CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Full Float vs. Semi Float

38377k5 said:
BTW, I am not trying to "find out" which is better (because I already know :laugh: ),





which axle's shafts would hold up better?
WTF, do you, or don't you.
I am curious about a "senior engineer's" questions that have no real world application meaning. If you are trying to do something very different, just come out and say it. The question you just asked has been answered several times in this post.
 
FF axles are stronger, that has been determined (and really was never an argument). The last question I asked was if a FF axle had slightly smaller shafts than a SF axle, would the FF be as strong? (i.e. how much of a strength difference do you guys think the FF makes?) My guess is that the 60 (with smaller shafts by my measurements) is only slightly stronger than a 12 bolt (from an axle shaft perspective, anyway). Just asking these questions out of curiosity. And I am not a senior engineer, just a 4th year engineering student.
 
I guess we coult put it like this.......There are no 1.20" Dana 60 axles under anything less than a 3/4 ton....and there were no 1.31" 12 bolts under 3/4 tons.....
 
That has to do with FF vs SF load ratings. The FF dana 60 has a much higher load rating than the SF 12 bolt because it is full floating. The full floating hub allows the hub to take the weight in the bed of the truck rather than the shaft taking the weight. FF axles generally have bigger wheel bearings and FF axles have two wheel bearings per side vs. 1 per side for semi float. All of these increase the load rating of a FF axle which is why they are used under 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. It has nothing to do with shaft strength. BTW, there were some rare 12 bolts under 3/4 tons (or so I have heard).
 
All else being equal a FF axle will be stronger than an identically strong SF axle.

Take a dry linguini, supported below by two stacks of pennies.

Put weight on dry linguini. (like 5 quarters on the ends).

there's your SF.

Take same dry linguini. Insert into Super slurpee straw. Do the same test.

the example is a little squed, but you should understand that energy (in this case, transferance of energy) has to go somewhere. Even if an axle shaft is smaller in a FF design, it may still exceed the weight bearing capabilites of a SF with a larger axle.

Think Empire state building, vs. World trade center. The mere design of the WTC used weight reducing techniques, while imploying a stronger design.

you can make bridges without arches, but it doesnt make it any stronger.

You could make a square soda bottle, but it wouldnt hold as much pressure.
 
Right, you just answered your own question, guy. Why would they put a Dana 60 with those shafts under a 3/4 ton that pulls more load than a 1/2 ton? Durability. The thing has got to be at least equal in strength to a 12 bolt, from a shaft point of view, the bearings have a hands down winner...the 60.
 
I didn't answer my own question. Shafts don't really break while towing. Saying that things are better because they are in a 3/4 ton is exactly the kind of argument I was trying to avoid with this thread: back your info up with some kind of logic, not just "it has to be stronger because 3/4 is bigger than 1/2. Again, the 60 is definitely stronger in every way except shafts. I am arguing shafts alone. Pookster, your argument is wrong (if I understand it correctly). When you say the weight has to go somewhere, you are right of course. That weight creates a shear stress on the axle. It would take roughly a 80,000 lb. load to shear a shaft of that size (assuming 60,000 psi for steel), and assuming that load is not exceeded (it won't be), that shear stress is not relevant to the torque load the shaft can take. That's right, that shear stress has absolutely NO impact on the torque load the shaft can take. Period, that is how it works. Now, it has been said (and I agree) that there are some forces that do make SF axles weaker (such as bending caused by the lever arm from the diff to wheel bearing and the wheel bearing to the wheel). SF is a worse design in pretty much every aspect, but I am still not convinced that their max torque load is really hurt that much by being SF.
 
It sounds to me that the only way to answer this once and for all is to do some distructive torque testing on the shafts in question. The one that breaks from rotational torque first is the loser. There has to be a torsionmeter that can be used for this question is does anyone have access to one and to a 12Bolt and Dana 60 rear shaft.

Ira
 
Here's my take - two shafts of equal diameter and of equal composition are in fact pretty much equally strong. So if that's your question there's your answer. I think the thread has gotten pretty confused with the discussion of whether or not a FF axle is stronger. The shafts might be the same strength (assuming you could find a SF and a FF with the same diameter and metalurgy) but the FF design is less likely to fail on one of our vehicles given our usage style.

If the wheel has ultimate traction, and the truck has enough power to twist the shaft and break it I submit that it wouldn't matter if it were FF or SF both would break the same (in the hypothetical world where the shafts are the same) - but in the real world I'd much rather drive out on a FF after the failure. :D

So the bottom line is the 14BFF is the cheapest, easiest upgrade for the SF folks who want high strength and low failure on the trail (but if you can find a SF with the exact shaft - it would probably be as strong - just don't break it to find out!!)
 
sandawgk5 said:
Good point, screw a Dana 60 rear go 14FF 1.5" diameter 30 spline bigger than both a 12 bolt and a Dana 60 rear. :D

Ira

I run a FF14 bolt, just trying to expand some knowledge about SF vs. FF. Oh yeah, 14 bolt shafts are through hardened from the factory!
 
I hate to tell you but the 1.200" shaft you measured was NOT a D60 30 spline shaft. It was not a 16 spline Dana 60 if it was a dana 60 I have never seen one that small. The 12 bolt shafts are not larger than a 30 spline dana 60 shaft. Dana 60 30 spline shafts are 1.310. I don't have my mics here at home but if you want this put to rest I can bring them home tomorrow. For now this will have to do. The Dana 60 side gears do fit on a 12 bolt shaft. A 12bolt side gear does not fit on a Dana 60 shaft. The diamater is correct but the spline angle is incorrect. This is the same as 10bolt and 44 fronts. Same but different :D
Here are some pics for those that want to loose the missinformation.

1st pic shows the 30 spline 60 0n left, 16 spline 60 in middle and 12 bolt shaft on right.

2nd pic shows the same from the end.

3rd pic shows that the D60 shafts don't neck at all and the 12 bolt gets much thicker as it reaches the bearing area but never necks less than the splined area.

4th pic shows the 12 bolt side gear on the 30 spline D60 shaft.

Pic 5 shows the two side gears side by side.

Cnv0264.jpg

Cnv0268.jpg

Cnv0267.jpg

Cnv0269.jpg

Cnv0270.jpg
 
So I would agree that in rotational torque only yes a 12 bolt is stronger than a Dana 60 30 spline FF. But I still preffer dana axles :D
 
You read my first post...wasn't that logic?

Next time then, don't post the SF/FF difference if all you care about is shaft strength. If you're asking "Is a 1.20" shaft stronger than a 1.31 shaft barring the type of axle it is in?", that should be obvious. But...if you are going to actually look at the entire picture, then you need to take the other things into play.

Shafts never break while towing??? You never walked around a shop that works on 18 wheelers, have you? You don't know what it's like when a guy comes in saying he's got a noise in the rear end to pull the flange off and find that the 2" thick axle shaft snapped.
 
Quite a thread, interesting, boring, comical and annoying all at the same. What I would really like to see is 38377k5 and 89gmcsuburban having a few beers together in some Co. honky tonk. My money's on the sub man.
 
I obviously am not the best with words, and have made people misunderstand what I am trying to say (on more than one occasion in this thread!). Got some good responses and some good input. No hard feelings all around :D . Thanks for the discussion, CK5'ers!
 
theperfectgarage said:
Quite a thread, interesting, boring, comical and annoying all at the same. What I would really like to see is 38377k5 and 89gmcsuburban having a few beers together in some Co. honky tonk. My money's on the sub man.

I second that. Maybe we should get a pool going. :D
 
Dude, this is CK5, no hard feelings....I was actually gonna ask 383 if he wants to get some wheeling in before the season is over! :D
 
Top Bottom