I had been planning to build a 110" motor for my 2009 Ultra for awhile, collected a few parts. I made a decision to move the 124" I built in 2016 from my 2008 FLHX to the 2009 Ultra. It's a strong quiet motor that makes good power and is always on and pulling. So that means I need a motor for the 2008 FLHX. What else but another 124". This one will be higher strung, more compression, higher performance cams, better exhaust, great heads. I have a goal, I want to cross over 160 SAE as far as I can, just because. We will see. I'll document what I do as I go along, it'll take a little while. Pistons are still about 8 to 10 weeks out. I won't have a crank built until I have the pistons in hand and weighed. I have most all that I need, but a few things still haven't shipped due to being out of stock.
This will be built in the house like the last 124" on my indoor work table. Saves heating the shop to warm for a few hours here and there. I need to clean the work table off so I can start cleaning the case threads, blow everything out, clean the cases, inspect everything close.
I'll post a list of parts I either already have, or are still on order. I think the list is complete and I didn't leave anything off. If I did I'll add the part when I remember.
2021-11-02 - S&S case - 01.jpg
2021-11-02 - S&S case - 02.jpg
Eye candy
Whats cams you looking at? 675?
I'm planning to use 640's.
Have done a couple 124's with that cam that hit right over 160sae. One was a reworked 124 crate (5 speed) and the other was ground up with Ultima TC castings. The ground up is my daily.
I'm not expecting that I would see anymore than just past or at 160hp. I'd be satisfied with that. I'll have Burns exhaust which should help to sneak up on the 160 number. Compression will be 12.25:1.
You been talking to Ray haven't you? :potstir:
I am looking forward to watching the progress...
You have a good foundation to start with, I look forward to watching your progress.
Thanks Phil. And thanks for getting unobtanium cases for me.
You gunna be rolling that on the skinny rear tire?!?!
Yes sir.
Quote from: mike jesse on November 03, 2021, 10:09:14 AMYou been talking to Ray haven't you? :potstir:
:embarrassed: I had nothing to do with it...but I sure as hell do like it.
Get er done Brian! :up:
LOL building it inside is the only way to go.
My Wife still laughs to people relating how I built a Panhead chopper in the family room of our old house..
She did get a little pissed the day she came in & I had a flywheel trueing stand on the marble coffee table lol (hey I needed a solid base for it). She calmed down when I told her I would buy her a new table when the bike was finished & she could pick out anything she wanted.......
~John
I did mine inside also. Working in the AC is always better.
Seen in your PDF list you got Feuling cylinder studs and head bolts.
Understand the head bolts.
You not trusting the S&S studs?
To my knowledge the S&S studs are from HD. I can't confirm that, but was told they were at one point. And they look 100% the same. So I'm just going a step further.
Quote from: cheech on November 04, 2021, 12:30:12 PMSeen in your PDF list you got Feuling cylinder studs and head bolts.
Understand the head bolts.
You not trusting the S&S studs?
FYI - Feuling does not manufacture cylinder studs or head bolts. They simply repackage ARP studs with their brand name on them.
Quote from: turboprop on November 04, 2021, 02:44:35 PMFYI - Feuling does not manufacture cylinder studs or head bolts. They simply repackage ARP studs with their brand name on them.
:up:
Quote from: mike jesse on November 03, 2021, 10:09:14 AMYou been talking to Ray haven't you? :potstir:
Actually, yes I have..... :teeth:
Quote from: turboprop on November 04, 2021, 02:44:35 PMQuote from: cheech on November 04, 2021, 12:30:12 PMSeen in your PDF list you got Feuling cylinder studs and head bolts.
Understand the head bolts.
You not trusting the S&S studs?
FYI - Feuling does not manufacture cylinder studs or head bolts. They simply repackage ARP studs with their brand name on them.
Yes I'm aware, just working from the presumption most on here know they are ARP.
Thought I would check out the muffler mount on the Burns system, and count the parts make sure it's all there. 1, 2, 3, all good.
I think the mount will be fine, the muffler is really light. I think I'll however replace the bolts in the transmission side cover with studs. Just to make sure they stay tight. If it were a standard long heavy muffler, the mount system would bounce around. I think it'll be ok as light as it all is.
2021-11-15 - Burns NhB system - 01 - Copy.jpg
2021-11-15 - Burns NhB system - 02 - Copy.jpg
2021-11-15 - Burns NhB system - 03 - Copy.jpg
2021-11-15 - Burns NhB system - 04 - Copy.jpg
I checked the fit of the R&R Cycles roller rockers with the Vulcan Engineering billet rocker support plates. They fit great, and have next to no felt end play. There has to be some, but it can't be more than a few thousandths of an inch.
These plates also have the setscrews to lock the rocker shafts in place. No rattling will be heard here. I also am using the Vulcan Engineering breather assemblies. They're precision fit from billet aluminum, and there will be no escaped venting from these.
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 01 - Copy.jpg
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 02 - Copy.jpg
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 013 - Copy.jpg
eye candy! :up:
Quote from: Ohio HD on November 16, 2021, 03:00:39 AMI checked the fit of the R&R Cycles roller rockers with the Vulcan Engineering billet rocker support plates. They fit great, and have next to no felt end play. There has to be some, but it can't be more than a few thousandths of an inch.
These plates also have the setscrews to lock the rocker shafts in place. No rattling will be heard here. I also am using the Vulcan Engineering breather assemblies. They're precision fit from billet aluminum, and there will be no escaped venting from these.
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 01 - Copy.jpg
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 02 - Copy.jpg
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 013 - Copy.jpg
I have been curious about the breathers from Vulcan. Seems the later stamped ones from Harley get a strong thumbs up, but I have always suspected the ability of a stamped piece of sheet metal to properly seal. I am paying attention to this.
Quote from: turboprop on November 16, 2021, 06:32:32 AMQuote from: Ohio HD on November 16, 2021, 03:00:39 AMI checked the fit of the R&R Cycles roller rockers with the Vulcan Engineering billet rocker support plates. They fit great, and have next to no felt end play. There has to be some, but it can't be more than a few thousandths of an inch.
These plates also have the setscrews to lock the rocker shafts in place. No rattling will be heard here. I also am using the Vulcan Engineering breather assemblies. They're precision fit from billet aluminum, and there will be no escaped venting from these.
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 01 - Copy.jpg
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 02 - Copy.jpg
Vulcan Engineering 3800A Shaft-LOC Rocker Arm Support - 013 - Copy.jpg
I have been curious about the breathers from Vulcan. Seems the later stamped ones from Harley get a strong thumbs up, but I have always suspected the ability of a stamped piece of sheet metal to properly seal. I am paying attention to this.
That's my same line of thinking. I'm using the later style OEM in two of my bikes, but I have no idea if they seal internally as they should.
Internally the guts in these Vulcan units are the same as the new style OEM. But these components will no doubt seal completely.
I guess I should show the breathers. They remarkably look like the last generation that HD used, the cast aluminum housings. So I guess what is new is really what is old.
The only real difference besides the billet housings is the blue flapper valve. It feels softer than the red ones, more pliable. The foam on the back is glued in place, and looks to be more dense than HD's. But that's just what I see.
Also MENTAL NOTE! Check the bolt lengths before spinning them home into the heads. You never know. I still check them when I reassemble with the same parts.
2021-11-16 - Vulcan Works - 3801 - Twin Cam Rocker Box Breather - 02 - Copy.jpg
2021-11-16 - Vulcan Works - 3801 - Twin Cam Rocker Box Breather - 04 - Copy.jpg
2021-11-16 - Vulcan Works - 3801 - Twin Cam Rocker Box Breather - 05 - Copy.jpg
2021-11-16 - Vulcan Works - 3801 - Twin Cam Rocker Box Breather - 06 - Copy.jpg
I removed the flappers in my new 135" B2 engine. Jim Libo drilled and tapped in the box with a fitting and In run S&S external breathers and 3/8" hoses to the catch can. Breathes great. I have a 3 bar sensor in the left case to data log crankcase pressure, pretty interesting things going on there.
I've been thinking along a similar route, less the pressure sensor and logging. I may send my heads back in to have them tapped for hose barbs. I don't know yet of I'll use these or just the external in line valves. Probably will try these first.
This is set that he recently changed to direct access to the venting system.
(https://i.imgur.com/04WTaW1.jpg)
Quote from: sfmichael on November 17, 2021, 12:43:58 PMfollowing :up:
:pop:
It's going to be slow going for awhile. Randy doesn't expect the piston until near the end of the year. Then I can order a crank from Darkhorse. Hopefully they have Carrillo rods in stock at that time. And I don't know how busy DH will be. Luckily I'm not rushed.
Oh... :pop: :SM:
Will that rear vent placement work w/ a TBW? I know it is tight in there. The pressure data was for my own purpose. I have heard and read a lot of theory about crank case venting and if you will ever have a vacuum. Well worth the time and effort and Kelly's bike was perfect for the test. Gleamed some great knowledge.
I have to verify the module side of the TB yet Agree it'll be tight if it fits.
Plenty of room. This an HPI setup on my other 124".
I guess someone didn't wash this thing after they rode it last weekend..... guess I better clean it this weekend.
124 inch front head vent tap space - 1024x768.jpg
124 inch rear head vent tap space - 1024x768.jpg
Quote from: Jonny Cash on November 17, 2021, 12:08:59 PMI removed the flappers in my new 135" B2 engine. Jim Libo drilled and tapped in the box with a fitting and In run S&S external breathers and 3/8" hoses to the catch can. Breathes great. I have a 3 bar sensor in the left case to data log crankcase pressure, pretty interesting things going on there.
I have often thought about using external one-way valves instead of the oem style internal breathers because of the ability to easily test and replace them. The external configuration would also eliminate any internal leaks associated with the breathers.
Also very interested in knowing more about that pressure sensor and data logger. Have you shared any of the data collected from it on this page?
Quote from: turboprop on November 18, 2021, 07:09:37 AMQuote from: Jonny Cash on November 17, 2021, 12:08:59 PMI removed the flappers in my new 135" B2 engine. Jim Libo drilled and tapped in the box with a fitting and In run S&S external breathers and 3/8" hoses to the catch can. Breathes great. I have a 3 bar sensor in the left case to data log crankcase pressure, pretty interesting things going on there.
I have often thought about using external one-way valves instead of the oem style internal breathers because of the ability to easily test and replace them. The external configuration would also eliminate any internal leaks associated with the breathers.
Also very interested in knowing more about that pressure sensor and data logger. Have you shared any of the data collected from it on this page?
I haven't, I've been gone for awhile. I started over different life, different wife in Iowa. I'm doing engine control now with a Maxxecu, hrdtail78 did the install and tune. Ive gotten pretty proficient with it. We wanted to see actual data, instead of all the fakebook myth with breather setups. There is a pulse that happens in the crankcase with a frequency that is kind of backwards of what i figured. The pulse has a lower frequency at 7500 rpm, slows down tremendously.I do know Jim Libo built and Jason broke it in great, ring seal is tremendous. Be glad to discuss the data, just cannot share the downloads, with Maxx the tunefile is embedded in the datalog.
Quote from: Jonny Cash on November 18, 2021, 07:16:29 AMQuote from: turboprop on November 18, 2021, 07:09:37 AMQuote from: Jonny Cash on November 17, 2021, 12:08:59 PMI removed the flappers in my new 135" B2 engine. Jim Libo drilled and tapped in the box with a fitting and In run S&S external breathers and 3/8" hoses to the catch can. Breathes great. I have a 3 bar sensor in the left case to data log crankcase pressure, pretty interesting things going on there.
I have often thought about using external one-way valves instead of the oem style internal breathers because of the ability to easily test and replace them. The external configuration would also eliminate any internal leaks associated with the breathers.
Also very interested in knowing more about that pressure sensor and data logger. Have you shared any of the data collected from it on this page?
I haven't, I've been gone for awhile. I started over different life, different wife in Iowa. I'm doing engine control now with a Maxxecu, hrdtail78 did the install and tune. Ive gotten pretty proficient with it. We wanted to see actual data, instead of all the fakebook myth with breather setups. There is a pulse that happens in the crankcase with a frequency that is kind of backwards of what i figured. The pulse has a lower frequency at 7500 rpm, slows down tremendously.I do know Jim Libo built and Jason broke it in great, ring seal is tremendous. Be glad to discuss the data, just cannot share the downloads, with Maxx the tunefile is embedded in the datalog.
What was your previous screen name?
It was the same, I just havent been active on here for a couple years. I met you a few years ago in Fayetteville at the drags
I chose the HPI V2 air breather for this motor. It should be able to keep from restricting the motor. I wanted to use their head breather kit, but would like to up the hose sizes to 0.375". I don't think running smaller is detrimental to the motor, but I'd rather have the larger hose as I plan to open their fitting a little bit where the motor is vented. I can't open it much, but every little bit might help.
I looked at the breather kit from HPI, and I think the easiest way to add 0.375" hose is to make the standoffs universal, in that they can be used for 0.250" or 0.375". If you look at the image below, this is how HPI supplies the standoffs. The 0.250" hose fitting is pressed into the standoff. You can see (red arrow) where there is a grove machined for the o-ring shown. What the o-ring does is seal off the other side of the standoff when the breather screw is inserted.
So my plan will be to add the machined groove (blue arrow) to the other side. Then the standoff can be flipped. I'll add a 0.375" pressed in hose fitting on the other side. No matter what side you use, the internal o-ring will seal off the other side. So it's just a matter of flipping it after you machine the grove and drill for a pressed in fitting.
When I finish the second assembly with the changes I'll post it as well.
sym01.jpg
This is the actual parts HPI supplies.
2012-12-05 - HPI-EBS-FBW Ext Breather - 03.jpg
So this is the way that I see setting these standoffs up. As you can see in these three views that the internal o-ring will sperate the two sides when the breather bolt is inserted. It's a super tight fit, so I'm confident that this can't leak from one side to another. It uses a standard -206 o-ring so they're easily sourced. Then just put a vacuum cap on the hose fitting you don't use just for aesthetics.
sym02.jpg
sym03.jpg
sym04.jpg
I have the exact same air cleaner and stand-offs from HPI on the TC124 that is in my blue/white FXR. I was very concerned about case breathing. Turned out my concerns were unfounded. I still might do what you have in your drawings, but only to allow the the lines from the stands-offs to be easily attached to the 5/16" barb on a catch can.
The good thing as well is where they placed the o-ring, it gives more real-estate on the other side to work with to place another hose nipple.
You also may want to use new screws that have a larger surface to give more support on the end of the standoff where the o-ring cut was made. These are wider than the screws HPI supplied.
https://www.mcmaster.com/90909A535/ (https://www.mcmaster.com/90909A535/)
No thoughts of drilling the heads and tapping for barbs while the heads are off be a lot simpler? Bob
ADDED:
Sorry read back and forgot you were considering barbs. So you have decided not to and use the supplied ones with the air cleaner then. Bob
I'm modifying the supplied parts from HPI to use them.
Just my opinion, if you were to use this method of adding another hose nipple to the offset for the backing plate, I'd get high quality thick walled steel fittings. These I'll cut the hex and thread off. Then I'll have a press in hose nipple that won't crush under pressing it in.
4404-06-02 0.375 nipple - 0.250 npt - 02 - 1024x768.jpg
While waiting on parts, I'm putting together some new tool ideas to make assembly easier and more accurate. I drew a simple steel pad with countersinks for flat head screws. This mounts to the tappet pad on a Twin Cam motor. There's countersinks on both sides so it can be used for front or back tappet pads.
This gives a sturdy mounting point for your dial indicator. It can be used to find piston top dead center when a piston stop is used. It can also be used read piston height setting your piston to head squish. Mainly I made it to use with a degree wheel to check the S&S-640 cam timing in this 124".
You can make this easily. Parts: 4.000" x 4.000" x 0.375" simple ground steel pad and four 1/4-20x1.00 flat head screws to mount it with.
Also I'd recommend using a tappet cover gasket with this. That way you won't scar your case with the steel block.
TC lifter cover indicator stand assembly.jpg
TC lifter cover indicator stand - 02.jpg
TC lifter cover indicator stand - 02.pdf
Can't ever have too many tools. Some make it quicker, some easier and others more accurate. I think you checked all 3 boxes. :up:
Another tool I've wanted to build for awhile. Take the long collar from a Timken bearing installation tool and weld a tab onto the side. This will let you mount a dial indicator, and make reading the end play really easy. I want to have the crank here and place it in the left case to determine how wide the tab needs to be before making it and welding it to the collar.
Timken end play tool.jpg
Quote from: Ohio HD on December 14, 2021, 04:56:55 PMAnother tool I've wanted to build for awhile. Take the long collar from a Timken bearing installation tool and weld a tab onto the side. This will let you mount a dial indicator, and make reading the end play really easy. I want to have the crank here and place it in the left case to determine how wide the tab needs to be before making it and welding it to the collar.
Timken end play tool.jpg
I made tis tool and really like how it works. Again, I will take a pic and measurements when I am home this weekend. I have used it many times on shovel, evo and TC engines.
Quote from: turboprop on December 14, 2021, 06:08:54 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on December 14, 2021, 04:56:55 PMAnother tool I've wanted to build for awhile. Take the long collar from a Timken bearing installation tool and weld a tab onto the side. This will let you mount a dial indicator, and make reading the end play really easy. I want to have the crank here and place it in the left case to determine how wide the tab needs to be before making it and welding it to the collar.
Timken end play tool.jpg
I made tis tool and really like how it works. Again, I will take a pic and measurements when I am home this weekend. I have used it many times on shovel, evo and TC engines.
Thanks I appreciate it. Seems like the most common sense design, and pretty simple.
I checked with Randy Torgeson, he contacted CP about my pistons and they say another 3 to 4 weeks before they ship.
I do have a question for anyone who's run an oil cooler adapter on S&S TC cases. The oil filter guys are telling me I need an adapter for S&S cases. I can't see why I would need the special S&S adapter. Below are photos of the oil filter mount from OEM HD cases and the S&S Twin Cam cases.
Can anyone tell by these photos if the S&S cases need a special adapter for an oil cooler mount? I cant see whey it would be needed.
S&S T series case and FLHX 2008 OEM Case.jpg
2008 FLHX Twin Cam OEM Case.jpg
S&S T series case.jpg
I'm not familiar with a "special" adapter for S&S cases, The last S&S T motor that I put an oil cooler on used the parts in the Jagg kit. Just be sure the little part that prevents adaptor rotation is there. As I recall, it is a little triangle shaped piece that goes on the inner 2 bolts and wedges against the front of the engine case. Otherwise removing and installing the oil filter can cause the adaptor plate to come loose and leak.
Thanks, I can't see where the case is any different. I'm familiar with the bracket you mentioned and may be using a kit from Ultra Cool. They have a similar part but only use it for 99' to 06' models. I guess I need to call them and ask why only those years use the part that keeps things from rotating.
I can't help with the case difference but you may want to pay attention to the placement of 18 mm O2 sensor bung on the front head pipe if installed and you intend to use it for tuning comparison to the 12mm lower bung position by the trans. It can get too close to the angle of the cable and interfere with installation. I will look at mine and maybe post a pick later of what you want to watch for.
The inside of the casting looks a bit different to me. Looks like the HD case has relief in the casting and then a shelf. The S&S relief in this area are machined. IIRC isn't that where the adapter triangles rest? Might have a problem getting the adapter to fit inside the casting and mating to faying service. Machining off triangles might be an option. :nix:
I finally found someone to order the Kramm-Lox. Most places didn't know what I was referring to, I'm sure CP Carrillo has tons of them, just that someone needs to know what to order. ProCycle in Oregon was the only place that said, yeah, I can get them for you. They drop shipped form CP to me.
Yeah, these will be much easier to put in place the first try.
01-05-2020 - 927x073 SLX (MM-7142) Kramm-Lox - 01.jpg
Last set of CP pistons and rings I bought had that tool with them.
t's a great Idea! Never heard of Kramm-Lox but that isn't saying much. Seems alot safer and easier less chance of a mishap.
I received call from Mr. Torgeson this afternoon. He finally got my pistons in from CP. My cylinders will be on the way there tomorrow. Finally moving along a little. Once I have the pistons here, a call to Dark Horse and have a new crank built using Carrillo rods. I don't know their lead time right now. I imagine this is their busiest time of the year.
I ordered DH Man-O-War 4.625 Betas with DH competition Rods on Monday. They will be here tomorrow! Andrew said 4 weeks when I spoke to him but :scoot: perhaps they had them sitting there already? What's the difference in the CP Rods vs DH Comps? Just curious been waiting around for SE 4.625 flywheels since October. So I pulled the trigger on these and was gonna cancel the SE order. They will BOTH be here tomorrow :banghead:. I'll save the SE'S for another build send them to get the Hoban Love. It will however be interesting to have them side by side to see what's up. I read that HD uses Jim's for their SE Cranks but wasn't sure if there is any truth to this claim.
The CP Carrillo rods are made from stronger materials is the primary reason.
FYI. An SE 4.625" crank does not swap out directly with an S&S / DH stroker crank, the rod lengths are different. The SE crank needs to be used with SE 120r cylinders.
SE 4.625 = 7.575" rod length ~ 4.916" 120r cylinder
S&S 4.625 = 7.659" rod length late cranks ~ S&S 5.004" cylinder
DH 4.625 = 7.670" DH rods ~ S&S 5.004" cylinder
DH 4.625 = 7.660" Carrillo rods ~ S&S 5.004" cylinder
Finally a little forward movement. CP pistons arrived. I have them weighed, and will send them out with the S&S cylinders to have them fitted.
I weighed the pistons and parts and can now also get Darkhorse started on a new crank for me.
01-20-2022 CP Bullet series 4.125 x 1.050 x 14cc.jpg
Seen your other post in the Hammer forum.
What happened with the cylinders going to Randy?
I had planned to have Randy size the cylinders for two reasons, one I bought the pistons from him, two I know he does good work. I was told there would be a 12 to 15 week lead time on the pistons. I decided to keep the cylinders here until the pistons arrived. I didn't want them sitting there and possibly getting lost or damaged somehow, or if the pistons just never arrived. At about 14 weeks I was told the pistons are in now. I said I'll send the cylinders. And then the pistons arrived here just before I shipped the cylinders out. Probably just some mix up.
I then decided that I'd send the cylinders to Hammer Performance as I really have interest in their CNC honing equipment they bought last year. Hammer is also an HTT site supporting shop, and I do try to support our HTT suppliers when I can. So far this motor project has six of our HTT suppliers goods and services in it.
Good to see some action on your build and thread. Nice looking pistons for sure. :up:
CP does make very nice pistons. Strong, and machined accurately.
01-21-2022 CP Bullet series 4.125 x 1.050 x 14cc - 04.jpg
01-21-2022 CP Bullet series 4.125 x 1.050 x 14cc - 03.jpg
01-21-2022 CP Bullet series 4.125 x 1.050 x 14cc - 02.jpg
I am too lazy to go back in the thread. Are these pistons being coated?
No. I had considered it, but after talking to a couple of shops, they suggested I'm good as I'm running aluminum cylinders. Set the pistons at the proper clearance, break it in right and on a dyno, let it warm up before pounding it, all will be fine.
I pulled the same CP pistons out of the 117" I bought from Ray. 43k hard miles, they're barely scuffed.
:up:
Quote from: Ohio HD on January 20, 2022, 01:53:46 PMFinally a little forward movement. CP pistons arrived. I have them weighed, and will send them out with the S&S cylinders to have them fitted.
I weighed the pistons and parts and can now also get Darkhorse started on a new crank for me.
01-20-2022 CP Bullet series 4.125 x 1.050 x 14cc.jpg
One piston with rings / pin and clips weights 586 grams?
Quote from: Admiral Akbar on January 21, 2022, 08:02:40 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on January 20, 2022, 01:53:46 PMFinally a little forward movement. CP pistons arrived. I have them weighed, and will send them out with the S&S cylinders to have them fitted.
I weighed the pistons and parts and can now also get Darkhorse started on a new crank for me.
01-20-2022 CP Bullet series 4.125 x 1.050 x 14cc.jpg
One piston with rings / pin and clips weights 586 grams?
Yep. Here is the breakdown.
Another set I have, same bore, but with 2cc domes, the piston weighs 397 grams by it's self. These have 14cc domes, they weigh 425 grams by them selves.
Image 9.jpg
This is the piston spec sheet from CP.
01-21-2022 - CP Bullet series 4.125 x 1.050 x 14cc spec sheet.jpg
Here are the heads that'll be used on the motor.
These started life as NOS SE 110+ heads. I acquired them new and the box still sealed.
17071-08A - SE 110+ Heads - 02.jpg
17071-08A - SE 110+ Heads - 04.jpg
SE 110+ Heads - 01.jpg
SE 110+ Heads - 03.jpg
This is after head work.
New valves, new springs, and port work,
SE 110+ heads after wfo larry - 01.jpg
PAC R450 titanium spring retainer.jpg
SE 110+ heads after wfo larry - 02.jpg
SE 110+ heads after wfo larry - 06 - sm.jpg
If Burns makes their pipe as robust as the "off road use only" decals they but on the exhaust, it should last forever. No doubt this system will pass more exhaust volume than the Boarzilla I'm using now.
2022- 01-22 - Burns - SY-HD-TC-TOUR - 2 into 1 - 02.jpg
2022- 01-22 - Burns - SY-HD-TC-TOUR - 2 into 1 - 05.jpg
2022- 01-22 - Burns - SY-HD-TC-TOUR - 2 into 1 - 06.jpg
The welding is 100% top notch.
2022- 01-22 - Burns - SY-HD-TC-TOUR - 2 into 1 - 07.jpg
2022- 01-22 - Burns - SY-HD-TC-TOUR - 2 into 1 - 08.jpg
2022- 01-22 - Burns - SY-HD-TC-TOUR - 2 into 1 - 09.jpg
are you going to change the exhaust studs ?
I use the ones with the ball end BUT do like the HEX ended ones used on the M8s.
I hadn't even thought about that, but yeah it would be the time. I may order the M8 studs, that's a good idea.
A trip to eBay and Bob's my uncle!
Part # 10900015A HD OEM
(https://i.imgur.com/GqO4XC2.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/96k2baW.jpg)
Very nice pipe. What are the tubing diameters on the Burns exhaust?
You will not be disappointed. It is loud though.
Quote from: MBrown on January 23, 2022, 06:51:58 PMVery nice pipe. What are the tubing diameters on the Burns exhaust?
The header pipes are 1-7/8", 2", 2-1/8".
3" baffle?
Yes, I believe it's three inch.
I have my crankshaft ordered from Darkhorse. Just FYI, as of today they're shipping about 40 days out, they're crazy busy.
DH crank.jpg
Good to hear they are busy.
I updated the parts list in the first post. It should be accurate and complete now.
You can buy an S&S 124 for much, much less than I have invested. The exhaust, throttle body air breather, Power Vision, etc. doesn't come with the S&S motor of course. But it still costs a lot more to build completely new.
This thing better run.
Ready to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.
It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern).jpg
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern) 02.jpg
This is what I whipped up to load the cylinders on the Cylinder King, and also to check bores. Speeds up the work.
John
Nice convenient setup John.
I'm on pushrod duty today. Looking for the strongest pushrods that'll hold up against high pressure valve springs and large cam lobes, possibly around the 0.712" to 0.728" lift. Especially when high RPM occurs.
I started by looking at what Smith Brothers offers, as they're also out front with their size specs. I'm starting by calculating the solid area of a 7.4" long tube based on the OD and ID of the pushrod.
Smith Brothers
AHD313B-TC-KIT Twin Cam EZ Install Kit 3/8 X . 134 7/16 X 20 TPI – Also available for M8
.375 x .134
calculated size 0.375 x 0.134 x 7.4
volume of solid 0.7507 CI
(PI()x7.4)x((0.375^2)-(0.107^2))/4
These have more solid volume, about 8.5% more. What I'm not familiar with is the lifter end. They appear to be a larger OD (need to ask SB) and I wonder about fitting inside the lifters retainer clip without possible contact. I assume they do, but wonder about the clearance as they look large.
SB also says these aren't for OEM pushrod tubes, to use SB or Colony. I assume they mean the OEM TC tubes as there's limited clearance when using the longer TC lower tubes. I use the Colony Evo tubes anyway.
These are not easy install, even though they say they're "EZ". But with one lock nut, and more solid mass these will probably be a stronger choice.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8060ba_aabbe0ea0afe48ee91b2ed79273a19db~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_500,h_500,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/8060ba_aabbe0ea0afe48ee91b2ed79273a19db~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.webp)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8060ba_c124dbc76de64e27ae106ddc3624f518~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_465,h_465,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/8060ba_c124dbc76de64e27ae106ddc3624f518~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8060ba_edb7f869226746c4a61f6b274064b16c~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_465,h_465,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/8060ba_edb7f869226746c4a61f6b274064b16c~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg)
Smith Brothers
AHD79SB-TCFI-K Adj HT Twin Cam 7/16 X .095 Single Taper 5/16 X 32 TPI
.437 x .095
calculated size 0.4375 x 0.095 x 7.4 (these are tapered 0.375 on the head end)
volume of solid 0.6867 cubic inches
(0.333)x π x 7.4 x (0.1875² + 0.1875 x 0.21875 + 0.21875²) = 0.9601
(0.333)x π x 7.4 x (0.0685² + 0.0685 x 0.08475 + 0.08475²) = 0.2734
0.9601 - 0.2734 = 0.6867 CI
These I'm familiar with as they're what I normally use.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8060ba_99275dcdbf124c6b8719f600c88dc8d4~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_500,h_500,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/8060ba_99275dcdbf124c6b8719f600c88dc8d4~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.webp)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8060ba_46bfd8eaf08648febd027d88fc77e023~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_465,h_465,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/8060ba_46bfd8eaf08648febd027d88fc77e023~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8060ba_7944b90a498c46e295131de90c4e1820~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_465,h_465,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/8060ba_7944b90a498c46e295131de90c4e1820~mv2_d_3000_3000_s_4_2.jpg)
I bought my SB 7/16" X.120 tapered pushrods from Dan Baisley on his recommendation for rigidity for my springs. They are adjustable but not quick change so the thimble support is deeper into the shaft. The springs Dan chose were for good control of the valve train up to 6200 rpm plus (PSI 1225 dual spring kit) and were of significant weight but not as heavy as the 120R SE / MVA springs I had. He said they were too strong and in his opinion problematic.
These pushrods were new to Smith Brother's pushrod line at that time. They have the ball tip (not the taper) like your first pics in your previous post only a slightly different neck to the base of the adjuster. One other member here posted that he was having contact issues in the lifter clips at that time (2015) due to the shape of the neck to the ball on the lower member. I hadn't installed mine yet so I called SB and asked some questions. One of the guys there is the Harley pushrod specialist and tester. (I can't remember his name (John?)) He said he recalled the HTT member I named at that time (but can't remember now) having the issue so they redesigned the tip to give more clearance on the higher lift cams. He said some lifters (Wood?) were a narrower cup and clip clearance. He sent me a set and when I installed then I checked each one throughout their full range and found them suitable. I could definitely see a physical difference and where the others could have been a problem with some lifters. If you do call Smith Brothers ask for the fellow that is on top of the Harley offerings. I think you'll get all of the answers you need from him.
I believe the pushrod tube issue is as you suspect. These pushrod adjusters are further up the length for rigidity and the OEM pushrod tubes interfere with adjusting. I used the colony tubes and clips and all was good.
I don't know that they make 0.437" diameter full length adjustable pushrod for Twin Cams. They have 0.375" as I've shown, but those do have a 7/16-20 thread.
The most common are the quick installs that are 0.437" to 0.375" tapered.
The full length 0.375" diameter x 0.134" wall thickness are what I'm thinking of using.
Smith Brothers Harley Pushrods (https://www.pushrods.net/harley-pushrods)
Twin Cam 0.375° x 0.134" Wall ~ 7/16-20 thread (https://www.pushrods.net/product-page/harley-twin-cam-easy-install-kit)
Actually, I would think they would make whatever you like. If you speak to the fellow I mentioned he may consider doing them as a proto type for testing. He assured me every set of Harley pushrods were through his program and he personally was involved with the testing. He will know the clearance restrictions (if any) too.
I wanted strength when I bought mine and was told "these" were the ones without overkill top fuel type requirements. Do you think there's any chance you are over compensating? I do that lots. I like doing it once. If you get the spring and valve assembly weight from Larry and feed SB enough information they should be able to confirm your thoughts or offer alternative choices with their reasons.
I know I don't want 0.437" diameter at the top side. High lift, and longer ratio rockers will have the pushrod swinging like a pendulum at the top.
I'll use the SB AHD313B when I find out that the lower diameter will not be any issues for me.
These 0.375" diameter from Zippers are 0.145" wall, they're solid mass is 3.2% more than the SB 0.375" x 0.134" wall pushrods. They may be made my SB. I'll se if SB sells these, if not I can get them from Zippers.
Zippers 0.375" pushrods with 0.145" thick walls (https://www.zippersperformance.com/403-145-set-4-zipper-s-tc-3-8-diameter-145-wall-chrome-moly-pushrods/)
(https://www.zippersperformance.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/403-145.jpg)
The SB 7/16 .120 wall offer more rigidity.
The taper also works well at the top with a high lift cams arc that uses up a lot of real estate in the pushrod hole.
Is there a downside to the HD SE Premiums adjustables? I to went down this road. I initially had S&S adjustables but the wall thickness gave me pause. I instead opted for HD SE adjustables. Glad to see more progress on your build. Eagerly watching. :up:
Consider using the same studs, head bolts, and head material and thickness as what will be on the engine for torque plates. Mine are the same as John Sachs uses, same machine also.
Quote from: Ohio HD on February 17, 2022, 07:29:43 PMReady to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.
It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern).jpg
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern) 02.jpg
So what did you make the plates out of?
If steel, did you relieve the bottom plate at the case split?
I think one thing to note is that unless the TQ plate is made identical to the guy's plates doing the cylinders, there will be some variances.
I'm doing an all bore 107 early TC and used aluminum top and bottom. Bottom was 2 piece to simulate the cases.
What are you going to use for lifters? I have one coming together now that is primarily a track bike, 124 with B2 heads. Using solid rollers I modified and they have a .750 wheel plus larger than stock axle. Using valve springs that are good for .750 and installed height at 2". 535# spring rate.
Quote from: Admiral Akbar on February 28, 2022, 07:35:39 AMQuote from: Ohio HD on February 17, 2022, 07:29:43 PMReady to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.
It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern).jpg
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern) 02.jpg
So what did you make the plates out of?
If steel, did you relieve the bottom plate at the case split?
I think one thing to note is that unless the TQ plate is made identical to the guy's plates doing the cylinders, there will be some variances.
I'm doing an all bore 107 early TC and used aluminum top and bottom. Bottom was 2 piece to simulate the cases.
Max, what you speak of has always been a concern to me. I think unless you can measure the cylinders when in the running setup, it's hard to be sure that you can reproduce the effects of clamping the cylinder for final machine work.
I'm having these made from CRS. I thought about aluminum, but then as you mentioned, they wont necessarily match what was used when the finishing of the cylinder was done. The Kent-Moore set I was borrowing for standard TC cylinder bores was a steel set.
I think splitting that lower collar has some merit. Will you be pinning them together or letting the two parts float? A TC 3.937" bore does need it's best foot forward.
Quote from: Wookie3011 on February 28, 2022, 01:53:47 AMIs there a downside to the HD SE Premiums adjustables? I to went down this road. I initially had S&S adjustables but the wall thickness gave me pause. I instead opted for HD SE adjustables. Glad to see more progress on your build. Eagerly watching. :up:
I've used a couple of SE sets in with more moderate cams in the bikes. The only problem I ever saw was some of the SE "fatter" pushrods were more likely to rub the pushrod tube. I also don't feel they're up to the task of heavy valve springs and hard use. You won't go wrong with Smith Brothers stuff.
Quote from: Ohio HD on February 28, 2022, 01:13:17 PMQuote from: Admiral Akbar on February 28, 2022, 07:35:39 AMQuote from: Ohio HD on February 17, 2022, 07:29:43 PMReady to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.
It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern).jpg
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern) 02.jpg
So what did you make the plates out of?
If steel, did you relieve the bottom plate at the case split?
I think one thing to note is that unless the TQ plate is made identical to the guy's plates doing the cylinders, there will be some variances.
I'm doing an all bore 107 early TC and used aluminum top and bottom. Bottom was 2 piece to simulate the cases.
Max, what you speak of has always been a concern to me. I think unless you can measure the cylinders when in the running setup, it's hard to be sure that you can reproduce the effects of clamping the cylinder for final machine work.
I'm having these made from CRS. I thought about aluminum, but then as you mentioned, they wont necessarily match what was used when the finishing of the cylinder was done. The Kent-Moore set I was borrowing for standard TC cylinder bores was a steel set.
I think splitting that lower collar has some merit. Will you be pinning them together or letting the two parts float? A TC 3.937" bore does need it's best foot forward.
I didn't bother pinning the 2 halves. I simply machined the mating surface then bolted the 2 pieces together then finished machining. I guess if I ever need to take it a part, I could bolt it to a cylinder gently then tighten the 2 halves.
If you think about it, it's still not perfect as the bridge between the 2 cylinders is pretty thin, even on a not bored case.
I'm not a mechanical engineer but one thing of interest is that steel is 3 times stiffer than aluminum.
Look at Young's modulus.
https://www.thefabricator.com/thefabricator/article/metalsmaterials/the-differences-between-stiffness-and-strength-in-metal#:~:text=Young's%20Modulus%20for%20steel%20(29,were%20made%20out%20of%20aluminum. (https://www.thefabricator.com/thefabricator/article/metalsmaterials/the-differences-between-stiffness-and-strength-in-metal#:~:text=Young's%20Modulus%20for%20steel%20(29,were%20made%20out%20of%20aluminum.)
I own 3 sets of tq plates. 1 for EVO. 1 for SnS 113. One for TC. While they are all steel. They have a section relieved on the cylinder surface at the case split. Did the Kent-Moore have the same relief? I don't know how much better one is over the other but like the idea of matching the TQ plate material to the case.
PXL_20220301_012628373.jpg
Quote from: Admiral Akbar on February 28, 2022, 06:28:45 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on February 28, 2022, 01:13:17 PMQuote from: Admiral Akbar on February 28, 2022, 07:35:39 AMQuote from: Ohio HD on February 17, 2022, 07:29:43 PMReady to send my 4.125" bore torque plate model to QCT in Fairfield to be made.
It's not that I don't trust suppliers and vendors I use. It's just that it's my responsibility to make sure everything is correct before I assemble it. I also like to document where everything is so that in the event of problems or rebuild you know where you were, and where you are now.
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern).jpg
4.125 cylinder torque plates (HD bolt pattern) 02.jpg
So what did you make the plates out of?
If steel, did you relieve the bottom plate at the case split?
I think one thing to note is that unless the TQ plate is made identical to the guy's plates doing the cylinders, there will be some variances.
I'm doing an all bore 107 early TC and used aluminum top and bottom. Bottom was 2 piece to simulate the cases.
Max, what you speak of has always been a concern to me. I think unless you can measure the cylinders when in the running setup, it's hard to be sure that you can reproduce the effects of clamping the cylinder for final machine work.
I'm having these made from CRS. I thought about aluminum, but then as you mentioned, they wont necessarily match what was used when the finishing of the cylinder was done. The Kent-Moore set I was borrowing for standard TC cylinder bores was a steel set.
I think splitting that lower collar has some merit. Will you be pinning them together or letting the two parts float? A TC 3.937" bore does need it's best foot forward.
I didn't bother pinning the 2 halves. I simply machined the mating surface then bolted the 2 pieces together then finished machining. I guess if I ever need to take it a part, I could bolt it to a cylinder gently then tighten the 2 halves.
If you think about it, it's still not perfect as the bridge between the 2 cylinders is pretty thin, even on a not bored case.
I'm not a mechanical engineer but one thing of interest is that steel is 3 times stiffer than aluminum.
Look at Young's modulus.
https://www.thefabricator.com/thefabricator/article/metalsmaterials/the-differences-between-stiffness-and-strength-in-metal#:~:text=Young's%20Modulus%20for%20steel%20(29,were%20made%20out%20of%20aluminum. (https://www.thefabricator.com/thefabricator/article/metalsmaterials/the-differences-between-stiffness-and-strength-in-metal#:~:text=Young's%20Modulus%20for%20steel%20(29,were%20made%20out%20of%20aluminum.)
I own 3 sets of tq plates. 1 for EVO. 1 for SnS 113. One for TC. While they are all steel. They have a section relieved on the cylinder surface at the case split. Did the Kent-Moore have the same relief? I don't know how much better one is over the other but like the idea of matching the TQ plate material to the case.
PXL_20220301_012628373.jpg
That's looking good. :up:
The Kent-Moore set I was borrowing didn't have a relief line where the case seam would be.
I also thought the same way about the case, that the area and depth of material is pretty slim. But then maybe these cylinders just pop to a spot when they have some pressure applied to them. I guy could make a long hobby of testing how much clamp pressure, what materials, how thick the materials, etc., etc.
When S&S were designing there torque plates they would take the case and cut a hole in the bottom then take measurements with the cylinder and head bolted to the case to see if it was the same as with the torque plates. The other thing does anyone use a head gasket with the torque plates. TR's made his set up that users the OEM cylinder studs and head bolts.
We all know the stock studs stretch purposely to allow cylinder growth and in theory maintaining the clamping load. The grade 8 bolts 2 sizes larger are not a workable equivalent. I am told that S&S case with head attached example provides much different results that their torque plates despite the equivalent intent. Logically we can see why.
Quote from: HD Street Performance on March 01, 2022, 06:19:43 AMWe all know the stock studs stretch purposely to allow cylinder growth and in theory maintaining the clamping load. The grade 8 bolts 2 sizes larger are not a workable equivalent. I am told that S&S case with head attached example provides much different results that their torque plates despite the equivalent intent. Logically we can see why.
How critical are the "style" of torque plates when considering the different cylinders they will be used on? By that, I point out construction of say S&S barrels compared to OEM will differ by liner thickness or steel makeup or other differences. For example, we know the steel in the drop in barrels is super hard and will maintain it's relaxed state more. The goal being to impart force to the cylinder to encourage some sort of stability for machining that more closely represent an installed deflection of the cylinder walls so as to ultimately provide a better ring seal. The torque specs for the sleeved aluminum cylinders are by most standards light due to The stud size, the aluminum base they are mounted in, the engineered stud stretch and subsequent growth when heated. We know these light specs can influence measurement taken by checking a cylinder before and after clamping it between the torque plates. Isn't it sufficient to simply supply a clamping mechanism that imparts enough equivalent compression to allow the machining to be more accurate within a reasonable working tolerance?
Quote from: HD Street Performance on March 01, 2022, 06:19:43 AMWe all know the stock studs stretch purposely to allow cylinder growth and in theory maintaining the clamping load. The grade 8 bolts 2 sizes larger are not a workable equivalent. I am told that S&S case with head attached example provides much different results that their torque plates despite the equivalent intent. Logically we can see why.
Why do you have to worry about stud stretch on a setup that isn't getting heated to engine temps?
How are the grade 8 bolts 2 sizes larger?
Quote from: Buglet on March 01, 2022, 05:40:19 AMWhen S&S were designing there torque plates they would take the case and cut a hole in the bottom then take measurements with the cylinder and head bolted to the case to see if it was the same as with the torque plates. The other thing does anyone use a head gasket with the torque plates. TR's made his set up that users the OEM cylinder studs and head bolts.
Yes, Will use a base gasket if the build requires one.. How does TR plate setup clear the a 4 1/8 bore with stock head bolts? I guess if only doing measurements, it's OK. What about running a hone through it?
In order to use stock head bolts at a 4.125" bore the washer heads must be cut down to clear the bore or the guide shoes hit on the upstroke.
If I was looking to improve my design I would support the spigot on the sides to avoid deflection while honing. In other words a net fit. This would be especially helpful for the steel thin spigot liners.
I have used AHD79SB-TC-FI in most of the big power builds through here. One has a .750 lift spinning to 8000 rpm's. No problems with these in any of the builds.
AHD79SB-TC-FI
Exactly! :up:
a few years ago now :scoot:
AHD79SB-TC-FI (https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,72144.msg786472.html#msg786472)
They can be a PITA w/ stock covers. Decked heads, zero decked cylinders and a smaller hg doesn't help. CC01FB04-0ECE-4B66-BF5E-CF2B3F7FE089.jpg
A paper clip and rubber band works well too.
Just a rubber band here works fine, no need for the paper clip.
Paper clips and rubber bands with SB pushrods and stock covers? That's amazing and something I couldn't figure out.
I had to shave my spacer tool down too. Just had another .030 taken off the heads so it may need additional shave. I do not see how I'd be able to adjust SB pushrods with just the rubber band holding the tube up.
Being just using a plain rubber band for close to fifty years never had a problem. I have one of those spacers tools it nothing for me, it just something else to get in the way. But that's just me.
Up early and have some ideas I'm trying to resolve as best as I can before some of the parts get here. Crank is still two to three weeks out. Cams maybe a week or longer.
This is all just close theory, but gives a general idea as to how close some clearances may be. Also seeing as a visual when the port flow starts and stops, and when during rotational cycles the flow backs up into the port the wrong way.
124 ~ storm breaker - 01.jpg
124 ~ storm breaker - 02.jpg
Some parts of the build are changing, and there may be a few more that change. I have cams to use, I'm not going to use the S&S640 or S&S675 cams. I'm going to use for now what I'll call mystery cams.
I've determined the lifters I'll use, Jim's #1827 Steady Roll Power Glide lifters. I have to determine if I can use limiters in these, but I'm pretty sure that I can.
Lots of things to do before I can even start any assembly. For one the crank still isn't done. Soon I hope.
cams for storm breaker - 02.jpg
cams for storm breaker - 03.jpg
cams for storm breaker - 05.jpg
cams for storm breaker - 10.jpg
JIMS Powerglide Steady Roll - 01.jpg
JIMS Powerglide Steady Roll - 02.jpg
Jims lifters get a bad rap which makes about as much sense as saying all Fords are junk because of the Pinto. I put 20k miles on a set of those bushing lifters from Jims during their initial offering period as part of a field test. They looked perfect when I removed them and made absolutely n noise. Mind you, that unlike most owners of TC engines on this forum I am not sitting around with a stethoscope listening for imaginary lifter noise.
I am really anxious to see how this turns out.
All Jims lifters are not created equal.
Good Choice of lifters Brian. When I was building my 120 in 2015 I knew these bushed roller EZ-Roll (https://iskycams.com/downloads/ISKY-EZRollHelixFlyer119.pdf) lifters were being made by Isky. I tried to get info on them and limiters at SEMA but eventually moved ahead with S&S premiums. They were very pricey but the risk of needle bearings contaminating your built engine went away. Kinda like an insurance policy. I have one more set of original Premiums left and am considering selling them to go to the Steady Roll style lifters.
The B2 head 124 I just worked on with 640 cam we used solids with a .750 wheel. Springs were 525# rate, 210# seat pressure. Set to .010 lash cold. A success, quiet hot. But these heads have much larger heavier valves.
Not to discredit your choice. The Jims lifter is made by the same company that used to make lifters for Comp, USA, and the bushed oil fed wheel has a much higher load capacity than the needle bearings. I think these are a good choice.
My how the winds have changed regarding those horrible Jims lifters. There are countless threads on this forum where they have been discussed, trashed and dismissed by the regulars. I guess these might be the new flavor of the day. Amazing.
Quote from: turboprop on March 18, 2022, 06:44:45 AMJims lifters get a bad rap which makes about as much sense as saying all Fords are junk because of the Pinto. I put 20k miles on a set of those bushing lifters from Jims during their initial offering period as part of a field test. They looked perfect when I removed them and made absolutely n noise. Mind you, that unlike most owners of TC engines on this forum I am not sitting around with a stethoscope listening for imaginary lifter noise.
I am really anxious to see how this turns out.
One of the reasons I chose these is because you had run them without troubles. I agree, if every lifter they sold was bad, Jim's wouldn't be selling them any longer.
Quote from: kd on March 18, 2022, 07:31:06 AMGood Choice of lifters Brian. When I was building my 120 in 2015 I knew these bushed roller EZ-Roll (https://iskycams.com/downloads/ISKY-EZRollHelixFlyer119.pdf) lifters were being made by Isky. I tried to get info on them and limiters at SEMA but eventually moved ahead with S&S premiums. They were very pricey but the risk of needle bearings contaminating your built engine went away. Kinda like an insurance policy. I have one more set of original Premiums left and am considering selling them to go to the Steady Roll style lifters.
I need to pull them apart and see if S&S sized limiters will fit. I may have to have some made if not. When I asked them at Jim's if they were the same inside dimensions as OEM HD lifters, they said they didn't know. Obviously was a first tier support person.
Isky and Jim's share a USA source. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I realize the choice is made.
Another option, .750 wheel has many advantages, .075 travel native no spacer, larger clipped axle..
S&S 33-5338 limiters do not fit the Jim's lifter body. I measured a set of Johnson 2313SE and they match the Jim's body ID and the spring OD is within 0.002". So I ordered a set of limiters for the Johnson lifters, and will see how they look. It's not rocket science, it's a solid stop for the lifter body just below a slight hydraulic cushion.
limiters 02.jpg
Well, all you have to do is check on HTT and you'll find your answers.
Apparently the Jim's lifters use the old style internal lifter dimensions of the HD 18538-99 & 99A lifters. So the S&S travel limiter is then S&S number 33-5339. I have these on the way as well.
https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,6538.msg65803.html#msg65803 (https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,6538.msg65803.html#msg65803)
https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,11794.msg121852.html#msg121852 (https://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,11794.msg121852.html#msg121852)
I've installed the S&S 33-5339 limiters in the Jim's #1827 Steady Roll Power Glide lifters. I should have the best of both worlds. A limiter to maintain valve opening even at high RPM with the high pressure valve springs I'll have. And the bushing in lieu of the roller bearings for the tappet rollers. These should be able to handle the aggressive cams and the stiffer springs to keep the lifter on the cam.
I've had a lot of hydraulic lifters apart when they were new. I will say that the Jim's lifters must have a really close tolerance between the body and the plunger. The plunger has to be dead in the same plane to get them to start. Then they just glide in. Many lifters I've had apart you could put them together without a thought.
Below are the actual ID and OD measure of the 33-5338 and the 33-5339 limiters. The thickness varies a little, and doesn't matter at all.
JIMS Powerglide Steady Roll with limiters - 01.jpg
S&S 33-5338 and 33-5339 HL2 limiter dimensions.jpg
What is the measured internal plunger travel of those lifters ?
They're a nominal 0.200". I checked the depth without the spring, but with the limiter, and I get around 0.098" +/- a few thousands. Jim's recommended nominal adjustment is a depth of 0.100". This is their chart based on pushrod TPI.
(https://i.imgur.com/f0bZr6v.png)
so in round figures :SM: bottom the lifters and back off the PR a hair
Yep, I usually go two flats with 32 TPI pushrods. When you tighten the locknut the screw thread lifts slightly from mid thread to locked against the nut thread. So the 0.010" gap is insurance and probably goes to 0.005" ~ 0.007" when tight.
Quote from: Ohio HD on March 22, 2022, 05:41:04 PMYep, I usually go two flats with 32 TPI pushrods. When you tighten the locknut the screw thread lifts slightly from mid thread to locked against the nut thread. So the 0.010" gap is insurance and probably goes to 0.005" ~ 0.007" when tight.
:agree: :up: The effect that tightening lock nuts on adjusters (of all types) have on the overall adjusted distance when the threads are pulled to one side by the lock nut is something a lot of people don't consider. Especially when the tolerance target is as small as 1 flat. I like to set my limiters at 1 flat too but like you I go closer to 2 flats so the effect of locking the adjuster brings me back to 1 flat. Any less than that risks hard starting in cold conditions due to the valves not seating. On my shovel with solids I went to the point there was no shake and I could feel a light resistance to spinning the pushrod. The fact is, and it has been discussed here before, when the engine gets hot (in a just a few minutes), the growth of the top end adds a little more clearance to the pushrod. The hot engine clearance likely becomes more3 like 3 flats (ish).
In my experience, set this way there are no hot soak starting issues like those without limiters set at .100 deep. The valve train runs silent (depending on the cam lobe profile and valve spring seat weight.
Larry has the limiters that fit these , same as the woods and the Hylift/johnson sure shot lifters he sells ,
http://www.larrysmotorcyclemachine.com/
the limiters are like 20.00 a set
Quote from: itsafatboy on March 23, 2022, 04:28:35 PMLarry has the limiters that fit these , same as the woods and the Hylift/johnson sure shot lifters he sells ,
http://www.larrysmotorcyclemachine.com/
the limiters are like 20.00 a set
$25 a set from Larry.
I ordered a set from Larry and an S&S set. I put the S&S set in because they came already.
I'm like NASA, I double up on everything.
i also see that some people put the limiter on top of the plunger , like fueling short travel , all they are, are fueling race lifters with the limiter on top ,
post how it turns out i want to do the same exact thing with the Jims bushing lifters, i also got a set of the smith brothers pushrods the new ez install ones they are strong pieces for sure, but i am waiting on the smith brothers billet push rod covers , they kind of work like the Sumax ones giving more clearance on the bottom half of cover. they are still behind on production of these though , Cvoid messed a bunch of "Potty mouth" up
They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but it happened. I'm usually in a mode of putting a motor together that when I need a part for fit or assembly I go for the part, and in the case of cams, would lube up the cam and take them to the press to put the gears on. Since I'm still waiting on the crankshaft, not a lot is getting done except small work and some fitting.
So I heated the S&S gears in the oven for about 25 minutes @ 350°. Took the pizza pan to the shop and pressed them on the cams. Was too easy, no creaking or groaning of metal, just a slight slip fit with very little hydraulic force. Can't do that with an air fryer. :teeth:
cams for storm breaker - 06.jpg
cams for storm breaker - 07.jpg
cams for storm breaker - 08.jpg
cams for storm breaker - 09.jpg
Got enough case clearance for those lobes?
Took the words right out of my mouth. I can see why your extra care in choosing robust valve train components that are up to the task.
Yes, S&S is generous with the machined case clearances they provided for the cams. The base circle is also pretty small at 1.182"
Just heard from the supplier that my Carrillo rods are still about four more weeks out. I guess we need to adjust to the 1980's supply chain time table. Special items used to take a long time to get.
:doh: everything is definitely getting harder to get. All the right parts takes time these days. Looking forward to the finished work. It should be all worth while once you twist the throttle. One thing that hasn't changed is the $$ per HP ratio on these beautiful bikes.
A new tool showed up yesterday. I'd been wanting to get the Jim's piston jet tester stand. They recently came out with one that mounts both TC and M8 jets, and I wanted to wait on that unit to come back in stock.
Is it overkill to test these? I don't believe it is. I have a lot of cash tied up in this motor project. I want to know that when the jets are in, they open when they should, and shut off when they should. As well that they spray oil with some consistency.
Jets that don't open when they should, or not at all can cause a motor to run a little hotter. Not shutting off can cause additional oil in the sump, overwhelming the oil pump at idle or just off idle. A small investment in a high dollar motor build.
Jim's USA #730 04-09-2022 - 01.jpg
Jim's USA #730 04-09-2022 - 02.jpg
Jim's USA #730 04-09-2022 - 03.jpg
I made something similar a decade ago, but never thought to sell it...
I drilled, and tapped, an old tour pack spacer, added a schrader valve, cut that off flush, then used my air shock pump to check for stuck squirters.
hd pump squirt.jpg
squirt checker.jpg
Looks good to me. :up:
With the help of don at hdsp I have been testing M8 and twin cam oilers for a long time by modifying my twin cam oiler tester
Jimmy
I just ordered all new HD OEM chrome motor covers in gloss black. I want this motor, black, black, black. I even ordered black chrome hardware set for the motor and driveline.
I found that the company Midwest Acorn Nuts is repackaging for Drag Specialties.
Midwest Acorn Nuts (http://www.midwestacornnut.com/index.html)
Same exact package and hardware that Drag Specialties sells. Seeing they buy them from Midwest Acorn Nuts.
And less expensive. They look as good as DS brand, as this who DS buys from. nd about $60.00 a set less expensive.
(https://i.imgur.com/aVYKRs4.jpg]Midwest Acorn Nut)
(https://i.imgur.com/cueK39w.jpg)
Another new tool idea for the guy who like tools and perfection.
https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/engine/enginelabs-tool-of-the-month-summit-piston-ring-squaring-tool/
Bob
I saw that about 2 weeks ago. There are many other tools for the same job for less money. I like that this one covers more size bores without needing to repurchase a new version to fit. If you do a lot of engine work it especially makes sense.
Quote from: FXDBI on May 01, 2022, 11:31:31 AMAnother new tool idea for the guy who like tools and perfection.
https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/engine/enginelabs-tool-of-the-month-summit-piston-ring-squaring-tool/
Bob
Man oh man Bob.... :doh: I ordered it.... :SM:
Here's the ring squaring tool that Bob made me buy.
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 01.jpg
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 02.jpg
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 03.jpg
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 04.jpg
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 05.jpg
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 06.jpg
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 07.jpg
It's a very well made tool. Maybe on the overkill side, but that's why I like it.
I heard from Darkhorse. Four more weeks till they see the rods from Carrillo. I figure I rode this horse (pun intended) this long, may as well stay on this trail. No one else in the world has the rods in stock anyway. I did find one place that "might" have a set. They're supposed to call me tomorrow.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 05, 2022, 06:25:36 PMI heard from Darkhorse. Four more weeks till they see the rods from Carrillo. I figure I rode this horse (pun intended) this long, may as well stay on this trail. No one else in the world has the rods in stock anyway. I did find one place that "might" have a set. They're supposed to call me tomorrow.
Probably won't work for your application, but maybe. I have a never been run set of Carrillo rods for a TC, 8" center to center. Yours if you can use them. No strings, givebacks, I am not responsible for anything, etc, etc.
PS - Admins, no need to get your panties in a wod, nothing being sold here.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 05, 2022, 06:20:20 PMHere's the ring squaring tool that Bob made me buy.
I've noticed that he's free with the $$$$ :up:
Quote from: turboprop on May 05, 2022, 06:47:33 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 05, 2022, 06:25:36 PMI heard from Darkhorse. Four more weeks till they see the rods from Carrillo. I figure I rode this horse (pun intended) this long, may as well stay on this trail. No one else in the world has the rods in stock anyway. I did find one place that "might" have a set. They're supposed to call me tomorrow.
Probably won't work for your application, but maybe. I have a never been run set of Carrillo rods for a TC, 8" center to center. Yours if you can use them. No strings, givebacks, I am not responsible for anything, etc, etc.
PS - Admins, no need to get your panties in a wod, nothing being sold here.
Thank you for the offer, as I know it's genuine.
You're right, I'm setup for 7.66" rods. I'd have to make some major changes to use 8.00" rods.
They'll eventually show up.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 05, 2022, 06:20:20 PMHere's the ring squaring tool that Bob made me buy.
:hyst: Yes I had to really twist your arm to invest in such a fine looking new tool.
I am jealous now. Bob
Quote from: FXDBI on May 05, 2022, 10:40:05 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 05, 2022, 06:20:20 PMHere's the ring squaring tool that Bob made me buy.
:hyst: Yes I had to really twist your arm to invest in such a fine looking new tool.
I am jealous now. Bob
You should be. :teeth:
Have you used the tool? Is it worth it over a piston and two pins?
Haven't used it yet, but it'll be worth it to me.
My method has been using four aluminum spacers that were the same height. Place the piston ring into the top of the cylinder, about an inch into the cylinder. Place the cylinder upside down on my steel flat work bench. Place the spacers at 90° intervals around the bore. Press the ring down to all four spacers, flip the cylinder, and measure carefully.
This tool will allow me to measure the gap while the tool is in place. Assuring that the ring is square to the bore.
I need it, it's a tool.
I was taught. Put cylinder on bench top up. Put ring in cylinder at top. Put two pins in the piston to be used and have them meet in the middle of piston. Flip piston upside down and push ring down until pins hit top of cylinder and rock piston. Rotate piston 90 and rock again. This works with most pistons that come through. The rocking is what brings this method into question and maybe why I will purchase tool. Besides, it's a tool I don't have.
Quote from: hrdtail78 on May 06, 2022, 01:05:14 PMI was taught. Put cylinder on bench top up. Put ring in cylinder at top. Put two pins in the piston to be used and have them meet in the middle of piston. Flip piston upside down and push ring down until pins hit top of cylinder and rock piston. Rotate piston 90 and rock again. This works with most pistons that come through. The rocking is what brings this method into question and maybe why I will purchase tool. Besides, it's a tool I don't have.
Exactly. :teeth:
Quote from: hrdtail78 on May 06, 2022, 01:05:14 PMI was taught. Put cylinder on bench top up. Put ring in cylinder at top. Put two pins in the piston to be used and have them meet in the middle of piston. Flip piston upside down and push ring down until pins hit top of cylinder and rock piston. Rotate piston 90 and rock again. This works with most pistons that come through. The rocking is what brings this method into question and maybe why I will purchase tool. Besides, it's a tool I don't have.
If you buy one just remember its Ohio's fault not mine. Bob
OK, I did a quick test of the tool. Works as it should, squares up the ring very easily. You can reach into the bore on both side of the tool, and lift the ring against the tool face at both sides of the tool, the gap becomes aligned very easily.
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 08.jpg
SME-906002 - Piston Ring Squaring Tool (3.750 in. to 4.650 in. Bore) - 09.jpg
Since I pulled the cylinders out to check the ring gap, it was optimum time to measure the bore and document everything. Average piston to bore clearance is 0.003". I'm going to have 0.0018" thickness of abradable coating put on the piston skirts.
Below are the measurements I took. I took them several times to insure I was repeatable in measuring. All in all I think Hammer Performance did a good job. The measurements through the length of the bore are very tight.
124 inch cylinder measurements - Hammer Performance.jpg
If you go into "Home Made Tools" I've put up pictures of what I use to square rings in the cylinders. I used some aluminum drops on the smaller bore cylinders. On the larger bores I use PVC pipe with the bottom OD turned down to fit the bore. Cost just about nothing, and works as well as any $$$ magic squaring tool. :up:
John
Waiting on parts, I'm just doing a few things here and there to keep this in motion. Today I decided to drill the S&S cases for OEM Harley oiling rather than use the S&S rubber oil lines. :sick:
I bought the Vulcan fixture for drilling the case. It comes with a new drill bit, and three plugs to fill the case where you remove the S&S rubber oil line fittings.
The vent hole you drill going completely through the case into the cam chest area. Before starting duct tape up all of the openings in the case and cover the bearings. I drilled the vent hole first to get a feel of how the aluminum case would drill. The material S&S uses is 356-T6 aircraft grade aluminum, and it's pretty tough. using a larger drill bit, a 3/8" without a smaller pilot hole, the drilling is slow. Drilling this one first is the thickest part of the case you'll drill, and you can't hardly screw up, so I suggest starting here.
The return and feed lines, when you drill them you intersect with the two lines S&S drilled from the lower side of the case where their fittings are. A good tip I got from John Sachs is to insert a steel bar into the hole S&S drilled, that way when you break through you hit the steel bar and not blast through and hit the other side of the case wall. I used a long steel round center punch. Once you hit the bar or punch. You can remove the punch and carefully drill through the rest of your hole without heavy pressure on the drill. I used grease to lube the bit and pulled the bit often and cleaned away the drill shavings, and relube, drill some more.
You can see where I used an allen wrench to show how deep the S&S hole is, and that it intersects with where the Vulcan fixture will drill. Hopefully S&S doesn't change their drilling locations. Before drilling you remove the three fittings S&S installed. And afterwards after cleaning out the cases well, you plug the S&S oil passage opening with the three plugs Vulcan supplies.
Not hard to do, but not for the faint of heart. Check where you're drilling before you drill. take your time and do it right. I would think a shop would charge $100 to do this. You can't just chop at it and look later. But it's not rocket science, and the fixture is almost $200 retail. Vulcan also sells additional plugs for when you drill the next set of cases.
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 00.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 01.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 03.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 04.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 05.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 07.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 08.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 10.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 11.jpg
Vulcan oil passage fixture - 13.jpg
Brian...have you given any thought to addressing the valve train geometry with using .700 lift cams? You will need to pay close attention to your rocker box covers for clearance too.
That Vulcan oil hole drilling rig is definitely the way to go. :up:
Yes, everything will be looked at to insure there are no issues with the valvetrain.
The elimination of the externally oil hoses is the only way to fly. You have to drill the transmission case for their oil lines anyway to run an S&S case. So you may as well do it right and eliminate the hoses.
A 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.
MBS Manufacturing - TCRBAS-A27 - Cam Box Alignment Screws.jpg
MBS Manufacturing - TCRBAS-A27 (https://mbsmfg.com/compatible-for-harley-davidson-twin-cam-rocker-box-alignment-screws-1999-present/)
A complete set of Twin Cam rocker assembly fasteners from ARP. These mount the rocker supports, vent assemblies, upper rocker cover, lower rocker box. These won't let the monster cam throw the rocker assemblies into orbit.
ARP rocker assemblies fasteners.jpg
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.
MBS Manufacturing - TCRBAS-A27 - Cam Box Alignment Screws.jpg
MBS Manufacturing - TCRBAS-A27 (https://mbsmfg.com/compatible-for-harley-davidson-twin-cam-rocker-box-alignment-screws-1999-present/)
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.
Friday the 13th! What could go wrong? Or maybe what could go right?
I spoke with Andrew at Darkhorse, the Carrillo rods shipped today. So they should have them one day next week. Maybe by the end of the month I'll have the crankshaft. Things are moving forward. I'm not rushed, and I know that quality takes time. Suppliers are doing everything they can. I don't rush people I ask to do work for me. They know their business better than I do.
I have a lot to check out, measure, clearance checks etc. when I start the lower assembly, crank endplay, piston to piston, piston to flywheel, etc. Then cams, gear to gear clearance, degree wheel, make sure that they're doing what they should be doing when they should be doing it. Then once that's good, valve to piston clearances, clearance rocker box upper and lower for rocker arm movements, etc. I don't like sudden noises that shouldn't happen. So I check everything.
(https://i.imgur.com/AecCEya.jpg)
Ok, since we're getting closer. How about a cam guessing game? I'll give the intake closing value, and the lobe separation angle, see if you can determine what they are. These are off the shelf cams. They came wrapped in wax paper, then newspaper, then boxed. :teeth:
Intake closes at 63° after ABDC
Lobe separation angle is 109°
No help from the couple of you that knows what they are..... :kick:
cams for storm breaker - 10.jpg
... and the intake and exhaust are .020 difference?
Give or take a thousands or so.
Aha, So you have a true measurement then (not just going by the the spec sheet numbers). I think I have it and I am sure I didn't get it from you "directly". :teeth: I can't think of a sneaky way to say what it is so I will sit back and watch. If I am correct I'll tell you how I got it in less than 5 minutes and you provided it indirectly. You'll like the answer.
tick tick tick
You have to consider, "valve lift" is based on rocker arm ratio x cam lift. Hence plus or minus a few thousands. Different ratios....
KD figured it out.
Leineweber TS9G07 - 00.jpg
Image 5.jpg
Full disclosure.
It was easy. I went straight to the TC Cam Spec Sticky that Ohio so graciously spent time and posted for our use. It's a few lines above at the top of the page and one of the more complete lists with full specs you'll find anywhere. I had the answer in about 2 minutes or less.
This is just another one of those things that makes HTT such a great tech site. It's also why I and others (among some of the other benefits) became a site supporter and contribute each year. In fact this reminded me that I do that every year in May and will do it right now before I forget. :hyst:
Full disclosure photo.
Should be a hard hitting set of cams at the top end.
Leineweber TS9G07 - 02.jpg
Those look like some monster lobes, should be one hell of a fun ride.
I've input the data for this motor as best I can. The head data I only have some guesses as to what the specs are and how they effect the motor. Soon I'll know the heads, specs and can make another run in the software.
If all goes as I think it should, I will be close to these numbers. We'll see...... :chop:
This is calculated as SAE correction and real wheel HP and torque.
124 ~ storm breaker - 04.jpg
As Hoss mentioned I would also tag these grinds as "monster lobes" by the way they look, and are these cams noisy with those steep ramps? A while ago I tried Bob Wood's TW9BG cams which I liked very much for their wide torque band but I couldn't get the noise cured away so I switched to Crane HTC-2GD cams, they aren't that noisy.
And Ohio, which software do yo you use for that evaluation? I'm just curious...
Armin.
These cam lobes may make "some" noises, but it doesn't concern me. One thing that gets overlooked a lot is using the correct valve springs with aggressive cams. You keep the roller on the cam, and there shouldn't be excessive noise. I've used a lot of Leineweber cams in Shovel Head motors. As long as I had Velva Touch lifters in them, they were quiet. I've also used a few different Leineweber cams in Evo motors with the OEM lifters. They also were not at all noisy.
The software is Engine Analyzer Pro. Is the values it's giving accurate? We'll see once the bike is done and gets a dyno tune. Is 170 SAE feasible? Yes it is. Will I really hit that much? I can only hope and wait and see. Some values such as powertrain loss you have to guess at to get rear wheel numbers.
Thanks for the reply Ohio HD, I also use Engine Analyzer Pro for my approximations and find it a bit problematic to adjust the intake and exhaust variables to resemble the realistics, but in general I am quite content with the possibiities of this software.
Armin.
I agree about the intake side. Unless you can flow the system, it's not 100% accurate. But I have pretty good data in there.
My exhaust system is easy, I know the specs as Burns will supply them to you.
They only recently (I'm not sure how far back) started using some HD motor inputs. Rather than using automotive input screens and trying to make that work.
:agree: The Burns pipe will NOT be a hold back. It may just be the best performing pipe out there for your goals. Just look at where they get used to answer that question. I really think the megaphone can shape is part of the recipe in that pipe.
I also think you were very selective with the throttle body and breather making sure they were capable of delivering properly on both ends of the curve. At some point I seem to remember you mentioning your injector choice but can't remember what it was. I did however wonder if it was enough to dependably feed it at the top when your making that kind of power.
IMO, If you just visually compare the profile of those cams to a similarly aggressive Wood cam lobe like a 9, I think that you will see they are a softer turn off the lobe and that should help to reduce lofting up there where I know you want to go. :teeth:
I have Siemens 8.6gr/sec injectors, based on HD's fuel pressure of 58 PSI. Should be plenty to get there with overhead.
0514HD - 8.9gps (68.3lbs~hr @ 60PSI) Siemens injector - 01.jpg
0514HD - 8.9gps (68.3lbs~hr @ 60PSI) Siemens injector - 02.jpg
0514HD - 8.9gps (68.3lbs~hr @ 60PSI) Siemens injector - 04.jpg
Without actually measuring the entire lobe of a Wood and Leineweber cam, I'm just guessing. But from what I've always visually seen, and from what Jim Leineweber (RIP) had told me in the past was his cams opened the valves to maximum lift from the base circle at a faster rate than most or all other off the shelf cams. That was one of the reasons he used 0.020" lift timing specs rather than the HD standard of 0.053". He told me that after 0.020" cam lift, it was harder to get a repeatable result due to the rate the lifter rode up the lobe. He started adding the 0.053" specs I think during the Evo days. That way most people could relate his cams to others by timing.
Jim Leineweber had always said, the more in crankshaft degrees that you're at or near full valve lift, the greater the torque spread will be. So he opens them fast, and then closes them fast.
Leineweber Cams (https://www.leinewebercams.com/)
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. :smilep:
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.
124 ~ storm breaker seat to seat valve timing - 01.jpg
This is the two compared. The light blue is the 0.020" timing values.
0.020 timing vs 0.053 timing.jpg
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.
:hyst:
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.
282225320_426330662833882_5856416480222698407_n.jpg
283009210_426330176167264_9101311433369230468_n.jpg
283021050_426330006167281_6923686928476492284_n.jpg
283116059_426330452833903_2673153052192557839_n.jpg
283162832_426330096167272_5365299177434394371_n.jpg
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 PMQuote 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.
MBS Manufacturing - TCRBAS-A27 - Cam Box Alignment Screws.jpg
MBS Manufacturing - TCRBAS-A27 (https://mbsmfg.com/compatible-for-harley-davidson-twin-cam-rocker-box-alignment-screws-1999-present/)
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. :doh:
You know, of you had planned ahead a little, instead of rushing the build............
:bike:
Quote from: Hossamania on May 20, 2022, 01:10:39 PMYou know, of you had planned ahead a little, instead of rushing the build............
:bike:
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 PMQuote from: Hossamania on May 20, 2022, 01:10:39 PMYou know, of you had planned ahead a little, instead of rushing the build............
:bike:
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. :up:
John
Quote from: jsachs1 on May 20, 2022, 02:29:27 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 20, 2022, 01:19:55 PMQuote from: Hossamania on May 20, 2022, 01:10:39 PMYou know, of you had planned ahead a little, instead of rushing the build............
:bike:
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. :up:
John
I'll find out from Andrew if they are. I appreciate your input on these John. :up:
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.
FINAL 124 storm breaker build dimenions - rev 08.jpg
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.
Yes, I measured mine without the gasket for accuracy too. I also ended up with +.0035 actual on my 120. I layered a .020 SLS with a .0035 linen (cotton fiber) special document paper using aviation cement film. It compressed exactly .0000. No Cents did the same. I went to a stationary store with my micrometer. :teeth: It has held a bone dry seal. I didn't want a carbon ring forming at the top of the piston and inhibiting ring seal.
You really think 0.0035" will cause a problem? Very unlikely. It's all dependent on how far the top ring is from the crown of the piston. Some are deeper than others.
OEM 110 pistons, the top ring is 0.175" from the crown. CP Bullet series pistons that I'm using, the top ring is 0.200" from the piston crown. Further from heat, and further from indirect carbon build at the top of the cylinder. The additional depth also allows for slight fitting adjustments.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 21, 2022, 11:37:35 AMYou really think 0.0035" will cause a problem? Very unlikely. It's all dependent on how far the top ring is from the crown of the piston. Some are deeper than others.
OEM 110 pistons, the top ring is 0.175" from the crown. CP Bullet series pistons that I'm using, the top ring is 0.200" from the piston crown. Further from heat, and further from indirect carbon build at the top of the cylinder. The additional depth also allows for slight fitting adjustments.
Oh yeah. I spell it O-C-D. :hyst: I see you are trying to deal with the same amount. :teeth:
I was mostly thinking about preventing a carbon ring forming around the top crown edge of the piston and reducing the gas pressure behind the rings. Like you say, the carbon tends to pack into the edge of the cylinders. As it turns out, after checking the cylinders with an endoscope after thousands of miles, "for some reason" the pistons are still shiny clean. :SM: You can read the numbers etched in the tops like they were new. Go figure. :hyst: Well at least I know what I have.
I understand. Knowing what you have is important when looking into some issue.
If I were really concerned with carbon, etc. I'd set the squish tighter than 0.030" and let the motor warm up to operating temperature before riding it. Street motors are a compromise to total performance and motor life. We get there close, but racing tolerances can be quite a bit different.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 21, 2022, 11:37:35 AMYou really think 0.0035" will cause a problem? Very unlikely. It's all dependent on how far the top ring is from the crown of the piston. Some are deeper than others.
OEM 110 pistons, the top ring is 0.175" from the crown. CP Bullet series pistons that I'm using, the top ring is 0.200" from the piston crown. Further from heat, and further from indirect carbon build at the top of the cylinder. The additional depth also allows for slight fitting adjustments.
You also need to look at the intake valve pocket re: Top ring land.
John
I decided I may need a stronger chain than what I have. EK Chain has a new series of chain that's stronger and lighter than their previous 530 series chains. This one has 11,400 PSI tensile strength. The tire should go up in smoke before this chain would break, but one never knows.
EK Chain 693-1620BK - Chain Z 2D OX2 O-Ring 05-21-2022 - 01.jpg
EK Chain 693-1620BK - Chain Z 2D OX2 O-Ring 05-21-2022 - 03.jpg
EK Chain 693-1620BK - Chain Z 2D OX2 O-Ring 05-21-2022 - 04.jpg
EK Chain 693-1620BK - Chain Z 2D OX2 O-Ring 05-21-2022 - 07.jpg
Another tool is always wanted. I bought a heavier duty chain breaker - riveter. Bikemaster is supposed to be one of the better chain tools out there. It is really heavy duty. Works on 420, 530 and 630 chains.
Bikemaster Chain Breaker - Riveter 05-21-2022 - 01.jpg
Bikemaster Chain Breaker - Riveter 05-21-2022 - 02.jpg
Got to have one.
20220521_200331.jpg
I have a couple lighter duty breakers. But they don't rivet all that well. I needed a good one.
I bought that one for my wife's 650gs but have done a few sport bikes with it. Seemed to work well. I have a shaft drive on my bike so a different animal for maintenance. Lol
I will add I've never used the chain breaker. The cut off grinder works for that.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 21, 2022, 07:23:08 PMAnother tool is always wanted. I bought a heavier duty chain breaker - riveter. Bikemaster is supposed to be one of the better chain tools out there. It is really heavy duty. Works on 420, 530 and 630 chain
At least you didnt blame no one else for this tool purchase but yourself! :hyst: Bob
Quote from: FXDBI on May 21, 2022, 08:34:22 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 21, 2022, 07:23:08 PMAnother tool is always wanted. I bought a heavier duty chain breaker - riveter. Bikemaster is supposed to be one of the better chain tools out there. It is really heavy duty. Works on 420, 530 and 630 chain
At least you didnt blame no one else for this tool purchase but yourself! :hyst: Bob
Heck, I put two kids through collage at Purdue University buying from my Snap-On guy..... :emoGroan:
Great chain! It's the one I used also. I also bought bike master kit and love it. I did have to crank down pretty hard on it to get a good rivet set. I also did a little deburring on mine. It came a little rough where they tapped it for the threads on the inside of the tool. It would interfere with the bolt threads going into the tool. Good tool though. Not a whole lot of good tools offered for this job. I definitely can't wait to see the end result. It's going to be insane for sure.
You may have gotten one that was at the end of their tapping tool's life span when they made it. I checked the threads first thing, these are all smooth. I may have gotten a Tuesday or Wednesday built tool. :idunno:
A box full of black parts arrived. Complete set including transmission, except the outer primary. It's in a different box.
Outside looks good. The insides are terrible. I'll have to deburr the inside of every part. I can flick pieces of aluminum off by hand. So they assemble parts like this on a motor at the factory. Sad.
Black TC parts - 01.jpg
Black TC parts - 05.jpg
The sad part all those parts are made in the good old USA, by union workers. You would think they would have a little pride in there work.
Well, I have to give Carrillo a few points for responding right away. This guy would know, he's their Rod Sales Manager. I suspect that the eight weeks is probably not real however. Art at R&R said he had waited almost a year for some rods from Carrillo.
email from CP - 05-23-2022.jpg
I wonder if there that busy or they can't get enough good workers to keep up with the demand. I hear this all over.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 20, 2022, 12:37:47 PMWell, 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. :doh:
I have their competition rods in mine at 160hp, no issues whatsoever.
I have stacked .010 and a .020 to get .030. I have stacked .010's on each side of a stroker plate all with no problems. I use a light coating of case sealer. This coming after recommendations in doing so from several builder that I consider some of the best in the industry.
Quote from: hrdtail78 on May 26, 2022, 11:29:50 AMI have stacked .010 and a .020 to get .030. I have stacked .010's on each side of a stroker plate all with no problems. I use a light coating of case sealer. This coming after recommendations in doing so from several builder that I consider some of the best in the industry.
I wondered about stacking the Cometic SLS gaskets.
You just used the typical grey case sealer on them? I never thought to use that on a gasket, but it makes perfect sense.
Yes, ThreeBond 1184.
I experimented stacking base gaskets using Permatex Aviation form A non hardening gasket cement in a thin film just enough to put a shine on the surface. When the barrels are torqued down any access will form a barely noticeable bead around the perimeter of the base. It is easily removed with a pointy stick and cleans up with solvent. I measured the stack components and that was exactly the dimension that showed up on the deck height change. Even with a linen paper stacked as a shim 4 years later still bone dry. Now I better not have jinxed myself to share this with you. :crook:
I have to give Andrew at DH a good word. I spoke to him on Monday, and by Tuesday they started on my crankshaft. Today, Thursday they finished, and will ship it tomorrow.
This should be the last of any major expenses, except tuning the bike. It'll cost me as much in fuel to haul my bike to the tuner and back as it'll be to tune it..... but that's maybe September the way timewise things stand now.
Good thing, I'm getting light headed from selling blood every few days to fund this project.
Quote from: kd on May 26, 2022, 07:07:03 PMI experimented stacking base gaskets using Permatex Aviation form A non hardening gasket cement in a thin film just enough to put a shine on the surface. When the barrels are torqued down any access will form a barely noticeable bead around the perimeter of the base. It is easily removed with a pointy stick and cleans up with solvent. I measured the stack components and that was exactly the dimension that showed up on the deck height change. Even with a linen paper stacked as a shim 4 years later still bone dry. Now I better not have jinxed myself to share this with you. :crook:
I should have added that the Cometic SLS base gaskets have a micro rubber coating too. They are stamped identical so they may not crush the stacked vein (the way they fit together) with the OEM head torque. I know they told me I could do it but didn't ask about compressing 2 SLS veins together. It may be a good question to ask them.
I initially experimented with used SLS but ended up using linen document paper so I didn't .
I know as well as most that engine analyzer softwares are only a mathematical estimate of what a specific motor build might produce power wise. I have all of the data I need, actual data from the exhaust, heads, cams, etc. I also learned a few things about the software, there is a way to input cam data that indicates a broader nose lobe, which these cams have. Also I found out that when I had roller hydraulics selected as the lifters, I was getting some strange output on the top of the RPM range. I selected solid roller lifters and the power drop off stopped, and some other areas of the suggested dyno output made more sense to look at the curves. I'm running lifters with limiters. So in essence they are solids in the event that the hydraulic lifter bleeds down any at all.
So I'm posting this final result. Mainly I just want to see how close the actual output will be. might be close, it might not be. I think it'll be close.
Engine Analyzer Pro - 124 inch - leineweber T9S - 05-27-2022.jpg
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 26, 2022, 07:35:13 PMI have to give Andrew at DH a good word. I spoke to him on Monday, and by Tuesday they started on my crankshaft. Today, Thursday they finished, and will ship it tomorrow.
This should be the last of any major expenses, except tuning the bike. It'll cost me as much in fuel to haul my bike to the tuner and back as it'll be to tune it..... but that's maybe September the way timewise things stand now.
Good thing, I'm getting light headed from selling blood every few days to fund this project.
Blood, Sweat and hopefully no tears. All the ingredients of a good build.
This is my guess, in STD.
Stormbreaker_124_STD.png
That poor back tire...
Quote from: rigidthumper on May 27, 2022, 04:22:55 AMThis is my guess, in STD.
Stormbreaker_124_STD.png
We're not all that far apart. This will be the interesting part for sure, when the motor mounts the dyno and gets tuned.
Mine is listed as SAE, but as with "most" software representations, they might be a touch optimistic. I've tried to setup the system with what I really do know.
I overlade the two computer generated sheets. I adjusted the STD sheet that rigidthumper provided as best as I can to SAE. Mine is still a little more optimistic. But they do get very close in some of the RPM ranges. As well the shape of the curves are very similar.
Engine Analyzer Pro - 124 inch - leineweber T9S - 05-27-2022 and rigidthumper STD to SAE .jpg
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 26, 2022, 07:35:13 PMI have to give Andrew at DH a good word. I spoke to him on Monday, and by Tuesday they started on my crankshaft. Today, Thursday they finished, and will ship it tomorrow.
This should be the last of any major expenses, except tuning the bike. It'll cost me as much in fuel to haul my bike to the tuner and back as it'll be to tune it..... but that's maybe September the way timewise things stand now.
Good thing, I'm getting light headed from selling blood every few days to fund this project.
Well, looks like the crankshaft will arrive this Sunday.
I guess Andrew shipped it by "Pony Express" from Darkhorse. :smile:
(https://i.imgur.com/B1IUqiN.jpg)
Maybe it has already been posted, but could you repeat what platform this is going in?
Quote from: turboprop on May 27, 2022, 03:35:31 PMMaybe it has already been posted, but could you repeat what platform this is going in?
Heavy bike, 2008 Street Glide. Right now OA gearing is 3.063:1. I may drop it as much as 3.509:1.
Bagger racing seems to be all the rage right now. I don't get it. Sort of like a strip club with a bunch of fat chicks, but to each their own. Do you plan to take this deathwagen to the track?
Quote from: turboprop on May 27, 2022, 04:41:04 PMBagger racing seems to be all the rage right now. I don't get it. Sort of like a strip club with a bunch of fat chicks, but to each their own. Do you plan to take this deathwagen to the track?
:hyst: Hard telling at this point. It's meant more for screwing with my friends. I also plan to do some work with the suspension. Maybe Racetech parts in the forks, rear, not sure yet. But will add 1" to the shock length. I already wear my floor boards out. Will also be rebuilding the swing arm pivot when I change swingarms.
I take that back, Andrew is using "Wild Stallion Express" from Darkhorse.
The crank will be here tomorrow.
(https://i.imgur.com/TpoACK0.jpg)
I think you will hit the mark.
I put in some hypotheticals that I didn't know for sure like the compression and head data.
Like we used to say at work. All that FedEx will ever be is UPS's little brother......
They changed the delivery back to Sunday.
Crank is sitting in Chicago. They probably read "Crankworks" on the box, and called in the DEA. :pop:
(https://i.imgur.com/Eb7guEM.png)
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 28, 2022, 06:21:56 PMLike we used to say at work. All that FedEx will ever be is UPS's little brother......
They changed the delivery back to Sunday.
Crank is sitting in Chicago. They probably read "Crankworks" on the box, and called in the DEA. :pop:
(https://i.imgur.com/Eb7guEM.png)
y
Could be worse, could be stuck in New Jersey. Every package I have go through there is a week delayed just sitting.
The crankshaft arrived today. As with all their work, looks superb, and is smooth.
They have the sprocket shaft race at 0.0006" total run out, the pinion shaft race is 0.0005" total run out. The pinion shaft at the cam plate / oil pump is 0.0004" total run out.
There isn't anyone that could do better. Maybe as good, but not better.
DH Man O War 4.625 Strom Breaker 124 - 05-29-2022 - 01 - post.jpg
DH Man O War 4.625 Strom Breaker 124 - 05-29-2022 - 05 - post.jpg
I tested the S&S 31-2026 piston oiler jets. I forgot to order new HD SE jets to compare them. Right at 10 PSI pressure, the valves opened and oil started dribbling. At 18 PSI the valve is shooting a strong stream of oil. I would say it was easily seven to eight inches. So no issues getting oil to the piston bottom even at TDC. I used dino 20w50 oil, and it was at ambient temperature.
S&S 31-2026 piston oiler jets test - 05-29-2022 - 01.jpg
S&S 31-2026 piston oiler jets test - 05-29-2022 - 10.jpg
The clutch that will be used for this project will be a Bandit 039831 Sportsman Super Clutch. I remembered that there was some talk about some of the Bandit clutch baskets bottoming on the inner primary bearing race when an S&S race was used. I've had this clutch since 2016, had not been used.
So I made a quick sketch of the clutch hub where it goes over the transmission shaft. I then dimension the length of the splined snout and sent it to John Magee. He replied almost instantly, and told me the length I have indicated will not come in contact with the S&S bearing race.
So this dimension shown will clear the S&S inner primary race.
bandit sportsman clutch basket snout.jpg
When I bought mine I spoke with him and he ended up machining mine back. That was a few years ago and I think you got yours then too. He may have asked you what you were using also. That diagram looks trimmed.
I had my Evo Ind basket trimmed for a jobber brg too.
I went to look at the recent from Bandit, it says 04/02/2018. So my memory was off two years. That's the way it came without my asking to do anything. At the time I was planning to use the roller bearing that Baker ships with the Grudge Box.
I guess by then it became a standard offering.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2022, 11:40:26 AMThe clutch that will be used for this project will be a Bandit 039831 Sportsman Super Clutch. I remembered that there was some talk about some of the Bandit clutch baskets bottoming on the inner primary bearing race when an S&S race was used. I've had this clutch since 2016, had not been used.
So I made a quick sketch of the clutch hub where it goes over the transmission shaft. I then dimension the length of the splined snout and sent it to John Magee. He replied almost instantly, and told me the length I have indicated will not come in contact with the S&S bearing race.
So this dimension shown will clear the S&S inner primary race.
bandit sportsman clutch basket snout.jpg
I think the actual amount to be removed is somewhat variable as the location of the inner race is not absolute. If the goal is to keep as much of the hub on the shaft as possible then it might make sense to remove some material and fit it to the hub, remove some more, fit, etc until there is a gap of say .010" between the race and the torqued in place hub. Or maybe just take it all in one swipe. My guess is you would want want to creep up on it and get the air gap as close as possible.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2022, 12:16:07 PMAt the time I was planning to use the roller bearing that Baker ships with the Grudge Box.
glad you didn't do that :SM:
Quote from: FSG on May 31, 2022, 05:01:02 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2022, 12:16:07 PMAt the time I was planning to use the roller bearing that Baker ships with the Grudge Box.
glad you didn't do that :SM:
I came to my senses. :unsure:
Quote from: turboprop on May 31, 2022, 02:30:51 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2022, 11:40:26 AMThe clutch that will be used for this project will be a Bandit 039831 Sportsman Super Clutch. I remembered that there was some talk about some of the Bandit clutch baskets bottoming on the inner primary bearing race when an S&S race was used. I've had this clutch since 2016, had not been used.
So I made a quick sketch of the clutch hub where it goes over the transmission shaft. I then dimension the length of the splined snout and sent it to John Magee. He replied almost instantly, and told me the length I have indicated will not come in contact with the S&S bearing race.
So this dimension shown will clear the S&S inner primary race.
bandit sportsman clutch basket snout.jpg
I think the actual amount to be removed is somewhat variable as the location of the inner race is not absolute. If the goal is to keep as much of the hub on the shaft as possible then it might make sense to remove some material and fit it to the hub, remove some more, fit, etc until there is a gap of say .010" between the race and the torqued in place hub. Or maybe just take it all in one swipe. My guess is you would want want to creep up on it and get the air gap as close as possible.
The clutch that Bandit sent to me in 2018 (this one) was already 1.343". I was just checking with John that this length was their corrected length for use with the S&S race. He said that the length I have now is ok for the S&S race.
I agree though, if machining the length down, taking off a little at a time is the best approach.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2022, 06:30:06 PMQuote from: turboprop on May 31, 2022, 02:30:51 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2022, 11:40:26 AMThe clutch that will be used for this project will be a Bandit 039831 Sportsman Super Clutch. I remembered that there was some talk about some of the Bandit clutch baskets bottoming on the inner primary bearing race when an S&S race was used. I've had this clutch since 2016, had not been used.
So I made a quick sketch of the clutch hub where it goes over the transmission shaft. I then dimension the length of the splined snout and sent it to John Magee. He replied almost instantly, and told me the length I have indicated will not come in contact with the S&S bearing race.
So this dimension shown will clear the S&S inner primary race.
bandit sportsman clutch basket snout.jpg
I think the actual amount to be removed is somewhat variable as the location of the inner race is not absolute. If the goal is to keep as much of the hub on the shaft as possible then it might make sense to remove some material and fit it to the hub, remove some more, fit, etc until there is a gap of say .010" between the race and the torqued in place hub. Or maybe just take it all in one swipe. My guess is you would want want to creep up on it and get the air gap as close as possible.
The clutch that Bandit sent to me in 2018 (this one) was already 1.343". I was just checking with John that this length was their corrected length for use with the S&S race. He said that the length I have now is ok for the S&S race.
I agree though, if machining the length down, taking off a little at a time is the best approach.
I would still check it on the main shaft prior to pressing it into the basket.
Quote from: turboprop on May 31, 2022, 06:51:07 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2022, 06:30:06 PMQuote from: turboprop on May 31, 2022, 02:30:51 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2022, 11:40:26 AMThe clutch that will be used for this project will be a Bandit 039831 Sportsman Super Clutch. I remembered that there was some talk about some of the Bandit clutch baskets bottoming on the inner primary bearing race when an S&S race was used. I've had this clutch since 2016, had not been used.
So I made a quick sketch of the clutch hub where it goes over the transmission shaft. I then dimension the length of the splined snout and sent it to John Magee. He replied almost instantly, and told me the length I have indicated will not come in contact with the S&S bearing race.
So this dimension shown will clear the S&S inner primary race.
bandit sportsman clutch basket snout.jpg
I think the actual amount to be removed is somewhat variable as the location of the inner race is not absolute. If the goal is to keep as much of the hub on the shaft as possible then it might make sense to remove some material and fit it to the hub, remove some more, fit, etc until there is a gap of say .010" between the race and the torqued in place hub. Or maybe just take it all in one swipe. My guess is you would want want to creep up on it and get the air gap as close as possible.
The clutch that Bandit sent to me in 2018 (this one) was already 1.343". I was just checking with John that this length was their corrected length for use with the S&S race. He said that the length I have now is ok for the S&S race.
I agree though, if machining the length down, taking off a little at a time is the best approach.
I would still check it on the main shaft prior to pressing it into the basket.
Absolutely.
a Mueller ramp will work great with your Bandit clutch set up. :wink:
Since I didn't have any power for a couple of nights last week, I decided to do some electronic mock up of my top end and see how much clearance I should have with regard to valve to piston and valve to valve clearance. This of course doesn't replace actual claying of valve to piston, and checking valve to valve through the spark plug opening. But it does tell you if you may have some problematic clearances before turning the motor over.
These first two images I was able to create inside of Engine Analyzer Pro. Once I had the setup sheet that Jim provides (lots of pertinent valve & head information), I was able to setup the simulation.
The first image is at 360° checking TDC lift and valve to valve. I should have -0.061" of the intake valve inside the pocket in the piston. These pockets are 0.240" deep, so no concerns with being able to clay the clearance.
The second image shows the position of the valves and piston at 368°, 8° after TDC. The valve at that point is opening fast enough to actually start to catch up with the piston, that's now 0.030" down the cylinder. I should have approximately -0.086" intake valve to piston. This is not easily checked for accuracy this way. It has to be clayed because I can't describe the cam lobes accurately to the program. So it's at best an estimate. After 368° the piston will move away from the intake valve very quickly.
The TDC lift should be really close to reality as the TDC number is supplied by the cam manufacturer. This set of cams has an intake TDC lift of 0.286", so they're very aggressive cams.
The third image was my drawing the mock up to double check the Engine Analyzer Pro, and it all checks out with their calculations.
Not all cams will peak out at 368°, but somewhere between 364° to 372° is where the intake valve comes closest to the piston. Depends on the cams at what crankshaft degrees.
360 degrees.jpg
368 degrees.jpg
TDC lift @ 360°.jpg
Any updates on the build Ohio HD?
Nothing of any consequence as of right now. Working on home projects that require better weather. I'll get started on final assembly of the motor in a few months.
My pistons came back yesterday. I thought a long time as to using the Line2Line abradable coating or something else. I ended up calling a few coating businesses and asked them about their products, Line2Line I had already spoken to. I ended up sending the pistons to Polymer Dynamics out of Houston Texas. I spoke with the owner and founder of the business, Carl Benton. He's an extremely knowledgeable man who got started in the coating business in the 1970's. I'm sure he's forgotten more about coatings than any of us know about them.
I had the skirts coated with their ceramic reinforced dry film skirt coating. The piston domes I had them coated with their ceramic piston coating.
The main reason I decided to skip the Line2Line is the break-in requirements. To clarify, if I used the coating to fill the piston clearance to the cylinder, the break in requirements are lengthy due to the wear in of the coating. Piston manufacturers that use Line2Line don't have the coating applied to a fill the clearance thickness, so they don't see the stringent break in requirements. With a new motor that will be untuned, and will no doubt get hot fast, I'm concerned by the lengthy break in. So I opted for a dry film coating.
Carl Benton NASA to NASCAR (https://communityimpact.com/news/2017/05/18/polydyn-cyf/)
IMG_2239.jpg
IMG_2240.jpg
IMG_2242.jpg
IMG_2244.jpg
Very nice. Thanks for sharing.
have you tried their gun oil ?
Quote from: FSG on January 26, 2023, 06:39:46 PMhave you tried their gun oil ?
Dang it! I meant to order some to try when they called for a credit card number and forgot all about it.
I sent my Baker Grudgebox (brand new out of the box) that'll go behind this motor to Liberty's Gears a few weeks ago. Yesterday Terry from Liberty's called me to let me know my transmission probably won't ship till mid next week or the end of next week. The reason is that as he explained that sometimes during the cryogenic process the Rockwell hardness will rise. He said due to that they're going to reprocess everything in order to achieve the results they want. I told him no problem, when it's ready ship it.
It makes me feel a lot better knowing that they actually are checking that the product they send out is as it should be for best results. They're not just running it through the process and shipping it to the customer.
I also want to thank hrdtail78 for suggesting to me that I look into processing the gears to help prevent the stripping of the gear teeth. That's what sparked me to look into what might be the best process to try.
Something else I learned from Terry is that they have performed work for Star Racing. They also build the upgraded M8 compensator ramps for Star. This is a video from George Bryce's FB site. In the video you hear George speak about Liberty's Gears and how long he's used them.
FB Video from GB's page (https://www.facebook.com/george.bryce/posts/pfbid025qfPVpufDLpFFq5ZucLUAvRskdi6XLz1HK4XfRScs1Khx4V4b3on7ATmqMFm9PWJl)
https://libertysgears.com/ (https://libertysgears.com/)
Gorge says Liberty has been the go to for his racing gears.
Curious to know if you'd heard of any gear issues with the grudgebox?
I have not. But strengthening the components and surface preparation has more value than just hopefully helping to insure no gear striping under hard shifts. You get less wear on all of the components. That includes the dog clutch, back cuts in the gears, the shifter drum assembly, gear faces, shifter forks, etc.
This whole project is my best foot forward.
:pop:
So does anyone else use grade eight bolts on your motor stand. :smilep:
I'm finally getting caught up on home projects that have been due for a few years. Not anywhere near done, just getting caught up. I honestly don't know how I had time to work all my life. I seriously guess that's why I only slept three or four hours a night when I was working.
I completed two motors for two friends, I've been working on a few other guys bikes with miscellaneous work needed. It's time I work on my stuff.
So within the next week I'm going to get started on this clunker. It's been siting here and it hasn't done it by itself.
05-03-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01.jpg
Very Nice Centerpiece for the Table.
I have an I/H Sportster Engine that I've wanted to put on Ours for years.
Higher Authorities here will have no part of it.
I have a buddy that was Building Star Racing Case's and another buddy doing their heads. Not sure if both are still involved or not.
Well they definitely look beautiful! Not enough time in a day that's for sure. I'm slowly putting together another 124" for a buddy also. It's twice as hard to work on bikes in the riding season and fishing season. Currently waiting on him to send off his cases. Super mild build of once used parts. I'm also going to be swapping in those CR650 cams but have to get around 11.5-11.7 comp. It's going to require a piston change. Currently the plan is to help my buddy out by handing him my old pistons and cylinders, buying a new set to get there. He has 7 bikes so he's in no hurry.
I've spent much of today unboxing parts, sorting them as they'll be needed and looking for parts I've misplaced. :doh:
I wanted to show the windage / scraper plate that S&S supplies for their Twin Cam cases. I like the idea of this existing in the case as it helps channel oil riding on and being thrown from the flywheel to a tiny sump below the plate. Then the oil goes to the scavenge side of the pump as is the same with the HD Twin Cam cases. Keeping the flywheels dry and away from puddled oil helps with making power.
05-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01 - Copy.jpg
05-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 04 - Copy.jpg
05-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 05 - Copy.jpg
05-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 02 - Copy.jpg
You have all your parts? Or anything still yet to be ordered?
For the motor I have everything, for the bike I'm still waiting on a few things.
It's always something. I had checked the Timken and play with a dummy shaft in the case several months ago. The end play was exactly 0.0016". Today pressing the bearings on the crank, the case rolls on the bearing, but does not freewheel. I also get zero end play. I suspect that the races may not be pressed all the way into the left case against the bearing race spacer.
The only way I can be 100% sure they're all the way against the spacer is to place the left case in a press. I won't do that without using the Jim's USA 2246 Timken bearing race installer. A chunk of change, but it is what it is. No point in going cheap now.
https://www.jimsusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2246-IS.pdf (https://www.jimsusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2246-IS.pdf)
I have some bearing race tools for the LM67010 races. But they're aluminum and I have to cobble up a fixture on each side to press the races in my hydraulic press. I normally freeze the races, and lightly warm the left case with a propane torch, and they almost fall in. Since these are in there already and I just want to insure they're in against the spacer, I'll get the right tool.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 07, 2023, 06:22:52 PMIt's always something. I had checked the Timken and play with a dummy shaft in the case several months ago. The end play was exactly 0.0016". Today pressing the bearings on the crank, the case rolls on the bearing, but does not freewheel. I also get zero end play.
It's common for the timkens to lose end play between what they show on a slip fit dummy shaft and after being pressed onto a sprocket shaft. I always shoot for .003" end play on a dummy shaft to get very close to .001" pressed.
When the timkens are pressed on the sprocket shaft, they are actually getting their inner races expanded by a few tenths (.0001") and the outer races are getting squeezed by a few tenths when they are pressed into the case. That tightens up the end play.
Another thing that I do is try to put a .001" feeler gauge between the outer races and the spacer. If it goes in, the races aren't completely seated.
QuoteIt's common for the timkens to lose end play between what they show on a slip fit dummy shaft and after being pressed onto a sprocket shaft. I always shoot for .003" end play on a dummy shaft to get very close to .001" pressed.
When the timkens are pressed on the sprocket shaft, they are actually getting their inner races expanded by a few tenths (.0001") and the outer races are getting squeezed by a few tenths when they are pressed into the case. That tightens up the end play.
Another thing that I do is try to put a .001" feeler gauge between the outer races and the spacer. If it goes in, the races aren't completely seated.
I agree, I've usually seen 0.0005" loss from the tool to the actual crank measurement. In this case it appears that more was lost.
That's a good suggestion about seeing if a feeler gauge will go under the race. I probably should have replaced the shim with a thicker one from the get go. I was hoping I'd see 0.001" from the 0.0016" I had seen with the tool. I'll press it apart this afternoon and look at the races, then try a thicker shim.
OK, so the thinnest feeler gauge I have is 0.002". I couldn't get that under the two races anywhere, so I imagine that's a safe bet that the races are seated against the shim in the case. The shim that was in there is 0.1060" thick. That falls into the category of the 9127 shim range of .1055 in. - .1065 in.
Since I have zero end-play with that shim that's in there, measuring 0.1060", but can roll the case. I think I'll try the 9128 shim measuring 0.1076. That adds 0.0016" to what I have now. I should see somewhere between 0.0010 and 0.0020 end-play, probably closer to 0.0010. If not, one size larger next. The clearance should open up anyway when the motor gets to operating temperature.
FYI here's the HD part numbers for the shims if anyone needs them.
Timken bearing shims for HD crankshaft.jpg
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 08, 2023, 02:10:00 PMOK, so the thinnest feeler gauge I have is 0.002". I couldn't get that under the two races anywhere, so I imagine that's a safe bet that the races are seated against the shim in the case. The shim that was in there is 0.1060" thick. That falls into the category of the 9127 shim range of .1055 in. - .1065 in.
Since I have zero end-play with that shim that's in there, measuring 0.1060", but can roll the case. I think I'll try the 9128 shim measuring 0.1076. That adds 0.0016" to what I have now.
That should get you there. Due to the taper of the timken bearings, the end play changes a little bit more than just the thickness differences between the shims that you are changing. I'm no math whiz, but it's a trigonometric ratio.
I keep a big bag with almost every size shim sorted into smaller bags by size. I do a lot of timken conversions here. You would think that they would all use the same size shim but they don't. Eastern MC Parts has all the shims.
Well, the 9129 shim is next, it measured out at 0.1092. I see only about 0.0005 to 0.0007 end play. It's hard to hold everything motionless and get a good measure that small. But it's less than 0.0010 end-play. I'm using an SPI indictor that reads in 0.0001 increments.
At least I have a good process for pressing the flywheels out. I learned several years back to use wood construction shims under the flywheel. Then just pull one out each side as the flywheel comes out. That way if the flywheel were to drop it would only drop about 0.030 to 0.040 and on soft wood.
05-08-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 03.jpg
05-08-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 05.jpg05-08-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 06.jpg
I use a bearing heater to expand the inner race of the timken, and it drops right on. Then I give it a squeeze with the S&S timken bearing installer tool. Before I got an electric bearing heater, I used a hot plate to boil a pot of water with a big steel funnel on top. Just set the bearing on the funnel and when the water hit a rolling boil the bearing was ready to drop on. It was a slow but effective poor man's bearing heater.
Well that's clever. :up:
Yeah you wouldn't need much expansion of the inner bearing race.
So this is how guys like me who slept through advanced mathematics classes copes....
You get good at using CAD / CAM software and let it make the calculations for you. So being at zero end-play, and then adding a 0.0016" thicker spacer, I should then see 0.0001 clearance from the bearing rollers to the bearing outer race. Then if I add the next size shim I have that's also 0.0016 thicker (I just now know that), I should see 0.0005 from the bearing roller to the outer bearing race. I bet the next shim change will do the trick. I should see 0.0016" end-play.
If it doesn't I'll have to order some thicker shims.
05-08-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 07.jpg
Another calculator coming. :teeth:
I just have to modify the intake manifold width calculator. :SM:
the man himself ......
(https://i.imgur.com/kdnRZGZ.jpg)
Quote from: Coyote on May 08, 2023, 05:02:37 PMAnother calculator coming. :teeth:
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 08, 2023, 05:17:35 PMI just have to modify the intake manifold width calculator. :SM:
:up: :hyst:
Quote from: FSG on May 08, 2023, 05:51:39 PMthe man himself ......
(https://i.imgur.com/kdnRZGZ.jpg)
Pythagoras?
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 08, 2023, 04:14:15 PMWell, the 9129 shim is next, it measured out at 0.1092. I see only about 0.0005 to 0.0007 end play. It's hard to hold everything motionless and get a good measure that small. But it's less than 0.0010 end-play. I'm using an SPI indictor that reads in 0.0001 increments.
Have you considered welding a tab on the side of the bearing press tool? Makes for a very precise and clean setup to measure end play.
Quote from: turboprop on May 08, 2023, 06:48:13 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on May 08, 2023, 04:14:15 PMWell, the 9129 shim is next, it measured out at 0.1092. I see only about 0.0005 to 0.0007 end play. It's hard to hold everything motionless and get a good measure that small. But it's less than 0.0010 end-play. I'm using an SPI indictor that reads in 0.0001 increments.
Have you considered welding a tab on the side of the bearing press tool? Makes for a very precise and clean setup to measure end play.
That was my first plan. Then I ran across these universal brackets on the Jegs web site. They just clamp onto a cylindrical shape. I drilled a mounting hole for the indicator and I have it.
Allstar Performance Universal Bracket (https://allstarperformance.com/search-results-page?q=Universal%20Bracket)
05-08-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 08.jpg
05-08-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 09.jpg
05-08-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 10.jpg
I'm waiting on spacers that should arrive tomorrow. The thickest I have isn't enough.
In the mean time, I created a calculation sheet to give the distance from the bearing to the race change, based on adding or removing thickness from an existing spacer that's installed in the Timken setup. I need to test it before we add it to the HTT Design Tools Section.
Thanks
@SP33DY for making me think about the distance that the shim moves the bearing from the race.
timken.jpg
When UPS arrived I went through all of the spacers I ordered and measured each one and marked the envelope each came in with the actual size. Interestingly a 9129 spacer I ordered measured 0.1105, the 9129 I tried yesterday measures 0.1092, and that spacer gave me about 0.0006 end play. So the difference in the two is 0.0013. I input that amount into the calculator, and that suggests I would get an additional 0.0003 in end play. So 0.0003 + 0.0006 (that I have now) = 0.0009. I should see just at 0.0010" end play. I tried the new 9129 spacer, and I measure end play at 0.0014. End play is great where it is now. The calculator and "my error potential" in measuring end play tolerance checks pretty close. With this indictor reading in 0.0001 increments, it's easy to bounce the needle a bit.
timken 01.jpg
I'll step backwards a minute here and speak to the good, the bad, and the ugly of getting my transmission reworked. Long post, a lot to tell.
What started out as a three week in house process became a three month process. Not that Liberty's Gears didn't wish to work on what I sent in, rather they became the victim (as was I) of an accident that they unfortunately created. The guy that I was speaking with and who would do the disassembly and assembly work was going to be out of the office just after my transmission arrived there. No issue for me, another week or even two isn't going to matter to me. But when he returned to work, he found out that someone else had started the disassembly on my Grudge Box. When pressing three gears off the countershaft, they broke the countershaft. Doesn't seem like a huge issue, just call Baker who is only an hour away from them and get a new shaft.
Here's when it gets interesting. Baker no longer supplies that countershaft, the transmission is now only four years old. They changed some of the internal transmission parts, and you can only buy a service kit that consists of a new gear set. Well, then Liberty's tried looking for a countershaft within the motorcycle community that they know. Nada, none to be had. They even called Mark at R&D motorsports, he didn't have one either. He did tell them that he's broken that shaft before removing gears. Says they're way to hard and are brittle. I spoke with Mark at the beginning of the year, he told me he was about to stop taking in used Grudge Boxes to work on. He told me then he can't get parts for them. He's a Baker dealer. He said he would take mine in because it was new and never had been installed. But he was about eighteen weeks out on work, so I decided to try other places.
Anyway, back to Liberty's gears, they can't get a countershaft, not their fault at that. But they're a custom transmission builder for professional drag racers. They also build six speeds for Pro Stock motorcycles. So they said, we'll make you a shaft. OK, good with me, have at it. Well, then the waiting starts. They first have to make design drawings, they have an in house designer and CAD / CAM person that has to reverse engineer the shaft. Then they have to run it through several processes to manufacture the shaft. Then heat treat. Then back to CNC grinders to finish size the shaft journals.
In the mean time they did process my transmission parts, magnaflux, annealing, cryo treatment, thermal stabilization, shot peened and micro polish. They actually had to perform the annealing and cryo treatment twice. They said the gears were so hard that they didn't bring down the Rockwell range enough. It took a second run of the parts to get them where they wanted them to be. They may be wider than HD gears, but they're also harder, not a great thing to have.
So today I finally got the transmission back. It looks good. It does turn (spin) easier than when I sent it out. It took some effort to spin it in gear before. It almost free wheels now. It does hand shift a little easier as well.
So what I learned from all of this. Before spending a lot on a Grudge Box (I bought mine on Black Friday so it was less than 50% off) you may be better served to buy a brand new six speed from HD, they're in the $1,000 range. If you're savvy you can get them for less. Then send it to your business of choice to back cut, process the gears and shafts as I mentioned above, and you'll be way ahead money wise, and more than likely performance wise. And you can get parts for the HD transmission. I was told by Liberty's Gears that they have seen the Grudge Box strip gears at the drag strip. So it does happen. Keep in mind unless you're building a high powered bike, and plan to run it very hard, most of that isn't even needed, but does add to the efficiency of the operation.
I don't know if Liberty's back cuts HD transmissions, they no doubt know how to do it. Two that come to mind that can do it with their eyes shut is Mark at R&D Motorsports in Clearwater, FL. He's also a really nice guy to talk to on the phone. Doesn't rush you, answers your questions, etc. As well Andy Simon Sr. of Simon Motorsports in Salisbury, NC. can do the work in house. I know there are a few others, but don't really know their capability so I won't mention them.
Would I send another transmission to Liberty's Gears? I probably would. They know me, as well as I know them now. What happened is just what happens sometimes when working on mechanical parts. I do know they made three countershafts, so they have two more if anyone ever needs one.
They also spoke to me about trying to get the owner interested in making an HD six speed in house. They would design it to have multiple gear ratios available, so they would make a straight cut transmission like the Grudge Box. At this point he doesn't know if that'll ever happen or not.
liberty's gears (grudge box) - 01 - Copy.jpg
liberty's gears (grudge box) - 02 - Copy.jpg
liberty's gears (grudge box) - 03 - Copy.jpg
liberty's gears (grudge box) - 04 - Copy.jpg
liberty's gears (grudge box) - 05 - Copy.jpg
liberty's gears (grudge box) - 05 - Copy.jpg
liberty's gears (grudge box) - 06 - Copy.jpg
liberty's gears (grudge box) - 07 - Copy.jpg
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 15, 2023, 11:24:10 AMSo what I learned from all of this. Before spending a lot on a Grudge Box (I bought mine on Black Friday so it was less than 50% off) you may be better served to buy a brand new six speed from HD, they're in the $1,000 range. If you're savvy you can get them for less. Then send it to your business of choice to back cut, process the gears and shafts as I mentioned above, and you'll be way ahead money wise, and more than likely performance wise. And you can get parts for the HD transmission. I was told by Liberty's Gears that they have seen the Grudge Box strip gears at the drag strip. So it does happen. Keep in mind unless you're building a high powered bike, and plan to run it very hard, most of that isn't even needed, but does add to the efficiency of the operation.
Best advice on dealing with the HD 6 speed. Annealed and back cut at least is what I recommend for the street.
QuoteBest advice on dealing with the HD 6 speed. Annealed and back cut at least is what I recommend for the street.
Yeah, I wish I had known more when I ordered the Grudge Box four years ago, and it's been on the shelf waiting to be used since then. On a positive note I did only pay a relatively small amount for it due to the Black Friday sales Baker used to run, and I think this gear box is now a safe bet, I hope.
It was you that made me start to think about preventive work to help insure I don't crunch this gear box. I'm glad that you brought up the subject. Next time, it'll be an HD six speed sent out for upgrades.
Finally I can get to some measurements. Deck height for both front and rear cylinders are +0.030". This is measured without a base gasket. I prefer to use one 0.020" SLS base gasket than stacking a couple. I know it's commonly done, but to me it just adds one more possibility for a leak down the road. That leaves me at +0.010" deck height, and I'll use 0.040" Cometic MLS head gaskets. That'll give me 0.030" quench.
This was another reason I wanted to use Carrillo 7.660" rods that were unobtanium all last year. For some reason DH makes theirs at 7.670". I guess I should have ordered the 5.013" tall S&S cylinders, I used the 5.004" tall S&S cylinders, which would have fit with the Carrillo 7.660" rods. In the future I'll use the 5.013" tall cylinders. It's easier to shorten them than it is to lengthen them.
05-30-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01.jpg
05-30-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01.jpg
05-30-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 02.jpg
05-30-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 03.jpg
I expect Cometic an and would make .030 SLS base gaskets as it will be in the range of their sheet stock. They may be a little stiff for compression with the low head / cylinder torque spec.
I do plan to call them tomorrow. I agree, I suspect they have a steel sheet that's 0.010" thicker. That would be the C9739, that's 0.020" with a thicker center. I may have to buy a few, we'll see.
@kd, they do have steel the correct thickness, she said 0.004" rubber on each side and the steel shim is 0.022", basically a standard SLS with +0.010" shim thickness. The lead time is one week to make, so that's not bad at all. I could have bought one pair, but decided on two pair to insure I'm covered.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2023, 10:27:54 AM@kd, they do have steel the correct thickness, she said 0.004" rubber on each side and the steel shim is 0.022", basically a standard SLS with +0.010" shim thickness. The lead time is one week to make, so that's not bad at all. I could have bought one pair, but decided on two pair to insure I'm covered.
The rubber coating is bonus. One thing I know about Cometic is they have a handle on compressed thickness when they tell you. The thinner stock is nice too.
I hope this doesn't jinx you but I have found a sure way to not need those spare gaskets is to have them bought and paid for "just in case". Best label them before you put them into storage. :hyst:
To me, two is always one. Unless it's a deadly expensive item. I ordered two pair so that I know I have what I need.
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2023, 12:02:53 PMTo me, two is always one. Unless it's a deadly expensive item. I ordered two pair so that I know I have what I need.
You don't want to know how many head and special dimension base gaskets I have. :hyst:
there's an old saying ......
I'd rather be looking at it than looking for it :SM:
Quote from: kd on May 31, 2023, 04:56:40 PMYou don't want to know how many head and special dimension base gaskets I have. :hyst:
I don't know, you want to play a couple of hands? :SM:
05-31-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 04.jpg
Quote from: FSG on May 31, 2023, 05:13:42 PMthere's an old saying ......
I'd rather be looking at it than looking for it :SM:
True. I still end up looking for it. I need a good 500 square feet just for part storage. :embarrassed:
I didn't get much completed today. I had two phone meetings setup for health insurance for the next six months. I sorted parts from bulk storage to a box with the appropriate number for seals, gaskets, hardware, etc. that I'll be needing soon.
I did pressure test the oil pressure relief in the new cam plate. The first photo at 20psi is when you just start to hear air escape the cam plate at the oil bypass circuit. Then at 30psi the valve blows off a little more to hold the pressure at a steady 30psi. Then more air pressure to simulate higher RPM or cold thick oil or both the valve opens just under 60psi and dumps the extra through the bypass circuit.
The last photo is where I adjusted the valve to try and hold close to a steady 34psi. This was just about a 3/8 turn of the pressure valve screw in the cam plate.
05-31-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01 - Copy.jpg
05-31-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 02 - Copy.jpg
05-31-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 03 - Copy.jpg
05-31-2023 - 124 storm breaker (0.375 turn) - Copy.jpg
Quote from: Ohio HD on May 31, 2023, 05:18:14 PMQuote from: kd on May 31, 2023, 04:56:40 PMYou don't want to know how many head and special dimension base gaskets I have. :hyst:
I don't know, you want to play a couple of hands? :SM:
Ummm??? I'll have to get back to you on that. :hyst:
A few steps further, tomorrow or Sunday I'll put the outer gears on, check the backlash and setup for checking the degree of the intake lobes primarily. Those specs are most important to how the compression is setup. I'll also check TDC lift and intake closing. No point in looking at the exhaust other than TDC lift, it goes where the intake tells it to go.
My eyes are getting old and can't see marks on metal like they used to. So I mark the timing dots with a marker to better see where I am.
06-02-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 00 - Copy.jpg
06-02-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01 - Copy.jpg
06-02-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 02 - Copy.jpg
06-02-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 06 - Copy.jpg
06-02-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 07 - Copy.jpg
Quote from: Ohio HD on June 02, 2023, 08:05:32 PMMy eyes are getting old and can't see marks on metal like they used to. So I mark the timing dots with a marker to better see where I am.
welcome to the club :SM:
Quotewelcome to the club :SM:
Yeah, I think it's also slow progression of cataracts.
I forgot a couple of pics. I checked the sprocket shaft runout at the end of the crank, I see 0.0006". I can't fit my 0.0001" readout dial indicator into the fixture, it's too short at the stem. With a cheapie 0.001" gauge I see 0.001" runout at the end of the pinion shaft.
My sprocket shaft measurement matches what DH said they had. The pinion shaft they measured 0.0004" at the end of the pinion shaft. It shows how far off three decimal place instruments can be. I need to source another 0.0001" dial gauge that will fit the pinion shaft fixture.
06-01-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01 - Copy.jpg
06-01-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 02 - Copy.jpg
06-01-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 04 - Copy.jpg
06-01-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 05 - Copy.jpg
Extension rod for dial indicator?
Nice
So I learned something today, something I already suspected, but couldn't confirm till now. You might remember the last 124 I built for myself I had an issue with the crankshaft gear protruding outward past the camshaft gear by 0.040". This was a set of HD cases that I had DarkHorse put a Timken conversion in, had them assemble the lower end sense they had it there. What I ended up doing was have a shim made to place the cam gear outward 0.040" so that the gears were even. So the "what I already suspected" part is that some shops do not check the crankshaft position from the Timken conversion. I would have assumed that a shop that does many of these would have it figured out.
These S&S cases, well, you can see the gears are perfectly aligned. My intention with the other 124" motor is to take from my 2008 bike and put it in my 2009 bike, it's more of a nice touring motor. I think when I do that I'm going to put a new set of cams in it, I had been thinking about changing cams anyway. And make those cams chain drive as they're designed to be shimmed to fit. I have to look up the shim sizes first and see that they have the needed thickness to accomplish this.
The first four pictures are of the last 124" that I'm speaking of.
S&S gear drive alignment 124 inch - 02 - sm.jpg
custom 0.040 shim for cam gear - 03.jpg
custom 0.040 shim for cam gear - 04.jpg
custom 0.040 shim for cam gear - 07.jpg
These are pictures of the current S&S case setup. Dead on perfect.
06-02-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 13 - Copy.jpg
06-02-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 14 - Copy.jpg
FYI, both 124 motors have a Darkhorse built crank from S&S flywheel halves. So the only variable was the cases and how they're machined for the Timken bearing.
I setup and checked the degree of the Leineweber cams. I came up with a little variation as to what the specs are. I have the values I measured and the spec from Leineweber below. The intake closing is retarded by 3°. Intake closing is at 66° ABDC and the spec is 63° ABDC.
What this does is reduces the corrected compression from 10.1:1 to 9.9:1. And the cam timing should then in theory maybe give me a touch more top end HP. Maybe 2 or 3 HP. But that's theory until you see it. And I won't have a before and after dyno run with valve timing changes.
The biggest surprise is the exhaust TDC lift. The spec from Leineweber says 0.108" exhaust lift (lifter) at TDC. What I measured was front cam 0.125" at the lifter, and for the rear cam 0.121" at TDC. At the valve with 1.725 rocker arms it changes the TDC lift from 0.186" to 0.212". I don't think this will be any issue but will first check with my head porter to get his take on it. From my calculations at this point I go from 0.067" valve to valve to 0.054".
I can correct the timing easy enough, or at least get it closer by using a 2° offset keyway for gear drive cams. I may try one just to see if the keyway did in fact give me back 2° in valve timing.
I don't blame the cams for the timing difference, it could be either one of the gears, or the crank pinion shaft being out 2°. The TDC lift is no doubt an error by Leineweber. I suspect that it's a typo in their specs.
06-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 00.jpg
06-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01.jpg
06-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 02.jpg
06-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 03 - Copy.jpg
06-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 04 - Copy.jpg
06-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 05 - Copy.jpg
:up: And those are the reasons you check your dimensions before and as you assemble a custom performance engine.
If I advance the cams even 2° the intake TDC will go higher, maybe 0.008" to 0.010". That 2° advance will reduce the exhaust TDC lift by maybe 0.006" to 0.010" as well.
I need to check with Jim to see that the higher exhaust TDC lift should be ok. And I'll also ask him about increasing the intake TDC lift via a 2° advance keyway.
Leaving no stone unturned before I advance the cams.
06-05-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 00 - Copy.jpg
06-05-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01 - Copy.jpg
I found this site, thought I'd pass it along. Pretty neat, you can make a printable degree wheel with the cam specs you want to check. Change rotation for reversing the wheel on the motor, wheel diameter, etc. It would be a use one time, tape it to your steel wheel. You'd want to print on some heavy stock paper.
Also they can create a printable a timing tape.
https://www.blocklayer.com/degree-wheeleng (https://www.blocklayer.com/degree-wheeleng)
https://www.blocklayer.com/timing-tapeeng (https://www.blocklayer.com/timing-tapeeng)
(https://imgsh.net/i/eKklRtg.jpg)
Now that's a cool site. That computer of yours definitely knows its way around the internet. :wink:
Except that computer can't find the 3° my cams lost in intake closing. I think I'll put a 2° key in and see what I get.
you have all the toys :SM: :up: spendy ?
DIGIPRO (https://www.amada.de/en/bending/accessories/measuring-instruments/digipro-849.html)
Quote from: Ohio HD on June 05, 2023, 07:58:17 PMExcept that computer can't find the 3° my cams lost in intake closing. I think I'll put a 2° key in and see what I get.
.
I'm guessing it's down to manufacturer equipment tolerance off and missed at completion.
So here's what I see you have. A custom cam with slightly different timing events than you expected (or wanted). Overall close though. That doesn't mean they are trash. It's probably fairly common to some extent. Unlike most, you took the time to check the cam's accuracy. Others go in blind and just check and adjust clearances as it's assembled. It probably accounts for different outcomes with the same recipe.
To begin, you're going to have to confirm that you have the actual clearances that Jim set everything up for. It looks like you're going down that road now. If all is good that way and you try them, are you making enough power that you won't notice the left being marginally lighter because the right will be similarly better? You have chosen your supporting components carefully and I see them to be very much above average. You may not notice any loss and appreciate any possible gains. I know you wouldn't have assembled this engine without checking or correcting everything first. Again, if you hadn't gone OCD and set up a cam check you probably (like most) would have dove in at the deep end, put it on the dyno and said " That's what I guess it'll be."
Whichever way you go, this is going to be an interesting build to follow. Lots to learn here.
Quote from: FSG on June 05, 2023, 08:32:38 PMyou have all the toys :SM: :up: spendy ?
DIGIPRO (https://www.amada.de/en/bending/accessories/measuring-instruments/digipro-849.html)
I really don't know what it costs. I've had this for just over 20 years. Back in the day I was in charge of the CNC sheet metal department at Steelcraft in Cincy. I would get emails from Amada and other equipment manufacturers about new products, etc. Amada sent an email and had a questionnaire about CNC machinery G-code and asked you to answer the ten questions. The email said the first person that sent the ten correct answers back would win the Digipro.
I sent the email back within about six or seven minutes from the time it came to my inbox. About two months later it showed up with a letter stating I was the winner. It was a nice gesture and has been very handy to have. It's deadly accurate.
They also had a variation of this attached to their CNC hydraulic press brakes. You would measure the angle you just bent, you would measure the part and push the correction button and it would adjust the program based on the program angle settings.
Quote from: kd on June 05, 2023, 08:53:39 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on June 05, 2023, 07:58:17 PMExcept that computer can't find the 3° my cams lost in intake closing. I think I'll put a 2° key in and see what I get.
.
I'm guessing it's down to manufacturer equipment tolerance off and missed at completion.
So here's what I see you have. A custom cam with slightly different timing events than you expected (or wanted). Overall close though. That doesn't mean they are trash. It's probably fairly common to some extent. Unlike most, you took the time to check the cam's accuracy. Others go in blind and just check and adjust clearances as it's assembled. It probably accounts for different outcomes with the same recipe.
To begin, you're going to have to confirm that you have the actual clearances that Jim set everything up for. It looks like you're going down that road now. If all is good that way and you try them, are you making enough power that you won't notice the left being marginally lighter because the right will be similarly better? You have chosen your supporting components carefully and I see them to be very much above average. You may not notice any loss and appreciate any possible gains. I know you wouldn't have assembled this engine without checking or correcting everything first. Again, if you hadn't gone OCD and set up a cam check you probably (like most) would have dove in at the deep end, put it on the dyno and said " That's what I guess it'll be."
Whichever way you go, this is going to be an interesting build to follow. Lots to learn here.
Sometimes I hate checking so much. It generally means you'll find something that isn't 100%. With the cams appearing to be retarded based on the intake closing reading (the intake opening is correct, so the duration is more then as well), that can account for the exhaust TDC being higher. But the intake TDC should also be lower then, but it's not, it's correct.
I'll stick a 2° key in there and take the readings again, see what I get. The intake lobes are the most important to some extent. This is the first time I've degreed an HD cam, and have nothing to compare it to regarding accuracy to the OEM spec. I've checked several small block Chevy's a few years ago. The tool I have here is what I bought to check the Chevy's with. I actually forgot that I had it till a few weeks ago.
My biggest concern is everything working with the head setup. Jim set them up based on the cam specs, and bench tested them. I built the head layout drawing based on his data he provides. It's very detailed information you get back with the heads. I also built the heads in the Engine Analyzer Software based on Jim's specs. Both the software and my drawing suggest the heads will clear with the cam readings I'm seeing. But a physical check when the heads go on is required anyway.
06-04-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 06 - Copy.jpg
Quote from: FSG on June 05, 2023, 08:32:38 PMspendy ?
Looks like it. $800 and up for a used one. I have the wooden box still as well.
AMADA 36001112 DIGIPRO DIGITAL PROTRACTOR (https://www.ebay.com/itm/175703582155?hash=item28e8bfe5cb:g:jx4AAOSwGrZkSVyT&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4NbaKVjcD1DClNGhL7yeganuCBDXu1xS%2BriM3gn2ol64pnZg23iHJl%2FI7XFG6g%2BwSmeM%2Fyp3gpgigt%2FptwnkUVfaYb5jGWSk0UXsn2TgIchWhQCRarrXYA1cMc90orBH9ZMqH%2FAK6L7AQynqZD69XC31U1vVrD%2B9x5iedaOey3KydUQo1i9vhTAR%2Bvrr0OlnwUUl3g%2FuUZmB2hbpGjKK2iFw%2BbcZEY5HVRaN1ll79gBflN8swTRO%2BAo3MeAVmHqwsSpC9cX8hih9%2FWSo3b1vOZ1nFbXUA74NdGPPvGPI7H5p%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_DWs_CRYg)
Does the radius on the ball of your lifter plunger tool match the roller of a Harley lifter?
If not, max valve lift (on the tip/center of the lobe) I'd say would be a dead match, but anywhere "on the ramps" one would think there may be some variation, induce some error?
cheech, I was going to say yes. But then you made me think, and I then remembered that we used 0.750" roller lifters in the small block Chevy's we were building. I opened a drawer of miscellaneous lifter parts that I have from old dead HD lifters. The HD roller is 0.700". So yes that can be causing some issues. It would also explain how the duration measures more than the spec as well.
cheech, you win the prize! I'm happy that you asked this. Learning has occurred.
Stay tuned.
06-06-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01 - Copy.jpg
06-06-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 02 - Copy.jpg
Nice catch. You may have to share some info with Jim (to explain your findings) once you get it sorted.
cheech gets the credit for this one.
I already sent Jim an email telling him, and will report with new measurements.
I have degreed a few cams inside the case. My findings were about the same. I talked with several builders in my circle about it at the time. None were surprised and found the same.
Bottom line for me. Things need to be put together, moved around, taken back apart and actual clearance needs to be verified.
Quote from: hrdtail78 on June 06, 2023, 10:13:48 AMI have degreed a few cams inside the case. My findings were about the same. I talked with several builders in my circle about it at the time. None were surprised and found the same.
Bottom line for me. Things need to be put together, moved around, taken back apart and actual clearance needs to be verified.
That's a big yes.
Quote from: Ohio HD on June 06, 2023, 10:22:16 AMQuote from: hrdtail78 on June 06, 2023, 10:13:48 AMI have degreed a few cams inside the case. My findings were about the same. I talked with several builders in my circle about it at the time. None were surprised and found the same.
Bottom line for me. Things need to be put together, moved around, taken back apart and actual clearance needs to be verified.
That's a big yes.
:agree: Actual verification is a real feel good experience. I remember some of the things we caught building strokers in the early 70's that saved us big problems. That lesson stayed with me. Assembling and disassembling is part of the route you have to take. You just learn it's part of the process.
Well the larger roller does effect the readings a little. While I was checking Jim got back with me and said he's seen in the past when using a larger lifter roller (in his case on purpose) building a motor that you generally see a slight change in timing, but maybe not. He said it does effect the TDC lift. The purpose of the larger roller is to help accelerate the valve opening. I noticed that it also increased the duration based on the timing events I was getting.
So now the readings are much closer to what they should be. Only slightly off.
Leineweber cam data 02 - 06-06-2023.jpg
Leineweber cam data 01 - 06-06-2023.jpg
Cometic shipped the custom made SLS base gaskets two days after I placed the order, they arrived today, five business days from order date. These are SLS style, they have an 0.004" rubberized sheet on both sides, and then a stainless steel shim in between. So they will make an SLS base gasket in 0.030" thick, you just have to ask them specifically for that.
06-06-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 04 - Copy.jpg
06-06-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 03 - Copy.jpg
06-06-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 05 - Copy.jpg
My experience has been if they have the dimensional supplies (and the pattern) they will custom make any gasket in the size you want if they don't already have it listed.I think Ohio can confirm there's no extra fee. That's a damn fine service from a company that already is a leading gasket maker.
The charge was the same as for the 0.020" gaskets I bought earlier this year. Nice people to deal with too, and located in Ohio.
(https://imgsh.net/i/sy1w7dt.png)
I have new cam measurements. This is with a +2° keyway in the gear drive. The front cylinder is pretty well zeroed out, TDC lifts are really close to spec. The rear cylinder the values pretty much went the way the front measured without the offset keyway. TDC lifts are else very close. The tan columns are the new measurements.
The front cylinder is back to 10.1:1 corrected compression. The rear cylinder at 61° closing of the intake raises the corrected compression to 10.5:1. A little too high.
If I remove the +2° keyway I get front 9.9:1 corrected and rear 10.3:1 corrected.
Makes you wonder why we check head and base gaskets so carefully. Unless we measure what the cam is doing, we don't know anyway.
06-08-2023 - 124 storm breaker - 01.jpg
Makes you wonder why we check head and base gaskets so carefully. Unless we measure what the cam is doing, we don't know anyway.
Yes, that's where I was coming from earlier. If your building something with tight tolerances you MUST check and confirm every step of the way. If you don't and get lucky it may still also account for some builds that just don't hit the same mark that someone else did using the exact recipe at a similar altitude. Having 2 cylinders with one off 1/2 point of compression is not something I would care for.
Well the truth is that this may be more common than what we know. CCP is a poor method of understanding if the cylinders are balanced. The difference can also be within the two gears on the cams as well. Or at least a stack up of multiple tolerances. Jim explained as did hrdtail78 that it's fairly common. Jim yesterday told me about an S&S setup with 640 cams that the readings were off about like mine are. He said the motor made the power it was expected to. He put something into perspective, he told me that these HD valve trains turn into wet spaghetti at high RPM. And I know he's right. Guys that are serious use setups built by companies like Jesel. Can you say $$$$
Remember gabbyduffy had issues with his S&S 640 cams being off by quite a bit as I remember.
Are the gears fixed on the cams or keyed and shrunk on? :scratch: Bob
They're standard S&S gears, they use keyway and are pressed on. I put them on.
Quote from: Ohio HD on June 08, 2023, 09:16:50 PMThey're standard S&S gears, they use keyway and are pressed on. I put them on.
Thanks for that never played with gear drive on a Harley. Any chance you could make a custom key for one gear and make them the same? Bob
Quote from: FXDBI on June 08, 2023, 09:22:41 PMQuote from: Ohio HD on June 08, 2023, 09:16:50 PMThey're standard S&S gears, they use keyway and are pressed on. I put them on.
Thanks for that never played with gear drive on a Harley. Any chance you could make a custom key for one gear and make them the same? Bob
You probably could. But you reduce the overall width of the key at the offset transition. Might be too weak. And they're only pressed on where as the the main cam gear to the crank gear is keyway, also a press fit, but also a grade eight fastener clamping it all together.
On my old evo softail the gear was spot welded to the cam, could be something to look at :nix: :scratch:
The first rule in problem solving is look at all possible causes of the data you're getting. The compression calculator I have is making false calculation regarding corrected compression. The higher the compression the more it's exaggerated. I kept looking at the results, 2° in timing shouldn't cause that much variation. I went to the Those Dyno Guys site to use their calculator. I see a more believable change now, front cylinder intake closing at 63° ABDC gives 10.13:1 corrected compression. The rear cylinder intake closing at 61° ABDC gives 10.28:1 corrected compression. So I need to look into why my calculators results are skewed.
Front closing at 63° ABDC = 10.13:1
Rear closing at 61° ABDC = 10.28:1
Delta is only 1.46%
(https://imgsh.net/i/14YUgCK.png)
(https://imgsh.net/i/mtrgfi6.png)
This is also a very good compression tool from Hammer Performance. It shows a little different result, it reads slightly higher values. But it's because they aren't asking for the area above the top ring. Most don't know those values anyway unless you have the piston in your hand.
You can download their compression calculator here. It doesn't need to be installed, it runs as a stand alone program.
https://www.hammerperf.com/ttcompression.shtml (https://www.hammerperf.com/ttcompression.shtml)
(https://imgsh.net/i/Zz3SMWv.png)
(https://imgsh.net/i/lsCh3hh.png)