Bellhousing

[D-CEL]

Brent,
Interestingly enough, I do believe that a bellhousing that is designed in accordance with the SFI requirements (with lower containment bolts) and has been tested and passed, does provide better protection and would have a very different outcome after a failure.
I find it difficult to believe that you reinforce that company’s position of blaming the block.
Clearly a block, any block is incapable of withstanding the explosive force of a failing flywheel. This is why the SFI has set MINIMUM standards for block plate material and thickness coupled with a minimum number and configuration of containment bolts.
Their purpose is simple:
Too distribute the energy over a greatest possible area, lessening the impact force on any given point, allowing the energy to diffuse in a slow and contained manner.

I would further add that the unsupported bottom half of the non SFI housing, acts as a lever against the upper bolts and block, exacerbating the problem and increasing the chance of containment failure, like we see in the video.


Every time this discussion comes up, we hear the same unsubstantiated rhetoric.
“Passed all the testing, just doesn’t have a pretty sticker”
LOL, Really?
So QT spent thousands of dollars in testing that it passed, and they just stopped the process?
I ask again, provide some data that proves you position other than the Quicktime marketing hype. Either you or Ross McCombs of Quicktime post the passing test data or test results for PART # RM 8010.
If you say it has been tested and has passed, prove it.
Show us something for god sakes! How about other failures where the housing worked? Give us data other than:
“Its really good because the owner and chief profit taker says so”

Jason