Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Studebaker / December 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Question for the math whiz kids.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ron  Butts - 22 Dec 2007 22:22 GMT
With a 3.25:1 rear ratio and a 30 3/4 tall tire, what would the final ratio
be?
Thanks
Ron
studegary - 22 Dec 2007 22:41 GMT
> With a 3.25:1 rear ratio and a 30 3/4 tall tire, what would the final ratio
> be?
> Thanks
> Ron

Is this meant to be a trick question?
The ratio will not change no matter what the tire size.  For every
3.25 turns of the driveshaft, the tire will still turn one turn.  The
tire will cover more or less distance based on the tire's size
(circumference), but the ratio does not change.
If you want to compare the difference in rpm based on different tire
sizes, just use the ratio of diameters or circumferences of the
different tires as a factor of change.
Ron  Butts - 22 Dec 2007 23:49 GMT
Gary
For those of use who are mere mortals, all I wanted to know what would be
the tire speed ratio in comparision to the final drive ratio of 3.25:1.  If
I'm reading your statement correctly, the actual ratio for distance traveled
versus tire size does not change or are you justing to correct someone?

On Dec 22, 5:22?pm, "Ron  Butts" <blackhawk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> With a 3.25:1 rear ratio and a 30 3/4 tall tire, what would the final
> ratio
> be?
> Thanks
> Ron

Is this meant to be a trick question?
The ratio will not change no matter what the tire size.  For every
3.25 turns of the driveshaft, the tire will still turn one turn.  The
tire will cover more or less distance based on the tire's size
(circumference), but the ratio does not change.
If you want to compare the difference in rpm based on different tire
sizes, just use the ratio of diameters or circumferences of the
different tires as a factor of change.
satdoc2 - 23 Dec 2007 00:25 GMT
Your RPM's at 60 mph would be 2132 in direct drive.
Allen

>Gary
>For those of use who are mere mortals, all I wanted to know what would be
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>sizes, just use the ratio of diameters or circumferences of the
>different tires as a factor of change.

Signature

Allen French

satdoc2 - 23 Dec 2007 00:39 GMT
Your car will move about 29.7 inches with each turn of the driveshaft.

>Your RPM's at 60 mph would be 2132 in direct drive.
>Allen
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>sizes, just use the ratio of diameters or circumferences of the
>>different tires as a factor of change.

Signature

Allen French

Nate Nagel - 23 Dec 2007 01:18 GMT
Ron Butts wrote:
> With a 3.25:1 rear ratio and a 30 3/4 tall tire, what would the final ratio
> be?
> Thanks
> Ron

'pends on if you have an OD unit or straight drive :)

nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Ron  Butts - 23 Dec 2007 02:00 GMT
Hey Nate
I'm going to have 3 dumptruck loads of mulch dumped in your drivway as a
Christmas present. :)

> Ron Butts wrote:
>> With a 3.25:1 rear ratio and a 30 3/4 tall tire, what would the final
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> nate
Comatus@bex.net - 23 Dec 2007 06:11 GMT
"Ron Butts" wrote
> Hey Nate
> I'm going to have 3 dumptruck loads of mulch dumped in your drivway as a
Christmas present. :)
_____________________
Watch out. Lot of dump trucks have a 2-speed rear end, and Nate prolly knows
how to do that math too...

(Foghorn Leghorn to Chicken Hawk: "Never mind, Einstein. I just might be in
there.")
Nate Nagel - 23 Dec 2007 13:53 GMT
Ron Butts wrote:
> Hey Nate
> I'm going to have 3 dumptruck loads of mulch dumped in your drivway as a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
>>nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel - 23 Dec 2007 13:54 GMT
As long as the driver takes away an equal quantity of the decomposed
stuff, I'm happy :)

nate

(driveway is still buried, but it's getting better...  my workout
regimen seems to usually involve a coal shovel and a wheelbarrow...)

Ron Butts wrote:
> Hey Nate
> I'm going to have 3 dumptruck loads of mulch dumped in your drivway as a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
>>nate

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Transtar60 - 23 Dec 2007 15:19 GMT
First time in years I've heard those two words used together.
Coal and shovel<G>

> (driveway is still buried, but it's getting better...  my workout
> regimen seems to usually involve a coal shovel and a wheelbarrow...)
Nate Nagel - 23 Dec 2007 16:09 GMT
My grandparents still heated their house with coal up until the mid
90's; of course it didn't hurt that they literally lived across the
street from a big coal mine...  (rural PA)

nate

> First time in years I've heard those two words used together.
> Coal and shovel<G>
>
>> (driveway is still buried, but it's getting better...  my workout
>> regimen seems to usually involve a coal shovel and a wheelbarrow...)

Signature

replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Transtar60 - 23 Dec 2007 16:50 GMT
It was common around here too until the mid fifties or so I've been
told. Maybe earlier as everybody switched to natural gas.

All the coal ash that was in the air seems to have settle in the attics
of the old houses. Every time I go into the attic spaces of the old
houses Dad owned, I came out looking like a coal miner.

> My grandparents still heated their house with coal up until the mid
> 90's; of course it didn't hurt that they literally lived across the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>> (driveway is still buried, but it's getting better...  my workout
>>> regimen seems to usually involve a coal shovel and a wheelbarrow...)

Signature

2R10
2R14
3E38
4E3
4E28
5E13
7E7
8E7
8E12
8E28
etc etc

Comatus@bex.net - 24 Dec 2007 06:35 GMT
> All the coal ash that was in the air seems to have settle in the attics
> of the old houses. Every time I go into the attic spaces of the old
> houses Dad owned, I came out looking like a coal miner.
_______________
I often wonder about that. My family was in the coal business for 50
years--I still keep about 10 tons in stock.
My uncles, in their retirement, amused themselves by heating our 40 x 50
barn-shaped commercial garage, apartment upstairs, with a coal stove.
A true stove, with heat pipes coming off the jacket, not just a
point-heater. The apartment, at the end of the ducts, stayed clean enough,
but after my uncle died it took me about a year to get the last of the coal
dust out of the downstairs, around the furnace, in the joists, in the tool
bins, etc. etc.
The furnace was tight and clean, and the chimney too. They were not sloppy
about firing it. I had about decided that they must have cleaned the chimney
pipes inside the garage a few times without mentioning it.

I got rid of the stove, but have a couple of woodburner airtights adapted to
handle coal (you don't use it the same as firewood). I don't notice any
extreme dust production now. Where did all that coal-smoke dust come from?

FWIW, my dad remembers coming across the river on our high-level suspension
bridge in the 30's, when all houses were heated with coal, and seeing a
black pall over the whole east side every morning as inexpert homeowners put
cardboard and corncobs to their furnaces to stoke up the coal in a hurry.
That all vanished fast in the 1950's (along with our residential coal
accounts) and the air got real clean all of a sudden. Factories and
refineries got all nice in that period, too, and by the 70's the air in
northern Ohio had never been so clean. Leaving AGW completely out of it, it
makes you wonder why reported instances of asthma and chronic pulmonary
diseases could be rising so fast, when the worst air pollution went away 40
years ago.

Incidentally there is a long-running debate between old Pa. and Ohio coal
drivers over whether a wooden or steel dump bed is better for coal.
Ron  Butts - 23 Dec 2007 16:45 GMT
Perhaps I should have rephrased the question.  If you have a 3.25:1 rear
ratio with 27 in. dia. tires and you put on 30 3/4 dia tires, what would the
equivalent ratio be?  3.20? 3.15? 3.10?

> With a 3.25:1 rear ratio and a 30 3/4 tall tire, what would the final
> ratio be?
> Thanks
> Ron
Jerry Forrester - 23 Dec 2007 17:11 GMT
2.85

> Perhaps I should have rephrased the question.  If you have a 3.25:1 rear
> ratio with 27 in. dia. tires and you put on 30 3/4 dia tires, what would
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> Thanks
>> Ron
Jeff Rice - 23 Dec 2007 18:20 GMT
2.86
(I rounded up, due to inflation, which they say is under control <lol>).
Jeff

"Jerry Forrester" wrote:...
> 2.85

> "Ron Butts" wrote..
>> Perhaps I should have rephrased the question.  If you have a 3.25:1 rear
>> ratio with 27 in. dia. tires and you put on 30 3/4 dia tires, what would
>> the equivalent ratio be?  3.20? 3.15? 3.10?

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Karl Haas - 24 Dec 2007 05:44 GMT
> Perhaps I should have rephrased the question.  If you have a 3.25:1 rear
> ratio with 27 in. dia. tires and you put on 30 3/4 dia tires, what would the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you going to change your rear brake shoe size at the same time or
keep the same size, but with a different co-efficient of friction?
Ron  Butts - 24 Dec 2007 14:04 GMT
It has rear disc brakes and I'm thinking about gluing 80 grit sandpaper to
the disc pads for better friction co-efficient :)

On Dec 23, 8:45 am, "Ron  Butts" <blackhawk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Perhaps I should have rephrased the question. If you have a 3.25:1 rear
> ratio with 27 in. dia. tires and you put on 30 3/4 dia tires, what would
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you going to change your rear brake shoe size at the same time or
keep the same size, but with a different co-efficient of friction?
studegary - 24 Dec 2007 23:23 GMT
> Perhaps I should have rephrased the question. �If you have a 3.25:1 rear
> ratio with 27 in. dia. tires and you put on 30 3/4 dia tires, what would the
> equivalent ratio be? �3.20? 3.15? 3.10?
>
> "Ron Butts" <blackhawk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

With the new information, I can see that you are driving at what the
ratio will appear to be as compared to having the previous tires.  I
believe that the answer to that question is 2:85.1.
I wasn't trying to be wise before.  Without the other tire size, we
couldn't come up with this answer.
studegary - 24 Dec 2007 23:25 GMT
> On Dec 23, 11:45�am, "Ron  Butts" <blackhawk...@earthlink.net> wrote:> Perhaps I should have rephrased the question. �If you have a 3.25:1 rear
> > ratio with 27 in. dia. tires and you put on 30 3/4 dia tires, what would the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I wasn't trying to be wise before.  Without the other tire size, we
> couldn't come up with this answer.

I am sorry for the previous typo.  The answer should be; 2.85:1.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.