14+ compensator spring preload check

[joe_lyons]

Talked to tech services yesterday and they have a new procedure for noisy comps that some people have ran into.  The complete compensator will need to be removed and as it is assembled sit with the large hex facing down on the table.  The depth from the top spring to the spline adapter is what needs to be measured.  The spec. is .286"-.326".  If it is less than .286" then there are spacers that can be used to add more preloaded.  These spacers are .031" each and I believe a max of two can be used but possibly 3.  The spacer PN is 10300021.

[Just Nick]

Thanks Joe good to know

[rbabos]

Talked to tech services yesterday and they have a new procedure for noisy comps that some people have ran into.  The complete compensator will need to be removed and as it is assembled sit with the large hex facing down on the table.  The depth from the top spring to the spline adapter is what needs to be measured.  The spec. is .286"-.326".  If it is less than .286" then there are spacers that can be used to add more preloaded.  These spacers are .031" each and I believe a max of two can be used but possibly 3.  The spacer PN is 1030021.

These fools do realize that adding material in the form of shims reduces the max travel in the comp right otherwise why have the SE version in the first place? That dimension should be accomplished with the natural arc in the springs, not robbing Peter to pay Paul with filler . Classic MoCo move.
Oh, thanks for that bit of info Joe.
Ron

[Admiral Akbar]

Talked to tech services yesterday and they have a new procedure for noisy comps that some people have ran into.  The complete compensator will need to be removed and as it is assembled sit with the large hex facing down on the table.  The depth from the top spring to the spline adapter is what needs to be measured.  The spec. is .286"-.326".  If it is less than .286" then there are spacers that can be used to add more preloaded.  These spacers are .031" each and I believe a max of two can be used but possibly 3.  The spacer PN is 1030021.

These fools do realize that adding material in the form of shims reduces the max travel in the comp right otherwise why have the SE version in the first place? That dimension should be accomplished with the natural arc in the springs, not robbing Peter to pay Paul with filler . Classic MoCo move.
Oh, thanks for that bit of info Joe.
Ron

Could be but could also just be taking into account the tolerances of for core shift on machined parts.. Like the sprocket and cam? In that case they are trying to get the unit to bottom at the same place and have the same preload..

[rbabos]

Talked to tech services yesterday and they have a new procedure for noisy comps that some people have ran into.  The complete compensator will need to be removed and as it is assembled sit with the large hex facing down on the table.  The depth from the top spring to the spline adapter is what needs to be measured.  The spec. is .286"-.326".  If it is less than .286" then there are spacers that can be used to add more preloaded.  These spacers are .031" each and I believe a max of two can be used but possibly 3.  The spacer PN is 1030021.

These fools do realize that adding material in the form of shims reduces the max travel in the comp right otherwise why have the SE version in the first place? That dimension should be accomplished with the natural arc in the springs, not robbing Peter to pay Paul with filler . Classic MoCo move.
Oh, thanks for that bit of info Joe.
Ron

Could be but could also just be taking into account the tolerances of for core shift on machined parts.. Like the sprocket and cam? In that case they are trying to get the unit to bottom at the same place and have the same preload..

Possible but that brings up another point. What tolerance do these people work at and why not use the contact points of both cam and spokes for reference, to set distance for opposite end machining for a correct stack up of components. That's the purpose of machining is to hold a tolerance.  Not smooth the bitch and hope it ends up close, right? I'm still suspecting disc spring qc is the issue.
Ron

[Buffalo]

HD specs have gone back to the good old days of Flatheads and Knuckles, maybe AMF, didn't you know that?? Engine and attached parts with almost every part different. Sloppy tolerances either built in or deliberately ignored, but "they\re all like that attitude" allows the shoddy  workmanship and assembled by bolt drivers (not engine builders). The fact that several 1000's of them work ok is a mystery to me!
And all on non rebuildable (according to HD) throwaway parts. 
Harley lives on and feeds off the buyers, knowing that most have no idea or care where the sparkplugs are.These are the real $$ makers for HD, swallowing the hype and literature while blindly accepting anything the HD shops tell them. 7 Years of failed compensators proves that point. All to protect a marshmellow crankshaft made from even poorer quality castings to make more $$.
It doesn't surprise me that .030 shims might be required due to building tolerances! 
I certainly don't understand the machining tolerance problems, any remotely modern cnc machine will keep .0001 or better on parts. A company I worked for replaced a 15 yr old Mazak cnc that would not hold .001 any longer, even tho they built commercial dishwashers, they demanded better accuracy!
I'll keep my 01 Dyna with an S&S engine.  fwiw  Buffalo

[BVHOG]

Great info Joe and you didn't even have to quiz us to what we were looking at before giving us the info

[rbabos]

HD specs have gone back to the good old days of Flatheads and Knuckles, maybe AMF, didn't you know that?? Engine and attached parts with almost every part different. Sloppy tolerances either built in or deliberately ignored, but "they\re all like that attitude" allows the shoddy  workmanship and assembled by bolt drivers (not engine builders). The fact that several 1000's of them work ok is a mystery to me!
And all on non rebuildable (according to HD) throwaway parts. 
Harley lives on and feeds off the buyers, knowing that most have no idea or care where the sparkplugs are.These are the real $$ makers for HD, swallowing the hype and literature while blindly accepting anything the HD shops tell them. 7 Years of failed compensators proves that point. All to protect a marshmellow crankshaft made from even poorer quality castings to make more $$.
It doesn't surprise me that .030 shims might be required due to building tolerances! 
I certainly don't understand the machining tolerance problems, any remotely modern cnc machine will keep .0001 or better on parts. A company I worked for replaced a 15 yr old Mazak cnc that would not hold .001 any longer, even tho they built commercial dishwashers, they demanded better accuracy!
I'll keep my 01 Dyna with an S&S engine.  fwiw  Buffalo

Never mind that 8 year run of design incompetence of compensator shame. This shim deal is just another example. First version had the shims, then they removed them, likely adding length to the end of the cam to eliminate them or so we thought. So here we are again with measuring and possibly adding them back to once again make up for a dimensional preload mistake. Wonder how many actually fall within their claimed spec which technically is the wrong way to measure anyway. True preload needs to be done with an indicator on the end of the comp hex from 0 lash bolt head contact to stack bottoming. That encompasses all related components that get torqued from crank spacer on out. I smell shim sales going up. Let's face it, had they left the shims in in the first place, nobody would have noticed a higher preload then needed. Noise tends to allert the owner more than a slight increase in pulse. Also explains why some are quieter then others out of the box with the current A version.
Ron

[kcbike]

Joe, thanks for the info. To all the others who seem to know all of Harleys engineering problems. Maybe you could design a better compensator. We would appreciate that.

[rbabos]

Joe, thanks for the info. To all the others who seem to know all of Harleys engineering problems. Maybe you could design a better compensator. We would appreciate that.

Current comp is fine and function wise it would be damn difficult to design a better one to cover both smooth cruise feel and high torque pulse protection of the crank. It needs better QC and better oiling. The best oiling enhancement to the OEM is already available. The qc part is up to the company, however with Joe's post the owner now has a better reference to control his install to be more correct. How accurate those dimensions are, is still to be determined but it's something to go by.
Ron

[PoorUB]

What is the repair if the spring stack up is under the limit, with shims? Replace all the springs?

[rbabos]

What is the repair if the spring stack up is under the limit, with shims? Replace all the springs?

Springs seldom get weak on that comp. Your friendly HD dealer should or can get the shim(s) to give the correct preload.
Ron

[PoorUB]

What is the repair if the spring stack up is under the limit, with shims? Replace all the springs?

Springs seldom get weak on that comp. Your friendly HD dealer should or can get the shim(s) to give the correct preload.
Ron

I have two shims in it already, and measuring with shims it measures .265". One more would get it into the middle of the spec, not good enough IMO. Four shims??

Here are pics of the cam and sprocket. These parts have roughly 12,000 miles on them. I have the OEM oil scoop glued in place with JB Weld and it is still in place. The compensator spokes and cam is in great shape so the oil scoop appears to be doing it's job.

I am going to pick up a new spring set and bolt and see where I end up. This compensator was quiet when it was first put in and with so little wear I am thinking the springs are weak.

[rageglide]

wow P'UB that looks damn good.

kcbike.  No disrespect, but, do you know what Cost Engineering is?  HD spends a ton of money purely with the goal of saving money.  This comp design is their 3rd effort to save money because of the cheapo crank design.    HD banks on small percentage of people putting lots of miles on these bikes.  2yrs of warranty and most people barely put 3k miles a year, and that's generous.  If the cranks cant' make it 2 yrs the problem is on the owner, not HD.  If the customer buys ESP because they're concerned the bike will need it...  It's ridiculous.  If GM, Ford, Dodge, Toyata, Honda had this kind of MTBTF that HD does, heads would roll and you'd see a class action lawsuit.   It's really quite absurd.  But hey, most of HDs core market is ready for a 3 wheeler or a wheel chair...  I don't think the SOA wannabees are gonna carry this company long term.

Just my corporation polluted opinion.  :-(

[PoorUB]

I picked up a couple more shims today. I might be crazy, but I have a total of four shims in the spring pack. That brought the stack up right to the top end of the measurement Joe posted, .326". It did quiet down the compensator.

After looking at it again I wonder what would happen if one were to remove the one light spring, shim up the difference and run only the four heavier springs? I find it hard to believe the smaller spring is even doing any thing at this point. I also measured the thickness of all the springs, and the hub of the compensator and if they were all collapsed there was roughly .490" of travel.

[FSG]

How well does the small spring fit to the back of the sliding cam?

Is the full 360 degs of the back of the cam perpendicular to the bore?

[PoorUB]

How well does the small spring fit to the back of the sliding cam?

Is the full 360 degs of the back of the cam perpendicular to the bore?

The cam is completely flat on the back side. I was thinking with a bunch of preload on the springs the lighter spring is close to completely compressed.

[FSG]

If it's flattened then it's nothing but a spacer so there'd be no harm done replacing it with shims.

[rbabos]

Removing it completely will add a touch of harshness to the ride in light load. Not earth shattering but noticable. It's best to keep it in there and shim for correct preload.  Needing 4 shims, those springs or something is seriously wrong there and correct operation of the comp has already been compromised with reduced travel. Sounding like there's a spring qc issue that wasn't there in the 08 versions.
Ron

[PoorUB]

Removing it completely will add a touch of harshness to the ride in light load. Not earth shattering but noticable. It's best to keep it in there and shim for correct preload.  Needing 4 shims, those springs or something is seriously wrong there and correct operation of the comp has already been compromised with reduced travel. Sounding like there's a spring qc issue that wasn't there in the 08 versions.
Ron

Wadwa mean QC issues?! You do know HD bought the springs from the lowest overseas bidder!

Do you think that small spring is even doing anything with .326" preload? I did not measure the height of that spring, but it can not be much more than that and as stiff as the other four springs are they sure are not moving very far until the little one gives up.

[rbabos]

Removing it completely will add a touch of harshness to the ride in light load. Not earth shattering but noticable. It's best to keep it in there and shim for correct preload.  Needing 4 shims, those springs or something is seriously wrong there and correct operation of the comp has already been compromised with reduced travel. Sounding like there's a spring qc issue that wasn't there in the 08 versions.
Ron

Wadwa mean QC issues?! You do know HD bought the springs from the lowest overseas bidder!

Do you think that small spring is even doing anything with .326" preload? I did not measure the height of that spring, but it can not be much more than that and as stiff as the other four springs are they sure are not moving very far until the little one gives up.

If you have .326 preload you no longer have a useful working comp. It should be in the order of .090-.125. The small spring will be about 70% +/- compressed at that point and still effective. Back in the day we measured spring stacks with many miles on them and compared to new. No meaningfull difference between the two. This was near the end of the 08a runs.  I fully understand MoCo greed on saving a buck at the cost of quality and likely this is what's causing this round of shim bs that should not be required in the first place. Bulletin does not include all components to do an actual real preload check. Only a spring check. Example, say you have .060 wear on the spokes, what happens to the total?
Ron

[PoorUB]

Joe Lyon's post give .326 as the max stack measurement, maybe we are talking two different things, or two different ways of measuring. Read Joe's post, that is how I measured it.

I measured each springs and shim thickness, plus the length splined hub and hub on the rotor, and subtracting the total of the two measurements I had about .490" before the spring would be completely collapsed. Pretty sure I am good to go. I have put about 100 miles on today doing tuning runs and it seems to be working well.

[rbabos]

Joe Lyon's post give .326 as the max stack measurement, maybe we are talking two different things, or two different ways of measuring. Read Joe's post, that is how I measured it.

I measured each springs and shim thickness, plus the length splined hub and hub on the rotor, and subtracting the total of the two measurements I had about .490" before the spring would be completely collapsed. Pretty sure I am good to go. I have put about 100 miles on today doing tuning runs and it seems to be working well.

Two different ways.
Ron

[Unbalanced]

Thanks for the info on this.  On my 4th compensator last 3 have been the latest models.   Today they installed 3 shims in mine.  I was at the very minimum of the spec quoted above and had 2 shims in there.  They put a 3rd shim in still and have just a little noise at .317, but not like it was before, figured it couldn't make it worse than it was.   

Going to ride it a bit with the small amount of noise and see what happens.  Interested in seeing how the well the Baker fix works or a possible comparison of the compusaver vs. the baker as  choices to resolve the issue.

[MarcV125]

if you look at the new directions for the Se comp it now looks like it comes with two of those washers and they want you to use those right off the bat..
http://www.harley-davidson.com/app-content/service/isheets/-J05674.PDF

[rbabos]

if you look at the new directions for the Se comp it now looks like it comes with two of those washers and they want you to use those right off the bat..
http://www.harley-davidson.com/app-content/service/isheets/-J05674.PDF

I believe that sheet is for the pre A version so the A doesn't have shims. One should measure then add or not.
Ron

[Admiral Akbar]

if you look at the new directions for the Se comp it now looks like it comes with two of those washers and they want you to use those right off the bat..
http://www.harley-davidson.com/app-content/service/isheets/-J05674.PDF

Look at M-1352 in the HD service section..HD clarified when they were supposed to be used after the J05674.. Then flip-flopped back.. Now asking for a measurement first.. 

[MarcV125]

if you look at the new directions for the Se comp it now looks like it comes with two of those washers and they want you to use those right off the bat..
http://www.harley-davidson.com/app-content/service/isheets/-J05674.PDF

Look at M-1352 in the HD service section..HD clarified when they were supposed to be used after the J05674.. Then flip-flopped back.. Now asking for a measurement first..

gotcha good catch guys ..
marc

[Admiral Akbar]

Any got a primary open or a rotor around.. Mine has been knocking and the stackup shows about 0.265 to 0.270.. My rotor looks to have the spring seat worn so I expect spring seat to number is up some... I'm getting about 0.167..

[MarcV125]

Any got a primary open or a rotor around.. Mine has been knocking and the stackup shows about 0.265 to 0.270.. My rotor looks to have the spring seat worn so I expect spring seat to number is up some... I'm getting about 0.167..

well i did tonight max as i had to take my Baker comp out, while i took it out i measured my spring stackup for my SE and i was at .261 so i added two shims to take me to the high side of the Rec. , but sorry didnt see your post in time..
marc

[rageglide]

Bringing this thread back up.  I decided to measure my 14+ comp which I thought was a bit noisy out of the box.  Measuring is tough (IMO) because without a level on the caliper you can easily get the angle off and see drastically huge differences in measurements.  Anyway, I measured about .296-.305 (measured two places).

Looking at M-1352... reference to the CVO models using a sliding cam with a groove.  Looked at my comp and see that it's the same grooved cam.  I presume this was a flying change.

Kit was shipped to me in June 2014
[attach=0]

[masstch]

Not hto ijack this thread but if there is info out there with a spring stack height number for the SEcomp (2010+) please point me to it. Mine measures 1.275

[rbabos]

Not hto ijack this thread but if there is info out there with a spring stack height number for the SEcomp (2010+) please point me to it. Mine measures 1.275

All SE comps should be about the same from the first 08 version. The measurement you want is the stack as in the bulletin. This takes care of any other component variances. .286-.326. Preferably the high number for a new comp as it will wear slightly to seat all 3 cam/spoke contacts from a new state as well as any disc edge wear. Even though there is some edge wear the pressure should result the same in operation, as long as the mentioned preload distance is retained. Max pressure should not change much over time, just the starting point pressure from wear points.
Ron

[gabbyduffy]

Bringing this thread back up.  I decided to measure my 14+ comp which I thought was a bit noisy out of the box.  Measuring is tough (IMO) because without a level on the caliper you can easily get the angle off and see drastically huge differences in measurements.  Anyway, I measured about .296-.305 (measured two places).

Looking at M-1352... reference to the CVO models using a sliding cam with a groove.  Looked at my comp and see that it's the same grooved cam.  I presume this was a flying change.

Kit was shipped to me in June 2014
[attach=0]

If your taking measurements from the photo you posted thats the wrong way to measure it. The comp. needs to be measured just like it would be sitting in the primary, turn it up side down on a flat surface and measure it that way.

[masstch]

Late to this discussion of course and I don't have my comp apart right now but reading this has me confused a bit.
I didn't know to measure it this particular way, or even that there was a proscribed method and spec floating around. My 2010 CVO has the original SE comp which shows significant spoke wear. The silly bit is that the comp makes NO noise while riding. Only occasionally will it even clunk when I kill it.
Mine does not have the .031 shims and I didn't know to take the measurement by the "book method" when I was in there. I did measure and record the height of the full spring pack (as shown in Fig. 5 of the SE instructions). The number was 1.275". I'm curious if anyone knows the comparable measurement for their (new or used) spring pack, just for comparison of the springs only. I'm fully aware of the importance of the *installed* height in determining pre-load. I'd like to know, though, how much deviation exists within the spring packs in the general population of them.

[rageglide]

If your taking measurements from the photo you posted thats the wrong way to measure it. The comp. needs to be measured just like it would be sitting in the primary, turn it up side down on a flat surface and measure it that way.

Ha!   No I measured just like Joe shows in his picture.   I flipped the part so I could take a clear picture of the groove.

When you read the M-1352 bulletin it discusses the CVO having the groove and that it does not need shims.  I presume the 14+ kits were shipping the same cam as the 2014 non-CVOs.

[rageglide]

Late to this discussion of course and I don't have my comp apart right now but reading this has me confused a bit.
I didn't know to measure it thus particular way, or even that there was a proscribed method and spec floating around. My 2010 CVO has the original SE comp which shows significant spoke wear. The silly bit is that the comp makes NO noise while riding. Only occasionally will it even clunk when I kill it.
Mine does not have the .031 shims and I didn't know to take the measurement by the "book method" when I was in there. I did measure and record the height of the full spring pack (as shown in Fig. 5 of the SE instructions). The number was 1.275". I'm curious if anyone knows the comparable measurement for their (new or used) spring pack, just for comparison of the springs only. I'm fully aware of the importance of the *installed* height in determining pre-load. I'd like to know, though, how much deviation exists within the spring packs in the general population of them.

You've got the original SE Compensator, not the newer version. So I expect things will be different.   But I will measure the spring pack on my 14+ comp this evening.

[rbabos]

If your taking measurements from the photo you posted thats the wrong way to measure it. The comp. needs to be measured just like it would be sitting in the primary, turn it up side down on a flat surface and measure it that way.

Ha!   No I measured just like Joe shows in his picture.   I flipped the part so I could take a clear picture of the groove.

When you read the M-1352 bulletin it discusses the CVO having the groove and that it does not need shims.  I presume the 14+ kits were shipping the same cam as the 2014 non-CVOs.

The groove is an identifier to the ones not needing shims, supposedly. Don't place faith in that as there is too much variances in parts depending on who supplied and when. QC is not high on the list with these things. Measure,  then you know and will have correct preload. That applies to all SE Comps, both new and ones that have some miles on them. CVO's use the same comp as the rest.
Ron

[rageglide]

If your taking measurements from the photo you posted thats the wrong way to measure it. The comp. needs to be measured just like it would be sitting in the primary, turn it up side down on a flat surface and measure it that way.

Ha!   No I measured just like Joe shows in his picture.   I flipped the part so I could take a clear picture of the groove.

When you read the M-1352 bulletin it discusses the CVO having the groove and that it does not need shims.  I presume the 14+ kits were shipping the same cam as the 2014 non-CVOs.

The groove is an identifier to the ones not needing shims, supposedly. Don't place faith in that as there is too much variances in parts depending on who supplied and when. QC is not high on the list with these things. Measure,  then you know and will have correct preload. That applies to all SE Comps, both new and ones that have some miles on them. CVO's use the same comp as the rest.
Ron

No argument there... but there ARE two different parts out in the field... that's all I'm saying.  The CVOs used a different part than the rest of the bikes if the Bulletin is to be believed. 

From M-1352:

"Overview
See Figure1.  Early production 2014 non-CVO vehicles with a 96 or 103 engine have two 0.031 in shims (1) installed between the large compensator spring (3) and rotor shell (2).

During 2014 model production, a running change will occur where material will be added to the slider cam, eliminating the need for the shims.  The revised slider cam will be identified by having a groove (11) around the circumference on the end toward the rotor shell.  When assembling a compensator assembly, install shims only on vehicles without the identifying groove.

2014 CVO models are equipped with a new slider cam.  These models do not require shims.  This slider cam can be identified by having a groove (11) around the circumference on the end toward the rotor shell."

CVO or not, the SE kits are likely to also have a flying change because they were available at the same time as the 2014 production.   Just trying to help make it clear to check...

[rbabos]

If your taking measurements from the photo you posted thats the wrong way to measure it. The comp. needs to be measured just like it would be sitting in the primary, turn it up side down on a flat surface and measure it that way.

Ha!   No I measured just like Joe shows in his picture.   I flipped the part so I could take a clear picture of the groove.

When you read the M-1352 bulletin it discusses the CVO having the groove and that it does not need shims.  I presume the 14+ kits were shipping the same cam as the 2014 non-CVOs.

The groove is an identifier to the ones not needing shims, supposedly. Don't place faith in that as there is too much variances in parts depending on who supplied and when. QC is not high on the list with these things. Measure,  then you know and will have correct preload. That applies to all SE Comps, both new and ones that have some miles on them. CVO's use the same comp as the rest.
Ron

No argument there... but there ARE two different parts out in the field... that's all I'm saying.  The CVOs used a different part than the rest of the bikes if the Bulletin is to be believed. 

From M-1352:

"Overview
See Figure1.  Early production 2014 non-CVO vehicles with a 96 or 103 engine have two 0.031 in shims (1) installed between the large compensator spring (3) and rotor shell (2).

During 2014 model production, a running change will occur where material will be added to the slider cam, eliminating the need for the shims.  The revised slider cam will be identified by having a groove (11) around the circumference on the end toward the rotor shell.  When assembling a compensator assembly, install shims only on vehicles without the identifying groove.

2014 CVO models are equipped with a new slider cam.  These models do not require shims.  This slider cam can be identified by having a groove (11) around the circumference on the end toward the rotor shell."

CVO or not, the SE kits are likely to also have a flying change because they were available at the same time as the 2014 production.   Just trying to help make it clear to check...

Just go with the preload check and it will tell you if shims or more of them are needed or not, even if they are present or not as it sits. Don't assume even if it came with shims it's correct. It was built by HD, remember?
Ron

[rageglide]

Just go with the preload check and it will tell you if shims or more of them are needed or not, even if they are present or not as it sits. Don't assume even if it came with shims it's correct. It was built by HD, remember?
Ron

[OldFLTRider]

My new SE compensator stack measured .305 and was very noisy when at operating temp in my 2012 103 with 115 hp/tq.  I added the extra small spring out of my original comp and it's greatly improved.  Less felt vibration now also. 

I probably should have used the shims but the closest dealer is 45 miles away and would no doubt have to order them.  I couldn't stand the racket and had to get it fixed before Bikes Blues and BBQ.

[rageglide]

Late to this discussion of course and I don't have my comp apart right now but reading this has me confused a bit.
I didn't know to measure it thus particular way, or even that there was a proscribed method and spec floating around. My 2010 CVO has the original SE comp which shows significant spoke wear. The silly bit is that the comp makes NO noise while riding. Only occasionally will it even clunk when I kill it.
Mine does not have the .031 shims and I didn't know to take the measurement by the "book method" when I was in there. I did measure and record the height of the full spring pack (as shown in Fig. 5 of the SE instructions). The number was 1.275". I'm curious if anyone knows the comparable measurement for their (new or used) spring pack, just for comparison of the springs only. I'm fully aware of the importance of the *installed* height in determining pre-load. I'd like to know, though, how much deviation exists within the spring packs in the general population of them.

You've got the original SE Compensator, not the newer version. So I expect things will be different.   But I will measure the spring pack on my 14+ comp this evening.

Masstch,  Measured the 14+ spring pack.   1.278" and 1.282" (measured in two places)

OldFLTRider I measured the small spring and it's .065"  so that's a bit more than 2 of the .031" shims.  Frankly I like the idea of two springs vs the shims, shims are a pain in the azz because they will fall behind the spacer.  I stupidly tossed my original compensator or I'd consider using two small springs on my bike.

[masstch]

Thanks for that. I'm going to infer from that that my spring pack, despite 25k and 5 (oops, 6) years   is not significantly out of shape.

I am curious about those that do make racket and how they measure in comparison.

[rageglide]

Sure np from one masshole to another.  For what it's worth my new 14+ was noisy.  Wish I had not tossed my 2012 original... it wasn't as noisy.

[rbabos]

Sure np from one masshole to another.  For what it's worth my new 14+ was noisy.  Wish I had not tossed my 2012 original... it wasn't as noisy.

The PEAK washer in place of the wafer bearing will address that or at least reduce it.
Ron

[rageglide]

Sure np from one masshole to another.  For what it's worth my new 14+ was noisy.  Wish I had not tossed my 2012 original... it wasn't as noisy.

The PEAK washer in place of the wafer bearing will address that or at least reduce it.
Ron

It has the PEAK washer already.  The noise I was getting was the shut down clunk-clunk. 

[rbabos]

Sure np from one masshole to another.  For what it's worth my new 14+ was noisy.  Wish I had not tossed my 2012 original... it wasn't as noisy.

The PEAK washer in place of the wafer bearing will address that or at least reduce it.
Ron

It has the PEAK washer already.  The noise I was getting was the shut down clunk-clunk.

I've always felt the odd clunk on a shutdown as being normal. Compression rebound, with clutch basket mass adding resistance. The cam rotates to decel then back to normal direction load contact. Wanna hear clunk, try ATF with no oiler. It's like jamming a crowbar into the chain on each shutdown.
As long as there is no bang on startup , starter grind from the starter clutch losing engagement from weak comp springs or continuous noise in normal operation it's all good.
Ron

[joe_lyons]

What about more than one clunk?   I don't hear anymore clunking anymore unless it's shut down in 1st gear rolling.

[rbabos]

What about more than one clunk?   I don't hear anymore clunking anymore unless it's shut down in 1st gear rolling.

So, you have the stand down, bars slightly to the right and you are off the bike before it stops rolling too? 
Ron

[joe_lyons]

Lol

[rageglide]

What about more than one clunk?   I don't hear anymore clunking anymore unless it's shut down in 1st gear rolling.

So, you have the stand down, bars slightly to the right and you are off the bike before it stops rolling too? 
Ron

I thought that made the clunk-crash sound...

I've never had a harley make a clunking sounds when I shut it down.  But the 14+ comp did, just sayin.

[rbabos]

What about more than one clunk?   I don't hear anymore clunking anymore unless it's shut down in 1st gear rolling.

So, you have the stand down, bars slightly to the right and you are off the bike before it stops rolling too? 
Ron

I thought that made the clunk-crash sound...

I've never had a harley make a clunking sounds when I shut it down.  But the 14+ comp did, just sayin.

By design and the space between decel and accel contact points with compression rebound in some ways that clunk is to be considered somewhat normal.  I'll take a shutdown clunk any day compared to starter clutch grind or a startup bang that a poor comp can create. The good points of the SE out ways that one pesky bad trait some have depending on the engine builds that have higher CCP . Now neutral rattle and tb clucking, those would send me over the edge.
Ron

[Wicked]

. Now neutral rattle and tb clucking, those would send me over the edge.
Ron

Man yes....them noises suck!! My shovel r soundin better every day....even with that large SU piston "clunk"    (needs another shot of WD40...)  !
Paul

[gabbyduffy]

     What tensioners are you guys using when you hear the clunk?  any chance your using a Hayden?

[rageglide]

     What tensioners are you guys using when you hear the clunk?  any chance your using a Hayden?

I had the oem auto tensioner because the baker won't fit with the compensaver...

Wicked, the SU piston cluck, I know that sound... the little nylon button the floor of the carb throat is completely gone.  Not that's a noisy sumbitch!  But it's ok, because it's a known commodity.

[gabbyduffy]

         Whats your thoughts on increasing spring pack height on bikes making more then stock power? Is more spring tension nesasary in the 120 HP range?

[Steve Cole]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

[rbabos]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

[Steve Cole]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

Maybe for you on the forum that's YOUR answer but out in the real world it doesn't cut it. Sure, no oil on a metal to metal contact is going to fail but until you have oil pressure to work with it's still just a drip lube system! If it were a simple problem with one simple solution of more drip oil it would have been solved long ago but to date they ALL still fail. You seem to forget that many of the ideas for the one you push, came from right here on this site, and while it's helped some of them it has not solved them all!

[rbabos]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

Maybe for you on the forum that's YOUR answer but out in the real world it doesn't cut it. Sure, no oil on a metal to metal contact is going to fail but until you have oil pressure to work with it's still just a drip lube system! If it were a simple problem with one simple solution of more drip oil it would have been solved long ago but to date they ALL still fail. You seem to forget that many of the ideas for the one you push, came from right here on this site, and while it's helped some of them it has not solved them all!

I think you should research more before spewing crap. Must be a carry over from the tuning section, huh?
Ron

[BUBBIE]

I KNOW....I'm here...

At 55,000 miles I replaced my Stock Comp (09 king Cup style)... Put in a SE08A.. GROOVED it on the 3 Spokes and on the Boss face to Draw in a LITTLE OIL...
(that LONG Fretting Thread)

I'm Not hard on the bike and BOTH have help me as I see it... Grooving and MTL......that SE 08A has 54,000 miles on it today, working just fine in the 103".

signed....BUBBIE

[Steve Cole]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

Maybe for you on the forum that's YOUR answer but out in the real world it doesn't cut it. Sure, no oil on a metal to metal contact is going to fail but until you have oil pressure to work with it's still just a drip lube system! If it were a simple problem with one simple solution of more drip oil it would have been solved long ago but to date they ALL still fail. You seem to forget that many of the ideas for the one you push, came from right here on this site, and while it's helped some of them it has not solved them all!

I think you should research more before spewing crap. Must be a carry over from the tuning section, huh?
Ron

Would expect nothing less from you since you haven't a clue!

[hrdtail78]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

Maybe for you on the forum that's YOUR answer but out in the real world it doesn't cut it. Sure, no oil on a metal to metal contact is going to fail but until you have oil pressure to work with it's still just a drip lube system! If it were a simple problem with one simple solution of more drip oil it would have been solved long ago but to date they ALL still fail. You seem to forget that many of the ideas for the one you push, came from right here on this site, and while it's helped some of them it has not solved them all!

I think you should research more before spewing crap. Must be a carry over from the tuning section, huh?
Ron

Ron,   What comp you have in your bike and how did you address the oil issue?

[rbabos]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

Maybe for you on the forum that's YOUR answer but out in the real world it doesn't cut it. Sure, no oil on a metal to metal contact is going to fail but until you have oil pressure to work with it's still just a drip lube system! If it were a simple problem with one simple solution of more drip oil it would have been solved long ago but to date they ALL still fail. You seem to forget that many of the ideas for the one you push, came from right here on this site, and while it's helped some of them it has not solved them all!

I think you should research more before spewing crap. Must be a carry over from the tuning section, huh?
Ron

Would expect nothing less from you since you haven't a clue!

Possibly but I'm half assed likable.
Ron

[rbabos]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

Maybe for you on the forum that's YOUR answer but out in the real world it doesn't cut it. Sure, no oil on a metal to metal contact is going to fail but until you have oil pressure to work with it's still just a drip lube system! If it were a simple problem with one simple solution of more drip oil it would have been solved long ago but to date they ALL still fail. You seem to forget that many of the ideas for the one you push, came from right here on this site, and while it's helped some of them it has not solved them all!

I think you should research more before spewing crap. Must be a carry over from the tuning section, huh?
Ron

Ron,   What comp you have in your bike and how did you address the oil issue?

08 and 08a and a compensaver prototype was used in the 07 fxstc. Current bike is a v rod.
Ron

[hrdtail78]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

Maybe for you on the forum that's YOUR answer but out in the real world it doesn't cut it. Sure, no oil on a metal to metal contact is going to fail but until you have oil pressure to work with it's still just a drip lube system! If it were a simple problem with one simple solution of more drip oil it would have been solved long ago but to date they ALL still fail. You seem to forget that many of the ideas for the one you push, came from right here on this site, and while it's helped some of them it has not solved them all!

I think you should research more before spewing crap. Must be a carry over from the tuning section, huh?
Ron

Ron,   What comp you have in your bike and how did you address the oil issue?

Ask Steve. He has all the clues.
Ron

I guess that is an easier answer than just stating you don't own a big twin.

[rbabos]

The lower the power output, the lower the spring pressure is needed to do the job. HD spent plenty of time playing with those pressures when we worked for them trying to get a balance of smoothness and not hitting the limits under decel and accel, for there STOCK engines. The lighter the pressure can be, the longer it last and the smoother the operation of the unit. Now as you increase the spring pressure, you also start with more wear on the rubbing parts, so that requires different finishes and hardness of materials, to with stand up to it all. This cost more so we all know which way HD went! The SE parts were built for higher output engines and HD learned over time that is what should have been there to start with for the stock engines. Problem is most of the aftermarket is taking the power up from stock and expecting the stock units to handle it! Guess what.......... it doesn't work well, and that is what everyone is figuring out now. Lighter bikes can live with less pressure than heavier bikes too, so it is really a balance of what feels good and what will hold up well across a wide range of weights and power outputs for the factory. Now, add in all the things we do in the aftermarket and it's no wonder they fail. I really do not believe your going to have a one size fits all unit that will hold up well. The higher output engines are most likely going to keep on killing these until a better unit is made with higher quality materials and heat treating, along with better surface finishes on the mating surfaces are done. This is going to cost more too! Yes, it's going to have to have enough oil getting to the surfaces too but using low grade materiel and light springs isn't going to cut it.

Key ingredient is OIL

Tested and proven over and over again on the SE units.

Maybe for you on the forum that's YOUR answer but out in the real world it doesn't cut it. Sure, no oil on a metal to metal contact is going to fail but until you have oil pressure to work with it's still just a drip lube system! If it were a simple problem with one simple solution of more drip oil it would have been solved long ago but to date they ALL still fail. You seem to forget that many of the ideas for the one you push, came from right here on this site, and while it's helped some of them it has not solved them all!

I think you should research more before spewing crap. Must be a carry over from the tuning section, huh?
Ron

Ron,   What comp you have in your bike and how did you address the oil issue?

Ask Steve. He has all the clues.
Ron

I guess that is an easier answer than just stating you don't own a big twin.

Reread my reply. The system is proven . is your point? The bike was the test unit for that and some other things I played with. Doesn't mean I have to own it forever. That's like me asking you if you keep every bike you tune, just to prove you can tune.
Ron

[Steve Cole]

The problem still is that the fix as you called it didn't fix them all. Did it help, I'm sure it did, but it didn't fix them all so there is still something missing and since you got rid of your test bike you will never know how it would have done over the long haul with a high torque engine!

[rbabos]

The problem still is that the fix as you called it didn't fix them all. Did it help, I'm sure it did, but it didn't fix them all so there is still something missing and since you got rid of your test bike you will never know how it would have done over the long haul with a high torque engine!

This is a team effort. We have tri-glide to test with but long term testing is done now to our satisfaction, with the PEAK as the last test subject.  That solves that. No point playing with a light weight when the heavy bike loaded up pulling a trailer will show results or lack of faster. Set the preload, use a decent , use the oiling kit and it's as good as it will get. There is always going to be comp qc issues with the odd one of them. That, we cannot control.
Ron

[Steve Cole]

The problem still is that the fix as you called it didn't fix them all. Did it help, I'm sure it did, but it didn't fix them all so there is still something missing and since you got rid of your test bike you will never know how it would have done over the long haul with a high torque engine!

This is a team effort. We have tri-glide to test with but long term testing is done now to our satisfaction, with the PEAK as the last test subject.  That solves that. No point playing with a light weight when the heavy bike loaded up pulling a trailer will show results or lack of faster. Set the preload, use a decent , use the oiling kit and it's as good as it will get. There is always going to be comp qc issues with the odd one of them. That, we cannot control.
Ron

I notice you didn't say fixed, only as good as it gets. This still leave plenty of room for improvement and it's not going to be a one size fits all either, IMHO. This is no easy issue as many others have found out before you started playing around with it, and after you gave up.

[rbabos]

The problem still is that the fix as you called it didn't fix them all. Did it help, I'm sure it did, but it didn't fix them all so there is still something missing and since you got rid of your test bike you will never know how it would have done over the long haul with a high torque engine!

This is a team effort. We have tri-glide to test with but long term testing is done now to our satisfaction, with the PEAK as the last test subject.  That solves that. No point playing with a light weight when the heavy bike loaded up pulling a trailer will show results or lack of faster. Set the preload, use a decent , use the oiling kit and it's as good as it will get. There is always going to be comp qc issues with the odd one of them. That, we cannot control.
Ron

I notice you didn't say fixed, only as good as it gets. This still leave plenty of room for improvement and it's not going to be a one size fits all either, IMHO. This is no easy issue as many others have found out before you started playing around with it, and after you gave up.

Who said I gave up? Seems like you take every opportunity to attack me in any childish manner possible, just like one other person on this forum. Grow up.  We offer the best possible solution to prevent pre mature compensator wear, bar none. It's as simple as that.  Currently the Primo 32 is being checked out with the oiler to see how it works out. Tray clearance is good and it looks like a decent unit so far. I'm still fully involved with the product and yes I branched over to the vrod because I really like the bike. So sue me if that is a crime since I can only afford and only have room for one bike.
Ron

[hrdtail78]

No Ron.  I don't keep all the bikes that I tune,  but I do have a bike with one of my tunes in it.   That way.  When somebody  ask what I run in my own bike.  I can tell them.

Attacked?   You have a product.  You push that product on this forum every chance you get.  Why do you get so defensive over a couple of questions?   You act like nobody has ever found a problem with your product.   But nobody has started a thread of "compensavers suck" yet.

[rbabos]

No Ron.  I don't keep all the bikes that I tune,  but I do have a bike with one of my tunes in it.   That way.  When somebody  ask what I run in my own bike.  I can tell them.

Attacked?   You have a product.  You push that product on this forum every chance you get.  Why do you get so defensive over a couple of questions?   You act like nobody has ever found a problem with your product.   But nobody has started a thread of "compensavers suck" yet.

I'll answer any questions on the product but PM would be better as I'm already pushing the forum limits. As for problems here and there, sure the odd one. We make every effort and went above and beyond to fix it. Seems to me, we replaced your old obsolete units with new ones for free, right? Even though we may not see eye to eye, it was the right thing to do.
Ron 

[hrdtail78]

As for problems here and there, sure the odd one. We make every effort and went above and beyond to fix it.

No different than other good companies in the industry.

it was the right thing to do.
Ron 

Hope your not breaking your arm over the right thing to do.  For free?  Let's just say.  I am glad I have a good enough relationship with GMR as one of their dealers.  That they decided to do the right thing and take care of his dealer network.  I also consider him a friend.

[rbabos]

As for problems here and there, sure the odd one. We make every effort and went above and beyond to fix it.

No different than other good companies in the industry.

it was the right thing to do.
Ron 

Hope your not breaking your arm over the right thing to do.  For free?  Let's just say.  I am glad I have a good enough relationship with GMR as one of their dealers.  That they decided to do the right thing and take care of his dealer network.  I also consider him a friend.

Truth is, I was the one who suggested replacing your units via GMR after picking up on a post you made about having some on the shelf and no comps to use them on. Again, keeping the facts straight , for anyone else who reads this.
We ate the cost of the old units, which is fine and as it should be. Thank-you for keeping the GMR  relationship alive.
Ron

[hrdtail78]

The real truth is.  Way before that post.  GMR already committed to me that he would help me with the older ones. By sending me newer style or helping me convert mine over.  Eating the cost?  You take the older style trays and make the new style out of them and sell them.  So, you only eat some of the cost.  For the others that are reading this.  Would of been easier to just answer my first straight forward question and been done.

[Steve Cole]

The problem still is that the fix as you called it didn't fix them all. Did it help, I'm sure it did, but it didn't fix them all so there is still something missing and since you got rid of your test bike you will never know how it would have done over the long haul with a high torque engine!

This is a team effort. We have tri-glide to test with but long term testing is done now to our satisfaction, with the PEAK as the last test subject.  That solves that. No point playing with a light weight when the heavy bike loaded up pulling a trailer will show results or lack of faster. Set the preload, use a decent , use the oiling kit and it's as good as it will get. There is always going to be comp qc issues with the odd one of them. That, we cannot control.
Ron

I notice you didn't say fixed, only as good as it gets. This still leave plenty of room for improvement and it's not going to be a one size fits all either, IMHO. This is no easy issue as many others have found out before you started playing around with it, and after you gave up.

Who said I gave up? Seems like you take every opportunity to attack me in any childish manner possible, just like one other person on this forum. Grow up.  We offer the best possible solution to prevent pre mature compensator wear, bar none. It's as simple as that.  Currently the Primo 32 is being checked out with the oiler to see how it works out. Tray clearance is good and it looks like a decent unit so far. I'm still fully involved with the product and yes I branched over to the vrod because I really like the bike. So sue me if that is a crime since I can only afford and only have room for one bike.
Ron

You did, maybe you should worry more about reading what you type than going after anyone and everyone who has an opinion different than yours. Your claim is now to offer the best possible solution, again your not saying a fix, your words not mine. Others are doing it differently yet you attack most everything they do.
I could care less about you getting a Vrod. When you traded for the Vrod your test bed went out the window, so you have no first hand way of doing long term testing.

[rbabos]

The problem still is that the fix as you called it didn't fix them all. Did it help, I'm sure it did, but it didn't fix them all so there is still something missing and since you got rid of your test bike you will never know how it would have done over the long haul with a high torque engine!

This is a team effort. We have tri-glide to test with but long term testing is done now to our satisfaction, with the PEAK as the last test subject.  That solves that. No point playing with a light weight when the heavy bike loaded up pulling a trailer will show results or lack of faster. Set the preload, use a decent , use the oiling kit and it's as good as it will get. There is always going to be comp qc issues with the odd one of them. That, we cannot control.
Ron

I notice you didn't say fixed, only as good as it gets. This still leave plenty of room for improvement and it's not going to be a one size fits all either, IMHO. This is no easy issue as many others have found out before you started playing around with it, and after you gave up.

Who said I gave up? Seems like you take every opportunity to attack me in any childish manner possible, just like one other person on this forum. Grow up.  We offer the best possible solution to prevent pre mature compensator wear, bar none. It's as simple as that.  Currently the Primo 32 is being checked out with the oiler to see how it works out. Tray clearance is good and it looks like a decent unit so far. I'm still fully involved with the product and yes I branched over to the vrod because I really like the bike. So sue me if that is a crime since I can only afford and only have room for one bike.
Ron

You did, maybe you should worry more about reading what you type than going after anyone and everyone who has an opinion different than yours. Your claim is now to offer the best possible solution, again your not saying a fix, your words not mine. Others are doing it differently yet you attack most everything they do.
I could care less about you getting a Vrod. When you traded for the Vrod your test bed went out the window, so you have no first hand way of doing long term testing.

OK, now read really slow. WE    USE    A    TRI-GLIDE.
Ron

[rbabos]

The real truth is.  Way before that post.  GMR already committed to me that he would help me with the older ones. By sending me newer style or helping me convert mine over.  Eating the cost?  You take the older style trays and make the new style out of them and sell them.  So, you only eat some of the cost.  For the others that are reading this.  Would of been easier to just answer my first straight forward question and been done.

Ok, just so I got this straight. GMR is your friend. You made arrangements prior to the post, yet you complained on an open forum about not being able to use the ones on your shelf after the fact?  Nice guy.
Ron