Date:         Mon, 5 May 2014 09:34:45 -0700
Reply-To:     Alistair Bell <albell@SHAW.CA>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Alistair Bell <albell@SHAW.CA>
Subject:      Re: CV Joints
Comments: To: Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <CANp2e0hA-pdi3vPvmvtKf1RcR42Oh7QSjggxog35nRzy_45hLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Not really. What you call cv, constant velocity joints, are properly called rzeppa joints. They are better than u joints but I believe they are not completely without rotational pulses.

If you are going to bind down the small end of your boots, I'd suggest you use a needle and a syringe to pull out some of the trapped air in the boot. If the joint is well packed with grease there shouldn't be too much air drawn into the open joint. Alternately you can pull out the air when axle installed.

Alistair





> On May 5, 2014, at 8:57 AM, Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> Its all in the name. Aligning is even relevant with modern CV joints,
> although purists supposedly match the splines so that each joint is
> aligned. The problem is really a remnant of old-fashioned driveshaft
> U-joints. If you installed one joint 90º off, you would get a
> horrendous shudder as the driven end would rotate faster and then
> slower twice through its rotation. That would be called a "changing
> velocity U-joint". In our case, we have the "Constant Velocity" joint
> that doesn't suffer from that limitation.
> 
> -- Gnarlie
> 
> 
>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Tom Carchrae <tom@intellecti.ca> wrote:
>> This is why I asked - how many have heard of this and do it.  So far,
>> nobody does it, is that correct?  I couldn't tell if Gnarlie did it or not.