TTS100 CAM Data Measurements

[Coyote]

Thanks to Max for taking time to do this.


Here is the measured data for the TTS100 CAM along with an SE255 CAM and a stock 2007 CAM.

SE255 CAM

   
• Front Exh and Int Measured CAM Data Text File
• Front Exh CAM Data File (csv)
• Front Exh Cam Data File (S96)
• Front Int CAM Data File (csv)
• Front Int CAM Data File (S96)

   
• Rear Exh and Int Measured CAM Data Text File
• Rear Exh CAM Data File (csv)
• Rear Exh Cam Data File (S96)
• Rear Int CAM Data File (csv)
• Rear Int CAM Data File (S96)

Stock 2007 CAM

   
• Front Exh and Int Measured CAM Data Text File
• Front Exh CAM Data File (csv)
• Front Exh Cam Data File (S96)
• Front Int CAM Data File (csv)
• Front Int CAM Data File (S96)

   
• Rear Exh and Int Measured CAM Data Text File
• Rear Exh CAM Data File (csv)
• Rear Exh Cam Data File (S96)
• Rear Int CAM Data File (csv)
• Rear Int CAM Data File (S96)

TTS100 CAM

   
• Front Exh and Int Measured CAM Data Text File
• Front Exh CAM Data File (csv)
• Front Exh Cam Data File (S96)
• Front Int CAM Data File (csv)
• Front Int CAM Data File (S96)

   
• Rear Exh and Int Measured CAM Data Text File
• Rear Exh CAM Data File (csv)
• Rear Exh Cam Data File (S96)
• Rear Int CAM Data File (csv)
• Rear Int CAM Data File (S96)

CAMs for testing






Checking fixture alignment




Taking measurements

[Don D]

How do you like that, nice job Max

[FLTRI]

Looks like an improved SE255? Which is what the results show, right?
Bob

[HV]

 

[Admiral Akbar]

Looks like an improved SE255? Which is what the results show, right?
Bob

If you are taking about the simulation, no, If you are talking about the specs then yes.. I do think Cole did a good job going after the LET cams.. The 255, 48, 551, 583..   

[FLTRI]

Looks like an improved SE255? Which is what the results show, right?
Bob

If you are taking about the simulation, no, If you are talking about the specs then yes.. I do think Cole did a good job going after the LET cams.. The 255, 48, 551, 583..

Makes sense considering 95% of everyone who rides a Bagger likes LET and only use the right side of the graph for forum and bar bragging.
Bob

[No Cents]

 I'm in the other 5%   

[Admiral Akbar]

Looks like an improved SE255? Which is what the results show, right?
Bob

If you are taking about the simulation, no, If you are talking about the specs then yes.. I do think Cole did a good job going after the LET cams.. The 255, 48, 551, 583..

Makes sense considering 95% of everyone who rides a Bagger likes LET and only use the right side of the graph for forum and bar bragging.
Bob

I guess someone always needs to brag about one end or the other.. 

[glens]

I'm in the other 5%   

That's only out in the general public.  On this site you're evidently part of 95%.

[Sunny Jim]

Clearly there is no end to bragging. Good job Ol'boy!

[NHBagger]

So now that the TTS-100 specs are published, I would like to hear opinions from the dyno guys as to how it stacks up as a Trike cam.

[BVHOG]

So why didn't he just make it simpler and publish the cam specs? Just another bolt in stick among the dozen others or so in that category. I'm sure it works fine in it's intended application, just like the 255
I'm just scared to use them for the possibility it may lock up your cam chest from all other manufacturers and not let you put another cam in it unless you install the stock ones again first. 

[sfmichael]

So why didn't he just make it simpler and publish the cam specs? Just another bolt in stick among the dozen others or so in that category. I'm sure it works fine in it's intended application, just like the 255
I'm just scared to use them for the possibility it may lock up your cam chest from all other manufacturers and not let you put another cam in it unless you install the stock ones again first. 

      

[Admiral Akbar]

So why didn't he just make it simpler and publish the cam specs? Just another bolt in stick among the dozen others or so in that category. I'm sure it works fine in it's intended application, just like the 255
I'm just scared to use them for the possibility it may lock up your cam chest from all other manufacturers and not let you put another cam in it unless you install the stock ones again first. 

It's funny but Steve was saying you couldn't read the specs off the cam at the Expo.. I was going to post the picture of the figure alignment and say he was correct, I couldn't even find any bumps on the cam.. 

Anyone notice anything odd about the cam timing measured front to back? 

[hrdtail78]

So why didn't he just make it simpler and publish the cam specs?

Because you can't buY this type of coverage.  You have the mods posting cam specs.  Sure, you have the haters that will say their funny little comments.  You will have the guys stating how the cam isn't for them.  In reality, 5% of the people just on this site is about 900 people.  Go down to 1% and that's about 180 people.  Sell 100 cams on this site, while not doing or paying for any advertisement.  That's about $7500.  Besides the cam he sold to get tested.  Looks like as much of a win/ win as Steve can get from this site. 

[Don D]

Anyone notice anything odd about the cam timing measured front to back

Why would the designer do that on the rear exhaust?

[Admiral Akbar]

Anyone notice anything odd about the cam timing measured front to back

Why would the designer do that on the rear exhaust?

The part of answer is he didn't do it to the rear.. He did it to the front..

[FLTRI]

So why didn't he just make it simpler and publish the cam specs?

Because you can't buY this type of coverage.  You have the mods posting cam specs.  Sure, you have the haters that will say their funny little comments.  You will have the guys stating how the cam isn't for them.  In reality, 5% of the people just on this site is about 900 people.  Go down to 1% and that's about 180 people.  Sell 100 cams on this site, while not doing or paying for any advertisement.  That's about $7500.  Besides the cam he sold to get tested.  Looks like as much of a win/ win as Steve can get from this site. 

My dad used to say "stupid like a fox" when referring to this sort of marketing.
Bob

[TorQuePimp]

  Well at the very least

  Steve actually designed the cam

  Probably tested at least half a dozen others to get there

  Did the work himself (as opposed to just slapping TTS on it )

  And it works as advertised

  Well done

[Admiral Akbar]

  Well at the very least

  Steve actually designed the cam

  Probably tested at least half a dozen others to get there

  Did the work himself (as opposed to just slapping TTS on it )

  And it works as advertised

  Well done

I agree..

Steve explained to me how he went about designing and testing the dam.. Damned good methodology.. If I wanted a limp wanker cam I'd pick his.

[Don D]

They certainly would be a good substitution for the se255 if valve noise reduction was the plan. The ramps look a bit more calm. When I get the time I want to plot the csv files.

[Don D]

Here is how the TTS100 plots

[Admiral Akbar]

FWIW

Don's plot shows the strangeness in the cam.. I fought with this for a while since I wasn't sure what was off, the way I setting the tester up or were the cams screwed?   Ended up being a little of both..

Anyway if you look at front and back cams of the same model, you'll find that the Stock 07 and the TTS have both front cams advanced about 1 degree and the SE cam is real close front to rear.. The reason for advancing the front cam, is due to the design in the motor and where they placed the chain dots.. With the sprocket having the timing mark dead center of the tooth means that all the teeth be lined up perfectly. Unfortunate the don't.. There has to be a little slack and a small bit of curve for the tensioner to work with.. As result with a tensioner on only one side (not enough room for a chain guide), the cams have a little bit of a twist between each other.. The tensioner is on the slack side so the front cam is retarded.. (Retardo and Impervo are out drinking.. )    So anyway they advance the grind about a degree to take care of the chain setup.. So why was the SE cam not advanced.. My bet is that they've been doing that from day1.. No one told em any different..  I know Andrews was doing it on early cams (at least the ones going to headquarter's )..  Crane had it figured out too..

[NHBagger]

Now we need data on the XH66.

[Don D]

Max your time, effort, and explanations are much appreciated. When I get a minute I want to overlay the se255 just out of curiosity. To be honest I expected more than just an advanced cam, something with more curb appeal like assymetric... or inverse radius...
Who cares really if they work and offer an alternative to the se255 which can be a real noisy cam set. I still wonder if these will produce the same CCP characteristics that the se255 does. And that said what causes such a large delta from the calculated CCP?

[N-gin]

Thank you max!
Are you accepting cams to profile?
got 266e's new take outs 4miles on them

[huntch]

Max your time, effort, and explanations are much appreciated. When I get a minute I want to overlay the se255 just out of curiosity. To be honest I expected more than just an advanced cam, something with more curb appeal like assymetric... or inverse radius...
Who cares really if they work and offer an alternative to the se255 which can be a real noisy cam set. I still wonder if these will produce the same CCP characteristics that the se255 does. And that said what causes such a large delta from the calculated CCP?

I'd be interested in seeing an overlay too.

And, sorry to ask a novice question     What is "CCP" ?

[Don D]

Cranking Compression Pressure

[Steve Cole]

Max your time, effort, and explanations are much appreciated. When I get a minute I want to overlay the se255 just out of curiosity. To be honest I expected more than just an advanced cam, something with more curb appeal like assymetric... or inverse radius...
Who cares really if they work and offer an alternative to the se255 which can be a real noisy cam set. I still wonder if these will produce the same CCP characteristics that the se255 does. And that said what causes such a large delta from the calculated CCP?

I'd be interested in seeing an overlay too.

And, sorry to ask a novice question     What is "CCP" ?

"CCP" is an industrial standard for checking Cold Cranking Pressure

There are several test methods but it is basically done with the Throttle wide open and cranking a COLD engine to obtain the highest recorded pressure on the test gauge.

If you are using a calculator to try and estimate CCP and you get the wrong numbers then the calculator is flawed and should not be relied upon.

[autoworker]

If you are using a calculator to try and estimate CCP and you get the wrong numbers then the calculator is flawed and should not be relied upon.

Assuming all the data that is entered is correct. Lots of places for errors.Human and manufacturing errors are just two.

[Admiral Akbar]

Ahh yes.. The dart thrower competition.. 

[1FSTRK]

Max your time, effort, and explanations are much appreciated. When I get a minute I want to overlay the se255 just out of curiosity. To be honest I expected more than just an advanced cam, something with more curb appeal like assymetric... or inverse radius...
Who cares really if they work and offer an alternative to the se255 which can be a real noisy cam set. I still wonder if these will produce the same CCP characteristics that the se255 does. And that said what causes such a large delta from the calculated CCP?

I'd be interested in seeing an overlay too.

And, sorry to ask a novice question     What is "CCP" ?

"CCP" is an industrial standard for checking Cold Cranking Pressure

There are several test methods but it is basically done with the Throttle wide open and cranking a COLD engine to obtain the highest recorded pressure on the test gauge.

If you are using a calculator to try and estimate CCP and you get the wrong numbers then the calculator is flawed and should not be relied upon.

I have heard of Cold Cranking Amps when testing starters and batteries.

Could you please give some background references for where you are getting this "Industry Standard of Cold Cranking Pressure"

I am limited to the factory manuals from Harley, Chevy, Ford, Chrysler, my Snap-on and Craftsman compression testers and they all reference Cylinder Cranking Pressure and want it taken on a warm motor.

If they are all wrong and the SAE has a different standard or has changed it I would like to read it so that I do not continue to use an out dated practice and definition.
Thank you in advance for your time.

[hrdtail78]

http://www.bigboyzheadporting.com/TwinCamComp.htm

Somebody should let these guys know. 

....and some call it cranking compression pressure. 

[redmtrckl]

Here is an easy to use calculator. Works pretty good for me.
[attach=0]

[m1marty]

So I've doing it wrong this whole time checking on a cold motor......

[Admiral Akbar]

So I've doing it wrong this whole time checking on a cold motor......

You should do it with a cool motor (room temp) .. If you do it hot the numbers will be off by 10 psi..

[Admiral Akbar]

Thank you max!
Are you accepting cams to profile?
got 266e's new take outs 4miles on them

I could do it but am not sure why you need to.. The specs are in the SE catalog.. Might be worth doing if you suspected something wrong with them..

[Admiral Akbar]

Here you go side by side..


[attach=0]

One on top of the other..


[attach=1]

[BVHOG]

A bunch of variables that can affect measured ccp, first off not all gauges are that accurate, cranking speed has some affect, carbon build up,  lifter bleed down and actual cam specs, not just the .053 specs. To say that a calculator is not accurate just because it doesn't match actual findings is pure BS. The calculator is a baseline and cannot be expected to be 100% accurate when all the variables are factored in.

[glens]

Here you go side by side..
...
One on top of the other..

Any chance you can re-create those screen caps as PNG files instead of JPEG?

[Admiral Akbar]

Here you go side by side..
...
One on top of the other..

Any chance you can re-create those screen caps as PNG files instead of JPEG?

Why?   The report files side by side are listed above.. I can post the xlsx file..

[m1marty]

So I've doing it wrong this whole time checking on a cold motor......

You should do it with a cool motor (room temp) .. If you do it hot the numbers will be off by 10 psi..

I was being a bit of a smart ass. Tone is hard to convey via a computer screen. I've always done my checks on a room temp motor, battery charged between cylinder checks and the same number of spins best I can with the throttle wide open. Works for me.

[Admiral Akbar]

So I've doing it wrong this whole time checking on a cold motor......

You should do it with a cool motor (room temp) .. If you do it hot the numbers will be off by 10 psi..

I was being a bit of a smart ass. Tone is hard to convey via a computer screen. I've always done my checks on a room temp motor, battery charged between cylinder checks and the same number of spins best I can with the throttle wide open. Works for me.

Sorry, I missed that.. 

[glens]

Here you go side by side..
...
One on top of the other..

Any chance you can re-create those screen caps as PNG files instead of JPEG?

Why?   The report files side by side are listed above.. I can post the xlsx file..

Nasty JPEG compression artifacts make it difficult on my advanced eyes.

[attach=0]

PNG is superior for such types of bitmap images.

[attach=1]

Thanks for posting the spreadsheet.

I manipulated your original text files, but it requires a fixed-width font, so:

Code Select Expand

*** Max Heaflow Max Pro Profiler ***
Profiler Resolution Measurement: 3.6° Crankshaft Rotation Steps
Rocker Ratio:                    1.625
Recorded:                        3/21/2015

Recorded:              @ 5:06:07 PM | @ 8:37:05 PM   @ 8:00:26 PM | @ 8:57:10 PM

Cam Name / Model:             SE255 | TTS100                SE255 | TTS100

Report for:                   FrontExhaust                   RearExhaust
Tappet 0.053" opens at:  49.6° BBDC | 41.9° BBDC       49.7° BBDC | 41.0° BBDC
Tappet 0.053" closes at:  6.2° ATDC | 15.5° ATDC        6.3° ATDC | 16.9° ATDC
Duration                     235.8° | 237.4°               236.0° | 237.9°
Lobe Center                  111.7° | 103.2°               111.7° | 102.1°
Lobe  lift                    0.339 | 0.340                 0.339 | 0.340
Valve lift                    0.551 | 0.552                 0.550 | 0.553
Valve TDC Lift                0.113 | 0.163                 0.113 | 0.170

Report for:                    FrontIntake                    RearIntake
Tappet 0.053" opens at:   8.3° BTDC | 7.1° BTDC         8.3° BTDC | 6.1° BTDC
Tappet 0.053" closes at: 23.9° ABDC | 19.8° ABDC       24.7° ABDC | 21.3° ABDC
Duration                     212.2° | 206.9°               213.0° | 207.4°
Lobe Center                   97.8° | 96.4°                 98.2° | 97.6°
Lobe  lift                    0.338 | 0.350                 0.338 | 0.350
Valve lift                    0.548 | 0.569                 0.548 | 0.569
Valve TDC Lift                0.128 | 0.122                 0.128 | 0.117

Cam Lobe LSA                 104.7° | 99.8°                105.0° | 99.8°
Cam Lobe Overlap              14.5° | 22.5°                 14.6° | 23.0°

[hrdtail78]

.....and that is how it should of been posted in the first place. 

[Steve Cole]

A bunch of variables that can affect measured ccp, first off not all gauges are that accurate, cranking speed has some affect, carbon build up,  lifter bleed down and actual cam specs, not just the .053 specs. To say that a calculator is not accurate just because it doesn't match actual findings is pure BS. The calculator is a baseline and cannot be expected to be 100% accurate when all the variables are factored in.

So what is accurate enough? 5%, 10% 20% before its consider just a wag? The truth is most of these CCP calculators are in the ball park on only a few combinations, the rest of the time nothing more...........  Enter CVO 110 engine plugged into most of them and they are off by ~ 15%, if that's good enough for you so be it.

[CowboyTutt]

I haven't posted here in a while, but my experience with a very popular online calculator did not match up at ALL to real world findings using the SE 263 E cam even though we calculated the tolerances to within a "gnat's arse" in my 107.  The actual CCP was much higher, like by 25 ccp!  Dorfman knows this.   

I also once called TTS with a technical question some years ago, and I was put through to the tech department by the operator.  I was speaking to a guy named "Steve" for 10-15 minutes, when it finally dawned on me and I asked the question, "you wouldn't be Steve Cole himself, would you?"  He said yes it was, and continued to enlighten me on many years of very specific research and development in testing of camshafts that blew my mind.  I wish I had recorded the conversation, his expertise was really impressive!  I am to this day very grateful for the time he took to educate me.

I think Steve knows his stuff more than some of the internet researchers here.  He has tested all this stuff over and over. 

Regards, and thanks Steve. 

-Tutt   

[Admiral Akbar]

.....and that is how it should of been posted in the first place.

Jeeze,,, You tell Keith.. Not me... 

[CowboyTutt]

Max, thanks for all your hard work on this thread.  First class stuff!  Since I'm here for few minutes, I had an idea I would like to share with you.  The S&S 635 HO cam seems to be a camshaft of much controversy.  It MAY even use an inverse cam lobe on the exhaust, and it's real life performance seems to defy reason given it's controversial specifications.  If there were another camshaft worth testing the way you did the TTS camshaft, I would think that this camshaft would be the one. 

Any interest? 

Thanks and regards,

-Tutt 

[Admiral Akbar]

A bunch of variables that can affect measured ccp, first off not all gauges are that accurate, cranking speed has some affect, carbon build up,  lifter bleed down and actual cam specs, not just the .053 specs. To say that a calculator is not accurate just because it doesn't match actual findings is pure BS. The calculator is a baseline and cannot be expected to be 100% accurate when all the variables are factored in.

So what is accurate enough? 5%, 10% 20% before its consider just a wag? The truth is most of these CCP calculators are in the ball park on only a few combinations, the rest of the time nothing more...........  Enter CVO 110 engine plugged into most of them and they are off by ~ 15%, if that's good enough for you so be it.

I wouldn't be surprised if its more... You need to disable the auto compression releases.. 

BTW

How are my numbers?   Way off?

[FSG]

.....and that is how it should of been posted in the first place.

    I find that very funny, do tell us the image format of the last 5 or 6 Dyno Sheets that you have posted.

[hrdtail78]

Wasn't talking format.

[FSG]

Well that's how it reads to me, but if your not talking format what is it that you are talking about?

[UltraNutZ]

I haven't posted here in a while, but my experience with a very popular online calculator did not match up at ALL to real world findings using the SE 263 E cam even though we calculated the tolerances to within a "gnat's arse" in my 107.  The actual CCP was much higher, like by 25 ccp!  Dorfman knows this.   

I also once called TTS with a technical question some years ago, and I was put through to the tech department by the operator.  I was speaking to a guy named "Steve" for 10-15 minutes, when it finally dawned on me and I asked the question, "you wouldn't be Steve Cole himself, would you?"  He said yes it was, and continued to enlighten me on many years of very specific research and development in testing of camshafts that blew my mind.  I wish I had recorded the conversation, his expertise was really impressive!  I am to this day very grateful for the time he took to educate me.

I think Steve knows his stuff more than some of the internet researchers here.  He has tested all this stuff over and over. 

Regards, and thanks Steve. 

-Tutt   

This is exactly what I'm finding as well.
I use the BB and the rbracing calcs and they are quite different when you input the same numbers in both and neither were close to actual numbers when tested.   


I also agree with your comments about SC.  Not the most likable guy and that's made pretty obvious, but he knows his stuff.

[1FSTRK]

Welcome to the "Internet Standard" where Moe posts it, Curly re-posts it quoting Moe and Larry comes along to confirm it is true because he has read it at least two places on line.

In the old days in the bars, coffee shops, drive-ins, and race track parking lots this was referred to as the No Sh*t network. Someone made the claim followed by somebody saying "no sh*t really" and with that it was confirmed fact. You could hear it travel through the ranks, repeated and reconfirmed over and over the same way. 

I will just stick to the information put out by the companies that have been producing the products and tools reliably for decades.

[Admiral Akbar]

Welcome to the "Internet Standard" where Moe posts it, Curly re-posts it quoting Moe and Larry comes along to confirm it is true because he has read it at least two places on line.

In the old days in the bars, coffee shops, drive-ins, and race track parking lots this was referred to as the No Sh*t network. Someone made the claim followed by somebody saying "no sh*t really" and with that it was confirmed fact. You could hear it travel through the ranks, repeated and reconfirmed over and over the same way. 

I will just stick to the information put out by the companies that have been producing the products and tools reliably for decades.

Kind of a bit naive aren't you??   Are you do you still shopping at J C Whitney? 

[Don D]

Kinda reminds me of the song "looking for love in all the wrong places"
But I would call it looking for accuracy in all the wrong places.
You have a gauge that is +2% at best and cams that appear to be the same based on events published @.053 lift. Many more variables, not limited to, but including temperature, altitude, cranking speed, cranking duration, and seat to seat timing are factors.
Really guys we are trying to take a test that was meant to be a spot check for engine health and elevate it to a level and expecting results encountered in aerospace labs. The math can be sound but with all the variables in procedure, tools, and atmosphere it just isn't going to happen.

[Steve Cole]

A bunch of variables that can affect measured ccp, first off not all gauges are that accurate, cranking speed has some affect, carbon build up,  lifter bleed down and actual cam specs, not just the .053 specs. To say that a calculator is not accurate just because it doesn't match actual findings is pure BS. The calculator is a baseline and cannot be expected to be 100% accurate when all the variables are factored in.

So what is accurate enough? 5%, 10% 20% before its consider just a wag? The truth is most of these CCP calculators are in the ball park on only a few combinations, the rest of the time nothing more...........  Enter CVO 110 engine plugged into most of them and they are off by ~ 15%, if that's good enough for you so be it.

I wouldn't be surprised if its more... You need to disable the auto compression releases.. 

BTW

How are my numbers?   Way off?

It's the internet, you can tell them whatever you want.

"Profiler Resolution Measurement: 3.6° Crankshaft Rotation Steps"

explain this to them all and then ask the question to yourself again.

[Don D]

Steve
Maybe you could offer us your thoughts on why the CVO 110 motor stock has such a large CCP (I'll stick to the acronym LOL  ) delta as compared to others, all test factors being equal.

"Profiler Resolution Measurement: 3.6° Crankshaft Rotation Steps"

Well the  is not supposed to be there. So the data points are at intervals of 3.6°. Is that not close enough for analysis Steve?

[Admiral Akbar]

A bunch of variables that can affect measured ccp, first off not all gauges are that accurate, cranking speed has some affect, carbon build up,  lifter bleed down and actual cam specs, not just the .053 specs. To say that a calculator is not accurate just because it doesn't match actual findings is pure BS. The calculator is a baseline and cannot be expected to be 100% accurate when all the variables are factored in.

So what is accurate enough? 5%, 10% 20% before its consider just a wag? The truth is most of these CCP calculators are in the ball park on only a few combinations, the rest of the time nothing more...........  Enter CVO 110 engine plugged into most of them and they are off by ~ 15%, if that's good enough for you so be it.

I wouldn't be surprised if its more... You need to disable the auto compression releases.. 

BTW

How are my numbers?   Way off?

It's the internet, you can tell them whatever you want.

"Profiler Resolution Measurement: 3.6° Crankshaft Rotation Steps"

explain this to them all and then ask the question to yourself again.

There is this little magical thing called "interpolation"  I sure you know about it and use to pull extrapolate interpolate data from ECU tables... Or do you just pick out the closest value?    3.6 degree cranks is 1.8 cam.. I've run cams at 3.6, 1.8, 0.9 and 0.45 crank and the numbers don't change that much.. The resolution of my dial indicator is only 0.0005, get more noise there when looking at velocity, acceleration, and jerk, especially as the velocity drops.. Only trying to get ballpark numbers, definitely won't be copying the cam..


Add.. Technically it is still called interpolation or interpolate.. Extrapolate sort of means figuring out where the data is going and not finding a point in the data.  

[FSG]

..........

It's the internet, you can tell them whatever you want.

Sure is and you do it all the time.

I'm still waiting for your post to support one of your previous statements.


http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,81125.msg907239.html#msg907239

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,81125.msg907741.html#msg907741

[Ohio HD]

I haven't posted here in a while, but my experience with a very popular online calculator did not match up at ALL to real world findings using the SE 263 E cam even though we calculated the tolerances to within a "gnat's arse" in my 107.  The actual CCP was much higher, like by 25 ccp!  Dorfman knows this.   

I also once called TTS with a technical question some years ago, and I was put through to the tech department by the operator.  I was speaking to a guy named "Steve" for 10-15 minutes, when it finally dawned on me and I asked the question, "you wouldn't be Steve Cole himself, would you?"  He said yes it was, and continued to enlighten me on many years of very specific research and development in testing of camshafts that blew my mind.  I wish I had recorded the conversation, his expertise was really impressive!  I am to this day very grateful for the time he took to educate me.

I think Steve knows his stuff more than some of the internet researchers here.  He has tested all this stuff over and over. 

Regards, and thanks Steve. 

-Tutt   

This is exactly what I'm finding as well.
I use the BB and the rbracing calcs and they are quite different when you input the same numbers in both and neither were close to actual numbers when tested.   


I also agree with your comments about SC.  Not the most likable guy and that's made pretty obvious, but he knows his stuff.

In my experience the calculators I've used are very accurate. When I built my 107 a few years ago, I was targeting 185 ccp as I wanted an easy starting cheap fuel friendly motor.

I used an Excel sheet I have, Big Boyz and double checked the corrected compression with Pat Kelly's formula. They all agreed with each other quite well, and the outcome was exact as well.

Excel sheet at sea level - 195 ccp - 10.46:1 static - 9.37:1 corrected

Pat Kelly's formula - no ccp - 10.46:1 static - 9.37:1 corrected

Big Boyz at sea level - 193.8 ccp - 10.41:1 static - 9.33:1 corrected

Big Boyz at 850 feet above sea level - 189.1 ccp - 10.41:1 static - 9.33:1 corrected

My actual was 183 ccp at my location of about 850 feet above sea level.


[attach=0]

[attach=1]

[attachimg=3]

[attachimg=4]

[attachimg=5]

[CowboyTutt]

Ohio, good post.  I think that most cams play well with the online calculators but others do not.  I think the SE 255 and SE 263E are exceptions.  Maybe the 266E as well.  I think these cams yield CCP's well above predicted from calculators but maybe someone can show me otherwise.  I am here to learn.  Thank you.  Regards, -Tutt   

[Ohio HD]

Well, here's another one. Ray's 117, calculator shows 196 ccp, motor actually 200 ccp. I think when the motor was fresh Ray may have gotten 205 ccp, but am not sure.

I personally have never seen these calculators way off. If the actual engine dimensions are measure correctly, these should be very close.


[attach=0]  

[strokerjlk]

A bunch of variables that can affect measured ccp, first off not all gauges are that accurate, cranking speed has some affect, carbon build up,  lifter bleed down and actual cam specs, not just the .053 specs. To say that a calculator is not accurate just because it doesn't match actual findings is pure BS. The calculator is a baseline and cannot be expected to be 100% accurate when all the variables are factored in.

So what is accurate enough? 5%, 10% 20% before its consider just a wag? The truth is most of these CCP calculators are in the ball park on only a few combinations, the rest of the time nothing more...........  Enter CVO 110 engine plugged into most of them and they are off by ~ 15%, if that's good enough for you so be it.

I wouldn't be surprised if its more... You need to disable the auto compression releases.. 

BTW

How are my numbers?   Way off?

It's the internet, you can tell them whatever you want.

"Profiler Resolution Measurement: 3.6° Crankshaft Rotation Steps"

explain this to them all and then ask the question to yourself again.

There is this little magical thing called "interpolation"  I sure you know about it and use to pull extrapolate interpolate data from ECU tables... Or do you just pick out the closest value?    3.6 degree cranks is 1.8 cam.. I've run cams at 3.6, 1.8, 0.9 and 0.45 crank and the numbers don't change that much.. The resolution of my dial indicator is only 0.0005, get more noise there when looking at velocity, acceleration, and jerk, especially as the velocity drops.. Only trying to get ballpark numbers, definitely won't be copying the cam..


Add.. Technically it is still called interpolation or interpolate.. Extrapolate sort of means figuring out where the data is going and not finding a point in the data.

Copy the copy of a copy ?
Once you copy the copy of a copy ....it's good for 96-110 ci  maybe even a 117 .
Gotta love the one cam fits all .. Copy's

[hrdtail78]

Back to the OT

Looks like TTS did the research and brought a different cam to the market.  Wasn't what people wanted to see, but reality doesn't always line up with popular opinion. 

When is the next set of numbers coming out?  Be nice to do some Tman, Woods and Andrews.  Really see what is what and what came first.

Also be pretty cool to do 2 of the same cam.  I have seen it stated on this site (no, I am not going to find it) about cam manufacture tolerance that was pretty hard for me to believe.  But this same guy believe in 116% duty cycle.

[Admiral Akbar]

Back to the OT

Looks like TTS did the research and brought a different cam to the market.  Wasn't what people wanted to see, but reality doesn't always line up with popular opinion. 

snip

I applaud what Steve Cole did.. He figured out a way to optimize cam timing to produce maximum low end torque in a 103 bagger. His design methodology was excellent.. 

Now I'm not a mainstream HD bagger guy and this may be the the next whisbang cam that the bagger crowd loves.. I don't know.. I do know that this cam does not fit my riding style. Neither do the builds that push the torque up top. (flatland cams).   I do try to educate people to my my way of thinking but doubt I'll find many converts.. No biggy.. I'm not loosing any sleep over it..

[hrdtail78]

Back to the OT

Looks like TTS did the research and brought a different cam to the market.  Wasn't what people wanted to see, but reality doesn't always line up with popular opinion. 

snip

I applaud what Steve Cole did.. He figured out a way to optimize cam timing to produce maximum low end torque in a 103 bagger. His design methodology was excellent.. 

Now I'm not a mainstream HD bagger guy and this may be the the next whisbang cam that the bagger crowd loves.. I don't know.. I do know that this cam does not fit my riding style. Neither do the builds that push the torque up top. (flatland cams).   I do try to educate people to my my way of thinking but doubt I'll find many converts.. No biggy.. I'm not loosing any sleep over it..

I have put many smiles on customers faces with stage 2 and 3 using the LET cams like the 555tqster.  Most customer will concur with a 1500-4500 rpm riding.  I guess I don't know what you are looking for so I don't have an opinion on it. 

[Admiral Akbar]

Back to the OT

Looks like TTS did the research and brought a different cam to the market.  Wasn't what people wanted to see, but reality doesn't always line up with popular opinion. 

snip

I applaud what Steve Cole did.. He figured out a way to optimize cam timing to produce maximum low end torque in a 103 bagger. His design methodology was excellent.. 

Now I'm not a mainstream HD bagger guy and this may be the the next whisbang cam that the bagger crowd loves.. I don't know.. I do know that this cam does not fit my riding style. Neither do the builds that push the torque up top. (flatland cams).   I do try to educate people to my my way of thinking but doubt I'll find many converts.. No biggy.. I'm not loosing any sleep over it..

I have put many smiles on customers faces with stage 2 and 3 using the LET cams like the 555tqster.  Most customer will concur with a 1500-4500 rpm riding.  I guess I don't know what you are looking for so I don't have an opinion on it.

Want the maximized area under the TQ curve with little to no up slope on the TQ and no down.. 2000 to 6500..

[UltraNutZ]

One Monkey in a tree is a Monkey in a tree. Two Monkey's in a tree is a couple of Monkey's in a tree. Three or more Monkey's in a tree is a gang of Monkeys with no direction but to argue over what branch or who gets the last banana or... Monkey see Monkey do.

[Admiral Akbar]

One Monkey in a tree is a Monkey in a tree. Two Monkey's in a tree is a couple of Monkey's in a tree. Three or more Monkey's in a tree is a gang of Monkeys with no direction but to argue over what branch or who gets the last banana or... Monkey see Monkey do.

Man.. Didn't know you smoked the good stuff.. 

[glens]

Want the maximized area under the TQ curve with little to no up slope on the TQ and no down.. 2000 to 6500..

Okay.  Fair enough.  Some want it 1500 to 4500.  Okay.  Fair enough.

[No Cents]

Back to the OT

Looks like TTS did the research and brought a different cam to the market.  Wasn't what people wanted to see, but reality doesn't always line up with popular opinion. 

snip

I applaud what Steve Cole did.. He figured out a way to optimize cam timing to produce maximum low end torque in a 103 bagger. His design methodology was excellent.. 

Now I'm not a mainstream HD bagger guy and this may be the the next whisbang cam that the bagger crowd loves.. I don't know.. I do know that this cam does not fit my riding style. Neither do the builds that push the torque up top. (flatland cams).   I do try to educate people to my my way of thinking but doubt I'll find many converts.. No biggy.. I'm not loosing any sleep over it..

I have put many smiles on customers faces with stage 2 and 3 using the LET cams like the 555tqster.  Most customer will concur with a 1500-4500 rpm riding.  I guess I don't know what you are looking for so I don't have an opinion on it.

Want the maximized area under the TQ curve with little to no up slope on the TQ and no down.. 2000 to 6500..

  something like this one Max?
[attach=0]

Ray

[UltraNutZ]

Well, here's another one. Ray's 117, calculator shows 196 ccp, motor actually 200 ccp. I think when the motor was fresh Ray may have gotten 205 ccp, but am not sure.

I personally have never seen these calculators way off. If the actual engine dimensions are measure correctly, these should be very close.


[attach=0]  

I measured and measured and measured because I thought I was wrong on my 57H build.

The BB and RB racing calcs were off 8+ CCP.  Might not mean a whole lot up north, but down here where the heat and humidity can kill a man, it makes a world of difference on these air cooled motors.

Hell punch in the same numbers for the same cam on the RB racing and BB calcs and you'll see that they themselves are not accurate between each other so who do you believe?

[Ohio HD]

I don't know Todd. I just used the R&B calculators. Gave me 11.4:1 for the 117 inch static compression, and then 9.46:1 is the dynamic compression, and 197 ccp. So this is all pretty close to the other calculators I use.   


11.4 static

Camshaft, Rod Length, Boost and Altitude Correction to Compression

Your engine summary is as follows: Bore 4.125 inches, stroke 4.375 inches, rod c-c length 7.667 inches, with a static compression ratio of 11.4 :1. Your camshaft specifications call for an inlet valve closing of 56 degrees ABDC (after bottom dead center).

Your chamber volume is 92.13 cc's. With this camshaft your dynamic, or effective stroke is 3.63 inches. Your dynamic compression ratio is 9.46 :1 corrected for cam timing, altitude, and rod length. Your dynamic cranking pressure, corrected for cam timing, rod length and altitude is 197.23 PSI. Your dynamic boost compression ratio, reflecting static c.r., cam timing, altitude, and 0 PSI is 9.46 :1.

[Admiral Akbar]

I don't know Todd. I just used the R&B calculators. Gave me 11.4:1 for the 117 inch static compression, and then 9.46:1 is the dynamic compression, and 197 ccp. So this is all pretty close to the other calculators I use.   


11.4 static

Camshaft, Rod Length, Boost and Altitude Correction to Compression

Your engine summary is as follows: Bore 4.125 inches, stroke 4.375 inches, rod c-c length 7.667 inches, with a static compression ratio of 11.4 :1. Your camshaft specifications call for an inlet valve closing of 56 degrees ABDC (after bottom dead center).

Your chamber volume is 92.13 cc's. With this camshaft your dynamic, or effective stroke is 3.63 inches. Your dynamic compression ratio is 9.46 :1 corrected for cam timing, altitude, and rod length. Your dynamic cranking pressure, corrected for cam timing, rod length and altitude is 197.23 PSI. Your dynamic boost compression ratio, reflecting static c.r., cam timing, altitude, and 0 PSI is 9.46 :1.

Fwiw, It's better to call the calculated CR "corrected" compression ratio.. Why? Because it is static calculation based on displacement only that is corrected for intake close.. Dynamic implies RPM.. It would be best to calculate a dynamic CR based on actual VEs at a specific RPM.. That would be dynamic..  That is what Performance Trends calls "dynamic compression"

[sgtmitch]

So now that the TTS-100 specs are published, I would like to hear opinions from the dyno guys as to how it stacks up as a Trike cam.

Installed these in my Dad's 2010 Triglide and love them. Great low end torque and they run out as far as he'll ever take it probably; maybe 4800-ish?

Can't offer any dyno results, don't have any yet. It seems to be running pretty good. I'm sure there's always more to be had, but he's happy where it is.

Of course bread and water is just fine if you've never had steak.

[glens]

I'd imagine that's a little more than "bread and water".

[sgtmitch]

Oh yeah, no doubt. I guess I could have come up with an analogy with less disparity. 

[JohnCA58]

So does anyone have one of these cams in stock and for sale right now ?

[UltraNutZ]

last I checked John, they're only available direct from TTS.

[JohnCA58]

last I checked John, they're only available direct from TTS.

Nope,  talk to Vickie at TTS,  Steve sold out and waiting on another order in couple weeks.

[Tommy D]

So does anyone have one of these cams in stock and for sale right now ?

Check with Steve @ FullSac, he may stock them?

[Ohio HD]

Or ask TTS who may buy them for stock.

[Tommy D]

Or ask TTS who may buy them for stock.

Yes, that also 

[DrSpencer]

2011, 103" Street Glide: Stage I, SE255's, Fuel Moto Jackpot Head pipe, Rineharts.

CCP with ACR's: FT: 175, RR: 175

CCP with ACR's disabled: FT: 230, RR: 230

Can anyone comment on these numbers?

Can anyone compare and contrast SE255's vs TTS 100?

Thanks

[DrSpencer]

2011, 103" Street Glide: Stage I, SE255's, Fuel Moto Jackpot Head pipe, Rineharts.

CCP with ACR's: FT: 175, RR: 175

CCP with ACR's disabled: FT: 230, RR: 230

Can anyone comment on these numbers?

Can anyone compare and contrast SE255's vs TTS 100?

Thanks

Anyone?

Thanks

[Gordon61]

well at least the cylinders read the same so that's good

230 seems a tad high from what I've read ...I was aiming for 195.

But what kind of gauge and how accurate is it (I paid less than $20 for mine so all bets are off on that one  ) ...and do the absolute numbers actually mean all that much anyway.  If it's not pinging like crazy and runs good then you're probably fine.

[DrSpencer]

well at least the cylinders read the same so that's good

230 seems a tad high from what I've read ...I was aiming for 195.

But what kind of gauge and how accurate is it (I paid less than $20 for mine so all bets are off on that one  ) ...and do the absolute numbers actually mean all that much anyway.  If it's not pinging like crazy and runs good then you're probably fine.

230 is with the ACR's disabled.

Is this still a concern?

Thanks

[rigidthumper]

They work really well for a torque cam- better than the 255 everywhere.  My sons CVO made 111/93 with the 255, DDFC, and DL tuner, switched to the TTS100 cams and made 117/98. Never worried about the high CCP, it's only a few pounds higher than the 255s.

[DrSpencer]

They work really well for a torque cam- better than the 255 everywhere.  My sons CVO made 111/93 with the 255, DDFC, and DL tuner, switched to the TTS100 cams and made 117/98. Never worried about the high CCP, it's only a few pounds higher than the 255s.

I thought the TTS100 gives lower CCP than the SE255?

Thanks

[Gordon61]

If yours is a stock 103 with stock head gasket and heads the Big Boyz calculator suggests that the CCP should be about 193 at sea level.

230 is more likely an inaccurate gauge.

Having said that I read something recently that suggested that absolute CCP numbers may be a bit of smoke and mirrors.  Apparently some of the calculators come up with different numbers and then you factor in tolerances and gauge accuracy and well the actual read number may not be that useful.  The good point is both pots read the same and the numbers are certainly high enough to suggest the engine is in good nic.

Maybe a separate question on CCP in the mechanical section will get some debate.

[rigidthumper]

Calculated CCP can differ from actual CCP for a number of reasons. Altitude affects it. Accuracy of measurements (GIGO). Gauge. Quality of seal at the head. Quality of the valve job. What happens between the number given on the cam spec sheet, and the actual valve close. Some manufacturers have gentler ramps, which is quieter, but bleeds off a little more pressure. Some have aggressive ramps, which close the valve quicker, trapping a little more pressure.
CVO 110 with a 255 is advertised at 9.3:1, so it should crank about 185 at sea level, less at altitude. I've never had a healthy one crank below 210, usually ~215, and I'm about a 1000' ASL. TTS 100 makes more torque, so I suppose it closes earlier.

[Karl H.]

I thought the TTS100 gives lower CCP than the SE255?

Thanks

The TTS100 has an earlier intake close than the SE255 (see reply #37). Therefore the CCP is higher.

Karl