Notices
C3 Tech/Performance V8 Technical Info, Internal Engine, External Engine, Basic Tech and Maintenance for the C3 Corvette

New style axles

 
Old 01-26-2012, 08:35 PM
  #21  
7t2vette
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Support Corvetteforum!
 
7t2vette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 9,798
Received 115 Likes on 83 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
Default

Originally Posted by Mike Ward View Post
How would a CV joint have less mass/inertia than a u-joint?
Not just the joint, but the whole CV joint & solid halfshaft.

7t2vette is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 08:40 PM
  #22  
Mike Ward
CF Senior Member
 
Mike Ward's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,892
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

A hollow tube of the same weight as a solid shaft can take far more torque. That's why driveshafts are fat tubes and not skinny solid rods.
Mike Ward is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 08:44 PM
  #23  
wcsinx
CF Senior Member
 
wcsinx's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Posts: 23,312
Received 36 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Mike Ward View Post
Ah- If that's what he meant, a CV joint usually cannot accept the type of longitudinal loads that are present in the type of suspension used on C2/C3 where the suspension member is also responsible for transmitting the torque to the wheels.

Even if they could be made to work, what's the advantage?
Correct, CV joints won't work with the longitudinal loads imposed by the fact that the halfshaft in a C3's rear suspension also serves as the upper strut rod. And when you think about it, a CV joint really is designed not to handle longitudinal loads.

How would a CV joint have less mass/inertia than a u-joint?
They don't. They're actually both heavier and weaker. The advantage of CV joints is right there in their name. "Constant" velocity ... unlike CV joints, u-joints accelerate and decelerate twice per rotation and the farther you articulate that joint, the more pronounced this affect is.

but ... I not would expect someone who refers to axles as "bars" to understand these concepts.

Last edited by wcsinx; 01-26-2012 at 08:47 PM.
wcsinx is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 08:45 PM
  #24  
7t2vette
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Support Corvetteforum!
 
7t2vette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 9,798
Received 115 Likes on 83 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
Default

Originally Posted by Mike Ward View Post
A hollow tube of the same weight as a solid shaft can take far more torque. That's why driveshafts are fat tubes and not skinny solid rods.
You should write to GM then to tell them they are doing it wrong, because every new Corvette, including the 638hp ZR1 has those type of halfshafts!!

They must have some type of advantage over the old style, otherwise why would they use them in their top performance car, as well as their other performance oriented IRS cars?

Last edited by 7t2vette; 01-26-2012 at 08:51 PM.
7t2vette is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 08:52 PM
  #25  
wcsinx
CF Senior Member
 
wcsinx's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Posts: 23,312
Received 36 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 7t2vette View Post
You should write to GM then to tell them they are doing it wrong, because every new Corvette, including the 638hp ZR1 has those type of halfshafts!!
Non sequitur

What Mike said is correct.

As I mentioned, CV joints are not used to add strength nor save weight. They are disadvantaged in both respects to comparable u-joints.

In fact, for high power and/or off-road applications, it's not uncommon to convert CV joint axles to U-joints.
wcsinx is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 08:55 PM
  #26  
TheSkunkWorks
CF Senior Member
 
TheSkunkWorks's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: Graceland in a Not Correctly Restored Stingray
Posts: 7,353
Received 56 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Oh, dude meant CV's. I had no idea what he was on about.

No, they won't work with the C2/C3 driveline/suspension layout without 1) relieving the axle shafts of their role as upper links by installing some system of additional ones, and 2) adapting/matching available hardware up with flanged inner yokes and the outer stub flanges. It's entirely plausible, and I've done a bit of homework on this one myself as part of a larger concept, but such kit isn't exactly the sort of thing you'll likely ever be able to buy off the shelf.

FWIW, there are CV's in the aftermarket rated to 900 HP and higher, and can be found on the back end of many a modern formula car.

Last edited by TheSkunkWorks; 01-26-2012 at 09:02 PM.
TheSkunkWorks is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:06 PM
  #27  
7t2vette
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Support Corvetteforum!
 
7t2vette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 9,798
Received 115 Likes on 83 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
Default

Originally Posted by wcsinx View Post
Non sequitur

What Mike said is correct.

As I mentioned, CV joints are not used to add strength nor save weight. They are disadvantaged in both respects to comparable u-joints.

In fact, for high power and/or off-road applications, it's not uncommon to convert CV joint axles to U-joints.
Still doesn't give a reason why GM, and most others I believe, use them. We are talking about this application in a Corvette, so your off-road example is also non sequitur because I don't think too many vettes go off road intentionally!

So, if they are so inferior to u-joints, then why are they pretty much universally used by every auto manufacturer in modern cars?
7t2vette is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:10 PM
  #28  
wcsinx
CF Senior Member
 
wcsinx's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Posts: 23,312
Received 36 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 7t2vette View Post
Still doesn't give a reason why GM, and most others I believe, use them. We are talking about this application in a Corvette, so your off-road example is also non sequitur because I don't think too many vettes go off road intentionally!

So, if they are so inferior to u-joints, then why are they pretty much universally used by every auto manufacturer in modern cars?
I never said they were inferior. I said their advantage is right there in the name, "constant velocity". When you weigh all options and take into consideration typical usage, that's a good enough reason to go with such a design.
wcsinx is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:12 PM
  #29  
wcsinx
CF Senior Member
 
wcsinx's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Posts: 23,312
Received 36 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TheSkunkWorks View Post
FWIW, there are CV's in the aftermarket rated to 900 HP and higher, and can be found on the back end of many a modern formula car.
And those joints probably cost more than your average econobox.

I once heard a very wise man say, "The systems used on F1 cars have about as much in common with street cars as a duck does with a bowling ball."
wcsinx is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:18 PM
  #30  
vettehardt
CF Senior Member
 
vettehardt's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2003
Location: New Carlisle IN
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 14 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 7t2vette View Post
Still doesn't give a reason why GM, and most others I believe, use them. We are talking about this application in a Corvette, so your off-road example is also non sequitur because I don't think too many vettes go off road intentionally!

So, if they are so inferior to u-joints, then why are they pretty much universally used by every auto manufacturer in modern cars?
Because it is cheaper!
vettehardt is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:19 PM
  #31  
jyounane
CF Senior Member
 
jyounane's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 673
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by wcsinx View Post
The advantage of CV joints is right there in their name. "Constant" velocity ... unlike CV joints, u-joints accelerate and decelerate twice per rotation and the farther you articulate that joint, the more pronounced this affect is.


Precisely. CV joints are predominantly used in FWD cars where large steering angles would generate unacceptable acceleration and deceleration per revolution... no big problem when wheels are pointing straight ahead. Not needed at all in RWD Corvette where angles are minimum.

Joe
jyounane is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:23 PM
  #32  
TheSkunkWorks
CF Senior Member
 
TheSkunkWorks's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: Graceland in a Not Correctly Restored Stingray
Posts: 7,353
Received 56 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by wcsinx View Post
And those joints probably cost more than your average econobox.

I once heard a very wise man say, "The systems used on F1 cars have about as much in common with street cars as a duck does with a bowling ball."
That's a fair observation. I figured out a while ago this would be a very expensive mod to pull off successfully, as it's one thing to dream up cool stuff and quite another to make it happen. Still, if I were able to build a no holds barred C3 it would be on my list.


BTW, C6...


Last edited by TheSkunkWorks; 01-26-2012 at 09:31 PM.
TheSkunkWorks is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 09:38 PM
  #33  
7t2vette
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Support Corvetteforum!
 
7t2vette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 9,798
Received 115 Likes on 83 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
Default

Originally Posted by wcsinx View Post
I never said they were inferior. I said their advantage is right there in the name, "constant velocity". When you weigh all options and take into consideration typical usage, that's a good enough reason to go with such a design.
Well, for the auto industry to universally accept them in IRS applications, I have to believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technology moves forward, not back. Even the most expensive exotic cars with IRS use them, there has got to be good reason for it.

Originally Posted by vettehardt View Post
Because it is cheaper!
Quite possibly, and wouldn't surprise me! This is an interesting topic, I am going to ask a person I consider very knowledgeable about this, the owner of a race shop that builds serious road race C5 and C6 Corvettes, which is local to me. These guys know their stuff:

Powell Raceshop

Originally Posted by TheSkunkWorks View Post
Still, if I were able to build a no holds barred C3 it would be on my list.


Me too!
7t2vette is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 10:03 PM
  #34  
wcsinx
CF Senior Member
 
wcsinx's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Posts: 23,312
Received 36 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 7t2vette View Post
Well, for the auto industry to universally accept them in IRS applications, I have to believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technology moves forward, not back. Even the most expensive exotic cars with IRS use them, there has got to be good reason for it.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that converting CV jointed to axles to U-joints is a very common mod for more extreme applications?
wcsinx is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 10:21 PM
  #35  
TheSkunkWorks
CF Senior Member
 
TheSkunkWorks's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: Graceland in a Not Correctly Restored Stingray
Posts: 7,353
Received 56 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Before the inertia thing gets completely lost, a CV can be heavier than a half-shaft and still have a lower moment...
TheSkunkWorks is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 10:34 PM
  #36  
Solid LT1
CF Senior Member
 
Solid LT1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2003
Location: Fremont CA
Posts: 5,728
Received 21 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

CV's have less rotating friction compared to the Hooke's joints used in our C3's there may be a 0.25% increase in fuel mileage in replacement, and with gas at $4.00 a gallon it would take a long time to amortize that expenditure.

Love that the guy can't use "spell check" and typical attitude of the youth of America today.... They already knew that

I forgot, one other advantage, if you want to go to a 4wheel steering system, they will work over a wider range of miss-alignment too......May as well go with a trans axel swap too.....
Solid LT1 is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 10:40 PM
  #37  
wcsinx
CF Senior Member
 
wcsinx's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Posts: 23,312
Received 36 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TheSkunkWorks View Post
That's a fair observation. I figured out a while ago this would be a very expensive mod to pull off successfully, as it's one thing to dream up cool stuff and quite another to make it happen. Still, if I were able to build a no holds barred C3 it would be on my list.
There are a few brave fabricators that have added a true upper strut rod, and then "converted" the half shaft to slip joint (i.e. removed the retaining ring) I don't personally feel like a CV joint conversion would buy you much more than that, but it would be an interesting project to be sure.
wcsinx is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 04:36 PM
  #38  
7t2vette
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Support Corvetteforum!
 
7t2vette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 9,798
Received 115 Likes on 83 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
Default

Originally Posted by wcsinx View Post
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that converting CV jointed to axles to U-joints is a very common mod for more extreme applications?
No, I didn't miss that, but what does that have to do with this disscussion? You are comparing apples to oranges. Unless I am mistaken, this disscussion isn't about "extreme" applications, such as a very high hp/tq purpose-built IRS drag car, it is about the use of cv joints in the average to above average street IRS car.........such as the above average production C6 ZR1, or any other high hp performance vehicle in production today with an IRS!!! No one uses u-joints anymore for this purpose. I am not an automotive engineer, nor do I pretend to be, but today's performance vehicles using CV joints with IRS are engineered to last and not break, and I can't argue with that!

That being said, I do know several people that have very high rwhp/tq C5 and C6's (including one C5 that is in the 1200rwhp range) that do not have an issue with breaking cv joints or the halfshafts, and these cars are not babied in any way.....but these cars are street driven and/or road raced only and not drag raced with slicks, which is where breakage is much more likely to happen.

On a chassis dyno, the drivetrain losses on our cars are much, much higher than that of a C5 or C6, and I have to believe that the CV joints play a part in that.
7t2vette is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 08:00 PM
  #39  
wcsinx
CF Senior Member
 
wcsinx's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Posts: 23,312
Received 36 Likes on 35 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 7t2vette View Post
No, I didn't miss that, but what does that have to do with this disscussion? ...
You're really not listening are you. Both setups have advantages and disadvantages. You keep trying to make a case for "it's-better-cause-it's-newer" (rather like the OP), and that simply isn't the case here. I'll say it again. CV to U-joint conversions are commonplace.

That being said, I do know several people that have very high rwhp/tq C5 and C6's (including one C5 that is in the 1200rwhp range) that do not have an issue with breaking cv joints or the halfshafts, and these cars are not babied in any way
And I assure you they are not using stock components.

On a chassis dyno, the drivetrain losses on our cars are much, much higher than that of a C5 or C6, and I have to believe that the CV joints play a part in that.
Then you believe incorrectly. A U-joint will only exhibit significantly more rotational resistance when it's driving at an angle. When it's nearly straight as it would be on a dyno, there's hardly any difference.
wcsinx is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 11:24 PM
  #40  
PeteZO6
CF Senior Member
 
PeteZO6's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: Cameron Park CA
Posts: 1,909
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by wcsinx View Post
Then you believe incorrectly. A U-joint will only exhibit significantly more rotational resistance when it's driving at an angle. When it's nearly straight as it would be on a dyno, there's hardly any difference.
Yep, when straight, or nearly so, there should be no loss of HP. Another point I don't think has been mentioned: how well can a CV joint withstand axial loads.

We know the U-joints can as our half-shafts are under constant compression in the normal state. C5/6 half-shafts have one CV joint that is made to allow axial movement - the axle can be compressed and extended as the suspension moves up and down. Knowing that, you couldn't just use a C5/6 half-shaft as-is, you'd have to replace one CV joint (the one that extends and compresses) with a standard CV. As I mentioned in my early posts, the cost of modifying the half-shafts to fit a C3 would be pretty high. Only a determined guy with a shop with all the machine tools at his disposal would try it. It would have to be a labor of love, because the cost wold be beyond any advantage of the CV setup.

Pete
PeteZO6 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: New style axles


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: