x1glider wrote:
Smaller rollers are experiencing more surface feet per minute. 6 or 1/2 dozon of another. Without testing, you can't really make assumptions that more rolllers spreading the load will last longer.
The art of bearing application is well past the point of 'suck it and see'. For the engines that my employer designs and produces, there are design standards for (roller) bearing application and there will be for any application based on surface speed, load, number of rollers etc. The problem that Willy has for his application is the limitations on pin size and big end eye size, hence, unless I have missed the point (which is quite possible), Willy is increasing the number of rollers but maintaining their diameter. He is doing this by redesigning the cage, and even for a numpty like me, it is clear to see, as Willy points out, the more rollers, the more surface area to dissipate the load and the lower the load per roller.
x1glider wrote:
Kinda like the oil pump drive gear jig you built. What are you going to figure out that the MofoCo hasn't already done?
Could have said that about Buell too, but in 08 they created a crank with a big pin in answer to crank failures in service. Surely the MoCo had done and dusted the crank, just as they had other components that Buell re-engineered.
I say full marks to Willy for getting Mr Von Shackleford interested in such a project.
Now, questions for Willy...
Why is the cage going to be silver plated?
Will the crank webs have to be bored at the big end to take the oversized pin?
Are you addressing the oil feed holes in the pin?