ex-Gooserider wrote:
I might get a LITTLE more room since I moved my casters to the lower pair of bolt holes, but definitely a nice fit....
However I couldn't read the tire size in the photos you posted -
So what size ARE the tires in your photo?
ex-Gooserider
ex-Gooserider wrote:Just saw this - after our messaging about the stuff I was getting and my sending you payment -
Are these the ones you are getting me, or the ones from the earlier post I was pointing at? I'd prefer these, as they look a lot nicer, but am OK with either...
No. I bought you the steel ones because I think they are more robust .
BTW, any guess on ship date? I assume you need to get them on your end, but how long does that take?
ORDERED . Will collect all of them in a week . Then , have to wait my wife to lend her hands to re-pack everything .
shirley_hkg wrote:ex-Gooserider wrote:Just saw this - after our messaging about the stuff I was getting and my sending you payment -
Are these the ones you are getting me, or the ones from the earlier post I was pointing at? I'd prefer these, as they look a lot nicer, but am OK with either...
No. I bought you the steel ones because I think they are more robust .
BTW, any guess on ship date? I assume you need to get them on your end, but how long does that take?
ORDERED . Will collect all of them in a week . Then , have to wait my wife to lend her hands to re-pack everything .
ex-Gooserider wrote:I did just start looking at the caster wheels I got from Shirley, and am seeing a LOT of issues...
The wheel itself looks nice, gold cad? plate steel, but the bearings are mounted in the center hub with no spacer in the middle (bad for ball bearings like these that get side loads when turning...)
The bearings themselves are steel 6202Z - metal shielded rather than rubber, which isn't a big deal...
Another annoyance is that 3 out of the 4 bolts on the one caster I've taken apart so far were over-torqued to the point of thread damage, about 1/2 turn from being stripped.... As far as I'm concerned, that means needing to replace them...
I also notice that the bearings are not inserted to a uniform depth, or apparently against the ridge inside the hub... The first wheel showed depths from the edge of the hub to the bearing 0.084" / 2.15mm and 0.161" / 4.10mm. The second wheel had depths of 0.107" / 2.72mm and 0.168" / 4.27mm... I tried pressing the bearings in further with a bolt and some flat washers, got a good bit of movement - and now show 0.170" / 4.33mm on both sides.... Poor QA on assembly, but fixable...
However what is a significant issue, is that the hubs are longer than the forks are wide... My caliper says the hub is 3.060" / 77.68mm wide, while the fork is only about 2.965" / 75.33mm between the legs....
I also subtract points for not cleaning the welding splatter off the flange before plating it...
Unlike the rear wheels or the power supply, these seem like rather a poor quality item overall... I can make them work I'm sure (as BM says, it's just metal...) but it will take a good bit of work...
Shirley, I believe these were supposed to be the same wheels you used on your chair? If so, how did you adapt them?
Did they fit inside your forks without being cut down? Or did you cut them down or spread the forks? (they seem like a heavy casting that would be hard to spread...)
Yes, I have to trim off the excess barrel edges , and fit EVERYTHING within 73mm. Hope you don't have to move the bearings further inwards to get there. However, it's not a bad thing to move bearings a bit inside , so that you will gain more room to accomdate everything .
''' Keep everything within 73mm , NOT 75mm . '''
I also noticed the end of the valve stem sticks out past the rim - does it clear the fork?
A narrow escape WITHOUT cap .
Unless there are other suggestions - it looks like what I will need to do is:
1. Get a better set of measurements on how centered the hubs are in the wheel and take a total of about 3mm off the ends, keeping the wheel centered in the fork.
2. Make a center spacer - presumably around 0.75" / 19mm OD, with a 15mm step down on each end, and a 7/16" bore (the stock axle diameter) and put it in while replacing the bearings.
Good point , though I don't have it .
3. Make end spacers to fill the gap between the bearings and the outside of the forks - I'll probably try to make something that is a fairly close fit to the recess in the hub just to try and minimize the 'furball' buildup... So about 34mm OD, with a narrow 15mm step on the inside and a 7/16" bore...
Only 1mm thick due to limited space . Therefore, it's not a bad thing to move bearings a bit inside , so that you will gain more room to accomdate everything .
Do you think aluminum would be OK, or would I need to try doing stainless?
I used to diy them from hard plastic rod and everything survived , though all are steel now because my machanic likes steel .
Shirley, does the place you got the caster wheels from have any dimension drawings by any chance? I can do my own measurements (and probably will regardless) but having manufacturer specs would be good as a double check...
No , and every lot differs .
ex-Gooserider
What's the difference between 304 and 316 stainless steel? The simple answer is 304 contains 18% chromium and 8% nickel while 316 contains 16% chromium, 10% nickel and 2% molybdenum. The molybdenum is added to help resist corrosion to chlorides (like sea water and de-icing salts)
Alloy 303 is a non-magnetic, austenitic stainless steel that is not hardenable by heat treatment. It is the free machining modification of the basic 18% chromium / 8% nickel stainless steel. Alloy 303 was specially designed to exhibit improved machinability while maintaining good mechanical and corrosion resistant properties Due to the presence of sulfur in the steel composition, Alloy 303 is the most readily machineable austenitic stainless steel; however, the sulfur addition does lower Alloy 303’s corrosion resistance to below that of Alloy 304. Like other austenitic grades, Alloy 303 demonstrates excellent toughness, although the sulfur does reduce this a little as well.
Burgerman wrote:I have a set of MBS too, and for smaller 8 inch or less tyres http://www.trampaboards.com/hubs-c-50.html?all=1
However, the most common stainless steels are ‘austenitic’ – these have a higher chromium content and nickel is also added. It is the nickel which modifies the physical structure of the steel and makes it theoretically non-magnetic.
304 stainless steel contains chromium (min. 18%), and nickel (min. 8%). It is an austenite steel and is only slightly responsive to magnetic fields. It also contains 18 – 20% chromium and 8-10.50% nickel, and lesser quantities of some other elements.
316 stainless steel is a molybdenum-alloyed steel. The fact that it is also negligibly responsive to magnetic fields means that it can be used in applications where a non-magnetic metal is required. It also contains a number of other elements in varying concentrations.
flagman1776 wrote:I'm looking at Shirley's picture in post #2... the first picture. I'm wondering if the axle hole couoldn't be redrilled further down (to get more tire room) and back "to the right" to get more offset (if that becomes desirable for tracking). It would be difficult to do but might be an option.
Return to Everything Powerchair
Users browsing this forum: biscuit and 78 guests