Car Forum / Antique and Collectibles / Studebaker / December 2007
Question for the math whiz kids.
|
|
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.
|
|
|