124" Project Storm Breaker

[Admiral Akbar]

Ready to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.

It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.


You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.

So what did you make the plates out of?

If steel, did you relieve the bottom plate at the case split?

I think one thing to note is that unless the TQ plate is made identical to the guy's plates doing the cylinders, there will be some variances.

I'm doing an all bore 107 early TC and used aluminum top and bottom. Bottom was 2 piece to simulate the cases. 

[Don D]

What are you going to use for lifters? I have one coming together now that is primarily a track bike, 124 with B2 heads. Using solid rollers I modified and they have a .750 wheel plus larger than stock axle. Using valve springs that are good for .750 and installed height at 2". 535# spring rate.

[Ohio HD]

Ready to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.

It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.


You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.

So what did you make the plates out of?

If steel, did you relieve the bottom plate at the case split?

I think one thing to note is that unless the TQ plate is made identical to the guy's plates doing the cylinders, there will be some variances.

I'm doing an all bore 107 early TC and used aluminum top and bottom. Bottom was 2 piece to simulate the cases. 

Max, what you speak of has always been a concern to me. I think unless you can measure the cylinders when in the running setup, it's hard to be sure that you can reproduce the effects of clamping the cylinder for final machine work.

I'm having these made from CRS. I thought about aluminum, but then as you mentioned, they wont necessarily match what was used when the finishing of the cylinder was done. The Kent-Moore set I was borrowing for standard TC cylinder bores was a steel set.

I think splitting that lower collar has some merit. Will you be pinning them together or letting the two parts float? A TC 3.937" bore does need it's best foot forward. 

[Ohio HD]

Is there a downside to the HD SE Premiums adjustables? I to went down this road. I initially had S&S adjustables but the wall thickness gave me pause. I instead opted for HD SE adjustables. Glad to see more progress on your build. Eagerly watching.

I've used a couple of SE sets in with more moderate cams in the bikes. The only problem I ever saw was some of the SE "fatter" pushrods were more likely to rub the pushrod tube. I also don't feel they're up to the task of heavy valve springs and hard use. You won't go wrong with Smith Brothers stuff.

[Admiral Akbar]

Ready to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.

It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.


You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.

So what did you make the plates out of?

If steel, did you relieve the bottom plate at the case split?

I think one thing to note is that unless the TQ plate is made identical to the guy's plates doing the cylinders, there will be some variances.

I'm doing an all bore 107 early TC and used aluminum top and bottom. Bottom was 2 piece to simulate the cases. 

Max, what you speak of has always been a concern to me. I think unless you can measure the cylinders when in the running setup, it's hard to be sure that you can reproduce the effects of clamping the cylinder for final machine work.

I'm having these made from CRS. I thought about aluminum, but then as you mentioned, they wont necessarily match what was used when the finishing of the cylinder was done. The Kent-Moore set I was borrowing for standard TC cylinder bores was a steel set.

I think splitting that lower collar has some merit. Will you be pinning them together or letting the two parts float? A TC 3.937" bore does need it's best foot forward. 

I didn't bother pinning the 2 halves. I simply machined the mating surface then bolted the 2 pieces together then finished machining. I guess if I ever need to take it a part, I could bolt it to a cylinder gently then tighten the 2 halves.

If you think about it, it's still not perfect as the bridge between the 2 cylinders is pretty thin, even on a not bored case.

I'm not a mechanical engineer but one thing of interest is that steel is 3 times stiffer than aluminum.

Look at Young's modulus.

https://www.thefabricator.com/thefabricator/article/metalsmaterials/the-differences-between-stiffness-and-strength-in-metal#:~:text=Young's%20Modulus%20for%20steel%20(29,were%20made%20out%20of%20aluminum.

I own 3 sets of tq plates. 1 for EVO. 1 for SnS 113. One for TC.  While they are all steel. They have a section relieved on the cylinder surface at the case split.  Did the Kent-Moore have the same relief?  I don't know how much better one is over the other but like the idea of matching the TQ plate material to the case.


You cannot see attachments on this board.

[Ohio HD]

Ready to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.

It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.


You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.

So what did you make the plates out of?

If steel, did you relieve the bottom plate at the case split?

I think one thing to note is that unless the TQ plate is made identical to the guy's plates doing the cylinders, there will be some variances.

I'm doing an all bore 107 early TC and used aluminum top and bottom. Bottom was 2 piece to simulate the cases. 

Max, what you speak of has always been a concern to me. I think unless you can measure the cylinders when in the running setup, it's hard to be sure that you can reproduce the effects of clamping the cylinder for final machine work.

I'm having these made from CRS. I thought about aluminum, but then as you mentioned, they wont necessarily match what was used when the finishing of the cylinder was done. The Kent-Moore set I was borrowing for standard TC cylinder bores was a steel set.

I think splitting that lower collar has some merit. Will you be pinning them together or letting the two parts float? A TC 3.937" bore does need it's best foot forward. 

I didn't bother pinning the 2 halves. I simply machined the mating surface then bolted the 2 pieces together then finished machining. I guess if I ever need to take it a part, I could bolt it to a cylinder gently then tighten the 2 halves.

If you think about it, it's still not perfect as the bridge between the 2 cylinders is pretty thin, even on a not bored case.

I'm not a mechanical engineer but one thing of interest is that steel is 3 times stiffer than aluminum.

Look at Young's modulus.

https://www.thefabricator.com/thefabricator/article/metalsmaterials/the-differences-between-stiffness-and-strength-in-metal#:~:text=Young's%20Modulus%20for%20steel%20(29,were%20made%20out%20of%20aluminum.

I own 3 sets of tq plates. 1 for EVO. 1 for SnS 113. One for TC.  While they are all steel. They have a section relieved on the cylinder surface at the case split.  Did the Kent-Moore have the same relief?  I don't know how much better one is over the other but like the idea of matching the TQ plate material to the case.


You cannot see attachments on this board.

That's looking good. 

The Kent-Moore set I was borrowing didn't have a relief line where the case seam would be. 

I also thought the same way about the case, that the area and depth of material is pretty slim. But then maybe these cylinders just pop to a spot when they have some pressure applied to them. I guy could make a long hobby of testing how much clamp pressure, what materials, how thick the materials, etc., etc.

[FSG]

You won't go wrong with Smith Brothers stuff.

[Buglet]

  When S&S were designing there torque plates they would take the case and cut a hole in the bottom then take measurements with the cylinder and head bolted to the case to see if it was the same as with the torque plates. The other thing does anyone use a head gasket with the torque plates. TR's made his set up that users the OEM cylinder studs and head bolts.   

[Don D]

We all know the stock studs stretch purposely to allow cylinder growth and in theory maintaining the clamping load. The grade 8 bolts 2 sizes larger are not a workable equivalent. I am told that S&S case with head attached example provides much different results that their torque plates despite the equivalent intent. Logically we can see why.

[kd]

 

We all know the stock studs stretch purposely to allow cylinder growth and in theory maintaining the clamping load. The grade 8 bolts 2 sizes larger are not a workable equivalent. I am told that S&S case with head attached example provides much different results that their torque plates despite the equivalent intent. Logically we can see why.

How critical are the "style" of torque plates when considering the different cylinders they will be used on?  By that, I point out construction of say S&S barrels compared to OEM will differ by liner thickness or steel makeup or other differences.  For example, we know the steel in the drop in barrels is super hard and will maintain it's relaxed state more.  The goal being to impart force to the cylinder to encourage some sort of stability for machining that more closely represent an installed deflection of the cylinder walls so as to ultimately provide a better ring seal.  The torque specs for the sleeved aluminum cylinders are by most standards light due to The stud size, the aluminum base they are mounted in, the engineered stud stretch and subsequent growth when heated.  We know these light specs can influence measurement taken by checking a cylinder before and after clamping it between the torque plates.  Isn't it sufficient to simply supply a clamping mechanism that imparts enough equivalent compression to allow the machining to be more accurate within a reasonable working tolerance? 

[Admiral Akbar]

We all know the stock studs stretch purposely to allow cylinder growth and in theory maintaining the clamping load. The grade 8 bolts 2 sizes larger are not a workable equivalent. I am told that S&S case with head attached example provides much different results that their torque plates despite the equivalent intent. Logically we can see why.

Why do you have to worry about stud stretch on a setup that isn't getting heated to engine temps?

How are the grade 8 bolts 2 sizes larger?

[Admiral Akbar]

When S&S were designing there torque plates they would take the case and cut a hole in the bottom then take measurements with the cylinder and head bolted to the case to see if it was the same as with the torque plates. The other thing does anyone use a head gasket with the torque plates. TR's made his set up that users the OEM cylinder studs and head bolts.   

Yes, Will use a base gasket if the build requires one.. How does TR plate setup clear the a 4 1/8 bore with stock head bolts?  I guess if only doing measurements, it's OK. What about running a hone through it?

[Don D]

In order to use stock head bolts at a 4.125" bore the washer heads must be cut down to clear the bore or the guide shoes hit on the upstroke.
If I was looking to improve my design I would support the spigot on the sides to avoid deflection while honing. In other words a net fit. This would be especially helpful for the steel thin spigot liners.

[hrdtail78]

I have used AHD79SB-TC-FI in most of the big power builds through here.  One has a .750 lift spinning to 8000 rpm's.  No problems with these in any of the builds.

[Don D]

AHD79SB-TC-FI
Exactly! 

[FSG]

a few years ago now   

AHD79SB-TC-FI

[hrdtail78]

They can be a PITA w/ stock covers.  Decked heads, zero decked cylinders and a smaller hg doesn't help.  You cannot see attachments on this board.

[kd]

A paper clip and rubber band works well too.

[Buglet]

   Just a rubber band here works fine, no need for the paper clip.

[hrdtail78]

Paper clips and rubber bands with SB pushrods and stock covers?  That's amazing and something I couldn't figure out. 

[billbuilds]

     I had to shave my spacer tool down too. Just had another .030 taken off the heads so it may need additional shave. I do not see how I'd be able to adjust SB pushrods with just the rubber band holding the tube up.   

[Buglet]

  Being just using a plain rubber band for close to fifty years never had a problem. I have one of those spacers tools it nothing for me, it just something else to get in the way. But that's just me.

[Ohio HD]

Up early and have some ideas I'm trying to resolve as best as I can before some of the parts get here. Crank is still two to three weeks out. Cams maybe a week or longer.

This is all just close theory, but gives a general idea as to how close some clearances may be. Also seeing as a visual when the port flow starts and stops, and when during rotational cycles the flow backs up into the port the wrong way. 

You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.

[Ohio HD]

Some parts of the build are changing, and there may be a few more that change. I have cams to use, I'm not going to use the S&S640 or S&S675 cams. I'm going to use for now what I'll call mystery cams.

I've determined the lifters I'll use, Jim's #1827 Steady Roll Power Glide lifters. I have to determine if I can use limiters in these, but I'm pretty sure that I can.

Lots of things to do before I can even start any assembly. For one the crank still isn't done. Soon I hope.


You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.

You cannot see attachments on this board.
You cannot see attachments on this board.

[turboprop]

Jims lifters get a bad rap which makes about as much sense as saying all Fords are junk because of the Pinto. I put 20k miles on a set of those bushing lifters from Jims during their initial offering period as part of a field test. They looked perfect when I removed them and made absolutely n noise. Mind you, that unlike most owners of TC engines on this forum I am not sitting around with a stethoscope listening for imaginary lifter noise.

I am really anxious to see how this turns out.