Doug's RER Snapper - "Zephyr"

Time to show who the true rear engine Snapper king is.

Starting as a normal engineless Snapper RER, which I picked up from mr.modified, it's being completely stripped. From there, the rear frame will be modified to mount a standard transaxle and a V twin Briggs. Plans to add a heavy rear bumper with removable wheelie bar and possibly a winch. From there, the "frame" or tube will be extended and the seat possibly mounted to it. The front axle will be made from a golf cart axle and will utilize direct steering. Hand mounted throttle is planned, with brake and clutch being actuated by cable. If the driver seat is mounted to the tube, gear shifting will also need to be achieved by cable. It will be pushed by an MST206 using a doc locker and additional axle supports. Rear tires will be Kenda Bearclaws, unsure on front at the moment.

Only 3 weeks till Haspin, will I make it?

Sounds cool Doug. Ya gonna keep the suspension on the golf kart axle and have it on this??

Uh-oh! Y'all remember what happened the LAST time an admin entered the Build-Off, right? Look out!
Good luck, Dougie!

AllisKidD21 wrote:

Sounds cool Doug. Ya gonna keep the suspension on the golf kart axle and have it on this??

No, it'll pivot as the stock axle does. Just be much, much heavier. This thing is gonna pop wheelies like mad.

Doug wrote:

AllisKidD21 wrote:

Sounds cool Doug. Ya gonna keep the suspension on the golf kart axle and have it on this??

No, it'll pivot as the stock axle does. Just be much, much heavier. This thing is gonna pop wheelies like mad.

Oh ok, you had me excited for a minute! Hahaha, good thing you have "wheelie bar" on the list!

Doc Sprocket wrote:

Uh-oh! Y'all remember what happened the LAST time an admin entered the Build-Off, right? Look out!  
Good luck, Dougie!

I think that admin tried to burn down their garage can't remember

CHEESE AND RICE FACKLER A V TWIN? What pulleys you runnin?

Also keep in mind that you can't steer with the front end in the air. Better go to mickeys and bulk up so you can keep the front wheels on the ground!!!

RichieRichOverdrive wrote:

CHEESE AND RICE FACKLER A V TWIN? What pulleys you runnin?

Also keep in mind that you can't steer with the front end in the air. Better go to mickeys and bulk up so you can keep the front wheels on the ground!!!

Yeah, itll get a wheelie bar. Maybe add a weight rack to the front if I REALLY need it. We will see. Gonna be sweet though.

So heres some pictures of when I welded the angle on for the trans mounts Thursday night. 5 x 2 angle bent from 1/8" steel for a project I was doing, worked out perfect with a 1/4" overlap onto the Snapper subframe.









A lot of the ears overhang, so they will need trimmed, but should be solid as hell. May add gussets but dont think it will be needed, especially since I am doing axle supports.

So Friday night, I got the trans mounted. Got the holes drilled just enough to catch the outer mounts on the 206. Decided to utilize the top transaxle supports instead of the side supports more commonly used. I may use one on the side opposite the brake, not sure. 1x1x1/8" square with a gusset should be plenty strong.







So now that the trans is solid, I dragged RV1 from its grave behind the shed. Sprayed some ether in the 18.5 Intek and she fired right up, so after a clean and oil change she should be ready to go.

So I stuck it on the Snapper. Was going it mount it with the cylinders out, but it fits perfect sideways. Even had engine mount holes (that needed drilled out to 3/8"). Probably relocate the pump to either the frame or the other side of the shroud so I dont have to run as much fuel line.





So now the scarier part; pulley alignment. I dont have all the stuff yet to do a jackshaft, but I did get all the pullies. Lucky me, perfect amount of room around everything. Phew.





Its coming along. When will USPS finally install a vacuum tube system so I can get my stuff faster lol.

Transaxle mounts look great! I think those pulleys are pretty well aligned, I don't see the problem? Hahaha!

Looking pretty good Doug! I think the vtwin might look better with the cylinders out the side.

Ooooo! Ooo! Can I play??

Only if it runs and drives

1v1 me at Haspin bro

Looking really neat so far.

So not much has happened while I was waiting for my jackshaft bearings. Well, they arrived today... and two were wrong. I had ordered a pair of flange and a pair of normal pillow blocks so I could do whatever, but when I opened the box today there were 4 pillow blocks. I could do all pillows, but would rather not. I contacted the seller and am waiting on a response.

I did get the pulleys all welded together... mostly. One of the 5/8 hubs I got was actually 11/16, so I had to return it back to TSC and run to True Value to get the proper hub since TSC cant stock anything. Also got like a 2 or 3" flat idler for the clutch. But anyways, pullies all welded, and the three I had gotten before my hub dilemma got paint. Decided on yellow, since its what I had, but should look neat underneath and brighten up the underside.

What if you mount the jackshaft so it can move, and use that as your clutch? That way you don't need any idlers.

Doug wrote:

since TSC cant stock anything.

This is true, same with the one near me. How hard is it to re-order things and put them on the shelf. Weeks go by and they are still out of stuff.

MSCdirect.com has cheap bearings, not sure who you buy from, but there's a bunch of options on there for anyone who wants to look.

Anyway, If he made the jackshaft movable, then both belts would slacken/tighten, May work better as far as disengaging, because both belts would be loose at the same time, but It might mean one belt is tighter than the other when the clutch is released, depending on how they both stretch. I'm thinking that might mean belt slipping issues.

With belts that short, would the difference in stretch be that much? Not trying to start an argument or anything, I'm just genuinely curious. I thought since both belts disengaged it would disengage very smoothly and could sit in gear with the clutch in and won't want to creep forward.

I don't know, maybe they would both even out after a bit. Yeah that's what I mean too about not wanting to creep forward or drag. It would be good for that I think.

Edit: I was just thinking, if the pulleys on the engine and transaxle are going to be the same size, and both on the jackshaft are the same, then using the jackshaft as a clutch wouldn't be so bad, it would be the same as a dual belt drive on something. But if you had different size pulleys for changing ratio, then wouldn't it have two different belt sizes? And then maybe one wouldn't be able to line up. Or one would be tight before the other one right? Guess the stretching thing wouldn't be an issue as long as they both tighten up at the same time. But I think maybe your right, might be a good idea to make it like that.

mr.modified wrote:

I don't know, maybe they would both even out after a bit. Yeah that's what I mean too about not wanting to creep forward or drag. It would be good for that I think.

Edit: I was just thinking, if the pulleys on the engine and transaxle are going to be the same size, and both on the jackshaft are the same, then using the jackshaft as a clutch wouldn't be so bad, it would be the same as a dual belt drive on something. But if you had different size pulleys for changing ratio, then wouldn't it have two different belt sizes? And then maybe one wouldn't be able to line up. Or one would be tight before the other one right? Guess the stretching thing wouldn't be an issue as long as they both tighten up at the same time. But I think maybe your right, might be a good idea to make it like that.

If your belt sizes are correct they should engage at the same time. But that's in the perfect world where belt wrappage doesn't come into effect. In (my) theory, if for example you have a pair of big pulleys on top, and a pair of small pulleys on bottom, the bigger pulleys would engage first due to the extra friction from more surface area and then the bottom pulleys can slip to the extent that the belt wears faster on the bottom while the top doesn't, so you'll either have to have your jackshaft somehow adjustable and therefore misaligned, or you would have to have some sort of adjustment on whichever belt wears faster. I think it'd just be easier to do a clutch on the bottom so then the transaxle doesn't have all that rotating mass so you can shift (something i believe you are familiar with on the simplicity). Then again, you can argue that you'd want the clutch on the top to ease pressure on the starter (when starting).

With my pulleys (2x 5" and 2x 4", it would be doable. I actually considered doing that, but figured it would probably be bulky. I figure the clutch arm will be mounted onto the bottom jackshaft/ frame support, and it will be operated by cable. Should be ok... hopefully.

I had a double pulley deck spindle that worked for a jack shaft. One belt was clutch, other has a spring holding idler in, so it is always tight.

Doug wrote:

1v1 me at Haspin bro

Id hate to show you up...

Stretch44875 wrote:

I had a double pulley deck spindle that worked for a jack shaft.  One belt was clutch, other has a spring holding idler in, so it is always tight.

Yeah I remember that, was kind of sketchy looking lol. You shouldbring it as a spare, ill slap one of my transmissions in it. :^)

TheBeal wrote:

Doug wrote:

1v1 me at Haspin bro

Id hate to show you up...

Its on like donkey kong.

The rate I finish projects... it might take me a few years.

This years goal is to finish 1.