HarleyTechTalk

Quote from: funracer2 on January 10, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
hell i even tryed to shock cooling    on hillside  work. runs grate under water.

Gotta be a story to go with that!

Jeff

Quote from: funracer2 on January 10, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
hell i even tryed to shock cooling    on hillside  work. runs grate under water.

Hogs..mud..wrong kind of hog.

Boat is just a figurative term. 

Water cooling?   Patience,  maybe from the factory in decade or so. 

Needs to be a "grate" under the bike in the picture with water running through it,  as in storm drain.  Rick

Quote from: funracer2 on January 10, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
hell i even tryed to shock cooling    on hillside  work. runs grate under water.

Quote from: funracer2 on January 10, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
hell i even tryed to shock cooling    on hillside  work. runs grate under water.

Tom,
I've seen that picture somewhere....
If you had a paddle tire on that, with your 120R combo, you wouldn't have had to even put your feet down.................
Scott

Quote from: Coff 06 on January 10, 2013, 05:18:50 PM
I think 4.075 is fairly common.Makes an all bore 104 w/4.00 crank.       Coff 06

I know, but some think 10 over is the limit.

Quote from: funracer2 on January 10, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
hell i even tryed to shock cooling    on hillside  work. runs grate under water.

Sorry... Max

Quote from: funracer2 on January 10, 2013, 06:13:02 PM
hell i even tryed to shock cooling    on hillside  work. runs grate under water.

OH NO,,,,That is supposed to be done on a BSA not a HD.......

How did you get it out..

signed....BUBBIE

a friend and a shovel

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

oops

I guess that hog just wanted to jump in the mud and waller in it some...  Max

I'll even avoid those spots with my ATV's......
Scott

Quote from: Max Headflow on January 11, 2013, 03:32:36 PM
I guess that hog just wanted to jump in the mud and waller in it some...  Max

       

ok guys how thin is to thin on the cylinders?

   As per usual this thread got off track.

  I see no reason to take a cylinder to or beyond its mechanical limits for a couple of cubes.

Throw the "Big Willy" contest out of it ,what is the difference between a .010 over 103 and a 106/107 power output wise ?

  Doubt its much and ill take reliability over a couple horsepower anyday.

Quote from: torqueinc on January 12, 2013, 06:21:34 PM
   As per usual this thread got off track.

  I see no reason to take a cylinder to or beyond its mechanical limits for a couple of cubes.

Throw the "Big Willy" contest out of it ,what is the difference between a .010 over 103 and a 106/107 power output wise ?

  Doubt its much and ill take reliability over a couple horsepower anyday.

We still haven't seen anything to say the 98/107 is not reliable 

That's the thing, the blokes I know that are running 107 or 98 swear by them and none have failed, not saying it dosnt happen but it hasn't to any I know personally 

Quote from: torqueinc on January 12, 2013, 06:21:34 PM
   As per usual this thread got off track.

  I see no reason to take a cylinder to or beyond its mechanical limits for a couple of cubes.

Throw the "Big Willy" contest out of it ,what is the difference between a .010 over 103 and a 106/107 power output wise ?

  Doubt its much and ill take reliability over a couple horsepower anyday.

How is a 103 more reliable? 

Quote from: torqueinc on January 12, 2013, 06:21:34 PM
   As per usual this thread got off track.

  I see no reason to take a cylinder to or beyond its mechanical limits for a couple of cubes.

Throw the "Big Willy" contest out of it ,what is the difference between a .010 over 103 and a 106/107 power output wise ?

  Doubt its much and ill take reliability over a couple horsepower anyday.

The problem here is we have a few well educated and experienced people that have some logical reasons why they think this is a bad concept and the reasons are good enough that the concept probably would not even warrant controlled testing in a commercial setting.
On the other hand we have real world uncontrolled testing showing a fair rate of success so we now are out of the concept stage and into the testing stage. The theories of why it will not work are being challenged by the fact that is has worked.
Those that advocate this process show satisfied customers running engines with 30,000 or more miles with no signs of problems at all. On the other side while I believe in all of the theories as to why this should be problematic I have not seen any real evidence that it is. We do not have postings of oil consumption, power loss, or other symptoms, followed by leak down tests showing losses, followed by a tear downs with pictures of out of round cylinders or cylinders with wear patterns indicative of ring flutter, skirts scuffing, or other abnormal wear signs.
In the past with things like cranks, comp sprockets, automatic chain adjusters, and aftermarket cylinders we could search the net and see case after documented case of problems. That just has not happened here. The next hurdle for the opposed is just like the parts mentioned above there will be no controlled study to show why some failed and some lived and therefore no definite consensus will ever be reached. If a few failures do start to show up we will not know if they were caused by improper machine work, setup, breaking, or just plain old abuse. The fact that so many are running for so many miles does however prove that it is possible under the right circumstances.
In my opinion what is lacking here is the documentation of any actual failures. We need to know how they fail and why. Does this work better with seasoned cylinders that have gone through their initial distortion stages, does it work well only to a certain power level, does it require a different breaking procedure, and last of all because nothing in life is perfect what is an acceptable success rate over the long haul? For me personally based on the evidence so far I would not hesitate to go either 98 or 107 based on the success others have reported so far. You can tell the real problems by the number of postings by unhappy customers.   

Quote from: 1FSTRK on January 13, 2013, 02:20:40 AM
You can tell the real problems by the number of postings by unhappy customers.

Exactly, and I've not yet heard of one.

Rick

Quote from: Eglider05 on January 13, 2013, 02:40:18 AM

Quote from: 1FSTRK on January 13, 2013, 02:20:40 AM
You can tell the real problems by the number of postings by unhappy customers.

Exactly, and I've not yet heard of one.

Rick

At least not with 98/107 bore OEM cylinders anyway.          Coff 06

Quote from: torqueinc on January 12, 2013, 06:21:34 PM
   As per usual this thread got off track.

  I see no reason to take a cylinder to or beyond its mechanical limits for a couple of cubes.

Throw the "Big Willy" contest out of it ,what is the difference between a .010 over 103 and a 106/107 power output wise ?

  Doubt its much and ill take reliability over a couple horsepower anyday.

I know take-off cylinders are cheap and contributes to the bore it til it can't be reused trend.  I've posted before that boring the cylinders to the point they are a throw-a-way when if for any reason they would need to be re-sized makes sense for a production racing class where you are WOT beside a competitor and need to exploit the rules to the maximum for any edge you can get.  I haven't seen too many  Harley cruiser riders kissing trophy girls and collecting purse money.  The most aggressively ridden of these bikes is WOT less than 1% of the time and typically the closest the rider gets to a trophy girl is a body shot off some $ grabber at Sturgis etc. 

It's common sense that a little more material left on the cylinder can only help with cylinder stability and maintaining straight/round dimensions throughout temperature changes/use.  If there is a chance that leaving .031 -.032 (or .0265 as torqueinc. mentioned with a .010 over 103) on the cylinder wall will possibly maintain better ring seal/life,  I'll gladly give up 3 cubes plus or minus.  As far as HTT being a good sample group I'm thinking the testing done here is not technically detailed/documented as far as 3.875 versus 3.938,  just that some aren't having issues. 

Tattoo has reported good luck with using TR's boring of stock cylinders yet when I talked to TR 2-3 years ago he stated that he would bore Harley cylinders for a 107 but warned that he would not guarantee them to remain true.  I don't know if TR has changed his opinion but if not his true feelings on the matter have been left out of this discussion and it has been implied or made to appear he endorses stock cylinder 107's.  There are others in the industry that feel the same but don't share on the almighty internet.   Rick
 

TR seems to use a lot of all-aluminum cylinders that are nickel plated.
How in the wide-world-of-sports, do those receive the blessing, vs, cast iron??
Are they manufactured from an aluminum, whose properties are somehow much stronger than that of iron?
Or could economics be a large contributing factor?

Scott,  since Tattoo has posted more than once that he uses TR to bore stock cylinders I thought TR's personal opinion (if it hasn't changed) was warranted.  Make or it what you want..if your satisfied it's purely economics fine...I believe differently.  Rick

T.R told me the same thing and his opinion did not change. I simply stated I have done several of his 107" kits with no failures as of yet, if or when I get a problem you guys will be the first to know.

Now I have cursed myself......