4 speed ka-booom !

-
yellow rose said:
, cuz that's the LAST you'll get from me.
Click to expand...
I heard you the first time. I've already thanked you for your time and advice. Maybe since your local you can meet me at the track this next spring and bring your car and show me all the stuff you've done and what works for you ? Do you race at pir or Woodburn or both? What mopar do you have, I'm sure I'd recognize your car. Are you a member of the abody group that meets at stark street pizza on 92nd& stark the last Sunday of the month noon til 3pm ? It sounds like you'd have a lot of experience to offer.
I've already said I'm not going to continue a pissing match.
 
yellow rose said:
Diaphram pressure plates, psuedo-sintered iron discs and voodoo won't get it done. Neither will a screen door dampener.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you gave up before you figured out how to make them work...ever even try any sort of damper at all?

yellow rose said:
There is a difference between slipping a clutch and mechanically controlling how fast the disc/input/driveshaft get to crankspeed. Sometimes you need to stop buying parts and spend some time learning.
Click to expand...

Glad you brought that up, there is a difference. If you are shifting WOT using the clutch, a SoftLoc style clutch actually has pretty harsh initial engagement characteristics due to it's centrifugal component. Basically at the shift point, centrifugal assist is at it's maximum. As a result, excessive clutch pressure actually pulls engine rpm down sharply after the shift, until the centrifugal relaxes enough for effective slipping to occur. That sharp drop in rpm just after the shift is not ideal, as it indicates a concentrated spike in torque delivered to the input shaft. That centrifugal assist is also the reason you have to start at a lower rpm and "drive into the clutch" when launching a properly adjusted SoftLoc style clutch...if you launched at a higher rpm, you would not get the desired amount of initial slip.

Simple controlled slipping (no centrifugal component) combined with sufficient clutch pressure, can effectively spread rpm loss after the shift much more evenly over the same period of time. Also allows launching at a higher rpm without adding inertia energy from the rotating assy. Both of those characteristics can make you quicker if you take advantage of them.

Ditching centrifugal assist and switching to a damped diaphragm PP can also significantly reduce clutch maintenance.
 
I used a copy of the original bracket. I am trying to get it mocked up out side the car to avoid crawling under the car 50 times to make the linkage fit. I'll try to make it universal enough to make longer if needed.
 
I did close to the same thing you are doing now with your Vertigate but I
used a 1971 Hurst ramrod.
Used the correct Hurst mounting bracket for the A-body.
As It turns out I would have rather chosen the shifter location myself with a homemade
bracket.
It seems low and more forward than where a comfortable position would be while
racing.
Where the Hurst bracket puts it almost fits the tunnel perfect. About an inch back.
Problem is the lever is short and doesn't curve back toward the driver like a stock handle.
Makes for a longer reach.
Also had to cut into the cross member some to install the strait rods.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20151107_083557_729.jpg
    30.7 KB · Views: 304
  • IMG_20151107_083640_330.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 295
Your vertigate does appear to be mounted higher (better) and more forward
(not so good) than the ramrod.
The e-body guys have it good with the long tail and rear mount that puts a shifter in the perfect spot.
A-body guys not so lucky with their mounting made to work with the bench seats.
 
I have a vertigate with the hurst aluminum mounting plate in my street / strip duster and find the position is fine. I do not see stops on yours, adjustable stops are good to have. I added spherical rod ends to the trans end of the linkage
 
After more adjustment side to side, some welding and grinding, and a few trips to the hardware store.
I got this--View attachment 20151107_173721.jpg

View attachment 20151107_173725.jpg
I got a bit of a deal on the shifter because the 2nd & 4th shift stop was cut off?? I'll have to weld it back on - thank you cheap Harbor Freight welder ! A good shifter stop cost $99.00 on flee bay the same price as the welder.
 
abdywgn said:
ssba, what does the reverse rod look like with the RamRod?
Click to expand...

The ramrod reverse rod is similar to the factory reverse rod and takes its path under the cross member.
It does not need to be straight or as heavy duty like the forward gear rods since you dont speed shift reverse.
 
ssba said:
Your vertigate does appear to be mounted higher (better) and more forward
(not so good) than the ramrod.
The e-body guys have it good with the long tail and rear mount that puts a shifter in the perfect spot.
A-body guys not so lucky with their mounting made to work with the bench seats.
Click to expand...

Which is why my box has the E extension on it. And the shifter way back between the buckets.
Also has huge rods. Seamless tubes actually, to accept 7/16 or 3/8 NF.Cant recall which I put in there, anymore.
 
AJ this actually might work good for me as you know this is 99% dragstrip use and being on top of it as apposed to laid back for cruise night ?
 
I hear wat you are saying, but
When the shifter falls to hand, you don't have to think about that rascally 2-3 shift anymore. And when the rods do what you tell them too, you can stop worrying about miss-shifting.
Then your brain can concentrate on getting down the track.
The fewer things to think about,the better!
And besides that, backshifting that In-Line is a PITA when the shifter is too-far forward.And I'd like to add that I have not missed a shift since 2004. And my rev-limiter has not had any exercise since then either.
But I do hear what you are saying.
 
weedburner said:
Glad you brought that up, there is a difference. If you are shifting WOT using the clutch, a SoftLoc style clutch actually has pretty harsh initial engagement characteristics due to it's centrifugal component.
Click to expand...

I'm one who has used the McLeod Soft Lok. Let's be clear. The centrifugal component is an optional attachment (in the form of centrifugal weight attachments) which comes with the setup for one who judges they need it to control slippage. I've never used it as I didn't need it for my setup. There is no harsh initial engagement with a Soft Lok clutch unless you want it and can figure out with the setup how to get it. The Soft Lok clutch aims to give you quite the opposite and I can say it delivers.

I agree with yellow rose on all this based on my experience. I also understand the OP isn't concerned with the issue at this point in his build and I'm not trying to bust his thread. I just want the facts to be clear and think the OP may want to consider the advantages. I found them to be priceless in my 4-speed racing days which were some time ago. Hopefully more of those days to come soon. : )
 
AJ/FormS said:
Lmao
Well then, borderline-freak, you are then putting it in the exact right spot, and I'm sorry I ever brought it up.
heehee.
I'm also sorry about how you look in a suit,heehee
Click to expand...
I have to buy shirts that are way to big for my body to reach the ends of my arms.
 
DC 340 said:
I'm one who has used the McLeod SoftLoc. Let's be clear. The centrifugal component is an optional attachment (in the form of centrifugal weight attachments) which comes with the setup for one who judges they need it to control slippage. I've never used it as I didn't need it for my setup. There is no harsh initial engagement with a SoftLoc clutch unless you want it and can figure out with the setup how to get it. The SoftLoc clutch aims to give you quite the opposite and I can say it delivers.

I agree with yellow rose on all this based on my experience. I also understand the OP isn't concerned with the issue at this point in his build and I'm not trying to bust his thread. I just want the facts to be clear and think the OP may want to consider the advantages. I found them to be priceless in my 4-speed racing days which were some time ago. Hopefully more of those days to come soon. : )
Click to expand...
And I agree that yellow rose probably has a lot of experience its just the way he came on about it. I don't need the information sugar coated, but I also don't want to be slapped in the face with it either.
Now I think you've approached the subject with some in my opinion very convincing words. And as you know on this form there are people coming from left and right with all kinds of kind suggestions. And as I think you are alluding to I have More pressing matters like getting a rear end in the car. I mean what would a $1,600 clutch do for me right now without a rear end? I guess I could go to the track and line up on the quarter mile with a clutch in my hand lol and run for it! Lol
Or maybe I could put another drive line loop towards the back and weld a propeller to the end of my drive shaft!? Lol
But really folks let's look at the big picture here a lot less than two years ago I brought home a $1,700 car with no interior a 318 - 7 1/4 rear end originally a slant six air conditioned car and now has been a full season doing 11 second quarter miles. just give me a year or two and more I'll get there and I'll get that clutch.
And above all that said once and said a million times this is all put in place for my fun and enjoyment and not to be taken too seriously.
DC340 thank you for your experience ! :burnout:
 
DC 340 said:
I'm one who has used the McLeod Soft Lok. Let's be clear. The centrifugal component is an optional attachment (in the form of centrifugal weight attachments) which comes with the setup for one who judges they need it to control slippage. I've never used it as I didn't need it for my setup. There is no harsh initial engagement with a Soft Lok clutch unless you want it and can figure out with the setup how to get it. The Soft Lok clutch aims to give you quite the opposite and I can say it delivers.

I agree with yellow rose on all this based on my experience. I also understand the OP isn't concerned with the issue at this point in his build and I'm not trying to bust his thread. I just want the facts to be clear and think the OP may want to consider the advantages. I found them to be priceless in my 4-speed racing days which were some time ago. Hopefully more of those days to come soon. : )
Click to expand...

If you are only using the SoftLoc for it's adjustable base feature (basically as a torque limiter), you can certainly dial it in for softer engagement. The problem is that the load the clutch sees is different at launch vs down the track in higher gears. If you set it up with minimum centrifugal and enough static pressure to lock up in high gear, without a some sort of buffer you will not be able to dump the clutch without losing rpm. Any time you lose rpm in that instant just after launch, you unnecessarily punished the drivetrain/tires/traction more than you needed to for a quick 60'.
 
weedburner said:
If you are only using the SoftLoc for it's adjustable base feature (basically as a torque limiter), you can certainly dial it in for softer engagement. The problem is that the load the clutch sees is different at launch vs down the track in higher gears. If you set it up with minimum centrifugal and enough static pressure to lock up in high gear, without a some sort of buffer you will not be able to dump the clutch without losing rpm. Any time you lose rpm in that instant just after launch, you unnecessarily punished the drivetrain/tires/traction more than you needed to for a quick 60'.
Click to expand...

Hello weedburner,

I'm not doing any homework here as for a rebuttal. It's all on my memory from some 10 yrs+ ago. But I'll say the following:

As I recall, the technology behind a sintered iron clutch disc (the Soft Lok setup) is that it's gripping power increases with heat. Therefore less gripping power at launch and hence the desired slip and more gripping power down the track where slippage is not as much to your advantage.

The Mcleod Soft Lok never punished my drive train as in I never broke anything using it, 8-3/4 rear gear included. I was able to leave the gas pedal on the floor with no bog on launch nor any perception of significant RPM loss on shifts (as in violent). If you are saying the ideal clutch setup has constant RPM down the track, then you are burning a clutch disc to the point of incineration in short order IMO.

I used to launch at roughly 4,000 rpm and ran high 10s in the quarter mile with my 3.79 stroked 340. I don't think anything is better than a Soft Lok for an A-833 Chrysler 4-speed drag racer.

You seem to think different. So be it and that's fine but my opinion is just that. No big deal to me one way or the other. We all run what we can afford, what we can figure out, and what runs best on the track given all that. Fair enough? : )
 
I'm not saying a SoftLok didn't work for you, no doubt it was an effective alternative to breaking parts despite the $2000 price tag. What i am saying is that there are now alternatives that are more effective, cost less, and have less maintenance.

To illustrate what i'm talking about with regards to clutch slippage, here's some easy to interpret feedback on our ClutchTamer from an east coast NMRA Factory Stock racer. Powered by a 302ci crate engine, stick cars like his are required to run a diaphragm clutch. This guy was having a rough time, as he was a slick racer switching to radials. With a typical 4300 launch, the radials bogged the engine to 2300rpm and 1.7x 60's. Stepping up to a 4800rpm launch in an attempt to eliminate the bog, this is what happened to his faceplated TKO...

NMRAfactorystock2.jpg


He repaired the transmission, and I sent him an in-dash version of the ClutchTamer to try. He installed the ClutchTamer, made a few test hits in the driveway to get familiar with it, then went to the track. His immediate results were dead hooked radials and back to back 1.45 60's. This graph is from a 1.42 run...

NMRAfactorystock750w.jpg


Couple months later, he’s still putting down 1.4 60's at class weight with no transmission failures from 5200rpm launches. This increase in durability is due to two things-
1- a reduction of engine rpm loss before clutch lockup
2- spreading rpm loss over a longer time period
Both are beneficial on launch as well as after the shifts, as they team up to reduce shock to the drive train and tires.

Here's the same graph w/ a couple lines added to help illustrate those benefits. His graph is fairly easy to understand, as there is very little wheelspin to confuse things...

NMRAfactorystock750w2.jpg


The added orange line is a rough representation of the engine's ability to gain rpm in 1st gear.
The 1st added vertical black line represents the launch, or beginning of clutch engagement.
The 2nd added vertical black line represents the point of clutch lockup.
The distance between the two vertical black lines represents the time it took for clutch lockup to occur.

Clutch slip duration was roughly .7 seconds, engine rpm at lockup was about 5100.
…If clutch lockup had occurred at .4 seconds, engine rpm would have been pulled down to appx 4200 on the orange line.
…If clutch lockup had occurred at .25 seconds, engine rpm would have been pulled down to appx 3500 on the orange line.

This is a bit of a simplified explanation. Reduced engine output at lower rpms would also reduce the engine's ability to gain rpm, that added power loss is not reflected here. The basic point is- the earlier clutch lockup occurs, the lower the rpm point on the orange line that the engine will have to accelerate from.

Anyone wonder why that orange line on the graph aligns with 2700rpm at launch instead of zero rpm? It's because a line representing rate of acceleration is actually even steeper before the clutch locks up. This happened because no power was used to accelerate the rotating assembly prior to clutch lockup, so more power was available to accelerate the car. Here's the same graph, with a red line added to represent acceleration rate before clutch lockup...

NMRAfactorystock750w3.jpg


See how much steeper the car's acceleration rate was before clutch lockup?

This launch could have reached it's shift point even quicker if the clutch had slipped longer, as the car would have rode the trajectory of that steep red line to a higher point before switching to angle of the orange line. Same logic applies to clutch slip after the shifts, a car can simply accelerate quicker before the clutch locks up. Generally the longer you delay clutch lockup, the longer you ride a steeper acceleration rate.

My personal car has the deck stacked against it as far as parts choices, kept this way on purpose for proof of concept while developing my ClutchTamer project...
700whp
Toploader 4spd (faceplated) w/ small 1-1/16" input, 28 spl output, 2.78 1st
Steel 17# flywheel
Ram 2900lb diaphragm PP, 900 series disc currently
1310 u-joints, steel 2-1/2" x .065" driveshaft
10 bolt Chev rear 3.73 w/ TruTrac diff
275/60-15 MT radials
Driven everywhere it goes (gets 20mpg and burns 87 oct pump gas)
5.70's in the 1/8th w/ 1.30 60's, spraying right off the line without any delay at all

This is what happens in the 1st 6" off the line without delayed clutch lockup (simply disconnected the delay cylinder from the clutch pedal for a back to back test)...

twistedshaft.jpg


That shaft was replaced with an identical 2-1/2" x .065" steel shaft, still in place 3 years later.

You don't need to buy anything from me to benefit from the concept, the refinements that evolved into the ClutchTamer mostly only make it more user friendly. My car still has the same modified $15 hydraulic screen door cylinder controlling the clutch pedal from when i started the project 5-6 years ago, it was the original "Hillbilly Clutch Slipper".
 
Weedburner? Shouldn't it be "clutchburner" ? I think I'd have to get a new clutch. My clutch likes grabbing, not slipping...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top