Internal Balancer

[City Chicken]

Any other Harley big twin come with an internal balancer (that wasn't a Softail-only powertrain, I mean?)

[misfitJason]

Doesn't the vrod have one

[rbabos]

Doesn't the vrod have one

Yes and gear driven. It will interfere with the crank if timed incorrectly but otherwise they cause no problems even at higher rpms then the big twins.
Ron

[BUBBIE]

IF Balancer is only needed at Low speed RPM? Could there not be a way to Auto-disconnect balancer for the Higher revs and reconnect for the lower ones... Just say'n.... More crap to control and go wrong...

Kinda like the cams that Bump to allow Low compression NOT a direct clutch that wouldn't align up...

signed....BUBBIE

[rigidthumper]

It has to keep time with the flywheel, so you can't disconnect and reconnect it.  No way to guarantee it goes back in the right spot

[rbabos]

IF Balancer is only needed at Low speed RPM? Could there not be a way to Auto-disconnect balancer for the Higher revs and reconnect for the lower ones... Just say'n.... More crap to control and go wrong...

Kinda like the cams that Bump to allow Low compression NOT a direct clutch that wouldn't align up...

signed....BUBBIE

They are pretty much bullet proof Lonnie. One thing that puzzles me though is in order to take out the low end shake, does this actually add vibes at the higher rpms, making it more reliant on the rubber mounting? Balancers are usually rpm specific on these 50-60% 45* v twins. Maybe overthinking it.
Ron

[BUBBIE]

Didn't someone say Lower Rev-Limit on this motor? and it would drop some if held on the limiter?

Old RPM 5250 cross over point...

signed....BUBBIE

[rbabos]

Didn't someone say Lower Rev-Limit on this motor? and it would drop some if held on the limiter?

Old RPM 5250 cross over point...

signed....BUBBIE

Quite often the CB are a reason for rpm limits depending on mass. If so, the performance guys will be yanking them out for sure as step one in the process. Rubber mounts are still there as always.
Ron

[harleytuner]

Didn't someone say Lower Rev-Limit on this motor? and it would drop some if held on the limiter?

Old RPM 5250 cross over point...

signed....BUBBIE

the rev limiter is timed 2 stage.  Hits right around 5900-6000 and if you try to hold at the rev limiter it'll lower to 5450

[BUBBIE]

Crossing over the 5250 and going UP without the balancer weight n higher Limit setting, should allow More RPM quicker and also Horse Power UP n Torque Down...

Think this motor could be a 7,000 RPM runner?  with Balancer weight removed ? ?

signed....BUBBIE

[rageglide]

Bubbie, that 5250 number is a calculated number and doesnt' change or have any bearing on RPM limiter.  Even a 10k rpm limited 4 cylinder UJM crosses torque and hp at that point.

What is the rev limit of a VRod?   The twinky B hard limit was 6200 and I thought that was due to the chain.  With the gear I would expect we could go higher.  I think the new engine made mention of default limiter at 5500 vs 5800 on the twinky A motor.

[BUBBIE]

I know the 5250 number is a constant... Using it to show that crossing point as RPM UP usually has HP increasing  UP n TQ going Down...



signed....BUBBIE

[rbabos]

Bubbie, that 5250 number is a calculated number and doesnt' change or have any bearing on RPM limiter.  Even a 10k rpm limited 4 cylinder UJM crosses torque and hp at that point.

What is the rev limit of a VRod?   The twinky B hard limit was 6200 and I thought that was due to the chain.  With the gear I would expect we could go higher.  I think the new engine made mention of default limiter at 5500 vs 5800 on the twinky

9k usually but some push it a bit. 9100 on my PV cal.
Ron

[rageglide]

So based on the V-Rod config the gear driven balancer may not play a big role in determining the rev limit in this engine. 

Bubbie, apparently I missed your point, sorry. 

[BUBBIE]

 

I like adding some of the "Known by All"   There are those who will Learn or Ask by mention things in the RPM use...

I answer to Help and add questions at times... 

Here is an Excellent read to understand Torque : Horsepower

http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html

signed....BUBBIE

[BUBBIE]

 A fixed relationship between torque and horsepower at certain engine RPM's has lots of power, but no torque? Remember that the connection between torque and power is rotational speed. Some sport bike motors like rbabos', might generate 155hp at 10,500 RPM but the torque at that RPM is very small; about 58 ft-lbs.  Eh.......

The large-displacement Big twin;  might peak at 100+ hp above 5250 RPM. The torque applied at the twin's lower rpm, 75 ft-lbs, is greater than the torque applied at the sport bike's 10,500 rpm but the sport bike makes up for it with a lot more engine speed and ends up with more horsepower.

Ron can FLY-By most TC's because he has the Horse Power and RPM... and Besides I Like Ron... 

My Language for Not Plagiarizing article... 

signed....BUBBIE

[rageglide]

But Bubbie, what does that have to do with the internal balancer?   That's the part I didn't understand about your post.

[rbabos]

So based on the V-Rod config the gear driven balancer may not play a big role in determining the rev limit in this engine. 

Bubbie, apparently I missed your point, sorry.

Weight and bearing loads would determine max rpm, much like the early softail CB B motors, although they can be pushed much higher as well especially the lighter weights from 07+. There's always an rpm safety factor in the design limits, and many push that envelope.   Vrod cb is not that big to allow increased rpms and the engine is also rubber mounted as a secondary smoothing agent. 60* cyls shake a hair less also. Some have removed them for racing and the increase in vibes is noticable. Much like softails, removal makes them less street friendly but to a lesser extent unless one lives near the rev limit most of the time.
Ron

[rageglide]

So based on the V-Rod config the gear driven balancer may not play a big role in determining the rev limit in this engine. 

Bubbie, apparently I missed your point, sorry.

Weight and bearing loads would determine max rpm, much like the early softail CB B motors, although they can be pushed much higher as well especially the lighter weights from 07+. There's always an rpm safety factor in the design limits, and many push that envelope.   Vrod cb is not that big to allow increased rpms and the engine is also rubber mounted as a secondary smoothing agent. 60* cyls shake a hair less also. Some have removed them for racing and the increase in vibes is noticable. Much like softails, removal makes them less street friendly but to a lesser extent unless one lives near the rev limit most of the time.
Ron

Maybe I should have said, this new gear driven single cb may not introduce the same rpm limitation as the B motor chains do.  Certainly not saying it isn't a factor, but rather, may not have as low of an RPM limit as the chains do.  I would be wary of spinning this new engine at 7+k rpm... The bob weight does look moderately heavy and things would get ugly if it failed.   

[rbabos]

So based on the V-Rod config the gear driven balancer may not play a big role in determining the rev limit in this engine. 

Bubbie, apparently I missed your point, sorry.

Weight and bearing loads would determine max rpm, much like the early softail CB B motors, although they can be pushed much higher as well especially the lighter weights from 07+. There's always an rpm safety factor in the design limits, and many push that envelope.   Vrod cb is not that big to allow increased rpms and the engine is also rubber mounted as a secondary smoothing agent. 60* cyls shake a hair less also. Some have removed them for racing and the increase in vibes is noticable. Much like softails, removal makes them less street friendly but to a lesser extent unless one lives near the rev limit most of the time.
Ron

Maybe I should have said, this new gear driven single cb may not introduce the same rpm limitation as the B motor chains do.  Certainly not saying it isn't a factor, but rather, may not have as low of an RPM limit as the chains do.  I would be wary of spinning this new engine at 7+k rpm... The bob weight does look moderately heavy and things would get ugly if it failed.

Only question is how stout are the bearings and the bores in the case they press into. That would be the weak link if any. The gear drive and shaft assembly should be ok. One of those things we need to wait and see.
Ron

[glens]

I'd solve the whole problem by yanking the counterbalancer - once the warranty's up, of course   But I don't anticipate getting one of these M8 bikes within the next several years anyway.

[Don D]

Ron
On the same page, the balancer must have a sweet spot so to speak.
The techno speak throws around numbers such as 75% and 100%. No clue what that means and there are no rpm range qualifiers. How in the heck can a motor be too smooth? This is a touring bike why not break the mold and get it as smooth as possible? Would they loose market share?
All this marketing hype sounds like engineering was told what the objectives were and they met or exceeded most, a good thing if the drive train is sustainable, and then those same market folks created their own marketing techno babble.

[harleytuner]

Ron
On the same page, the balancer must have a sweet spot so to speak.
The techno speak throws around numbers such as 75% and 100%. No clue what that means and there are no rpm range qualifiers. How in the heck can a motor be too smooth? This is a touring bike why not break the mold and get it as smooth as possible? Would they loose market share?
All this marketing hype sounds like engineering was told what the objectives were and they met or exceeded most, a good thing if the drive train is sustainable, and then those same market folks created their own marketing techno babble.

They probably couldn't get them perfectly smooth so they said the designed it that way.

[jbexeter]

The simplest way to make a motor silky smooth is add flywheel mass, I used to run an old 1.6 litre single cylinder diesel with 600 lb flywheels that (think oil oil field donkey motors) that was so smooth it would barely move a glass of water.

Throttle response would be crap of course.

Couple it (say a 2x mass flywheel) with a CVT and you'd be on to something, tourer wise.

Straight cut gears are *always* going to whine, Citroen got the logo because they were an early adopter or herringbone gears that cut transmission noise down dramatically.

[rbabos]

Ron
On the same page, the balancer must have a sweet spot so to speak.
The techno speak throws around numbers such as 75% and 100%. No clue what that means and there are no rpm range qualifiers. How in the heck can a motor be too smooth? This is a touring bike why not break the mold and get it as smooth as possible? Would they loose market share?
All this marketing hype sounds like engineering was told what the objectives were and they met or exceeded most, a good thing if the drive train is sustainable, and then those same market folks created their own marketing techno babble.

Yup, I was in awe when I read the mystical properties of the plastic thrust washer in the new comp.  If you read between the lines, it translates to , it works so well for these guys, let's use it too. Nobody will know.
Ron

[FSG]

Only question is how stout are the bearings and the bores in the case they press into.

Just a note to point out that all the bearings press in from the inside of the cases while they are split.

[rbabos]

Only question is how stout are the bearings and the bores in the case they press into.

Just a note to point out that all the bearings press in from the inside of the cases while they are split.

Yes. Where I was going with this is some of the early softails with a tad heavier weights then 07+ weights were on occasion known to wallow out the case bores to the point the bearing(s) were loose. This weight looks more massive on this so that got me thinking about the case bores over time. Depends on how wide the bearings are and how much overall case area they used for press fit.
Ron

[rbabos]

Only question is how stout are the bearings and the bores in the case they press into.

Just a note to point out that all the bearings press in from the inside of the cases while they are split.

Yes. Where I was going with this is some of the early softails with a tad heavier weights then 07+ weights were on occasion known to wallow out the case bores to the point the bearing(s) were loose. This weight looks more massive on this so that got me thinking about the case bores over time. Depends on how wide the bearings are and how much overall case area they used for press fit.
A second concern is being straight cut gears and with heat the gear lash increasing due to the crank and balancer bores moving away from each other, how much rattle will it have at idle when hot?
Ron

[FSG]

There is a scissor gear used to help keep noise down.

[glens]

There is a scissor gear used to help keep noise down.

That's what it looked like to me in this image as well.

[rbabos]

There is a scissor gear used to help keep noise down.

Ah ha, so there is. All good then.
Ron

[CowboyTutt]

I took the 75% reduction in idle shake instead of 100% as to mean, HD didn't want to make a Honda Shadow.  Its a Harley, its supposed to shake a little.  If they reduced the mechanical shaking to 100% with the CB and then added rubber mounting, it would be too lacking in character to appeal to anyone. 

I have always enjoyed the shaking at idle of my 09 TC-A in my Dyna.  After building a high compression 107, it shook even more at idle, like a dog shaking off water!  It was pretty cool, and unlike any motor I have ever had before, and not objectionable for the little time I spend idling.  It was totally cool. 

I don't understand all this "make it smooth" chit. 

Its AN ENGINE!!!!  It's supposed to shake some.  If you want something smoother, buy a Gold Wing.  Great motors, sound good with a pipe, make great TQ and move out under acceleration quite well!!!!!  Have friends who have owned the 1800 cc ones, and engines do impress when loaded down. 

But not a Harley guys.  Its a 45 degree V-twin.  By its very intrasinct nature, its going to vibrate.  I don't understand this drive to make it into something that looks like it, sounds like it, but doesn't run like it.  I know I speak for a diminishing age group but if you want something that smooth in a twin, BMW's would be looking real good right now. 

Regards,

-Tutt 

[rageglide]

Speaking of rubber mounting... Is this new balanced engine still rubber mounted?  If so, why?   

When I first rode a balanced softail with loud exhuast in 2000 I thought, what the h*ll, the throttle is a volume knob.  No vibration, but of course I was used to evo softail which felt like a Harley...   That was then, this is now.  I still have my evo but I sure have gotten used to riding rubber...

My BMW 1150GS vibrates quite a bit actually, so does the old R75/5.  Somewhere between the Evo Softail and the hot rod Roadglide.  Newer BMWs have balance shafts in the boxers and when I rode a friends 1200 I thought it felt smoother, but not too smooth.

[CowboyTutt]

Yep, new engine counter balanced and rubber mounted in a touring frame. 

What does this mean for us Softail and Dyna owners when we are obliged to have it? 

I'm told by my dealership that touring guys are more tolerant of new technology as they just want to ride places and ride hard.  I have no problem with that, and they are a good demographic group to try new technology. 

But while I tour, I'm not a part of that demographic.  A TC-A motor in rubber mounts, hits a real sweet spot for me.

Let it wag it tail at idle and pulse under my legs when running in rubber mounts.  Works for me, and works well!

And yeah, had a 98 BMW Cruiser before landing here.  And a 99 Busa for 5 years.  Been around the block or too.  Best bike ever?  A hot rod Twin Cam, hands down. 

Regards,

-Tutt

[rageglide]

For years I wondered why the B motor wasn't hard mounted in the Bagger frame.  Apparently the engineers at HD decided the way to keep the bars and front wheel wiggling was to semi balance the new engine and keep it in rubber.  But to me it seems like the natural progression was to solid mount this balanced engine and make the entire unit more rigid.  Then again when the Softail got the B motor the engineers realized they needed some vibration to make the damned things shift reliably..

I definitely enjoy a hot rod twin cam.  The guys I know who ride a LOT on baggers keep em stock and seem happy.  Me, I get bored with stock power/personality.  My carb'd 2005 95" hotrod was more enjoyable day to day than the current '12 120".  Fuel infection adds a great deal of complexity and finickiness to the mix.  I don't have deep pockets to deal with the tuning BS and even after dyno tuning by a tuner who's considered top notch the 2012's personality changes daily, worse than an S&S carb on my other bikes.

I tend to tour on the GS because I can actually carry more crap than the bagger...  Plus I put way more long distance miles on my evo softail than I've ever done on baggers.  But I was younger then and since my dad died (on a bike) I don't do as much long haul riding.

Bob

[Deye76]

"I took the 75% reduction in idle shake instead of 100%"

No matter on percentage, to the eye, it is rock solid at idle, at least the one I watched yesterday was.

I was never bothered by how much the engine moved at idle, at speed is where I care about shake, and all the rubber mounted bikes I've owned were fine. I'm amazed HD would go through all the engineering to satisfy those annoyed by "idle shake" and keep "c" lifters for example.   

[Rockout Rocker Products]

So, if they started with 100% reduction, then went to 75%.... what's needed to get to 50 or 25%..... shaving mass off the balancer?

Something tells me it's not that simple, it never is.

[BUBBIE]

Looks like Each Slot on the crank gear has a place for the "One Pin" showing. filling each slot...

Has any talk about How this works? "Not Guessing" I know it was mentioned... Looks to be where the Balance is and could be different according to RPM and Torque applied...

sorry if answered before but I didn't see it... Maybe a post a Link IF SO... (So why the Pins ? Is movement needed to Not shear off parts?)

tks

signed....BUBBIE

Ron said: Balancers are usually rpm specific on these 50-60% 45* v twins. Maybe overthinking it.

[glens]

I say take the damn thing out and fill the resultant void to minimize case volume.  I don't mind an out-of-balance crank assembly spinning around in its bearings if the cases can move with it because the whole thing's rubber-mounted.  That won't put too terribly much pressure on the bearings/races.  What I don't like is two out-of-balance shafts spinning in the cases, actually fighting each other in the process so the cases as a whole don't want to follow the circles each shaft are trying to individually make their spots in the cases move.  That puts a butt-load of force on the individual shafts/races/case-points and positively cannot be good long-term.  No thank you very much!

[Bigbluff]

Isn't piston speed one of the main factors in limiting RPM? Harleys are under-square engines with long strokes and relatively small bores for displacement. The longer the stoke, the faster (at any given RPM) the piston has to accelerate to, from zero at one end of travel and back to zero at the other end of travel. The loads required to do that increase considerably as RPM goes up.

Am I thinking about this all wrong?

[rbabos]

Isn't piston speed one of the main factors in limiting RPM? Harleys are under-square engines with long strokes and relatively small bores for displacement. The longer the stoke, the faster (at any given RPM) the piston has to accelerate to, from zero at one end of travel and back to zero at the other end of travel. The loads required to do that increase considerably as RPM goes up.

Am I thinking about this all wrong?

Not at all. Thing is,  some want to rev a low rpm designed, long stroke, high torque engine designed for cruising at 3k to 7k. Design rules no longer apply.
Ron

[bobscogin]

  Then again when the Softail got the B motor the engineers realized they needed some vibration to make the damned things shift reliably..

My understanding is that the rubber mounted engines couldn't be used in the Softail because the swing arm had to mount to the frame to keep the faux hardtail look, unlike the Touring and Dyna models that had it mounted through the transmission housing. Thus, they got the counterbalanced B motors.

Bob

[PoorUB]

A few years ago I mentioned that HD should put a balanced engine in a rubber mount bagger frame. Most posters thought it was a silly idea.

Well, look what we have today!

[04 SE Deuce]

A few years ago I mentioned that HD should put a balanced engine in a rubber mount bagger frame. Most posters thought it was a silly idea.

Well, look what we have today!

I mentioned the same thing years back and got the same flack. 

Every sporting/performance twin I can think off other than 90 degree Ducati's have balancers. 

Putting rubber hinges in the chassis is not conducive to good handling/stability,  minimizing movement/flex would be good. 

They may be out there but I haven't seen any other brand that has a current model with rubber mounts/hinges in the chassis but when it comes to other brands I follow just about every model except cruisers.

[rbabos]

A few years ago I mentioned that HD should put a balanced engine in a rubber mount bagger frame. Most posters thought it was a silly idea.

Well, look what we have today!

I mentioned the same thing years back and got the same flack. 

Every sporting/performance twin I can think off other than 90 degree Ducati's have balancers. 

Putting rubber hinges in the chassis is not conducive to good handling/stability,  minimizing movement/flex would be good. 

They may be out there but I haven't seen any other brand that has a current model with rubber mounts/hinges in the chassis but when it comes to other brands I follow just about every model except cruisers.

Even then most are mere isolating bushings. As one Kawi tech told me, makes installing the bolts easier.
Ron

[Xyzzy]

The balancer adds additional parts to the engine. I assume (?) more parts means more things that could possibly fail.

Anyways, does balancing the engine (reducing vibration) increase engine reliability?

[Buffalo]

I would say that a better balanced engine "should" make it last longer. Certainly less vibration transferred thru the chassis will cause less ancilliary parts to shake, rattle, roll and come undone. Gaskets could likely have less clamping loads, so last longer, maybe 90in lbs instead of 110 will do the same job. Engine mounts, in theory should have less work to do, so might last longer.
From what I've seen on the TC, a good tune goes a long way into controlling the idle shakes. Now they likely intend to run very lean as before, but the counterbalancer will hide the vibes. I've seen some TC shake violently at idle (stock) while properly tuned barely move (and run cooler). Does that meet emissions? No way.
HD has just found another way to get around a complaint from customers while supposedly meeting the Euro 4 emission standards. JMHO  Buffalo

[rbabos]

I would say that a better balanced engine "should" make it last longer. Certainly less vibration transferred thru the chassis will cause less ancilliary parts to shake, rattle, roll and come undone. Gaskets could likely have less clamping loads, so last longer, maybe 90in lbs instead of 110 will do the same job. Engine mounts, in theory should have less work to do, so might last longer.
From what I've seen on the TC, a good tune goes a long way into controlling the idle shakes. Now they likely intend to run very lean as before, but the counterbalancer will hide the vibes. I've seen some TC shake violently at idle (stock) while properly tuned barely move (and run cooler). Does that meet emissions? No way.
HD has just found another way to get around a complaint from customers while supposedly meeting the Euro 4 emission standards. JMHO  Buffalo

That's where the CB should shine. As for lasting longer engine wise, not really. Crank is still bouncing in the mains but the cb's mask it's feed back to the rider.
Ron

[Xyzzy]

Cool info!

My M8 107 is very smooth compared to the TC 103 I had previously. I love it. It feels like it is begging to be revved.

The only drawback I have seen so far regarding the CB is there is a very loud whine at ~42 MPH. Fortunately, I rarely ride at that exact speed. I'm not going to sweat the noise, because I'm pretty certain it isn't anything bad and "they all do that".

My TC 103 had a whine in first gear. I haven't heard that yet on the M8 107.

[PoorUB]

Lets get the '18 speculation going!

I wonder with HD dropping the V-Rod, at least state side, and this new engine with a balancer what is coming next year? It seems to me for HD to build two balanced engines is a waste of resources. Maybe next year the SofTails will have the same M-8 with a different counter balancer and the current "B" motor will be gone.

[yobtaf103]

Lets get the '18 speculation going!

I wonder with HD dropping the V-Rod, at least state side, and this new engine with a balancer what is coming next year? It seems to me for HD to build two balanced engines is a waste of resources. Maybe next year the SofTails will have the same M-8 with a different counter balancer and the current "B" motor will be gone.

+1 on that, but with better suspension/brakes lol

Is this where the V-Rod genre ends, or not maybe after seeing the experimental V4 castings?

[Bigbluff]

Harley invested a lot in the VRod assembly plant, in Kansas City. I suspect they are working on something to replace the VRod. Since the VRod already broke the Harley mold, I would hope that Harley would consider that platform to be a place to experiment with more expanding of the envelope. But since Dynas, Sportsters, and the 750/500 bikes are all assembled in Kansas City, Harley may be content to just let it be and let the VRod die quietly.

[mp]

Undoubtedly, the Twin Cam will be gone next year.  I suppose they might put a slightly different balancer in the Softails if the current one shakes too much when hard-mounted.
What interests me is what they do with the Dynas.  New tri-mount frame?  The company has definitely noticed the current revival of interest in the FXR.

[biglew55]

Undoubtedly, the Twin Cam will be gone next year.  I suppose they might put a slightly different balancer in the Softails if the current one shakes too much when hard-mounted.
What interests me is what they do with the Dynas.  New tri-mount frame?  The company has definitely noticed the current revival of interest in the FXR.

I posted this on a different forum, but it seems to be relevant here as well.

This has been my thinking since the rumor started. With the recent resurgence in popularity of the FXR, and the similarity of it to the touring frame, why not resurrect that old platform in some variation? Also, if you recall, there was some word of renewing the trademark for the "Sport Glide" name.


Is this the death of the Dyna that we're predicting?


Let's think about this: An M8 powered FXR-style bike that comes stock with a 180 rear and a 100/19 front with 6 speeds and cruise? Maybe set one up like the old FXDXT?


HELL YES!!!

[jpooch00]

As for balanced H-D motors, I've never owned one, nor will I, ever.  SO glad I broke down and got my sweet little '15 Limited when I did!  Got a goodun & she's a keeper!

Probably could have gotten a slightly better deal on a leftover '16.  Screw it.