Gleason - Oerlikon - Klingelnberg

[MadMarx]

ich hatte am wochenende eine interessante unterhaltung mit einem zahnradbauer (ingenieur) gehabt.

meine frage war:
hat eine oerlikon hypoidverzahnung größere verluste als eine gleason?

antwort:

man kann die qualität der verzahnungen ganz einfach sortieren:

gleason - die einfachste konstruktion - stand damaliger technik.
oerlikon - aufwändiger, betriebssicherer, leiser, tragfähiger, geringere verluste als gleason
klingelnberg - das optimum und heute standard bei allen premium herstellern.

fand ich interessant.

grüße
chris

[sixpack]

Da fällt mir ein, ich muß zum Zahnarzt

[head_guy6]

gleason - die einfachste konstruktion - stand damaliger technik.
oerlikon - aufwändiger, betriebssicherer, leiser, tragfähiger, geringere verluste als gleason
klingelnberg - das optimum und heute standard bei allen premium herstellern.

fand ich interessant.

grüße
chris

Well you can tell him "er hat alles FALSCH".

Gleason patent is used by DANA.
Not former technology at all, but CURRENT.
ALL Jaguar, Aston Martin and Land Rover use Gleason patent diffs made in Birmingham.

The gear helix angle is the important feature.
The Gleason hypoid gear is primarily MORE straight cut than a Oerlikon set, this give it lower power losses because it has something like 50% less tooth contact area.
This is what "can" make it slightly noiser in operation.
A hypoid pinion as you may know is a cross between a spiral bevel and a worm gear.

The Oerlikon patent hypoid pinion has a much more curved pattern of tooth with a longer contact patch. Because it resembles more a worm, it has quieter running (in theory) than a gleason hypoid gear.
It also makes it MUCH more difficult to set up properly.
I measured the difference in cars using Oerlikon and Gleason pinion sets, and there was up to 8bhp difference in power loss.
This is NOT at all insignificant for a race car.

I can't comment on Klingenberg.
I don't use them.

You should ask your engineer friend to BUILD some axles first before he starts talking about things he knows little about!
I have built many many hundred.

The TR6 hypoid pinion set used also in the Dolomite sprint is a high quality part of thoroughly modern design.
I see exactly the same high quality in the Jaguar axles I build.

You won't find anything like the same high quality in any FORD or OPEL axle.
They are well known for being noisy, being as most of them are actually made in Germany, not in England.
Perhaps that is the kind of rubbish quality he is talking about?

[Triumphator]

..da steht's:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegelrad-Achsgetriebe

Gruß

Wolfgang

[head_guy6]

further (weiter) the run-down power loss of a Gleason axle is not the same as the power on loss.
This of course is what the "run down" power loading figure on most rolling roads is based on.
Again this is completely false.

The power losses of a Hypoid axle and unloaded tyre "off power load" is completely different from the "power on" power loss experienced by the dyno cell...but of course people carry on believing their car producing 150bhp at the wheels (from the torque loading) is making of neccessity 200bhp at the engine.

Of course it suits people such as Uprichard, Racetorations to name just ONE, who uses such spurious rubbish to sell engines to people.

In reality using proper power loss figures, which are really quite LOW on the TR4 doesn't look so good does it?

I measured power loss figures on one TR4 as only 17bhp using a properly built axle.
That is a LOT less than the (!) 40bhp people would love to imagine!

[darock]

But I think you have to differentiate between over all power loss and just rear axle power loss or did you mean over all?

17 HP loss in the rear sounds reasonable if I take the measurement of my TR6 which had nearly 30HP over all loss with a pretty worn differential.

[head_guy6]

if I take the measurement of my TR6 which had nearly 30HP over all loss with a pretty worn differential.

How do you know??
30bhp is a VERY high transmission loss.

Did you measure the engine power first on a dyno then install it in the car and measure it there?

worn differentials don't lose MORE power they lose LESS, that is why all hillclimb cars are built this way.

I had an engine which was first measured on a Schenk engine dyno then installed it in the car. This way I could actually measure the transmission power loss. It is nothing like as high as people are inventing, especially in the "tuning" business.
It suits them to invent horsepower, because it makes money, sells parts & makes them look clever.

[darock]

I didn't have the chance to get the engine on a dyno before it was mounted into the car.

30 HP seemed reasonable for the car. I have seen a lot of dyno runs with FWD cars having 20-30 HP loss in the drivetrain. 30 with limited slip diff.

Did you ever measure the difference in loss between the 3rd and 4th gear? In 4th the TR gearbox probably has less power loss than in 3rd, correct?

[head_guy6]

30 HP seemed reasonable for the car.
I have seen a lot of dyno runs with FWD cars having 20-30 HP loss in the drivetrain. 30 with limited slip diff.

Did you ever measure the difference in loss between the 3rd and 4th gear? In 4th the TR gearbox probably has less power loss than in 3rd, correct?

The figures you quote are totally impossible.
For a start there is NO difference whatsoever in the power losses between a car fitted with a free diff or a LSD. All the LSD does is lock the 2 wheels together so there is no slippage.
When you test a car on a rolling road, there MUST BE no slippage.
Period.
LSD or NO LSD.

Further,- due to the spur gear arrangement of most FWD cars, the power losses are usually VERY CONSIDERABLY LOWER than with a RWD car and its Hypoid axle.

Commonly you will find losses very rarely exceeding around 10bhp, (nothing like as high as 30!)
which of course is 1 reason why modern turbo diesels FWD cars are so incredibly efficient.
It's a win-win, they have the entire unit at the same operating temps, with the most efficient gearing possible, with no change in direction from engine unit through a gear train direct into the drive line.

As for the losses on the TR cars in 4th. There are none.
4th by definition is straight through the gearbox.
All you have is a very small amount of drag in the oil, and 5 bearings supporting all the internal shafts.

There is a tiny amount of windage, in the drive line, and then everything ends up in the rear axle line with multiple taper roller bearings in all directions and some UJs.
That is where the loss is, and I measured is no higher than 17bhp.

As no-one would ever make a power test in 3rd gear, it would be pointless to try.
I DID in fact make some tests because we were the FIRST ever to develop and test a semi straight cut gearbox (covertly) at Cargraphic.
(The gear ratios were my specification, and the ratios were perfect)

Any knowledge of this was denied, and the noise was not that obtrusive.

The straight cut input gear, and 3rd gear I reckon saved the equivalent of an entire engine upgrade costing many thousands of Euros, and possibly being illegal on that car....that is to say about 8bhp in 3rd gear and as much as 4-5 in 2nd (because we retained the helical gear on 2nd

(8bhp more on a competition car could cost easily 5-6000 Euro.)

Tut mir leid, diese wird auf deutsch technische sau schwer, das kann ich nicht ubersetzen!

[darock]

Actually my own car measured ... sadly I sold it ... Honda with overhauled Gearbox and LSD. 20 KW loss

[head_guy6]

Actually my own car measured ... sadly I sold it ... Honda with overhauled Gearbox and LSD. 20 KW loss

Which goes to prove YET AGAIN that rolling road run down losses CANNOT be trusted.
They simply are NOT true figures.

Why?
Lesen sie bitte https://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/i ... ollers.htm

https://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER3.htm

[fignon83]

headguy hat absolut recht. Die Zahlen vom Rollenprüfstand sind für so einen Fall nicht zu gebrauchen.
Kein ernsthafter Motorenbauer/Tuner stimmt einen Motor nur auf einem Rollenprüfstand ab (nur auf die schnelle, zB. an der Rennstrecke)

[MadMarx]

letztlich ist es doch absolut uninteressant, ob so ein prüfstand viel oder wenig verluste ermittelt. wichtig ist nur, daß am ende mehr leistung vorhanden ist als vorher. die prüfmethode ist dabei nebensächlich.

z.b kann man datalogger aus fahrzeugmasse, luftwiderstand und beschleunigung....auch leistungswerte berechnen. interessanterweise ziemlich genau.
die radleistung ist bis auf 5kw identisch mit dem prüfstand.

[darock]

So, I read the article and still don't know more than the fact that the rolling road used in this article produced wrong numbers. Why are the measurements wrong?

In fact, I have been on 3 different dynos over the last years and the one I posted the chart is actually little bit optimistic. Based on MANY different cars I know which have been tested on this dyno it lies around 3-5 flywheel-HP

The dyno my TR was tested on is "accurate". I have seen cars not reaching their manufacturer specifications by 10 HP on this one.

The third one, our slalom racecar was tested on, produced loss numbers about 10HP higher than normal. I have seen that on all the cars which were tested that day. As I know exactly how the engine performs as it is nearly the same as my Honda had, the numbers are correct when you substract the 10 HP. I have to admit, that you have to know this. If not, you need to believe the numbers of this dyno even if they are wrong.

But as Madmarx said, It only matters that you always measure the car on the same dyno to get relative measurements of the improvement. Absolute figures are something you can tell the guys who only know that a higher HP number is better but have no clue that there is also something called torque

[head_guy6]

So, I read the article and still don't know more than the fact that the rolling road used in this article produced wrong numbers. Why are the measurements wrong?

Absolute figures are something you can tell the guys who only know that a higher HP number is better but have no clue that there is also something called torque

They are wrong because you must know, axle ratio, tyre pressure, atmospheric pressure, intake temperature, axle POWER ON loss, axle power off loss (tyres deform under power and ride up the rollers) and much more.

Just a change of axle ratio will completely change the "nominal" power output of an engine at the wheels.
Why?
Because the maximum power will be say at 130km/h instead of 150km/h (where it is a lot higher).
The axle ratio on a TR4 is 3.7:1 with a live axle.
On a TR5 it is 3.45:1 with an axle with loads more bearings and UJs in.

Eg 2. my old race engine produced peak power at 7900rpm.
I had my own BOSCH rolling road and this indicated 7700rpm.

The reason for the difference?
The power train loss was HIGHER at 7900, so the rolling road, "misread" the difference.
The car was also running a very low axle ratio of 4.55:1, which also strongly and more easily affected the readings.

TBH, the best way to know the power output of the TR cars, is to bring a genuine blueprinted engine to the rolling road, then test every car and record the figures for each one.

I did this with my LPS, and I can assure it was correct.
I had AT LEAST 10, CP model TR5 and TR6 come in to this facility.

The lowest read 94-95kw, and this was the "normal cars"....this equates to about 126bhp at the wheels. With a power loss of 17bhp this meant 143Bhp DIN.
However, NO WAY were those cars producing "book" figures, so my LPS was overreading by about 10%, which meant those cars were making about 130bhp. That certainly all adds up.

Next was just ONE car that made 98kw, so let's be nice and say this one was managing 135bhp?
That one went really well.

Finally there was a blueprinted engine in a TR6 which gave me 105kw, really steady, & very good emissions.
Let's say that meant 158bhp - of course on my "high reading" LPS.

Well guess what, when you take off the 10%, that car was producing an absolutely GENUINE 143P DIN, which is what the book says it should.

Now let's forget the rest.

The car did a "track day" but everyone at the circuit swore that car was NO WAY standard, because it simply left all the other TRs behind on every lap.

That put a smile on my face and the customer, because it was me that built the engine.
STD, absolutely standard but properly built......