Since your replies always come with a sense of attack towards me, I'll have to reiterate the following point:

My data is actual first-hand data, coming from measurements, testimony, etc., from either myself or customers.

Your data is based on "the opinion" of others, the Summit Racing shipping department, etc. How can that be valid? You yourself said that we need to distinguish between opinion and facts, but yet I never see any facts.

Also, if the block fails, how can the bellhousing be at fault?

If you clothesline yourself riding a motorcycle and your head pops off, is it the helmet's fault?

Again...

Someone please prove that this was absolutely the bellhousing's fault.

To be perfectly fair, I can't prove that it wasn't.

However, common sense, an engineering background, and a sense of reality tells me that if the thing that you bolt the bellhousing to isn't strong enough to hold it, then the bellhousing can't do its job.

When they SFI test them, they don't bolt them to a block, they rigidly bolt them to a test fixture.

Also, everyone seems to be skirting around the fact that there was a Lakewood incident (a manufacturer that hasn't changed their design in decades) that mimicked the exact incident that we're speaking about with the Quicktime.

Yet no one wants to acknowledge that.

Interesting.

Here's a gratuitous plug for Brent.

Brent has Lakewood, Quicktime and McLeod bellhousings on sale right now:

Classifieds: Bellhousing Blow-Out Sale


BTW, I'll quote the great Buddha:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Fitting name for the thread wasn't it?

Bellhousing Blow Out?

Ok...everyone knock it off (name-calling, etc.). Now.

Muchas gracias.

What a surprise. This thread is just like the last thread on this subject - just like Superdouche :p and I stated it would.

Attracts the same folks like moth to a flame. %/

As Brent suggested, maybe we should stop beating this horse until someone can provide some real evidence to the "discussion".

Oh, if/when my TKO needs to come out for any reason, I'm swapping the Lakewood for a Quicktime. Which I'll buy from Brent. Or maybe Patrick can buy one for me from Brent. :cool:

Whoops, sorry. Didn't see your post until after I posted. %/

I have had two clutch failures---in both of them the bolts were knocked out of the holes where they threaded into the block--

The bell housings stayed together and contained the parts because they were bolted securely together all around the top and bottom of the can and the motor plate with bolts between each of the factory block mounting holes.

One of my pro stock racing friends had a failure and the only piece that escaped was a piece of the starter ring gear that came out the starter opening.

Many of the QT housings don't have provisions for the extra bolts between the block bolts or the circle of bolts around the bottom. There are many QT choices and I feel that the customers are buying the lower price units which don't have the extra fasteners.

Get the SFI specs and read what the differences are between ratings---nowhere does ground clearance enter the specs however some allowance is made into how the units can be trimmed/braced.

Sorry Jamo,

Ok no name calling, my bad.

Brent,
Not attacking you personally. But when you say the two designs offer the same protection level, I disagree completely and because it is a safety item, I am passionate about the misinformation you spread.
I have no doubt that your customers that have not had failures are very happy with the design. However the failure we have seen was complete and total. The housing failed in every design aspect it was sold on. Wouldn’t have protected passengers or saved the block from damage. But I guess that doesn’t matter to you because he wasn’t your customer?

Not first hand information? “opinion of others” Be clear, only my shipping weight data came from Summit LOL. They are an unbiased source that has ready access to such data. That’s why I called them.

“If you clothesline yourself riding a motorcycle and your head pops off, is it the helmet's fault?”
LOL, That is ridiculous analogy. Totally outside the design intent and area of effect for the device, But if you must:
If the MFG claimed this model of helmet offered the same level of protection as the certified “anti-decapitation” model and as a result of that claim was purchased by a customer, used and resulted in the consumers beheading.
It would be the MFG’s responsibility to prove that the helmet in question had been tested to the same anti-decapitation requirements and if he could not prove compliance through test data, I would charge that the MFG has liability in as far as his statements indirectly led to the death and dismemberment of the consumer.
(Any Liability attorneys want to comment here?)

I am re-stating first hand information from the people who have had a failure, are closest to the issue and have their hands on ALL of the actual test data that exists. Now you state that I can’t make telephone calls for information? If I actually go there would that be ok? Not so much…
Just like rODnOck, No answer will be acceptable to you. You won’t do the research yourself, and now I’m not even allowed to call for it, lest I be publicly called a liar.
(“Post some real data, anyone can say they called” )
And that’s the best part of your argument. There is no data, none exists, there is nothing to post. It’s a brilliant strategy you have. “I’ll claim he is lying, ask him to produce data that the design can’t pass the test, knowing that it was never tested!!”
So who is lying Brent and why:
In advertising, it is the claimants responsibility to prove the claim when challenged.
The former owner never proved it and he has been MIA since this issue came up. Now you carry the torch for him. You bang the sales drum loudly, now you make the claim for him, so Ill ask you again to PROVE IT!
I wish you would do the research on the product that you so loudly claim to be the superior. But sadly you won’t, because there is no money in it for you to prove QT’s claim is false.
Is that where it ends for you Brent?

Why don’t you speak to Graham Fordyce at Prestolite and get some facts about failures.
And in the end, I will not call you a lair for trying.

You say you have data, what kind of data do you have to prove you claim? What measurement or testimony do you have showing this design can withstand a failure? We know it’s capable of holding the transmission to the block. Is that all it’s good for? Maybe a cast aluminum housing would be a better choice? Since neither will contain the failure, they are cheaper, lighter and your block has a higher chance of surviving.

“Someone please prove that this was absolutely the bellhousing's fault.”
“However, common sense, an engineering background..”
Both of those statement fly in the face of your position. And based on your position, you have neither.
What engineering discipline or logical thought process would argue that two containment vessels relying on a the radial distribution of high strength fasteners as its load bearing members offer equal capability when one vessel is only fastened at 50% of its perimeter?
As before, that is utterly ridiculous. That you either can’t see it or won’t acknowledge is frightening for your customers.

I agree with Mr. Clayton completely, does that mean you will call him a liar too? Sadly it is your job to educate your customers on the differences in the housings, not blow smoke up their arses and tell them that “Pretty Sticker” crap. Ask Jerry if he feels the sticker guaranteeing the design meets the spec is worthless when QT says both designs do?


Jason

The fact that you have to be chided for name calling says quite a bit.

You have proven nothing Jason. Nothing at all. You have got a lot of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hand information and have done nothing but just quote people. I see no documents, no pictures, no nothing. The majority of your "witnesses" start their testimony with, "It's my opinion...."

Actually you have proven that you can just point fingers, call people names, and degrade the intelligence of others. I have never questioned your intelligence or demeanor, I've just questioned the way that you go about getting information, and then the information itself.

Now....cut the crap...that means everyone.

Personal duels?... take it offline....and a word to the wise: walk away from this thread.

Thanks

Whoops....

Sorry Ron, I posted before I saw your reply.

Walking.

I'm gonna go hide under my lakewood--I hear that theres a tornado warning somewhere in Illinois

Sorry I don't quite follow how the backing plate will prevent rotation in the event of the block bolts busting off seeing as the backing plate uses those very same bolts. :rolleyes:

Again, a 1/8" aluminum backing plate adds near zero structural integrity.

I'm not arguing that the lakewood bell is not stronger than the QT, it is. However, if your running the kind of power to blow a modern flywheel then you should be using a Kevlar blanket.

Padded sun visors are specified on new cars to meet safety specs, but I think their about as helpful as those bottom bolts. Besides if you don't cut that bottom flange off the road will grind it off for you.

I think the moral of this story was "Don't use 40yr old, used, stock flywheels on your 800hp motor."

BTW quoted from the thread referenced:

Of course I should have used the SFI flywheel 90 miles away. If this one didn't blow the thread would have just been about the power we got.

I'm only trying to show why never to use a stock flywheel.

In our defense we weren't launching and shocking the flywheel. We were rolling into it at over 3000 rpm and cutting off at 6500.

I will be careful Jamo
 

D-cel Jason A iron block as it limits. Pushing over 800 HP is alot for motor block that get about 500 hp. I have not seen anywhere if this was a factory cast bvlock or after market one. I have not seen ALL the picture of the flywheel but looking at 2 new pictures see that a piece or pieces spun inside the housing to twist it off. Looks like they hit the starter hole or clutch arm hole. This will possible happen with ANY bell housing.
I like the QT bellhousing because of the weight different and the compact size. I also think that a tighter space of the clutch assembly help stop some of the damage pieces from blowing out of the bellhousing.
As far as I am concerned the bell did it's job. If this was in a car the driver would still that legs. This is the important thing. Rick L.

I have pics of another quicktime failure. PM me with your email adress and I'll send them to you. Interestingly in this failure the starter area was the initial area where a piece of clutch got caught and ripped the bell from the motor. Evertything flywheel etc was SFI
chris

And your point is what? Lakewoods won't seperate from the motor?

If the housing seperates containment is breached, at that point it's a roll of the dice where the the pieces end up.

About the only real fix for this is a modified block with beefed up mounting points. Stock blocks just weren't designed for this kind of power output.

Unlike the backing plate, the block is critical to the structural integrity of the bellhousing.

And thats why you should use a min of 1/4 blockplate that is also the rear mount for the engine--the frame mounts will keep it in place--

Go read up on all the rules and allowed requirements, mods that are allowed or required by the racing associations and you will find that it is much more complex than just using it for a bell housing--

When a clutch / flywheel lets go, there will be a sudden release of the force that is counteracting the engine torque and the then opposite movement will more than likely spit out all the bellhousing mounting bolts into the block and nothing in the housing will prevent it or cause it---you know the old equal and opposite thingie????

In NHRA you must have blowback structs mounted from the housing to the frame to keep the assy in place--anymods done to a housing then is required to be sent back to the manufacture for approval the same as for getting the date updated

A question maybe for the engineers in the audience.

The outside of Quicktime is smaller than the Lakewood. Assuming there's less room on the inside too, does it help maintain an explosion better than Lakewood, which may have more room for the pieces of the explosion to propel themselves harder and farther? I hope that question makes sense.

Yes there is a difference in the velocity parts would hit the shield, but the difference is so small it would not make any difference.

Think of it as a bullet exist the barrel. Exit velocity is the same and decreases due to wind resistance. Not much wind resistance that could change the velocity in, what, 1 inch or so difference in size of the two bell housings, IMO.


Lee