Motor Mount Update

Message

4strokemadman · #11 Post by **4strokemadman** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:27 pm

The key is a tight fitting spacer. The reason we did one where you had to take the inner tophats out is tolerancing. If you are making one to match to a particular engine then you can machine the spacer to the same dimension you measure between top hats. However this spacer may not fit on other machines. In order to make the tightest fitting spacer that would fit on any machine AND not cause undue stress to the engine mounting tabs it would be best to take the inner tophats out of the picture. The reason we used a thru bolt instead of two bolts is so that there is less chance someone forgets to torque one of the bolts

The bikes don't need it, due to the individual cradle rails. But it doesn't hurt either.

NRath · #12 Post by **NRath** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:21 pm

Kyle (owner of R&S) had told me it was the Cannondale design that never made it to full production. Now I know how he got it.

kdeal · #13 Post by **kdeal** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:03 pm

I was told that the spacers were at the machinists when the plant shut down..... Somebody got a hold of some of the spacers I was told, and they have long since been sold.

NRath · #14 Post by **NRath** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:13 pm

Makes sense. I bought 2 of them.

sjstar · #15 Post by **sjstar** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:53 am

QUOTE (kdeal @ Mar 12 2010, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was told that the spacers were at the machinists when the plant shut down..... Somebody got a hold of some of the spacers I was told, and they have long since been sold.

i dont get and maybe this is one reason why cannondale is no longer. Why would you sub out machining spacers? it sounds like something that very easily could have been done in house and cost less.

I have only had experience with the update the dave sells and was easy and seems to work great.

NRath · #16 Post by **NRath** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:58 pm

I'd agree, sounds odd. It was probably related to lack of capacity on whatever machines. During busy times, we'll outsource laser jobs, even though we have 3. Just not enough time to meet the requirements. Something small like that, a single run of 2-3000 would probably be pretty cheap, really (relative to doing it in house and tying up equipment for days). Set-up costs would be minimal. Might've been the best call. Probably depends on how hungry a local machinist was!

cannondale27 · #17 Post by **cannondale27** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:04 pm

If I remember right they didnt have a CNC Lathe at Cannondale just Mills so it would make sense to have those spacers made elsewhere.

mydreamride · #18 Post by **mydreamride** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:24 pm

thats when a cnc chop saw comes in handy, you can buy the material (tube) with the correct OD and ID and let the saw chop away at full sticks. And it will also hold a very close tolerance repeatedly (got one at work and really neat)

jinx44 · #19 Post by **jinx44** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:48 pm

QUOTE (mydreamride @ Mar 19 2010, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats when a cnc chop saw comes in handy, you can buy the material (tube) with the correct OD and ID and let the saw chop away at full sticks. And it will also hold a very close tolerance repeatedly (got one at work and really neat)

Though it doesn't surprise me, I never knew they made CNC chop saws.

4strokemadman · #20 Post by **4strokemadman** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:24 pm

We did all of the machining for the really complex stuff in house such as the cartridge plates and crankcase. We would also did things where we needed things in a hurry like the tie rods. We did have a CNC lathe. The shop was treated just like any other vendor. The cost of doing things in house was sometimes more expensive than an outside shop who specializes in certain things. The overhead was pretty high at the plant. You figure those pallet machines cost a fortune to buy and run. I will say this though the shop did impeccable work.