Custom flywheel ?

Message

USAMoto00 · #31 Post by **USAMoto00** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:07 am

QUOTE (Sandstorm @ Oct 20 2006, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have 50 hrs on my Falicon w/ no spun flywheels..

I just talked to someone that said they also have an early Falicon with no problems. They also said that the taper is different on the old ones compared to the new. I know that the seal leaks oil on that side at times and that may help the situation along a bit? I have 2 newer Falicons and they both are spinning flywheels. One is a stock piston & Falicon to make a 450 motor and the other is a monster piston and Falicon at 485cc. They both spin them.

fierorcr86 · #32 Post by **fierorcr86** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:30 am

QUOTE (USAMoto00 @ Oct 20 2006, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just talked to someone that said they also have an early Falicon with no problems. They also said that the taper is different on the old ones compared to the new. I know that the seal leaks oil on that side at times and that may help the situation along a bit? I have 2 newer Falicons and they both are spinning flywheels. One is a stock piston & Falicon to make a 450 motor and the other is a monster piston and Falicon at 485cc. They both spin them.

I just wanted to ask if all cannondales have a problem with cracking flywheels. I'm having a charging issue and got to the flywheel tonight and it looked like it had hairline cracks in it. I have a C450 by South Bay.

Psychosis · #33 Post by **Psychosis** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:57 am

I have yet to even spin a flywheel so maybe not all were built bad or something. The ATK has very low hours though but the stroker had roughly 350hrs on the flywheel. About 300 since the stroker crank went in though w/out failure. Sometimes you get lucky I guess.

Sandstorm · #34 Post by **Sandstorm** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:55 pm

My stock flywheel had about 200hrs on it and it had some hairline cracks.. This was before the Falicon.. I'm only riding the big dunes and I can assure nobody else puts the loads on a motor like I do when climbing these monsters constantly running paddles.

ktmlew · #35 Post by **ktmlew** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:30 pm

It's either a balance issue creating harmonics or a tolerance stack-up with the gear drive...the flywheel has no real load on it so it shouldn't be having a problem.

cannondale27 · #36 Post by **cannondale27** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:40 pm

I believe its a acceleration issue.These motors are accelerating alot faster than ever before.The G-forces on that flywheel everytime you let off and then give it again have been increased.Its a weak design and its showing up more now because of our increased power.

Happyboy · #37 Post by **Happyboy** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:59 pm

inertia

azcannon · #38 Post by **azcannon** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:25 am

It is the iopasic flux contortion ratio specifically the paonic spectrum

jwheat · #39 Post by **jwheat** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:48 am

My guess is that the flywheels are not rigid enough. I think they flex and try to expand when you accelerate and this causes them to spin on the steel center hub and to also crack.

ktmlew · #40 Post by **ktmlew** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:36 am

If these are the same as the ATK LQ, and it appears to be, that engine was designed for a shifter cart. Turned 13K also. I do agree it's a poor design but still don't see how an increased stroke/power increase can have an effect. A higher RPM ceiling may but I don't buy the inertial increase idea...just tossing out an opinion.

Are they balanced "properly"?

Any reason a different flywheel/stator/pickup can't be adapted? What about the new Suzuki quad ign? It has FI, correct?