)

Post 37 By Matt -"Would you prepared to go so far to say it should get on the plane, or is that pushing it?"

Post 38 By me -"Pushing it !"

Post 41 By me - "So do we have a bet Matt???"

Post 42 Acceptance of Wager - By Matt -"Hokey Cokey"

Everybody knows what the bet was and is - I am not Reneging on anything or seeking to change anything.. and to be honest I doubt if Matt is either - Jon Its for Charity.....

[motorvator]

I think the important bit here is the decision of Konrads or sixes etc.

Option 1 - Pash makes a decision to go with the Konrads and he can continue rigging today with the threes with a simple 3 or 4 hour swap over the minute they arrive.

Option 2 - Sixes etc and he has to make the decision followed by transom rebuilds etc which will delay the project.

Option 3 - Look around for a set of threes with the correct ratios and hope they are up to the task. Project on hold waiting for decision.

Option 4 - Buy a fresh set of gears and then find someone who can rebuild what he already has. Project on hold waiting for decision.

I know which way I would go, but then as Pash will tell you I was always good at spending his money (or his employers anyways)

[Jim Brooker]

I am sorry but I have to get back in to this discussion, you are all missing the point, I ask Martin some time ago are you going to stagger the engines, if the answer is yes, and the drives are still set to 21ins apart the engine will not line up,so the transom must be blocked off and the transom plates remounted to 18ins centre's.
You can then decide what drives you are going to buy and where you are going to fit them on the transom

[Jon Fuller]

Jim, why would it not be possible (if he wanted) to leave the drives at 21" centres, and stagger motor installation? We rigged a boat last year, choosing 20" as our centres, with staggered diesels. I don't understand why he must commit to 18" centres if he wants to stagger.

Jon

[motorvator]

OK so option 5 stagger the engines and rebuild transom to suit. Everything delayed.

Jon, I'll bet Martin would appreciate a phone call and quick discussion on this as it would be doing my head in by now. Martin's knowledge of staggering is more related to finding a train home from a bar.

Is there a real benefit staggering anyway being as he has lighter engines than were previously installed non staggered? Has he actually got the length in the engine bay to do it? What's the real gain from redistributing weight centre and forward?

With the mounts he's already got made will they work with lower drives anyway?

You and I know it's a Don Shead design that will be prone to fall on one side or the other regardless

[Jon Fuller]

I don't know for sure, but if the current centres on drives is 21", I would have thought the Sabres were staggered, as although they're straight 6's, so relatively narrow I'd be surprised you could get them side by side on 21" centres. Would stand corrected of course.

Staggering isn't 'just' about moving the CofG, it also gets your drives deeper in the salty stuff (more constant drive) whilst maintaining the same 'X' dimension and lowers the thrust line (giving more trim effect for carrying the bows), again, with unchanged 'X'. and so on.

Just about every pic there is of that boat running seems to show it with the sharp end pointing at the sky, so I reckon moving, or maintaining a CofG as far fwd as poss would be a good thing.

Jim may enlighten us.

[motorvator]

Ah I probably wrongly assumed with those centres they weren't staggered.

All very fair points. Am I right in assuming the BBC is substantially lighter than the Sabres or does the law of american pig iron take over?

With the pointy end skywards as you say, there's no reason both engines couldn't both go forward if beneficial and space allowing?

So I suppose the 2 questions are:

Is there sufficient benefit at this point in the game to move the drive centres closer? And probably only Jim can answer this.

Is the deal on the Konrads the right one?

Don't know if you noticed Jon, but the Konrad reduces shaft to shaft height ie 'x' by approx 2" although they do spacers to resolve.

It's for sure with the clock ticking that Martin needs answers.

[Jon Fuller]

Originally Posted by motorvator

Ah I probably wrongly assumed with those centres they weren't staggered.

Not necessarily, like I said, I don't know either, just seems very close to get the Sabres side by side, but I could easily be wrong.

Originally Posted by motorvator

All very fair points. Am I right in assuming the BBC is substantially lighter than the Sabres or does the law of american pig iron take over?

I would 'guess' that the Sabres, along with the torque converters and step up boxes would weigh substantially more than the BBC's, probably twice.

Originally Posted by motorvator

With the pointy end skywards as you say, there's no reason both engines couldn't both go forward if beneficial and space allowing?

Dunno about that, might be over the top. One for Jim.

Originally Posted by motorvator

Is the deal on the Konrads the right one?

Don't know if you noticed Jon, but the Konrad reduces shaft to shaft height ie 'x' by approx 2" although they do spacers to resolve.

I have no idea, Martin needs to make that decision. If he can afford them, probably, if he can't, definitely not, but his options aren't numerous.

Do we know if the Konrads place the prop the same distance aft of the transom as the SSMIII's? This would affect the rights or wrongs of final propshaft height.

[motorvator]

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

Not necessarily, like I said, I don't know either, just seems very close to get the Sabres side by side, but I could easily be wrong.

Actually it's just dawned on me that I'm assuming that 21" centres is enough for BBC side by side with whatever exhausts / gearboxes he has purchased?

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

I would 'guess' that the Sabres, along with the torque converters and step up boxes would weigh substantially more than the BBC's, probably twice.

So potentially 3/4 tonne less up the back end?

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

Dunno about that, might be over the top. One for Jim.

Agreed he needs info from those who have run it.

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

I have no idea, Martin needs to make that decision. If he can afford them, probably, if he can't, definitely not, but his options aren't numerous.

Afford or not, as you say options aren't numerous but a decision he can't hang on.

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

Do we know if the Konrads place the prop the same distance aft of the transom as the SSMIII's? This would affect the rights or wrongs of final propshaft height.

Not sure about that, only a phone call will resolve that one. Only info I can find is from West Coast Marine

"The drive selected for this conversion is an enhanced version of the successful Konrad 540. This special drive conversion is fitted standard with the Konrad Heavy Duty upper input shaft and High Performance lower gear case options. The Konrad PRSIII is 1.78” shorter (from input shaft to propshaft elevation) than the SSMIII series drive. This has demonstrated to be beneficial as most of the SSMIII units were originally mounted at conservative heights. Initial installations have proven to be a 100% success with speed gains standard! "

[Jon Fuller]

BBC's require 36" centres for side by side fitment with regular cast manifolds, SBC are 33"

A standard cast iron manifold equiped merc big block is 33" wide. Obviously you need at least a small gap between them.

You can squeek them a bit closer together, but those are the reccomendations from Merc.

Obviously that number depends on exhaust fitment, headers would I expect, require a bit more ball room in their pants.

When I installed the V8 diesels in my 28 (side by side) I set them at 33" centres, which only gave a gap of about 3/4" at the closest point. They never touched in service (non solid mounts) but they're a pig to work on.

[Matt]

The formula was 34" centres with big block & cast manifolds - and a fkkn tight fit between em, to tight to change a starter motor, even plugs were a nightmare - was easier to pop the motor out.

[motorvator]

So he has to stagger regardless?

[Jon Fuller]

Yes, but the bit I don't get is why Jim says he needs to reset to 18" centres to do so. It's a shed load more work.

Mind you, he needs to pull the gimbles out anyway, as the boat is 30-odd years old, and there's every chance the transom timber is as rotten as a pear. He needs to check that for sure before squirting 1000+hp through it.

[Matt]

"If" the gimbles are coming out and "If" it turns out that transom work is needed, or that the gimbles need work, surely it's gotta be worth looking at the full konrad package they were offering for 15K inc transom assemblies, instead of using the v. old SSM ones.

[BluFin]

Originally Posted by motorvator

So he has to stagger regardless?

Stagger..................More like fell over with today's falling pound rate

They were always going to be staggered, the weight reduction in the back should help with the +ve nose up. but I think it still had a tendancy even as Macho to be light on the front end.

Edit after matts post: I agree with JF & Matt You do have to pull them to check but any transom work if needed would throw a curve ball again & the amount of that work could bring the #6's back into the ballpark

[motorvator]

Originally Posted by Jon Fuller

Yes, but the bit I don't get is why Jim says he needs to reset to 18" centres to do so. It's a shed load more work.

Mind you, he needs to pull the gimbles out anyway, as the boat is 30-odd years old, and there's every chance the transom timber is as rotten as a pear. He needs to check that for sure before squirting 1000+hp through it.

I just assumed the transom had been checked when he was talking about flocoating the engine bay.

The same logic could be applied to his body though. You do know he's 49 years old himself