1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Replacing Connecting Rod Rollers
Posted by: Alan Woolf (IP Logged)
Date: August 22, 2002 09:09PM
<HTML>We are contemplating building up a spare 20hp condensing engine out the pile of parts that we have collected over the last 15 years. Unfortunately none of the connecting rod big ends are in good enough conditions to use with out regrinding the races and making new rollers. Has anyone of this group had to do this? If so what type of steel did you make the rollers out of? The rollers that were in the engines have a hardness of Rockwell 63C. Precision ground A-2 drill rod is available and I was wondering if it would a good choice for new rollers. It would have to be cut off to the correct length and then hardened.
Alan Woolf</HTML>
Alan Woolf</HTML>
Re: Replacing Connecting Rod Rollers
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: August 23, 2002 01:47AM
<HTML>Dear Alan, My favorite fix is to put modern self aligning roller bearings into the connecting rod crank ends. I do not have the bearing number handy. I have tried to replace the rollers using drill rod. They work well if you can get the hardness to match. Dowel pins cut to length, work even better because they have much closer tolerances I have been told. They have a matching hardness and they are sold in a box of 50 or 100. You can also buy individual bearing rollers but thay are only long enough to cut one usable roller out of and it gets expensive. Using a chop saw and keep the bearings cool as the same time preserves the temper. My vote is still for new modern self aligning bearings!</HTML>
Re:Connecting Rod twist
Posted by: c benson (IP Logged)
Date: September 25, 2002 11:19PM
<HTML>Hi,, Dont forget the engine twists perhaps 15 deg' so the barrel rollers are probably a goood idea /////I think this comp'tr got 2 or 5 [yes 5] address,,and is actin strange,,,,I nevr got along w/ electric annnythin',,,so i except all but 1 bill,,,cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Replacing Connecting Rod Rollers
Posted by: Ron Parola (IP Logged)
Date: October 05, 2002 11:14PM
<HTML>If you use self aligning bearings, won't the crosshead rotate in it's guide? Or do the bearings not allow enough movement to be a problem. Thanks Ron P</HTML>
Re: Replacing Connecting Rod Rollers
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: October 08, 2002 02:53AM
<HTML>The flex of the wrist pin prevents the connecting rod bearings from twisting to their limits. No problem at all using self aligning connecting rod bearings. The only time that the connecting rod could twist is at either top dead center or at bottom dead center. In the middle of the power stroke, the piston rod and connecting rod are at an angle to each other preventing over twisting of the self aligning bearings. It is in middle of the power stoke point that a self aligning connecting rod bearing is important in relieving the tension from any twist induced by the engine frame rods.</HTML>
Re: Replacing Connecting Rod Rollers
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: October 08, 2002 06:42AM
<HTML>Hi Pat,
Self aligning conrod bearings are a great idea! Is there any provision for axial play for the self-aligning journal along the crankpin, or has this been found unnecessary/undesireable?
I have also considered using self-aligning bearings for the mains, and would be interested in any comments on this idea. Anybody tried this yet?
For the eccentrics, very close to the center of twist, I think that journal tilt is small enough that eccentric rod flex can compensate, and self-aligning bearings with the needed diameter/width ratio do not seem to be available anyway. In fact, I haven't been able to locate commercial antifriction bearings of any type with the required dia/width ratio for eccentrics, and wonder if anybody knows a source.
How are the self-aligning conrod bearings working out? Any problems to watch for?
Peter</HTML>
Self aligning conrod bearings are a great idea! Is there any provision for axial play for the self-aligning journal along the crankpin, or has this been found unnecessary/undesireable?
I have also considered using self-aligning bearings for the mains, and would be interested in any comments on this idea. Anybody tried this yet?
For the eccentrics, very close to the center of twist, I think that journal tilt is small enough that eccentric rod flex can compensate, and self-aligning bearings with the needed diameter/width ratio do not seem to be available anyway. In fact, I haven't been able to locate commercial antifriction bearings of any type with the required dia/width ratio for eccentrics, and wonder if anybody knows a source.
How are the self-aligning conrod bearings working out? Any problems to watch for?
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lower bearing
Posted by: c benson (IP Logged)
Date: October 08, 2002 11:56AM
<HTML>My gut feeling is to use a max bearing for the mains,,,to help keep this area rigid,,the big mains are close to overkill [at least in comparison /e/r ] AND Dave's stiffner plates [ NOT WELDED ] help deal with this shortcomming a great deal,,,,,Art Hart is making eccentrics ,,,an a eccentric strap doesnt present the problems of the rest of this stuff,,,,,I'm sort of on line ,,dont trust it yet,,,junk mail comes on 4 a'dds !!! OH YEH if ya bore the main bearing caps I think it best to space the caps... NOT to have em closed up on boring,,,this will leave more metal in a important area,,,,and U can use a large OD bearing ,,,,U guys have any input on this??? Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Lower bearing
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: October 08, 2002 12:57PM
<HTML>In over 10,000 miles of use, I have had no problems with self aligning crank pin/connecting rod bearings in my 10 H.P. engine. Before that, I had broken crank pins and occasionally I had to readjust them. The crank pins have been trouble free since installing the new bearings. On my 20 H.P. Stanley main bearings, yes, I did just like ArtHart told me to do. Shim the main bearing caps before boring them out for the new main bearings. In assembly, you will find out quickly how important these shims are. The main caps have to be shimmed perfectly to prevent the new bearing's outer race from slipping around, but also shimmed loose enough as not to have any drag in the rollers. Shimmed just right, the bearing stays put and there won't be any drag. The new main bearing rollers approaches the original rollers for size. They will easily carry the load.</HTML>
Re: Lower bearing
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: October 09, 2002 07:00AM
<HTML>Pat,
Thanks for the tip. Soft shims can be bored thru with the bearing blocks, to avoid interrupted cut problems, and yes, I can see the advantage of getting the fit just right, sort of an interference fit. Great to hear that the self-aligning bearings are working out so well. Sounds like "problem solved".
Ben,
Rigid mains do seem to have an advantage, as extra wag in the crankshaft might do a job on the drive gears (come to think of it), and Pat sez they will take the loads. A little roller "pinching" is probably unavoidable. Not sure about the stiffener plates, but may give them a try. David wrote that his engine ran a bit rougher with the stiffeners under some conditions, so maybe some engine flex is a good thing. At least in the smoothness department. Glad to see you back in the forum; good luck with the computer situation. Junk e-mail seems to be a growing epidemic, annoys me too.
Peter</HTML>
Thanks for the tip. Soft shims can be bored thru with the bearing blocks, to avoid interrupted cut problems, and yes, I can see the advantage of getting the fit just right, sort of an interference fit. Great to hear that the self-aligning bearings are working out so well. Sounds like "problem solved".
Ben,
Rigid mains do seem to have an advantage, as extra wag in the crankshaft might do a job on the drive gears (come to think of it), and Pat sez they will take the loads. A little roller "pinching" is probably unavoidable. Not sure about the stiffener plates, but may give them a try. David wrote that his engine ran a bit rougher with the stiffeners under some conditions, so maybe some engine flex is a good thing. At least in the smoothness department. Glad to see you back in the forum; good luck with the computer situation. Junk e-mail seems to be a growing epidemic, annoys me too.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lower bearing
Posted by: David K Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: October 09, 2002 10:55PM
<HTML>Having plotted the torque versus crank angle curves for a Stanley engine in short cutoff, I am surprised that most Stanleys seem so smooth. However, I do NOT think getting a smooth engine by allowing it to twist like a dancer listening to Chubby Checkers is the right way to go.</HTML>
Re: Lower bearing
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: October 10, 2002 08:01AM
<HTML>Hi David,
LOL! I have doubts about making an engine "do the twist" too. There is a real minefield of tradeoffs here. More cylinders increases the internal surface/volume ratio, cost, friction, and labor, while "rigidizing" the frame ups the weight/roughness, and twistin' the night away with 2 cylinders & velvety flex frame makes the crankcase hard to seal, pinches bearings, stresses frame & its fasteners, etc.. This is going to take building and road testing (probably of several options/modifications) for me to develop an informed personal preference. In the meantime, experience-based input and reports on valuable experiments like yours are greatly appreciated.
At one time, I considered a roller-cammed crankshaft with cyclically variable-length crank throws to smooth things out (after doing a disturbing torque plot), but this seriously flunks the K.I.S.S. test, is only accurate for one temperature/pressure and cutoff setting, and has its own mechanical problems including construction details and matching valve timing.
I suspect that the curious valve motion/porting/passages (including wretched flow restriction at many points in the cycle) does a lot of compensating for the lumpy theoretical torque plot on a Stanley-type engine, and vehicle inertia, frame flex, and other factors probably feed into this too. Those old cars seem to have been built to an often counterintuitive "mystery formula", refined over decades and millions of miles of road experience and serendipitous elbow-grease experiments in thousands of cars, with all sorts of tradeoffs factored in. Despite being out of production for nearly 80 years, the refinement work continues.
Peter</HTML>
LOL! I have doubts about making an engine "do the twist" too. There is a real minefield of tradeoffs here. More cylinders increases the internal surface/volume ratio, cost, friction, and labor, while "rigidizing" the frame ups the weight/roughness, and twistin' the night away with 2 cylinders & velvety flex frame makes the crankcase hard to seal, pinches bearings, stresses frame & its fasteners, etc.. This is going to take building and road testing (probably of several options/modifications) for me to develop an informed personal preference. In the meantime, experience-based input and reports on valuable experiments like yours are greatly appreciated.
At one time, I considered a roller-cammed crankshaft with cyclically variable-length crank throws to smooth things out (after doing a disturbing torque plot), but this seriously flunks the K.I.S.S. test, is only accurate for one temperature/pressure and cutoff setting, and has its own mechanical problems including construction details and matching valve timing.
I suspect that the curious valve motion/porting/passages (including wretched flow restriction at many points in the cycle) does a lot of compensating for the lumpy theoretical torque plot on a Stanley-type engine, and vehicle inertia, frame flex, and other factors probably feed into this too. Those old cars seem to have been built to an often counterintuitive "mystery formula", refined over decades and millions of miles of road experience and serendipitous elbow-grease experiments in thousands of cars, with all sorts of tradeoffs factored in. Despite being out of production for nearly 80 years, the refinement work continues.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lower bearing
Posted by: David K Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: October 10, 2002 09:13PM
<HTML>Don't forget suspension effects. One reason early Stanleys were so smooth to the passengers was the four full elliptic springs; the engine and running gear could shake all it wanted and the body hardly moved (except for the vibration of the pump drive).</HTML>
an' engine vib' etc
Posted by: c benson (IP Logged)
Date: October 10, 2002 10:33PM
<HTML>And of course if ya want really good roadholding/unsprung weight ,,you will go all the way back to chain drive!! An of course NO juce brakes,,,,[ I just couldnt resist that one] Daves stiffner plates I think are really sugnifigant,,an dont forget he's doin better than 10mpg on a good day w a 4000#car,,,,Verry few 1925 Packards will = this [same #wt] and about same wind resistance etc,,,oh yeh SUV get 8mpg??As I recall last time I rode w/Dave it was smooth as usual,,,,For long lasti'n engine frame rods,use a steel called stressprof,,tho it costs more,,,How much speed and efficiency is the target for this project? The only problem I really see is water freezes in winter!!This includes in the steam guage unless ya fill it w/oil Refer to Dave again,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Oil in the steam gauge
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: October 11, 2002 03:47AM
<HTML> I put on about 1,500 miles a year. For winter storage, every fall, I tried replacing the oil in the steam gauge and when disconnecting the line, all of last years oil was always gone. Anymore, I just disconnect the line at the steam gauge to drain out the condensed water. Yes, I even have a loop in the line at the gauge to keep the oil there.</HTML>
Re: an' engine vib' etc
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: October 11, 2002 04:04AM
<HTML>Hi Ben,
Thanks for the tip on stressproof steel for frames; I will keep an eye open for it. Have been planning to use cold-rolled steel rod. Will try the braced frame. Speed target is 80 mph/1120 rpm (1:1 ratio & 24" dia wheels) in a small modern car; efficiency, we'll see. Designing boiler for about 20 lbs/hp/hr at low speeds & ~17 when running flat-out in short cutoff.
The Stanley/gas car mpg comparisons are eye-opening when allowance is made for weight, air/tire drag, etc..
I think I have a water system setup which will avoid freeze damage in winter, but wouldn't you know, forgot about the steam gauge. Thanks for the reminder. Another trip to the drawing board. Wonder what else I'm forgetting, and how much it'll cost me for equipment replacement ...
Peter</HTML>
Thanks for the tip on stressproof steel for frames; I will keep an eye open for it. Have been planning to use cold-rolled steel rod. Will try the braced frame. Speed target is 80 mph/1120 rpm (1:1 ratio & 24" dia wheels) in a small modern car; efficiency, we'll see. Designing boiler for about 20 lbs/hp/hr at low speeds & ~17 when running flat-out in short cutoff.
The Stanley/gas car mpg comparisons are eye-opening when allowance is made for weight, air/tire drag, etc..
I think I have a water system setup which will avoid freeze damage in winter, but wouldn't you know, forgot about the steam gauge. Thanks for the reminder. Another trip to the drawing board. Wonder what else I'm forgetting, and how much it'll cost me for equipment replacement ...
Peter</HTML>
Re: Lower bearing
Posted by: Peter Brow (IP Logged)
Date: October 11, 2002 04:14AM
<HTML>Hi David,
Definitely! That's one of the reasons I'm planning a Stanley/Doble style engine/axle unit, despite the unibody modification problems with a modern vehicle. Full-elliptics and perch rods are a bit much for a new project, though; current plan is semi-elliptics.
Peter</HTML>
Definitely! That's one of the reasons I'm planning a Stanley/Doble style engine/axle unit, despite the unibody modification problems with a modern vehicle. Full-elliptics and perch rods are a bit much for a new project, though; current plan is semi-elliptics.
Peter</HTML>
Re: Replacing Connecting Rod Rollers
Posted by: Ron Parola (IP Logged)
Date: October 12, 2002 06:12PM
<HTML>I am using self aligning (spherical) roller bearings in my 740, after 8 years, still no problems. The ones I am using needed a bush in the id and to also bush the od. Mark II is getting one piece main bearing holders made to fit. Bearing # 22212 cc W/32 Ron P</HTML>
Re: Replacing Connecting Rod Rollers
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: November 18, 2002 11:30AM
<HTML>Pat, what supplier has individual bearing rollers. Re-doing bottom end on 30 HP. Races are fine, rollers not! Not ready to take the plunge for new modern self aligning bearings!
Thanks!</HTML>
Thanks!</HTML>
Re : Manufacturers & Exporters Of Auto engine parts
Posted by: Tejas Shah (IP Logged)
Date: June 04, 2004 08:00AM
<HTML>Dear Sir/s,
Sub. :- Manufacturers of Auto engine parts
We would like you to introduce ourselves as the manufacturer of auto engine
parts in India. We are interested in Exports of connecting rod and valve
train components for cars, trucks, tractors, compressors and marine
applications.
We are specialized in Manufacturing varieties of Hydraulic
Roller Tappets , Hydraulic Flat Tappets , V8 Engines Solid Flat Tappets ,
Mushroom Tappets , Bottle Tappets , Mechanical Tappets , Special Racing
Applications Tappets.
We would specially like to tell you that any kind of new
development would be done with drawing and samples. Please feel free to get
samples and catalogues. We also have many internatioanl references.
For further details kindly visit our website :
www.jainautoexports.com.
Thanking you,
For, Jain Auto Exports
Tejas Shah</HTML>
Sub. :- Manufacturers of Auto engine parts
We would like you to introduce ourselves as the manufacturer of auto engine
parts in India. We are interested in Exports of connecting rod and valve
train components for cars, trucks, tractors, compressors and marine
applications.
We are specialized in Manufacturing varieties of Hydraulic
Roller Tappets , Hydraulic Flat Tappets , V8 Engines Solid Flat Tappets ,
Mushroom Tappets , Bottle Tappets , Mechanical Tappets , Special Racing
Applications Tappets.
We would specially like to tell you that any kind of new
development would be done with drawing and samples. Please feel free to get
samples and catalogues. We also have many internatioanl references.
For further details kindly visit our website :
www.jainautoexports.com.
Thanking you,
For, Jain Auto Exports
Tejas Shah</HTML>
Re: Replacing Connecting Rod Rollers
Posted by: Daniel Allen (IP Logged)
Date: June 10, 2004 07:19PM
<HTML>Greetings,
I am a businessman own and operating a store in Nigeria.I am interested in purchasing the item listed below from your store.
Bearing connecting rod 200600
I will like to know the unit price of the above item asap in order to provide you my required quantities and i will be paying with my credit card immediately you give me the total cost for my required quantities including the shipping charges.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Thanks alot,
Daniel Allen.</HTML>
I am a businessman own and operating a store in Nigeria.I am interested in purchasing the item listed below from your store.
Bearing connecting rod 200600
I will like to know the unit price of the above item asap in order to provide you my required quantities and i will be paying with my credit card immediately you give me the total cost for my required quantities including the shipping charges.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Thanks alot,
Daniel Allen.</HTML>
Re: Lower bearing
Posted by: jccnfythuy (IP Logged)
Date: June 21, 2004 01:55AM
<HTML>I Gddnggh</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.