HarleyTechTalk

I don't know why I thought I remembered a lower injector delivery.  Maybe it was something from back when you were considering the 640's. The 8.6's will definitely do it.  A good tuner and device should be able to set the bottom up fine also.

I went back and looked at the lobes after you mentioning rate at .020" lift.  I may be imagining it but the intake lobe does not look symmetrical on each side.  Almost like it may have a changed rate in closing.  Possibly to reduce the landing speed and the tappet sounding off?  Then again it's old eyes on just a visual from a pic that doesn't show the whole end view.

They're not symmetrical by design. Jim uses an asymmetrical lobe.

That's why I say most Leineweber cams get a bad rep for noise because the valvetrain wasn't setup right. The same can probably be said for Bob Wood cams. Aggressive cams may make more noise, but it shouldn't be out of control noise. 

Like I tell people, get under the hood of your pickup truck as it goes down the road. The noises will terrify you. People want their bikes to be as quiet as their car motor, under the hood, five feet away.

As long as I know what the noise is, and it's not an out of control noise, ride on.

I have always loved the sound of well adjusted solids.  These days not many greybeards around to reminisce about the sound of solids and high compression exhaust running through a set of headers.   

One thing that has bugged me about the software representation that I've not been able to resolve was that the HP and TQU just drops off after 6,500 rpm.

I decided to input the cam timing as seat to seat timing, which essentially is what 0.020" lift is, or very close.

The drop off after 6,500 stopped, and leveled out as I would expect it to. Also the HP and TQU left of 4,500 rpm was stronger, and right of 4,500 is reduced a little. But peak HP is within 2 HP of before.

Time will tell.


You cannot see attachments on this board.

This is the two compared. The light blue is the 0.020" timing values.


You cannot see attachments on this board.

The left side would certainly make sense with the .020" timing factor.  Better cylinder fill time and lift  at lower rpm equals equals better torque.  It's 10 # increase from about 2300 to +3000 with 6 - 8# either side for a thousand rpm.  That's significant and right in the riding range.   

The .053" factor takes over at about 4500 rpm but not as significant of a difference as the .020" did in the preceding rpm range.  My WAG would be head velocity is working there. Better heads than the model may mean more.  Of course the opposite is always possible too.  You get the early torque to build the horsepower and the horsepower at the end to overcome the air your pushing in the top gears.

Realizing this is still a model, it wouldn't be in use if it didn't give a reasonable representation of the outcome.  It'll be interesting to see it develop.  Especially with any additions or changes before it hits the drum.

In reality the opening and closing s the same, just read at 0.020" and 0.053". The timing numbers are different when you change the value that they're taken.

In other words, intake (cam not valve) opens at 52° BTDC @ 0.020" cam lift. Continue to 0.053" on the indicator, and the intake timing is now 33° BTDC. The timing didn't actually change, just where you read it.

We'll if I understand what you are saying, and I think I do, the formula is too rigid to adjust. If you feed it a number, it changes the calculation. Understandably too. It falsely shows a longer duration opening of the intake (or any) valve.  That longer duration in the data for the calc seems to show up as increased power as the rpm increases beyond 4500 as credit for natural velocity effect moving more air.  That must be an increasing consideration in the formula to account for the effect that is known to occur.  I say that because it's clearly not even across the rpm range.

What I'm saying is within the software, when you select seat to seat, it's making strange calculations.

I also have Dynomation software. This motor looks almost identical when built in that software. So I believe the calculations in the Engine Analyzer Pro are good, until you pick seat to seat timing and use those cam timing values.

In reality seat to seat is checked at 0.006" to 0.010" lifter movement. I input 0.020" lifter timing as seat to seat, should be close enough, within a few degrees. It just made a strange output when I did.   

I can understand how .053" is used because technically the air isn't really moving over the seat on the moment the valve lifts from contact.  It's at 33* BTDC intake opening.  It's still on exhaust and the exhaust pipe is (hopefully) drawing on the intake, not the piston yet. At TDC the piston literally stalls as it changes direction so still no mechanical pull on the intake. It's probably in the formula to recognize that. If that cam lifts so fast and you use the .020" number it probably will boost the early rpm and change the effect after 4500 to account for the exhaust and air velocity negative pressure effect.

The software does understand when there is reversion in both the intake port and the exhaust port. You can see in the simulation when the arrow in the port changes directions. When you step through the crank rotation you can see when the valve openings etc. are with relation to the crank position in degrees. In either instance (0.020" timing or 0.053" timing) the numbers displayed matches the cam timing I input. So I don't know why the difference in HP and TQ.

Timing at 0.020" and at 0.053" are the same, but the crankshaft degrees changes when you change the reading height, IE the lifter at 0.020" or 0.053". There is no mathematical calculation to adjust timing based on lifter height reading. You have to know the lobe shape to determine what the timing changes to when the lifter reading height changes.

If I were to create a lobe profile, it would probably work. But I'm not going to that much trouble to see why it changes output values.

When I have the lower end assembled and I degree the cams, I plan to use both 0.020" and 0.053" to see that crankshaft degrees matches the values Leineweber supplies for both.

Quote from: turboprop on March 18, 2022, 06:44:45 AMMind you, that unlike most owners of TC engines on this forum I am not sitting around with a stethoscope listening for imaginary lifter noise.
 

 

A couple of other parts will be here next week. As I had mentioned I'm the master of scope creep during a project. In this case more and bigger was wanted after I made my original project plan, and in some cases already made purchases.

Jim @ Mega-Flo took a few pics of my heads as they're about ready to ship. Fortunately for me Jim had all of the needed valves, seats, guides springs, to make the big Leineweber T9S cams feel right at home, as well as accommodate the 1.725 R&R Cycles rocker arms.

I had a plan as to what I thought was needed for the heads. Jim listened and gave me his advice as to how it may be better to handle a few of my plans. I appreciate his experience and willingness to talk to me about the project. He's been doing this for a lot of years, and has a lot of valuable experience to draw from.

I'm getting there.

And these heads look very nice.


You cannot see attachments on this board.

You cannot see attachments on this board.

You cannot see attachments on this board.

You cannot see attachments on this board.

You cannot see attachments on this board.

I'm running a couple sets of Jim's heads and I guarantee your getting the best of the best.

Quote from: kd on May 11, 2022, 01:36:57 PM

Quote from: Ohio HD on May 11, 2022, 12:39:25 PMA new tool. Twin Cam alignment tool for upper to lower rocker box alignment. Strictly cosmetic, but it may help when rocker arms with high lift cams are close to contact within the rocker lids. Just so that everything is aligned as it should be.

MBS Manufacturing. Makes nice tools, about half as much as Jim's tools most of the time.

You cannot see attachments on this board.



MBS Manufacturing - TCRBAS-A27

I cut some aluminum shim stock from a drink can to wrap the fasteners.  The clearance along with the slight angle on the cover kept sliding it down and leaving a seam overhang.  You know what that does to an OCD person?  The shims prevented that from happening.  There is a full gasket surface now and they are even.

I found this issue as well using ARP fasteners for rocker covers. The washers wanted to push the tops to the rear. Good idea with the homemade gasket. I'll look at doing this. Great information!! MBS does make some great tools. Have quite a few myself along with George's. Great alternatives. Thanks for posting all this great information Brian. Can't wait to see the finished result. Should be adrenaline mixed with fear when you twist the throttle.

Quote from: Tireman on May 20, 2022, 03:18:08 AMI'm running a couple sets of Jim's heads and I guarantee your getting the best of the best.

Jim's been around for a long time. I'm sure that these will be up to the task, and then some.

   Jim does excellent work no doubt about it.

Well, I'm tired of waiting on Carrillo rods, especially since they didn't ship last week as they were supposed to. And are now giving no ship date. Hell of a way to run a railroad.

I spoke with Andrew regarding their DH competition rods. I have a set in my other 124". In the past no one would tell me what the difference was in them, other than I knew they're 0.010" longer, and they're imported. Andrew said he's worked with Trask as well as Gary Williams making motors over the 200 horsepower mark, and no issues with the DH competition rods. So I told him go ahead and use them. I can't keep waiting when there's no date as to when the Carrillo rods will ever arrive.

Next Cometic will tell me their 0.031" base gaskets are on back order.....   I need thicker base gaskets now for the longer rods.        

You know, of you had planned ahead a little, instead of rushing the build............

 

Quote from: Hossamania on May 20, 2022, 01:10:39 PMYou know, of you had planned ahead a little, instead of rushing the build............

 

Well, here's a truth that'll hurt some peoples feelings. When I ordered the crank, they were out of Twin Cam Carrillo and their DH competition rods. The American rods, Carrillo, still no idea when they'll arrive. The DH competition rods, imported, they've been in stock a few months now. I ordered the crank in January, and in that time they received their order of imported rods. I wonder why DH ever sourced the imported rods to begin with maybe ten years ago? Actually I don't wonder. Some American companies (Carrillo) just don't have their act together.

Quote from: Ohio HD on May 20, 2022, 01:19:55 PM

Quote from: Hossamania on May 20, 2022, 01:10:39 PMYou know, of you had planned ahead a little, instead of rushing the build............

 

Well, here's a truth that'll hurt some peoples feelings. When I ordered the crank, they were out of Twin Cam Carrillo and their DH competition rods. The American rods, Carrillo, still no idea when they'll arrive. The DH competition rods, imported, they've been in stock a few months now. I ordered the crank in January, and in that time they received their order of imported rods. I wonder why DH ever sourced the imported rods to begin with maybe ten years ago? Actually I don't wonder. Some American companies (Carrillo) just don't have their act together. 

If those import rods are Ultima, they're as good as you can get.
John

Quote from: jsachs1 on May 20, 2022, 02:29:27 PM

Quote from: Ohio HD on May 20, 2022, 01:19:55 PM

Quote from: Hossamania on May 20, 2022, 01:10:39 PMYou know, of you had planned ahead a little, instead of rushing the build............

 

Well, here's a truth that'll hurt some peoples feelings. When I ordered the crank, they were out of Twin Cam Carrillo and their DH competition rods. The American rods, Carrillo, still no idea when they'll arrive. The DH competition rods, imported, they've been in stock a few months now. I ordered the crank in January, and in that time they received their order of imported rods. I wonder why DH ever sourced the imported rods to begin with maybe ten years ago? Actually I don't wonder. Some American companies (Carrillo) just don't have their act together.

If those import rods are Ultima, they're as good as you can get.
John

I'll find out from Andrew if they are. I appreciate your input on these John.     

 

I can just add 0.010" to the head gasket, and use an 0.040" and get 0.031" squish. The pistons will be 0.009" out of the hole. I should have 0.040" MLS in the gasket drawer.



You cannot see attachments on this board.

Have you considered adding to the base gasket size?  Cometic should have the material and the price is the same for the special request.

Quote from: kd on May 21, 2022, 09:28:03 AMHave you considered adding to the base gasket size?  Cometic should have the material and the price is the same for the special request.

I considered for about five minutes ordering 0.031" base gaskets, but they're not the SLS design. Cometic sells the SLS base gaskets in 0.010", 0.014" and 0.020". That's why they sold me the 0.031" Aramid Fiber base gasket material when I needed thicker than 0.020".

I have 0.031" base gaskets on my other 124". Pistons still were out of the hole by 0.0035" as the material had to have compressed some, so I used 0.036" head gaskets and ended up with 0.0335" squish.

It makes no difference where I make up the 0.010". Truth is until I measure the cylinders without the base gasket for piston height, I don't know exactly what I'll need to do. I'm only dealing with designed dimensions now. Until I know actual, I don't know what route I'll use. But most likely an SLS base gasket 0.020" thick and an MLS head gasket 0.040" will be what is used. And these don't compress when torqued.