HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: In the industry
Well, the bug has bitten. Now I can't stop.

Been thinking about a new crank design for a year now. See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=96497&p=819164&hilit=pushed+cranks+space#p819164" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Target:

Carbon spindle,
Some sort of integration
Compact,
4 arm (Campy 4 arm, not Zipp 4 arm),
(reasonably) low Q factor,
Light weight,
Stiffness.

Apparently LOOK has a patent on one-piece carbon cranks (hasn't BMX had the design for ever?), so full integration is out.

I tried to explore a thin bearing that will fit a PF30 shell to allow a bigger spindle than 30mm. That didn't go very far. I might have to explore a larger frame BB shell. Fortunately, commercial feasibility isn't a factor, so anything goes, for brainstorming purposes.

That aside, I need to figure out the best JOINT mechanism for this crank, on the drive side -- the inherently bulky joint will overlap with the bulk of the spider. At least we can have a sleek piece on the non-drive side.

Hirth is out as it's more appropriate for Steel. Too many carbon/metal interfaces will defeat the purpose. Probably no spline either.

As stupid as it sounds, i am actually thinking about something along the lines of a square tapered structure but in carbon. Alternatively the spindle could be round with several smaller fastening bolts from different angles (4-5).

Any input welcome.

Sorry for the sh*tty drawing.


Attachments:
crk.JPG
crk.JPG [ 13.47 KiB | Viewed 1785 times ]

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal
Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:00 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:12 pm 
Offline
Shop Owner

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 1966
Location: NoVA/DC
Image

but seriously, the first thing that came to mind, when you mentioned possibly square taper, and reducing/eliminating metal inserts, was the PMP MicroII:
Image
the bolt expands the four sides of the taper. i was thinking of coarse threads made with structural foam epoxy, like on the inside of thm and easton forks.
a better pic of the PMP system is in their catalog, page8
http://www.pmpbike.net/image/CatalogoCatalogo_2011PMP_Eng_1.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 249
I would look at doing spindles co molded onto each crank arm, both full width of the shell, one nesting inside the other. At both ends, each tube would nest into an ISIS type spline receiver on the crankarm, one being an "inie" , the other an "outie".

A little complex to mold, but it would require metal only for thread inserts to keep the arrangement together, not to resist bending moments or bearing loads.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:47 pm
Posts: 221
How about something like the Sweet Wings connection with a much larger overlap and larger splines? With them being made out of carbon you could sleeve the NDS into the DS side almost full length without much weight penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 2832
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Interesting thought Spud. Let's hope Shimano or Sram doesn't try to patent it this week...

Quick thoughts: The fewer teeth, the better, 2-4 should be plenty to give the greatest amount of support to each one. Also, I would think about leaving a lenticular void between the two spindles with a taper to them (the spindles) at each end... Hope that makes sense... Here's a really quick sketch of what I'm thinking...

Now there's prior art...


Attachments:
crankset-coupling.gif
crankset-coupling.gif [ 25.12 KiB | Viewed 1576 times ]

_________________
___________________________________________________

"Organization is for the simple-minded, the Genius controls the chaos." - Jens
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 249
Lance,

Exactly. Though I would build it with a very slight interference fit between to two spindles, so that they reinforce each other in the middle of the span, where bending deflection would be greatest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 2832
Location: Boulder, Colorado
elviento wrote:
Apparently LOOK has a patent on one-piece carbon cranks (hasn't BMX had the design for ever?), so full integration is out.


Have you checked the nature of the patent? It seems like it would either have to be a design patent or a utility patent covering their process. If not, I would expect that with a bit of legal assistance you would be able to use the "obviousness" provision that would nullify the patent if they are claiming a utility patent on the concept of a bmx-style crankset made of carbon...

Though honestly, I like a joined crankset better for some reason. Probably has to do with the ratio of the size of the BB shell necessary to the size of the crankset...

_________________
___________________________________________________

"Organization is for the simple-minded, the Genius controls the chaos." - Jens


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:18 pm
Posts: 588
Location: Lyon
An oval axle end should be the best solution with a carbon spindle. It would be easier to manufacture too

_________________
BIKE DESIGN AND +

http://cds-0.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: In the industry
Lance -- I did send them an email asking how I can avoid stepping on their toes, and they promised someone will get back to me.

Eric -- Oval is easy to make. I am just a bit worried about the fit which will be a bit hard to ensure due to the nature of carbon and the manufacturing process (soft cloth soaked in resin and backed in a mould, v. say CNC'ing aluminum). Especially since you need to figure out a easy way to take it out. What do you think?

Spud -- what's the thinking behind having a sleeve and essentially 2 fastening ends? I assume to allow most fastening area within a given small shaft diameter?

I think we can all safely say the biggest challenge w carbon is the lack of surface hardness (don't know the techinical term) and difficulty to achieve high precision. Therefore whatever joint we use, it will have to get around these two weaknesses.

I am playing with 3-4 ideas right now, including the sleeve concept although not full length. SPlines face the challenge of precision on a glue jobs. I thought about doing a "monster hirth" design with like 4-6 teeth on pure carbon. Not too sure about it though.

Here is my thinking:

1. if a conventional spindle size (30mm or whatever that can be squeezed into 46ID BB), I will put the fastening mechanism OUTSIDE the BB shaft, because I believe there is no structure as solid as a simple round spindle that goes through the BB shaft, especially since spindle diameter is the main limiting factor.

2. If a larger BB shaft like 65mm, then there is plenty of room to get the fastening mechanism into the shaft. But even then, nothing beats a simple round spindle. On a 53-39 crank, I will have a pretty large spider which I can figure out a way to fasten to the spindle...

Need to think a bit more.

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 249
Elviento,

my thinking is as follows. If you don't use two long sleeves, much of the bending load will be carried at the spindle crank interface, necessitating a robust connection, which likely means weight. Or you will put a big bending moment in the center of the spindle, which will also require a robust fastening mechanism, most likely metal. By using full length sleeves, you eliminate bending concerns at the interface, which allows you to stay in carbon. It also removes bending stresses at a mechanical fastener in the center.

Regarding high precision molding and machining, a simple solution would be to cut half rounds into the edge of each mating circle, and use slugs as key ways. Then you only have to use an indexing fixture to mill the rounds into the mating circles, so it is easy and cost effective. Not quite as nice as a fully molded high precision part, but the tooling would be easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:18 pm
Posts: 588
Location: Lyon
I don't know if you have fully understood what I was talking about

Image

You don't need a typical crankarm/axle interface with this system that would be much more difficult to do in carbon

_________________
BIKE DESIGN AND +

http://cds-0.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:18 pm
Posts: 588
Location: Lyon
spud wrote:
Elviento,

my thinking is as follows. If you don't use two long sleeves, much of the bending load will be carried at the spindle crank interface, necessitating a robust connection, which likely means weight. Or you will put a big bending moment in the center of the spindle, which will also require a robust fastening mechanism, most likely metal. By using full length sleeves, you eliminate bending concerns at the interface, which allows you to stay in carbon. It also removes bending stresses at a mechanical fastener in the center.


At the end you have two half thickness spindles (one for the DS and other for the NDS) fastened in the opposite crankarm?

If that's your idea, I think you will have a hard time designing a fastening system for a crankarm that already has its own supportive axle

_________________
BIKE DESIGN AND +

http://cds-0.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:48 am
Posts: 1026
elviento wrote:
Apparently LOOK has a patent on one-piece carbon cranks (hasn't BMX had the design for ever?), so full integration is out.

AFAIK the patent is more to do with the way the it installs rather than what it's made from or being one piece. With the concave section it 'rolls' in.
Image

The 'Ashabulta' steel one piece crank found on many cheapy bikes could be easily adapted to carbon but you'd simply need to make a huge BB shell to get away with a decent dia. spindle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: In the industry
Spud, so you are saying this takes the load off the interface but rather puts it on the extended sleeve into the other half. That's definitely worth more exploring. I just want to throw a little extra complication into the mix. The outside sleeve will be supporting a bearing or two which rests against the frame. A huge amount of the load will also be applied to the bearings and back to the outer sleeve.

Therefore, the outer sleeve will need to be pretty robust anyway. Is there then any way to capitalize on that roubustness to also help support the spindle-cankarm interface?

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:23 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm
Posts: 1365
I would like to remind you all that I have no idea what you are talking about. I just hope it all turns out nice and your cranks weighs 250grms and makes you go 20mph faster uphills . :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arthurf, Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], phlip, RippedUp, Yahoo [Bot] and 38 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Rotor Aero Q-rings, is there a new 2014 design?

in Road

ill principe

9

1382

Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:34 am

dominikk View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Chainring design and interaction with latest 11 speed

in Road

Omiar

5

626

Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:06 am

Zoro View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. replacement crank decals? Or sprucing up a plain crank

in Road

davidalone

2

901

Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:52 am

davidalone View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Q-factor of the LOOK ZED 2 crank??

in Road

snorre

8

613

Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:22 am

HammerTime2 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Crank Dilema

in Road

wpccrunner

6

793

Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:52 am

AptosBigRing View the latest post


It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:44 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB