Kartorbust
Well-known member
Lol way too wacky and would be a garage engineering nightmare to figure out how in the heck it would be driven. Probably needs a planetary type gear set to make that work properly.
Possible future build idea 6x6
- Thread starter Kartorbust
- Start date
- Status
anickode
Active member
Nope, just 3 chains. You'd run something like a 12:1 ratio to your axle, with say, (3) 20 tooth sprockets on the axle at each end, driving each wheel with a 10 tooth, (just an example) so the overall engine-to-ground gear ratio remains consistent whether the wheels are rolling or the axle is flipping (essentially a wheel that's a bit over twice the diameter)
It takes a bit of figuring to get the gear ratios just right, but if done correctly, it will allow one side to flip, while the other side continues rolling, without the use of a differential since the overall distance travelled per axle revolution is (nearly) the same whether it rolls or flips.
I've never tried it full scale, but I built a tri-star vehicle out of Lego as a kid, (12 wheel drive, no steering) and it worked quite well and was really cool to watch. I saw a bunch of crazy Russians try to build one out of motorcycle parts on junkyard wars (they ran out of time though) and I had to try it for myself.
It wouldn't be to hard to build a tri-star go kart axle, but it would be pricey, as you'd need 18 axle bearings, 13 sprockets, 7 total axles, and 6 wheels, just for the drive axle.
The 2-wheel walking beam would in theory do the same thing with the right sprocket ratios, but the wheels would probably lose traction and spin before you put enough torque to the walking beam to get it to flip, since it has to go 180° instead of just 120°
Whitetrashrocker
Inmate #952016
In the background. Is that yours too? Looks like a single sided ront fork with a chain drive similar to a Rokon or the likes.
Yea I built both of them. It is single sided rear also, just has a winch stuffed in the wheel. The little 3x3 has front drive too. I'm thinking of doing a single track trailer with a driven wheel to make it an inline 4x4, ha.
Kartorbust
Well-known member
So with running tandem axles, where would I set the Ackerman angle at, the middle or rear axle?
Whitetrashrocker
Inmate #952016
I think the functionality of akerman angles goes to shot with 4 drive wheels in the rear. The double the traction and turn radius scrubbing will make for some wonderful understeering.
anickode
Active member
Another consideration is running a diff might be necessary. I used to have a 6x4 gator at work, and with the diff lock engaged, it would not turn at all. It would just plow straight ahead, scrubbing the front tires across the ground. It was a hill climbing beast, but you had to point it the right direction before locking the diff.
I also used to have a Polaris Big Boss 6x6 ATV... The old one with solid rear axles. That thing was a bear to turn and you frequently had to stand up and lean over the handlebars to get the front to grab enough to turn a tight corner. If there was weight in the box, it was even worse.
Ackerman angle would be set to the center of the walking beams to split the difference of the axles.
Kartorbust
Well-known member
Thought so. However like most 4wd vehicles, this will he selectable for the front axle, however the rear wheels will always be powered. So for the most part and majority of the time 4wd will not be used, unless needed for extra traction. Still debating on using a rack and pinion or do the bellcrank style. Also trying to design it not to look goofy as most side by side utility vehicles are, they look scrunched up. By going with how the Deuce and a half is, the width is about 1/3 the length, but doing so this small may end up not working that well.
I have seriously considered using the Peerless 100 differential, however they are open and not lockable unless welded and at that point it might as well have been a live axle. If I could do selectable lockers without having to do a completely different route (automotive differential and axles) I would. And finding sprockets for the Peerless diff isn't easy but they can be found. Just would have to run 2 brakes on it.
I could go with a single axle and just make it a 4x4 and not a 6x6, but I kind of like the 6x6 just to be different. I think the 6x4 gator uses the K92 or something similar because I know on the garden tractors that have that transaxle it does have a foot pedal activated locking differential.
Fortunately this is just conceptual and is subject to change up until I start building it. I have been thinking on making the bed use a hydraulic cylinder to raise it. The pump would be a Saiginaw type pump and spool valve.
So much to consider but I have some time.
I have seriously considered using the Peerless 100 differential, however they are open and not lockable unless welded and at that point it might as well have been a live axle. If I could do selectable lockers without having to do a completely different route (automotive differential and axles) I would. And finding sprockets for the Peerless diff isn't easy but they can be found. Just would have to run 2 brakes on it.
I could go with a single axle and just make it a 4x4 and not a 6x6, but I kind of like the 6x6 just to be different. I think the 6x4 gator uses the K92 or something similar because I know on the garden tractors that have that transaxle it does have a foot pedal activated locking differential.
Fortunately this is just conceptual and is subject to change up until I start building it. I have been thinking on making the bed use a hydraulic cylinder to raise it. The pump would be a Saiginaw type pump and spool valve.
So much to consider but I have some time.
anickode
Active member
If you could find the transmission out of a 6x4 gator, those had a lockable diff with forward and reverse, and they were chain drive to the wheels if I remember correctly...
I believe the transmission has the internal diff, with left and right axle stubs. The front driving axles were driven directly by half shafts, and the rears were chain driven off the fronts. It could probably be made to work without too much effort.
I believe the transmission has the internal diff, with left and right axle stubs. The front driving axles were driven directly by half shafts, and the rears were chain driven off the fronts. It could probably be made to work without too much effort.
OzFab
New member
IIWM, I'd use a diff as the primary drive & have an independent "outrigger" setup...
Having a walking axle is one thing but, if you hit uneven terrain, as in, one side is climbing when the other side is dropping, there will be traction loss, with wheels leaving the ground surface; having each side independent of the other will eliminate this issue...
Having a walking axle is one thing but, if you hit uneven terrain, as in, one side is climbing when the other side is dropping, there will be traction loss, with wheels leaving the ground surface; having each side independent of the other will eliminate this issue...
Kartorbust
Well-known member
I found the transmission off the diesel 6x4 on eBay for $1200. Doesn't look like it comes with the CVT parts. Didn't see anything about the locker at all. The chain drive hubs are $95 each, so not too terribly expensive on that. Maybe if I can find one locally that's being parted out that may help a bit.
That R/C diff that was shown on here would be kind of the ideal setup, where the half shafts would be in the middle of each side of the walking axle, with sprockets hooked up to the wheels. I'm not sure I get what you mean by them not being independent from each other.
Kartorbust
Well-known member
I think you are saying, have the rear end be more like trailing arms instead? So instead of walking axles, have the rear be completely independent of each other? But then what of the front end?
anickode
Active member
Sounds like he interpreted it as the rear axles both doing the same thing, not independent of each other, as though the walking beams were a subframe.
Kartorbust
Well-known member
That was my thought too. While that does make it a bit easier, it would not go very well over uneven terrain.
I had another thought, could a live axle in the middle where the axles pivot and use it as the pivot point work? It could help minimize the amount of parts used vs having the jackshaft built on the frame doing it that way. I could possibly in theory have the walking axles sealed and run 80w90 gear oil in them. At least then with it sealed, no worries about debris hurting parts of the drive line.
anickode
Active member
Not only would it work, it would be by far the most practical means of doing so. I don't know about the sealed beams, but using a live axle as the pivot point with axle bearings in the beam would massively simplify things, and make chain tensioning a non-issue.
Kartorbust
Well-known member
Glad I asked then. The part that I may be overthinking is then, with the live axle then being the pivot what would be the best approach to allow it to spin freely while being through and through the walking axles? I really need to get parts ood this drawn out so it can make things easier to explain.
anickode
Active member
You'll just put a set of axle bearings in each of the walking beams. That will allow the axle to spin inside the walking beam, with the beam supported by, and free to pivot on the axle.
Essentially the system could be installed on any go-kart with an existing solid axle.
Essentially the system could be installed on any go-kart with an existing solid axle.
OzFab
New member
Yeah, that's what I was going for, axle fixed to the body by pillow blocks with flange bearings fixed to 2 plates/frames (one per side) which hold the 2 stub axles on each, pivoting on the ends of the main axle...
ezcome-ezgo
G'me sumthin to write on
Y'all finally came around to what I was originally thinking. I was trying to draw a picture of it but actual work got in the way.
Kartorbust
Well-known member
I'm just bad at drawing in general. I do have the walking axle more or less sketched out on paper. It's just trying to draw the rest that sucks.
- Status