Date:         Sat, 4 Dec 2004 09:00:41 -0800
Reply-To:     mark drillock <drillock@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         mark drillock <drillock@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: Errors in CV Rotation Article at Volkscafe website
Comments: To: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <41B1E4F6.8050908@charter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

You are missing the point. The goal is not to reverse the direction of
rotation of the entire CV joint. The goal is to reverse the direction of
the the TWISTING forces applied to each joint. It is the TWISTING forces
that cause most wear INSIDE the joint. You can not treat each CV as a
single part and thereby understand the wear that occurs inside. You must
look at the individual wearing pieces and see how they are being
subjected to wearing forces.

Each CV is made up of 3 parts that are subject to the main twisting forces.
1. inner grooved section
2. outer grooved section
3. big balls that ride in the grooves

The balls DO NOT ROTATE in a single direction. They DO roll back and
forth in their grooves. They roll the same amount in each direction as
the CV joint flexes back and forth. They wear on the same side of the
groove at all times when they are under engine power, no matter which
way they are rolling in the groove. The goal is to reverse the force
through each CV and make the balls wear on the other side of each groove.

Mark


John Rodgers wrote:

> I don't want to set off a firestorm here. Just trying to sort out CV
> rotation.
>
> Sam Walters prompted me to have a look for myself at the Volkscafe
> article.
>
> I took a look at the article find the article to be really well done.
> Extremely informative. Volkscafe and Ben McCafferty's efforts are most
> appreciated.
>
> However, in the part of the article on the discussion about CV bearing
> rotation I perceive errors. I have double checked it, and I set up a
> model to analyze it, ( axle with bearings marked with arrows indicating
> direction of rotation) and I still came up with the conclusion that
> there are some basic errors in the assumptions. If I am wrong, if I have
> missed something, I hope someone will clarify it for me.

...........