|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:So Ural cranks are made of pot metal I assume? It's a soviet motorcycle.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
It's a BMW.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:It's a BMW. It's a bmw DESIGN.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Therefore it's a bike built by Russians trying to build a BMW...much like how after World War II the Russians tried to build jets using a reverse-engineered BMW jet engine...with predictable results at first!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Ozmiander posted:It's a bmw DESIGN. No, it's a Soviet copy of a BMW design. And Chiangjiang is a Chinese copy of a Soviet copy of a BMW design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:No, it's a Soviet copy of a BMW design. And Chiangjiang is a Chinese copy of a Soviet copy of a BMW design. Does that eventually come back around to being awesome? Like the North Korean copy of the Vietnamese copy of the Chinese copy of the Russian copy of a BMW design?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Maybe if the South Koreans re-engineer the NK copy of the Chinese copy of the Russian copy of the German design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:No, it's a Soviet copy of a BMW design. And Chiangjiang is a Chinese copy of a Soviet copy of a BMW design. You're saying exactly what i said. Ural makes a bike with (originally..) war captured tooling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Uthor posted:Does that eventually come back around to being awesome? Like the North Korean copy of the Vietnamese copy of the Chinese copy of the Russian copy of a BMW design? Didn't work so well for the Yugo/Fiat 144
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Uthor posted:Does that eventually come back around to being awesome? Like the North Korean copy of the Vietnamese copy of the Chinese copy of the Russian copy of a BMW design? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
I finally got one. Notice how the face of the rotor is sitting inside of the vents - it's a very thin surface.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Uthor posted:Does that eventually come back around to being awesome? Like the North Korean copy of the Vietnamese copy of the Chinese copy of the Russian copy of a BMW design? A good friend has one. It's just awful in every way imaginable. He's half-Chinese, bought it on a family visit, and had it imported. It's hilariously fun, but simultaneously awful. AI as gently caress. Also, a DP-28 mount for the sidecar should be standard, and isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
I was looking at them when I was getting a bike and they looked awesome, but a top speed of like 60mph (7 years ago) just wouldn't fly in the great open plains of the Midwest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Add a timbo. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Uthor posted:I was looking at them when I was getting a bike and they looked awesome, but a top speed of like 60mph (7 years ago) just wouldn't fly in the great open plains of the Midwest. That friend of mine was going somewhat north of 60MPH when his self-destructed (which isn't to say it's recommended, just possible.) On a different occasion, it was also the most insane experience I've ever had on a barely improved logging trail - like a dirt bike with a sidecar and a death wish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
I used an Ural in Wisconsin winters for years. Best transport ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
My stepfather bought a Ural back when they first started popping up back in the mid 90's I think. He's had to rebuild the engine and transmission already plus all of the rubber has disintegrated which is crazy as the bike only has about 1,500km on it but he still loves it. I rode it once and thought I was going to die mostly because steering a bike like a car is not natural at all for me and my brain was having none of it. The brakes are also about as effective as engine braking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Future mechanical failure. Stock WJ rear upper arm:  Hillfolk modified rear upper arm: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Why on earth would you do that? What are they trying to make?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
At least they drew and cut in straight lines. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Future mechanical failure. InitialDave posted:Why on earth would you do that? What are they trying to make? Looks like a  version of one of these. I'm morbidly curious as to how unsafe the rest of this build is looking thus far. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Cross posted from the scooter thread. Rugoberta Munchu posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Ozmiander posted:Drive without shocks. That'll cure all the problems. I dropped it off the axle stands and the thing was STIL bouncing 5 minutes later. Lots of mass in the arse of that truck!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Root Bear posted:Looks like a For content, this isn't quite a mechanical failure, but anyone who knows vehicle recovery will probably go  at a few parts of it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq6OKvBouBo
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:For content, this isn't quite a mechanical failure, but anyone who knows vehicle recovery will probably go Spintires in real life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Jeherrin posted:Spintires in real life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Err... isn't the point of that aftermarket one to let you dial out pinion angle and axle position issues resulting from a lift? And his hillbilly version isn't adjustable? This is fine, none of the people involved deserve to die of natural causes anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Future mechanical failure. If I'm understanding what this is correctly, doesn't that need to allow for twisting at the bushing as well? The aftermarket one appears to be using a Johnny-joint to allow for the axle to move up on one side while dropping down on the other, a common situation off-road. Even a large rod-end would work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:If I'm understanding what this is correctly, doesn't that need to allow for twisting at the bushing as well? The aftermarket one appears to be using a Johnny-joint to allow for the axle to move up on one side while dropping down on the other, a common situation off-road. Even a large rod-end would work. It's a rubber bushing, it will have some bend, just not as much as a johnny joint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:For content, this isn't quite a mechanical failure, but anyone who knows vehicle recovery will probably go Is it wrong that I wanted the cable to snap?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:If I'm understanding what this is correctly, doesn't that need to allow for twisting at the bushing as well? The aftermarket one appears to be using a Johnny-joint to allow for the axle to move up on one side while dropping down on the other, a common situation off-road. Even a large rod-end would work. Yep, it needs to allow for a decent bit of twisting. A Johhny Joint works fine (as seen in every aftermarket WJ rear upper), a bushing does not (as seen in... no aftermarket WJ uppers). The factory setup has a balljoint on top of the axle pointing up into the bushing at the center of the A.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
I just learned a fun fact: If a 747 main landing gear tire bursts at its operating pressure of 194psi, it releases energy equal to 0.60 sticks of dynamite. However the maximum burst pressure of a 747 tire is 1170 psi and it bursting at that pressure is an energy release of 4.4 sticks of dynamite! Heres a video of one blowing up but despite all the energy...it isn't that interesting. (This is a 767 not a 747) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_66mlsFwB9I
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Co-worker took his perfectly functioning Tercel in for a check up and opened up pandoras (Sockingtons) box.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Future mechanical failure.  Yeah whoever did that is a loving moron. They made literally everything worse. Iron Rock Offroad products are sometimes badly engineered, but even their worst is better than this mess, and their WJ rear upper link appears to be well designed. At least I don't see anything obviously wrong with their setup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I just learned a fun fact: If a 747 main landing gear tire bursts at its operating pressure of 194psi, it releases energy equal to 0.60 sticks of dynamite. However the maximum burst pressure of a 747 tire is 1170 psi and it bursting at that pressure is an energy release of 4.4 sticks of dynamite! It sure can be, though. Tire debris flying up into the wing and rupturing the fuel tank is what killed the Concorde. And here's a rejected takeoff test of an A340 featuring some spectacularly poor communications between the test director, the aircrew, and the fire crew, in which they're lucky nobody got killed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUMuOyMTQ8Y
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Found this on my son's car while replacing the front brakes. Total CV failure on a 2001 Volvo V70. And a bonus video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQI5zE1cAJE
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
I guess your son is the people we share a road with AND the PO we hate all rolled into one? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:I guess your son is the people we share a road with AND the PO we hate all rolled into one? Yep. I mean look at that brake dust buildup!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It sure can be, though. Tire debris flying up into the wing and rupturing the fuel tank is what killed the Concorde. And here's a rejected takeoff test of an A340 featuring some spectacularly poor communications between the test director, the aircrew, and the fire crew, in which they're lucky nobody got killed: Nothing happens for over a minute after stopping the welding, but then the temperature and pressure start to rise exponentially and the tire blows up. And here's an Airbus A380 brake test on a dynamometer. The dynamometer energy is 125.2 MJ which is equivalent to 30 kilograms of TNT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1dv_y_3EK0 But why were they doing something similar on a real aircraft in the A340 test? Were they accidentally going faster than planned before braking or was their idea really to set the brakes on fire and blow the tires?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
cyberbug posted:But why were they doing something similar on a real aircraft in the A340 test? Were they accidentally going faster than planned before braking or was their idea really to set the brakes on fire and blow the tires? A full up maximum gross weight rejected take-off is part of certification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:14
|
|