need help...Tanaka 47R

mathematically correct, but geometrically?

ah-ha! but look at where the spokes are stressed. it truly makes a difference...it's about leverage. under motor-power, it's about putting rubber to the road...the golden eagle ring gets much closer to the road (rim) than a chain & sprocket. easily more than twice as close, if that makes "mathematical" sense. same wheel, same horsepower, within legal motorized bicyle limits...i have to say i think the belt & ring would prevail.

maybe a whizzer dood could chime in about why the sheave-setup has survived so long.

and, please don't misconstrue...just like you, i'm just gabbin'...everything i hear about the staton drive says heavy-duty, and everything i hear about the staton company says reliable. there's plenty to go around for companies that deserve the business.

and they use epa-certified engines, good enuff for me :)

and, let's be clear...if everyone would build a bike with wheels that were mechanically suited to this stuff, the topic would be moot anyway :cool:
 
Last edited:
Looking for a clutch cup assy with shaft. I'm new and just starting a build. Do the china bike gearcases have a 78mm clutch cup? I have one available to me. I don't really want to buy a whole kit and I think this motor will rip a GEBE setup to shreds! Any suggestions?

peddler,
i was shocked by augidog linking to my build thread in yours in support of the GEBE drive system. at the time i was having real problems( ALL realitive to my asembly ) and was considering going to chain to be done with it.

well, things have changed. with help from the many memebers of this forum i have found and remedied all the problems i'd created or was unaware of in the assembly of the GEBE drive and my build is now fully functional and very satisfying.

i'm running a GP460, 4.5HP/ 2.3 TRQ engine with NO problems realitive to the GEBE drive or belt. i fouled a plug last night due to my own neglect though :mad:

the point is, IMHO the Tanaka 47R is well within the abilities of the GEBE drive and belt.

member kawasaki999 has both engines mentioned here running the GEBE system, you should shoot him a PM and get his take. he's a real friendly guy and knows alot about these 2 strokes in general.

thanks,
steve

p.s. i agree with augidog about the whole wheel / spoke issue, when the bike is built with purpose specific parts it puts an end to these concerns and issues.
 
ah-ha! but look at where the spokes are stressed. it truly makes a difference...it's about leverage. under motor-power, it's about putting rubber to the road...the golden eagle ring gets much closer to the road (rim) than a chain & sprocket. easily more than twice as close, if that makes "mathematical" sense. same wheel, same horsepower, within legal motorized bicyle limits...i have to say i think the belt & ring would prevail.

maybe a whizzer dood could chime in about why the sheave-setup has survived so long.

and, please don't misconstrue...just like you, i'm just gabbin'...everything i hear about the staton drive says heavy-duty, and everything i hear about the staton company says reliable. there's plenty to go around for companies that deserve the business.

and they use epa-certified engines, good enuff for me :)

and, let's be clear...if everyone would build a bike with wheels that were mechanically suited to this stuff, the topic would be moot anyway :cool:


I'm sure that properly built, the GEBE system doesn't have spoke issues. And when I talked to Staton and told him that my tires are only 1 1/4" wide, he said he would STRONGLY recommend getting a 48 spoke 1" wheel from him when I order my kit, which I would do of course. It's only about $70 for the wheel, ready to go so how can you beat that? Like I said, either system would work. I just REALLY want the true freewheeling of the Staton system and also (just my opinion) don't like the looks of that big drive ring on the spokes. But if Staton went out of business I wouldn't hesitate for a second in knowing what my other option was. After Staton and GEBE, it gets VERY sketchy for me. I might at that point try to make my own system using one of the good engines like Staton and GEBE use.

Warner
 
Warner,
I didn't explain myself properly in regards to chain drive. Chain drive right off the crankshaft/clutch is a high maintenance choice. In part, this is due to a lack of proper lubrication (bath type and or pipe feed oil), a minimum drive sprocket size of 17 teeth which would upset overall ratio reduction, and a minimum of 120° arc contact. People refer to motorcycle primary reduction systems and use these as comparison, they however are designed properly (in most cases) and usually don't see more than a 3.0 reduction ratio (7.0 is suggested as maximum). Staton, for example, uses a geared primary reduction box, which allows them to successfully follow up with a "secondary" reduction chain drive to the rear wheel.

Here's a good website regarding chain drives:
http://mechanical-design-handbook.blogspot.com/2007/09/standard-roller-chain-drive-design.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warner,
I didn't explain myself properly in regards to chain drive. Chain drive right off the crankshaft/clutch is a high maintenance choice. In part, this is due to a lack of proper lubrication (bath type and or pipe feed oil), a minimum drive sprocket size of 17 teeth which would upset overall ratio reduction, and a minimum of 120° arc contact. People refer to motorcycle primary reduction systems and use these as comparison, they however are designed properly (in most cases) and usually don't see more than a 3.0 reduction ratio (7.0 is suggested as maximum). Staton, for example, uses a geared primary reduction box, which allows them to successfully follow up with a "secondary" reduction chain drive to the rear wheel.

Here's a good website regarding chain drives:
http://mechanical-design-handbook.blogspot.com/2007/09/standard-roller-chain-drive-design.html

Makes sense. And you're correct....most motorcycles are 3:1 or less. And as you mentioned, the Staton system is engineered correctly for chain use.

Thanks for clarifying,

Warner
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top