Jump to content

Heatsink Bashring?


.mitch

Recommended Posts

Hi there buddy. I am testing the bashring and it is an 18 tooth bashring with a steel cog atactched on the inside by 9 steel bolts.

The bashring is for use with middleburns but im sure you allready know of that if you looked on the site.

There are only 2 of us that have these, (the other person being Mike singleton) and im not entirely sure wether steve would like me to send pictures around.

Not to worry though as they will be available very soon from steve and will be no more than £40 for the bash ring and cog and bolts.

Max...

Edited by max-t
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there buddy. I am testing the bashring and it is an 18 tooth bashring with a steel cog atactched on the inside by 9 steel bolts.

The bashring is for use with middleburns but im sure you allready know of that if you looked on the site.

There are only 2 of us that have these, (the other person being Mike singleton) and im not entirely sure wether steve would like me to send pictures around.

Not to worry though as they will be available very soon from steve and will be no more than £40 for the bash ring and cog and bolts.

Max...

Nicely summarised Max :) Thanks for not posting photos yet. I'd like to unveil these officially when the final product is available. They're being machined at the moment. Mike's been testing his bashring since the middle of Dec '06 and taken it around the UK to various rides where it's had alot of exposure and been ridden hard. Lots of positive feedback which is great :)

Can't wait to reveal the full product features list and photos to illustrate. It could be in under a week now.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just ask, why 9 bolts?

Obviously you had as much choice as you wanted seeing as there's currently nowhere (to my knowledge anyway) that sells 18t chainrings, so you can set the standard, but do you not think that a simple 4/5 bolt configuration would have done the job just as well?

Without seeing the design it's obvious that I can't form an opinion yet, as the bash could be multi-part, or something else that's a bit different from the norm, though I assume it's relatively normal, hence the 9-bolt question :P

No chance of an initial idea/sketch perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just ask, why 9 bolts?

Obviously you had as much choice as you wanted seeing as there's currently nowhere (to my knowledge anyway) that sells 18t chainrings, so you can set the standard, but do you not think that a simple 4/5 bolt configuration would have done the job just as well?

Without seeing the design it's obvious that I can't form an opinion yet, as the bash could be multi-part, or something else that's a bit different from the norm, though I assume it's relatively normal, hence the 9-bolt question :P

No chance of an initial idea/sketch perhaps?

he said it could be done by this week! hold yer horses im sure your not in any rush!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just ask, why 9 bolts?

Obviously you had as much choice as you wanted seeing as there's currently nowhere (to my knowledge anyway) that sells 18t chainrings, so you can set the standard, but do you not think that a simple 4/5 bolt configuration would have done the job just as well?

Without seeing the design it's obvious that I can't form an opinion yet, as the bash could be multi-part, or something else that's a bit different from the norm, though I assume it's relatively normal, hence the 9-bolt question :P

No chance of an initial idea/sketch perhaps?

It's not possible to use the standard 5 or 4 position M8 fine thread bolt configuration because with the 18t sprocket smaller than the 22t one, these bolts would hit the chain and infact there would be no material on the sprockets to even have the holes. To be able to fit the bolts inbetween the chain's new position (outer edge) and the recess for the lockring (inner edge) & these be strong enough, 4 things have to happen:

  1. Smaller PCD (diameter the bolts sit on).
  2. Smaller bolts.
  3. Sufficient thread area for strength compared to the usual configuration (remember the bolts are smaller now which affects this) taking into account a necessary increase in thread area due to the increased tangential force as a result of the PCD reduction (Torque = tangential force x radial distance).
  4. The new number of bolts has to be divisable into 18 exactly so that the bolt heads sit beneath sprocket teeth for max material around the hole.

After working through this little challenge, I discovered the best mounting arrangement needed the 9 bolts, of the new size and thread length. Sorry there wasn't a quick answer! I hope you like the bash when I can reveal all :)

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...