Honda Spree and Elite 50 Forums

thanks for this tips you guys.

What do you guys think about running 3 weights instead of 6? Any of you guys try it? I dont notice that much of a difference? Whats your thoughts on this?

Greetings:

Dakine axt:

What do you guys think about running 3 weights instead of 6? Any of you guys try it? I dont notice that much of a difference? Whats your thoughts on this?

I've never tried it. It never even occurred to me! I see three possible issues:

1. There is a subtle asymmetry of the ramp distribution on most of the variators I've seen. The three occupied ramps are not exactly 120 degrees apart. The unbalanced variator disc could possibly cause vibration.
2. The 3 roller weights - each presumably heavier than those of a full set of 6 to achieve the same operating RPM - would probably wear out much faster.
3. The variator sheave being supported only at three points around the 360-degree circle might begin to "wobble" and wear out the guides pretty quick. Such a wobble would have an undetermined effect on performance.

I think adding 3 extra rollers of almost any weight would be safer than just running 3. Then again, I said I've never tried it.

Wheelman-111 wrote:Greetings:

Dakine axt:

What do you guys think about running 3 weights instead of 6? Any of you guys try it? I dont notice that much of a difference? Whats your thoughts on this?

I've never tried it. It never even occurred to me! I see three possible issues:

1. There is a subtle asymmetry of the ramp distribution on most of the variators I've seen. The three occupied ramps are not exactly 120 degrees apart. The unbalanced variator disc could possibly cause vibration.
2. The 3 roller weights - each presumably heavier than those of a full set of 6 to achieve the same operating RPM - would probably wear out much faster.
3. The variator sheave being supported only at three points around the 360-degree circle might begin to "wobble" and wear out the guides pretty quick. Such a wobble would have an undetermined effect on performance.

I think adding 3 extra rollers of almost any weight would be safer than just running 3. Then again, I said I've never tried it.

I get what your saying wheelman. You could also create your own weights though. I have to contact my friend but last time he showed me his weights and they where heavy duty. No circle through them, and they where hard as rock.

I was thinking that having 3 weights instead of 6 might make the variator spin faster? even though the ramps arent exactly 120 degrees apart are they still the same measurment apart from each other?

Dakine wrote: I was thinking that having 3 weights instead of 6 might make the variator spin faster? even though the ramps arent exactly 120 degrees apart are they still the same measurment apart from each other?

The Variator only spins as fast as your engine rpm. Though I enjoy thinking about it, I'm not sure that you could find a performace reason to run only three rollers.

Maybe if you were running like only 9 or 12 grams in your variator and you wanted it to top out at 25K rpm it could be useful.

i cant see how that would be healthy. i would stick to 6 maybe try 5? or 4?

Greetings:

Quoth Dakine:

get what your saying wheelman. You could also create your own weights though. I have to contact my friend but last time he showed me his weights and they where heavy duty. No circle through them, and they where hard as rock.

Yes, some of my mixing rollers are solid too. The very light ones are aluminum instead of brass, but all the rollers I've seen use a hard plastic "shell". I believe its purpose is to introduce a certain amount of friction so the rollers don't shift too suddenly and "overshoot" the optimal ratio. Metal-to-metal contact might result in rapid variator casting wear issues, too. Despite the hassle of replacing flat-spotted rollers, I'd stick with commercial rollers. Rounding the sharp lip of the ramp plate seems to let the rollers last a lot longer.

I was thinking that having 3 weights instead of 6 might make the variator spin faster?

If you mean that reducing the roller count would decrease the effective "flywheel weight" of the engine, you're correct. But consider that the rotating mass includes the crankshaft, the alternator, the variator and fixed pulley, the belt, the clutch and rear pulley assemblies, and even the wheel and tire once the clutch engages. At least 3000 grams, not counting the wheel. Subtracting 18 or 27 grams from the variator isn't going to do much.

even though the ramps arent exactly 120 degrees apart are they still the same measurment apart from each other?

Nobody knows less than me about geometry, but the only way I know to arrange 3 objects equidistant apart around a circle is by placing them at 120 degrees. No variator I've seen is perfectly symmetrical, so perfect balance with less than 6 rollers is not possible. I can't see why one would even want to try.

Ill try to get more info on this 3 weights issue.. But thanks for the info about the variator.

d*** how long does ups take to ship things Im tired of waiting haha I would like to be

Dakine wrote:Ill try to get more info on this 3 weights issue.. But thanks for the info about the variator.

d*** how long does ups take to ship things Im tired of waiting haha I would like to be

I just ordered an aluminum sheet off Ebay 2 or 3 days ago and it was shipped UPS, it was waiting at my door today, but i'm not in Hawaii. Tired of waiting huh? I still got about 2 1/2 months

Ha its good to know im not the only one feeling the pain!!!

89 Disk front conversion




Didnt want to take more pics till i start project

Spree