Knock Off Spinner Tool

[4SECA]

Originally Posted by gjcomb

Your spinner tool looks good - available now? What's a selling price?

The Spinner tool sells for $525. Contact DPS Products at cyldfil@aol.com

The tool is also is capable of applying high levels of impact and torque to the spinner.Best tool I have used to remove a spinner (stuck or otherwise).

[KevinW]

- thats a shame.
I was interested till you posted the price - a tool that costs more than a replacement wheel - doesnt make sense to me.

[rpatton3]

Years ago, my dad was removing a rear wheel from my sister's 1969 E-type roadster.

WE WERE HAVING NO LUCK WITH LEAD HAMMER.

I suggested that we put a long pipe over the "dog killer" knockoff and the other end on the driveway, put the car in reverse and let cluth out slowly.

The car came up off the suspension at little and the knockoff came loose.

We are in ARKANSAS and it worked!

[TButtrick]

I still say +300ft/lbs on these spinners is insane. Heres a video fo Dennis Olthoff installing a spinner on a fully loaded wheel. No way in hell that's even 100ft/lbs. I'm guessing 70ft/lbs is right for spinners.

[ItBites]

Tbuttrick,

Youre guessing wrong. Very wrong. Dangerously wrong. The applied preload in force due to torquing fasteners is inversely proportional to the mean pitch diameter of the threads. The equation according to the widely accepted Shigley is F = T/.2D The .2 varies with thread lube, etc..., but the T is torque applied (in inch-pounds), the D is the mean thread pitch diameter (in inches), and the F is the amount of preload or 'clamping' force in the bolted joint (in pounds).

Now, most cars have say qty 5 x 1/2 inch studs, each getting say 90 ft-lbs (1080 in-lb) of torque. If we use the .2 constant for now, you can see that each stud produces 10800 pounds of clamping force and with qty 5, you get a total of 54000 pounds of clamping force to keep the wheel on the spindle.

On the other hand if you have one set of threads in your knock-off that are (I dont have them to measure the diameter, but just say they are 1.25" diamteter) 1.25" diameter and you torque them to 70 ft-lb (840 in-lb), then you only get 3360 lb of clamping force to keep the wheel on the spindle. To get the same 54000 lb that a 5 lug pattern can produce you would need to torque a single 1.25 inch diameter thread to 1125 ft-lb.

This is somewhat modified by using anti-sieze on the knock-offs and not using ift on the 5-lug setup (these are installed dry). This changes the .2 constant as I mentioned earlier and actually reduces the applied clamp force from the 5-lug set-up and increases the clamping force from the knockoff. You can consult your Shigley for a discussion on this factor, but it does not go above .3, or below .1. If we use an absolute worst of .3 in the 5-lug, and a best of .1 in the knock-off, the knock-off torque to produce the same clamp force to hold the wheel in place is still 375 ft-lb.

Once you understand that the bigger diameter threads you have, the less clamping force you produce for a given applied torque, you see why the torques on a large knock-off nut are very high.

[TButtrick]

Originally Posted by ItBites

Tbuttrick,

Youre guessing wrong. Very wrong. Dangerously wrong. The applied preload in force due to torquing fasteners is inversely proportional to the mean pitch diameter of the threads. The equation according to the widely accepted Shigley is F = T/.2D The .2 varies with thread lube, etc..., but the T is torque applied (in inch-pounds), the D is the mean thread pitch diameter (in inches), and the F is the amount of preload or 'clamping' force in the bolted joint (in pounds).

Now, most cars have say qty 5 x 1/2 inch studs, each getting say 90 ft-lbs (1080 in-lb) of torque. If we use the .2 constant for now, you can see that each stud produces 10800 pounds of clamping force and with qty 5, you get a total of 54000 pounds of clamping force to keep the wheel on the spindle.

On the other hand if you have one set of threads in your knock-off that are (I dont have them to measure the diameter, but just say they are 1.25" diamteter) 1.25" diameter and you torque them to 70 ft-lb (840 in-lb), then you only get 3360 lb of clamping force to keep the wheel on the spindle. To get the same 54000 lb that a 5 lug pattern can produce you would need to torque a single 1.25 inch diameter thread to 1125 ft-lb.

This is somewhat modified by using anti-sieze on the knock-offs and not using ift on the 5-lug setup (these are installed dry). This changes the .2 constant as I mentioned earlier and actually reduces the applied clamp force from the 5-lug set-up and increases the clamping force from the knockoff. You can consult your Shigley for a discussion on this factor, but it does not go above .3, or below .1. If we use an absolute worst of .3 in the 5-lug, and a best of .1 in the knock-off, the knock-off torque to produce the same clamp force to hold the wheel in place is still 375 ft-lb.

Once you understand that the bigger diameter threads you have, the less clamping force you produce for a given applied torque, you see why the torques on a large knock-off nut are very high.

OK, so either the video posted is dangerous to follow for advice or Dennis is actually tapping that spinner to 375ft./lbs. with his girlish like wrist motions while the wheel is fully loaded. (no offense Dennis)

I'm not a physicist but it sure seems that there are a whole lot more variables to Shmigley's theory than what has been stated.(if it applies at all) As an overly-exaggerated example, If your wheel mating surfaces (the hub and wheel sufaces) were 10 feet in diameter instead of 8 inches, the lateral force leveraging those two surfaces apart at their radius are going to be exponential and given the same size spinner at the same torque as the 8 inch mating surfaces, would certainly be an inadequate fastener for the 10 foot hub. Am I seeing this wrong?

Here's another way to look at it; Take two 10 foot 2x4s and nail them together in the center at the 5 foot mark. Now take two 8 inch 2x4s and nail them together in the center at the 4 inch mark with the same size nail. Now pry the ends apart to get your fingers in there and try to separate each example (lateral force). Which one would be easier? Your fingernails would fall off before you got the 8 inch 2x4 apart, yes?

[ItBites]

Tbuttrick,

I'll add that the thread diameter on the F1 car in your picture appears much smaller in diameter than the usual Cobra setup, so it would need less torque than a Cobra, but even so, with a 3 foot wrench, it is not that hard to produce a bunch of torque with a 'yank' from a single arm. Still would be less than a large diameter Cobra knock-off would need...

As far as the Olthoff video, two things to consider. The amount of force a hammer produces, when swung and then stopped in a short distance is huge. I could go into the equations of kinetic energy (KE = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared) being converted into force as it is decellerated (KE = Force x distance), but a quick inspection of the equations should convince you that when the distance gets small, the force gets very large. Further, during an impact shock, the friction (which drives the .2 constant in the torque equations above) is instantaneously reduced to a very low value. This means that a small 'constant' torque will tighten a festener adequately, if it is accompanied by a impact shock. These two things make the hammer method decieving in terms of thinking about an equivalent applied wrench torque and lead you to think a small wrench torque will achieve the same result.

[ItBites]

Tbuttrick,

You may want to brush up on your Engineering. You, however are right that a 10 foot diameter wheel would need a larger knock-off than a normal wheel (but the effect is linear and not exponential). It would also have to apply way more clamp force. This is why knock- offs are not typically used on giant dump trucks, they require way more torque and clamping force. Look at how many studs giant dump trucks use. Neither this nor the two-by-four example have anything to do with applied fastener torque producing preload. All you are saying is that a bigger wheel needs a bigger bolt - true, but it will also need more torque applied to produce enough preload.

You may not be a physicist, but you are not an Engineer either. This stuff is Engineering 101 and there is really no magic here.

Believe me or not, but if you put 70 ft-lb on your knock-offs, you will not like the result. You have been warned.

[TButtrick]

um, sorry but I are an Engineer. I even have my own choo-choo train and thanks for the warning. Now that you've shown us how big your giggle stick is, I'm a degreed EE so even though this type of ME application may be a bit foreign to me, I'm still calling BS on your theory and whether or not it applies here. Short strokes with a lead hammer holding the handle close to the head as depicted in Dennis' video, will NOT produce the kind of force needed to achieve 350ft/lbs. of torque with the thread pitch we're assuming is common on hubs. Tell me I'm wrong. It defies logic.

Normal people believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.

[ItBites]

Tbuttrick,

You're wrong.

[TButtrick]

OK. You win.. U-N-C-L-E Gosh, I gotta get some self esteem.

[lovehamr]

Interesting. I've never seen engineers comparing wee-wees before.............

[TButtrick]

Originally Posted by lovehamr

Interesting. I've never seen engineers comparing wee-wees before.............

LOL! and are those yours in your avitar? Dude, you got me. You win. BTW, I'd stopped the BDR booth at LimeRock and spoke to Jay. He's done one hell of job at Vintage Motorsports. That Coyote enabled BDR is tough to walk away from.

[cscott672]

Had the best idea! It works, and if you go slow you wont hurt anything.

When I bought my gt40 the guy must have hammered the sh-t out of the spinners and didnt use enough anti-seize. I tried for HOURS hammering in the right direction and could NOT get them loose. I bought a big truck socket, cut the notches in it, lined the cuts with split fuel line (to protect the finish in the spinners), attatched a 3ft breaker bar with a 4 foot extension, and broke them loose!!!

After that experience I had 3inch lug nuts made up to replace the spinners, and use a 1inch truck impact to install and remove. No muss no fuss!

Screw those spinners, never again!! Scott

[cobrakiwi]

Well I must admit I did not think I would ever use my spinner tool.
The other day I used it to help a tight spinner nut, after a good clean of both nut and hub I coated the hub threads with anti seize and used the spinner tool to help the nut on and off now it goes on by hand.
Must say it worked well.

[4SECA]

Tork striker .com
spinn-r-tool .com

[fordracing65]

Originally Posted by 4SECA

Tork striker .com
spinn-r-tool .com

Tork striker price on website, $615 bucks, NO THANKS, lead hammer $30 bucks, YES PLEASE...

[twobjshelbys]

All you needis the American hammer lead hammer

After removing them for the first time use anti seize on the threads and mating surface of the spinner to wheel and you won't have any problems again

There is a. Good video about removal but more importantly install that will tell you when they are right enough so you don't over tighten

[Bob Lacey]

Hi Folks
We will soon launch our own version of a spinner remover /install tool - pictures and prices soon !!
Features will include dog ears to prevent tool slipping off , ACH Polymer inserts to prevent spinner damage and it can be used with hub spindle end caps in place. More details to follow
Bob Lacey Vintage Wheels 1 888 339 7572 Vintage Wheels, Hot Rod and Muscle car