|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Finn Hammer's Savage /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1699204635 Message started by FinnHammer on 11/05/23 at 09:17:15 |
|
Title: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/05/23 at 09:17:15 All. This is the thread where I will put the general progress of my Savage build. I use to do it like this, on forums, so that I have an archive of my work. This forum is an increadible resource of information, the fact that I could find info on the carburettor fix for the lean idle and low needle range helped me to get the bike running well. For a short period, now it is inside the workshop, waiting s couple of mods. The forum will save me a lot of grief due to the procedures outlined regarding the protusion of the cam tensioner, as seen in the attachment. Now that the cover is off, I will also beef the clutch up to DR650 standards. The oil pump gears will also get a reverse treatment. Lancers Mikuni carburettor is ready on the shelf, and I am pondering how to weld a nice airbox for the accompanying filter. A used, but good cylinder head is on the way, and I will try my hand on some porting work. I have been studying flow benches recently, and it would appear to be not all that difficult to get started with some reasonable gear. There is a good forum called flowbenchtech.com, where there is some really usefull information on the working of flow benches. There is also a spreadsheet to calculate the size of the needed orifice plates to measure the flow rates. https://www.flowbenchtech.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=73 I have learned that it is a good idea to make silicone rubber casts of the port you want to modify, and use it to create a plaster model of the head, and then try the modifications on the plaster model, before getting carried away and potentially ruining a perfectly good cylinder head in the process. I also imagine that getting the port shape out in the open, in the shape of a rubber plug, can give some intuitive input as to where it might be beneficial to alter it. It has been said somewhere, that the inlet tract should converge all the way from carburettor to valve seats. This should all be keeping me busy for the coming very dark months up here at 56deg. lat. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by verslagen1 on 11/05/23 at 10:24:30 time to do something with that tensioner. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/05/23 at 11:26:23 Yes, "something" has to be done. I beleive you have a mod, and I can replicate that in my workshop. Something worries me, though: when the chain stretches, and the slack is taken up on the "idling" stretch of it, the cam timing must retard. Have I seen another method where the leading (front)chain guide is used to take slack? Hard to keep track of all the great tips on this site. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by verslagen1 on 11/05/23 at 13:27:08 725D5A5A7C5559595146340 wrote:
yes, if I recall, .03"stretch=1*retard Quote:
I have not seen a good method to bow the guide and I wouldn't trust bending it to remain bent under the forces it takes to stretch a chain. plus it will place additional wearing upon the guide. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 11/05/23 at 16:40:30 When you are setting the bike up - you can make an adjustment if the cam timing is out of wack. The number of teeth on the cam chain drive sprocket on the crank, and the number of splines on the crankshaft are not equal. If you rotate the sprocket on the crankshaft and move the chain on the teeth you can make adjustment to the timing. This is a violation of just using the factory marks......but it does work for those talented enough to fiddle with it. There is a thread about how to do it.......maybe somebody can help us find it (was it Armen that invented this trick?). |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 11/07/23 at 02:07:05 "Something worries me, though: when the chain stretches, and the slack is taken up on the "idling" stretch of it, the cam timing must retard. Have I seen another method where the leading (front)chain guide is used to take slack?" Finn, IMO the chains don't wear out rapidly. The slack chain problem results from the rear guide losing its arc. This old post provides additional info. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1593671973/0#14 I agree that trying to tighten up the chain with the forward guide is a bad idea. That's the drive side of the chain and it will impart an ungodly amount of force on the guide if you try and shove the guide into the chain. Only use the rear guide to take up slack. I personally like using a jack bolt to reestablish the arc in the rear guide. It should be an easy job for you since you have a fabulous workshop and good skills. The jack bolt gives you a lot of options for power mods. I have been able to run cylinders as much as 3mm shorter than stock using the jack bolt. Use it with an extended CCT and you will have all sorts of options for increasing compression, tightening quench clearance, etc. I use the method Dave described to reestablish correct cam timing by reindexing the drive sprocket on the crankshaft. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by zevenenergie on 11/07/23 at 02:22:44 I read: Use it with an extended CCT and you will have all sorts of options for increasing compression, tightening quench clearance, etc. I find this topic very interesting. What does CCT stand for? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 11/07/23 at 04:20:06 2F3023303B303B3027323C30550 wrote:
Cam Chain Tensioner |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/07/23 at 08:34:13 Ok, this is cool, I learn something every day here. The juggeling of the teeth on the cam chain reminds me of something we did on old WV Beatles based beach buggies back in Kenya in the seventies, to lower the rear end. Different amount of teeth in each end of the torsion bars, so advance 3 teeth on the inside and retard 2 teeth on the outside. Or the other way around, memory fails me. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/13/23 at 11:46:57 If one extra clutch plate is good, then 2 extra plates must be better. The obvious way I see to make that possible is to change to thinner steel discs, which poses a couple of problems, as I see it. The plates already chew and gnaw their way into the hub in a way that I think will lead to bad release action from the clutch over time. Making the discs thinner will increase this tendency. Instead, I would like to increase the contact surface between steel plate and clutch hub. Some increase is possible by making discs that extend all the way (ex. clearance) to the bottom of the clutch (i miss words, the ridges that the discs index into) but a much better method would be to have the discs water jetted out of 3mm stock, then turned down one millimeter on each side, to form a one millimeter thick disc, with a 3 millimeter wide hub just small enough in diametre to be able to clear the inside diametre of the friction plates. This wide hub will increase the contact area to the hub, and hopefully lead to smoother clutch releases. It is possible to manufacture, and I will have a go at it, to allow room for one more friction disc. The picture show a rendering of the proposed disc, on the hub . |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/13/23 at 11:48:38 For reference, here are some hubs off Ebay that all exibit various decrees of gnawing from the steel plates |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/13/23 at 11:56:03 Then there is the issue with the cam chain tensioner. Have a look at this tensioning setup, grabbed from a Facebook group, dealing the top part of car engines. This is the cam tensioner from a Honda car. I am sure it will survive an engine reversal backfire without a hitch. Perhaps a sturdier, stiffer structure would be beneficial even in the Savage |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/13/23 at 11:58:11 Ok, end of rant today: Inlet valve distance C-C 28mm so that is the biggest valves possible in the Savage. Wouldn't it look snazzy with bronze seats? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 11/13/23 at 12:18:35 The stock clutch works fine when it is in good shape and your engine is lightly modified......I had a 95mm Wiseco, Stage 3 cam, ported head, Mikuni Carb and good exhaust and it never slipped. However - I had to let the clutch out completely and let it grab before I applied full power. Letting out the clutch while applying power would create a situation where engagement was not instantaneous. DragBikeMike has a long thread on beefing up the clutch. Ultimately he developed a way we could add more plates by using a few clutch parts from the DR650 engine. He and I have installed in and it works great! You will need to get into the thread a few pages before you come into the DR650 conversation. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1615547049/0 You do need to get Sneezy's stronger clutch release cam. My cam ultimately failed after 16,000 miles and ruined some DR650 pieces and I had to use some I had stocked up on. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 11/13/23 at 19:46:58 Now that Honda chain guide is a work of art. Yesssss! Something like that would clearly resolve the issue, but alas, there isn't much room for a beefy guide like that. Thanks for the pictures. While the jack bolt isn't nearly as trick, it is very effective at resolving the problem, plus it allows more options for adjustment. Sounds to me like you are planning on some earth-rotating rear wheel power. If you can manufacture those trick steels you will have a pretty unique clutch. I'm curious how you intend to cut those plates. Seems to me if you have the equipment and skills to make stepped-steels, you could probably manufacture a new hub out of steel instead of aluminum. That might eliminate the need for the stepped steel plates. You really do think outside the box Finn. Keep the ideas comin. I second Dave's comment on the hybrid clutch. It works pretty good and so far it's holding the power. Don't try to eliminate the wave-washer assembly. Leaving it out does add a small amount of additional friction surface, but the clutch action stinks without the wave-washer. You can assemble a really good clutch with the old DR hub and an additional set of plates. Add the Sneezy cam so that you can increase spring preload and it will hold quite a bit of power. The early DR650 springs are a lot stiffer than the stockers. Barnetts are moderately stiffer. You need the Sneezy cam if you want to use stiffer springs. I'm not sure how you arrived at 28mm for max intake valve diameter. The stock engine comes equipped with 33mm intakes. I increased mine to 34mm and it works pretty good. I'm planning on trying 35mm intakes but I need to get some valve seat grinding equipment. It's simply too hard to do the mod with hand driven carbide cutters. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/14/23 at 10:34:33 Dave, Mike, Thanks for your comments. The reason for my plan of going one step further than the DR650 hub +1plate mod is, that I seem to remember reading that when the silent muffler entered the equation, even the DR650+ clutch started to slip.Then again, I am prone to overkill, and the stock clutch is already slipping in an unmodified engine. I surely don't intend to diss your experiences, you have both been into this game for over a decade, so I will probably just stick to the stock modification with one plate extra on a DR650 hub, and the DR650 springs.I already have the Sneazy cams ready. If I do proceed to try these special metal discs, I will have them vater jet cut, or perhaps laser cut, from 3mm thick steel plate. Mount in the lathe in a custom designed chuck and turn each side one millimeter. This may have to be done simultaneously on both sides, to acheive proper parallel faces, with a custom cutting tool, but I am a toolmaker, so not to worry too much about that. One thing I do not understand, is the function of the so called wave washer. For one, in my book, it is not a wave washer at all, it is a disc spring, and a pretty stiff one at that. A real wave washer between each of all the metal discs, weak enough to be compressed easilly by the coil springs, but strong enough to separate the discs during clutch disengagement, now, that would make sense, but the disc spring as it is, leaves me with out a clue of what it's function can be. I seem to recall some talk in the club house of Yamaha Club AArhus, late one evening, back in 1969, about some clutches that had an o-ring between the metal discs, just a tad bigger in diametre than the friction disc thickness, designed to separate the clutch plates during disengagement, but I cannot find them in any spare part catalogue from that time, so It was probably just some idle pondering. What exactly happens to the clutch function when the wave washer is omitted? The valve distance I quoted to 28mm was from my rusty memory, it is 38mm of course, and that pretty much limits the maximum valve diameter to 37.5mm. That could bring about a 13% increase in inlet area, perhaps less, since the air entering close to the near overlap would seem to be working against each other. A flow bench would be needed to find out. I would like to read some about port flow, seat angles, seat width etc, can anyone recommend a good book to start me off. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 11/15/23 at 03:21:55 DragBikeMike created the DR650 clutch combination for the Savage, and I followed along and put it in after he did. I had suggested that a forum member (Badwolf) had removed the spring washer in his clutch and that it worked for him........so we both tried it and put in the wider fiber disc and eliminated the thinner steel plate and spring washer. DragBikeMike had his in first and rides his bike more miles than me, and he emailed me and ask if I had any problems with the clutch "squealing" when it was engaged.....as he was having some of that. At that point I did not have a lot of miles on mine and it was working fine. A few weeks later my clutch began to squeal if I let the clutch out a bit quickly - as if I was in a hurry to get going. As long as I was easy on the throttle and let the clutch lever out slowly it was fine - but if I was a bit aggressive it was noisy and rough. As I rode more the situation got worse and it became hard to go from a stop without the clutch squealing no matter how gently I tried. When I took the clutch apart I found exactly the same scenario that DragBikeMike found in his bike. The steel thrust washers on in inner and outer side of the clutch basket had grooves worn into them, and the bushing on the shaft was gouged.......DragBikeMike also experienced that the large nut had come loose. Two forum members thousands of miles apart with very different riding styles had exactly the same experience with the clutch. Since that time we have both put the stock outer plate and spring washer back in, and the clutch works perfectly. You do need keep the clutch lever free play pretty small in order to be able to get full disengagement of the clutch to allow finding neutral easily and avoid a "clunk" when engaging first gear from neutral. I would suggest you do the DR650 mod with the stock plates and the spring washer affair...as it does work very well. It grabs hard on my modified engine - and I believe that DragBikeMike has not experienced any slipping problems with his monster motor. Then if you need more clutch later on once your engine is working - you can modify the plates and try to get even more grip. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/19/23 at 07:12:07 All, Lots of good advice and well taken it is. Yes, I will stick to the DR650 clutch mod with disc. spring in place, as Suzuki intended all along. (jeez, would I like to pick the brain of that Suzie engineer who thought that disk spring thing out). The oil pump speedup hardware is almost finished now, I am only waiting for a carbide drill for the holes in the big gear. As mike has already reported, these gears are hard to machine. Case hardened, good stuff. I have an extra Cylinderhead, now. (Thanks, Dave). I was amazed to see, that the main factor determining the crooked exhaust port, and the main obstacle in straightening it out, is that the exhaust valves are 8 mm shorter than the inlet valves. The seating surface of the inlet valves allows a fairly ok port, but the seat of the exhaust valves cannot avoid obstructing the port. 8mm valve stem saved, how utterly pathetic. One mod down, a lot more to go. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 11/20/23 at 09:39:40 Mama Mia Finn that looks nice. And you put it on CAD too. Sweeeet! Would you be willing to share that drawing? Is there any way to put it in PDF format? Even though the exhaust port is ugly, you can get it to flow half decent. Are you planning on installing larger intake valves? If you stick with the stock 33mm intakes, the exhaust port will keep up just fine as long as you enlarge the outlet and massage the runners a bit. You got skills dude. Respect. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/21/23 at 06:36:45 Mike, Thanks for your kind words. I have saved the drawings in PDF format, but I am not sure how to get them across, please advice. I don't think bigger valves for now, probably next winter. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by verslagen1 on 11/21/23 at 07:05:32 you should be able to attach a pdf to the bottom as zip file or a compressed file. right click the file, send to compressed file |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/21/23 at 13:35:11 Ok, I missed the ZIP possibility, but here they are: One piece of advice: Don't skimp on the carbide inserts when you turn those wheels. They wear out real fast turning that case hardened stuff. That is normal. stick to 0.04" deep cuts, and go slow. I mostly always do my work in CAD before touching the lathe controlls, it keeps the failure rate low. I thought for a while that I should offer this mod as a service to interested parties, but nobody wants to do this more than once, I think. It would take some serious tooling to take it up on a regular basis. Thursday I get the DR650 clutch hub, the springs and also the cam chain guide, looking forward to work on those parts. I also got David Vizard's book, Port and Flow Test which looks like it is going to be a good read. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/22/23 at 04:07:56 I have made an addition to the oil pump CAD files, adding to the pack a tool, which will come in handy when turning the big gear. You cannot rely on just chucking the outside of the gear, when cutting the big internal diameter, the one that goes over the hub. The reason for this is, that the gear envolopes are referenced to the hole, not the perimeter of the gear. Therefore the use of the 4 jaw chuck, where you center the gear by tracing a 10mm dowel inserted in the hole, with a dial gauge. This step is crucial for getting a concentrically rotating big gear. Chucking the gear inside the tool ring will make it easier to hold the gear secured in the chuck. During the second turning operation, where you clean up the small intermittant hole, consisting of the severed spokes of the gear, this tool ring will prevent any major distortion to the now rather fragile gear. The new zip is attached, and I have uploaded it to the original post too. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/27/23 at 03:50:25 All, Delivered in a velvet pouch, buy do they know how to talk to us over at Wiseco! Only slight concern: now that the bore will be enlarged to 96mm, a stock top gasket will protude 0.5mm into the combustion chamber. I think, not a lot, but should I be concerned about it? Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 11/27/23 at 15:07:27 I have been running a 95mm Wiseco for the last 17,000 miles with a stock headgasket and I have not had any problems. Only recently have we become aware of a fellow who makes copper gaskets in any for size we want....I believe Lancer use a stock headgasket for REX and his 97mm bore for years without any issues. Running a copper gasket requires you to be sure about how flat the head and cylinder mating surface is - the copper gasket is not as forgiving as the multi-ply stock head gasket. I made a jig so I could use my surface plate on the lathe and cut the head sealing surface flat. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 11/28/23 at 06:43:01 Dave, And you did a beautifull job resurfacing those heads. Looks like you opened up for bigger inlet valves too. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 11/28/23 at 09:13:37 Stock sized valves....I did grind around a bit to get rid of the sharp corners on the seats and blend them in smoother. I don't build for high rpm HP or straight line speed - my riding is mostly done between 3,000 - 4,000 rpm on curvy back roads at 50-60mph. I want an engine with torque and good throttle response to pull me out of the corner. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 12/01/23 at 06:40:00 Reading through the many pages about this wonderfull little bike, even the ideal diametre of the exhaust header is covered. 45mm/1.75" outside diameter pipe gives 1.65"/42mm inside diametre. I feel there is no way around using that exact dimension, even though I am going to use a 94mm piston. (Yes, I know, I just showed a 96mm Wiseco piston, but just at the same moment I came to realize that for one, that piston would be low on compression, it would also not have any squish area, which I believe is the direct way to low end grunt). So I purchased a 94mm flat top Wiseco (well, dished top, really). But with the 10.5:1 compression ratio and squish area. But back to the exhaust header. Getting that thing mandrel bent here in Denmark is possible, but probably not in single numbers, so I have been looking to get a 180deg. part with the correct centerline diametre. This is not easy, but whereas the stock header is bent in a 210mm cenderline diametre, I managed to get a part bent to a 169mm centreline. Question, will this look ok? Hard to say before the parts arrive and I can get them welded together, this is what It looks like in drawing, perhaps a bit whimpy, but then, better look whimpy than be whimpy. Blue is the stock header, black outline is the one I intend to manufacture |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by zevenenergie on 12/01/23 at 15:23:03 It is made using a die. So it's not creative, so you can't expect beauty from something you didn't die for during the making process. As an artist really dies while creating true art. You will have to have more courage to make something beautiful. But this will not be worse or more beautiful than the original. That is ... I hope that the bend was made with a bending machine that has a inner core so that the bend has the same diameter everywhere. We shall see. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 12/01/23 at 19:09:19 "better look whimpy than be whimpy" ;D I agree Finn. However, I doubt that it will look whimpy. Given the work that you have already presented, I bet it will look great. You will not be disappointed with that 94mm flat-top. It runs great. Makes excellent power and the fuel economy is off the hook. Can't wait to hear how it runs with that 1.6" header. FYI, you can also get that flat-top design in a 97mm. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 12/02/23 at 02:11:59 I really want to try this method of building a pipe. It looks easy - but I am sure there is some learned skill that needs to be applied here. I don't believe my Rosebud torch or regulators can flow enough heat to get this done......maybe if I borrowed a friend and his torch we could use 2 torches to get the heat applied. The pipe must be filled with dry sand to prevent the pipe from kinking at the bend.....the sand must be dry so that the heat doesn't get dissipated into steam. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mMQbEkr8w[/media] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mMQbEkr8w [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyM65MKxDNI[/media] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyM65MKxDNI [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0qiLDFWQS8[/media] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0qiLDFWQS8 If I can find a local welding/fabrication shop that already has a big torch......maybe I can get them to help me bend the pipe. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by zevenenergie on 12/02/23 at 02:31:52 My experience with bending thin-walled pipe filled with sand is that the sand does not support the pipe sufficiently. The volume of the tube increases during bending, making the results disappointing. What I did succeed in was annealing a thin-walled tube, filling it with lead and then bending it cold in a pipe bender. Making your own mold with the correct diameter is not that difficult. Lead fumes are poisonous, but by putting pieces of lead in a pipe and using the pipe as a crucible, can reduce your exposure to lead fumes to zero. Alway,s do it outside. I buy my materials from scrap iron dealers. You only pay a fraction of the new price. Stainless steel tube is your friend here because it is much more pliable. Sawing segments and welding them together can also give a very nice result. And especially if you grind away the weld on the inside after welding each segment. With stailess steel tube you have to fill the inside with a protective gas otherwise you will end up with small cauliflowers on the inside. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by LANCER on 12/02/23 at 09:41:34 07010E72707773430 wrote:
……… There are no 97’s left. Getting more requires a minimum order of 12, which I have no plans to do unless someone wants to order at least 8. Selling the initial batch was a long process, just not much interest. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 12/02/23 at 10:27:52 Lancer, do you still have the 94mm flat-tops? Sorry to hear you don’t intend to stock the 97 any more. Guess I better hang on to my old beat up 97FT. It’s been through the mill but probably worth its weight in gold. I’ve been wanting to convert a 97PT to a flat-top for a while now. Just wanted to see how it works. My current engine has a 97PT with the cylinder deck reduced about .050”. It makes killer power but I can’t achieve the same efficiency as the flat-top. If you aren’t gonna stock the 97FT anymore, I guess I’m gonna have to try the PT to FT conversion. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by LANCER on 12/02/23 at 11:16:12 DBM did you the get the PM I sent you ? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 12/02/23 at 12:17:06 Lancer, last PM I got from you was back in August. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 12/03/23 at 04:22:34 Guys, I admit to loosing patience with that first video, but heating it for over, was it 4 minutes?, before bending it, for what it is wortk, it might as well be a solid rod, certainly not thin wall tubing, cos that would have been red hot long before , even with an air assisted propane torch. The sand filled method is doable. I know because I did a VW beach buggy exhaust back in 1976 in Mombasa. Takes some technique, though. You have to start the bend from both ends of it, doing only 1/3 of it in each end, then finish it off in the middle of the bend last. That produces a passable bend, but still not round. The last video, well, was that really thin wall tubing, I think not. Plumbers have a way to bend copper tubing, and that is inserting a spring into the tube. The spring must be made from square section steel, or if made from round steel, it must be ground down by 1/2 of the spring wires diameter, so that in each case it presents a smooth surface out to the tube. Combined with quality dies to support the internal of the bent (and some superiour lubrication) this method might just cut it. And perhaps this is the way to bend the double walled original header. One final method is called mandrel bending, that is the industry standard, and the method used in the manufacture of the part I have ordered: https://www.ebay.com/itm/385110366508 We will see soon enough if it is usable. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 12/03/23 at 11:06:44 Started making the flow bench today. I really did put a lot of thinking into it, including a fancy carrusell loader for the orifice plates, to facilitate quick shifts from one orifice to the other. Then it dawned on me, that I will have to turn down the fans between orifice shift, due to the water manometers which can get sucket out real quick, and that revelation saved me a great deal of work, so I settled on a very simple design seen here: A tall slender box, with a dividing plate in the middle. That dividing plate will later accept a proper fixture to hold the orifice plates. Not yet seen is the top plate, which will be capped with an adaptor for the cylinder. If you have built speaker cabinets this will look familiar, and if you have a fine wood workshop, this is a great chance to display your cabinetmaking skills. I have neither, so I slapped this together in 3 hours, using cheap materials I had laying around, and be done with it. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 12/03/23 at 11:07:50 After rounding the corners with the router, and opening up to the plenum gallery, I slapped some paint on the thing, just to make it look a bit nice, after all. The point here is to look at this part of the bench as equivalent to the cast iron work on a lathe or a miling machine. Not very smooth, not very accurate, but sturdy and sufficient to support the parts that matter: The cylinder support up top, the orifice plates and the door into them, in the middle. I am planning on these orifice plates, measuring at 8" differential CFM Dia. 10-20 0.72" 15-30 0.88" 25-50 1.14" 40-80 1.44" 65-130 1.84 100-200 2.28" 150-300 2.80" This should give me a good overlap, and some ability to check them against each other for fine calibration. Man, I'm gonna have a flow bench! that is really exiting. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 12/04/23 at 11:07:47 Looks like you're putting together a premium bench Finn. I'm curious about a few things. Your orifice specs refer to 8" pressure. Are you planning to test at 8"? As I recall, you have enough power to test at a very high pressure, possibly as high as 28". Is the 8" reference simply where those particular orifice sizes are rated for 100% flow, or do you plan on testing the port at 8" differential? Is the 8" reference simply the pressure across the orifice and not the test pressure across the port? I see that you plan on testing the orifices against each other. Sort of like a calibration check. That's a cool idea. I have noticed that my orifices pretty much agree when compared to each other in areas of overlap. I never thought of that as a calibration, but now that you mention it is a very nice cross check. Is that idea something you figured out on your own, or did you find it somewhere in a piece of reference material? I have to use several orifices to run a test over the full range of valve travel in order to maintain the flow at 50% or more on the inclined manometer. What will you use to measure the pressures, manometers or some sort of gages? If you use manometers, how will you make the scale for your inclined manometer for the orifice plate differential? If you use a gage, I assume you have some method to convert the pressure reading to a % of flow across the orifice. If that's the case, how did you figure that out? I am very interested in what sort of flow numbers you get with the stock head. I test my heads at increments of .025" lift all the way through .400". When you get your bench running, do you think you could run a test on a stock head, test flow at 15" H2O starting at .025" lift and continue in .025" increments up through .400"? I would be very interested in the results. I only use my jalopy bench for comparisons to verify that a change in the port results in a measurable improvement in flow. Your bench looks like it will be much more sophisticated and possibly way more accurate. Thanks for sharing. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 12/05/23 at 08:28:01 Mike, I intend to test at 28", just because I can, but I will definitely also test at 15" as you have requested. Perhaps even also do it on a regular basis, since keeping numbers comparable with yours seems like a good idea. The 8" is the differential pressure across the measuring orifice, as monitored by the inclined manometer. When it comes to calibration of the plates, the proper way would be to take at least one plate to a headwork shop, and have it calibrated on an already accurate bench. This is not possible for me here in Denmark, so I will have to make do with calculated hole dimensions, and hope they produce remotely accurate results. When I said calibrate, I mean to use one of the plates I make, to be the local standard, and then adjust the other plates to deliver identical numbers in the overlapping area. Let's take the 40-80 CFM plate as the standard. It should not be operated beyond 90% of full bore, so it is really a 40-72 CFM orifice. That is why I chose 65-130 (65-117)CFM as my next step, so that there would be 7 overlapping CFM's to compare. No, I did not read about that anywhere, just seemed to be common sense. I will measure by "First Principle", that means using water columns as suggested in the Dtech article you recommended in your own bench build thread. There are excell solutions to make the scale, havent yet looked into it in detail, but will have to quite soon. In the end, I will say, that the bench here is for Savage only, and really also just to record any beneficial changes I may make to the head. If we were to modify big block chavy heads and the like, we might have to produce comparable numbers, but who knows, yours and my heads may be the only savage heads to be flow tested. Below is a picture of the top fixture for the head, with mock cylinder protruding into the bench, o-ring seal to the gasket surface, 12mm hollow dowels to align the head, and 8mm studs to tighten the head down with. Edit. I would like to add that the litterature I have read about flow benches is the Dtec design guide: http://dtec.net.au/Flowbench%20Design%20Guide.htm I have also found some good things in the forum here: https://flowbenchtech.com/ Finally, I skimmed David Vizards: How to port and flow test cylinder heads. That's it. On the use of manometer gauges: The best ones are MKS Baratrons, they are quite expensive, and the only ones I would trust to below one percent. But starting to use gauges would expand the amount of work involved to a level where the flow bench itself becomes the project. It would be possible to derive a PWM signal for the motors to arrive at the desired test pressure automatically, and ever so many other nice features, but: By using water manometers I can keep the bench simple, which is important to me,. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 12/05/23 at 12:03:14 Although your bench looks way different, it is actually quite similar to mine. I think it is a big improvement with features like the door to change orifice plates, the metal adapter with o-rings for the cylinder, the long length to straighten out the air flow, and of course the major league vacuum source. You are definitely taking it to the next level. Do you also plan to install a honeycomb to straighten the flow even more? That excel file you mentioned for the inclined manometer was pretty easy to use. I used a small 1/16" milling cutter to engrave the marks on the scale. That made it easy to get the graduations at exactly the right locations along the scale. It worked well. The snubber valve they suggest is problematic. Any small leak in the instrument tubing screws the readings up. I would be careful with the snubber. I don't even use it anymore. What are your plans for the exhaust valves? I had poor results when I tried blowing through the exhaust valves. The shop vacs didn't work well with that arrangement. So, I suck through the exhaust port. How do you intend to approach the exhaust side? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 12/05/23 at 12:28:20 I hope to be able to blow through the exhaust, but I need to get the turbines hooked up to the bench first, and get a feel for how many motors I need, and how well I can handle them with the variable speed thyristor drivers. With that data in, I will build a reversible box like dtec did. Odd, I thought those bypass valves would be good. But when I lower the rpm with the thyristors, less heat too, so perhaps just small leaks for fine tuning test pressure. Cannot really say more before that. Cheers, Finn Hammer Edit, I think I misunderstood the part of the snubber valve, will check up on it. :-[ch12305] |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 12/08/23 at 17:34:20 Finn, the snubber I am referring to is located in the low side of the inclined manometer. It's intended to dampen pulsation/surges which seem to occur when you reach the limit of the ports ability to flow nicely. I had a few problems with that valve leaking at the connections and the packing gland. I eventually just removed the snubber valve. You would be amazed at how very small leaks occur in what seem to be very tight connections. The bleed valves in the vacuum cleaner canisters work great for me to control test pressure. Using bleed valves in conjunction with fan speed should work even better for you. That combination should give you excellent control over your test pressure. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 01/30/24 at 11:17:08 Wow, this took a lot longer to finish than at first antissipated, but the flowbench is now operative, although not fully (like: not at all ;-) ) calibrated.Anyway, here is a short walktrough of the device: Here you see the powerhouse, 4 vacuum cleaner motors pulling together, speed adjusted by a SCR based motor regulator. This works very well. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 01/30/24 at 11:17:36 Here is the device from the front. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 01/30/24 at 11:19:23 The head clamps to the top of the column |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 01/30/24 at 11:19:31 The orifice plates are nested inside the column |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 01/30/24 at 11:19:39 Here the motors are pulling full tilt on the head, with inlet valves opened 0.4" each. It reaches almost 46" and flows 249CFM. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 01/30/24 at 11:19:46 Here is the first attempt at drawing a full curve. At the request of DBM, i pulled it at 15". I make no claims to the calibration of my device, but I am in contact with folks which have calibrated orifices, and they have promised to loan me one plate to calibrate against. There is also not complete correlation from plate to plate, you will see there is 4CFM difference between the 60-120 CFM plate and the 100-200CFM plate. I will have to apply a correction factor to the faulty plate once I get the calibrated plates available. This could mean that the 60-120 plate could be relabelled to 58-116CFM for example, but I will get back to that soon. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/01/24 at 02:02:49 Wow! Nice job Finn. I love the length of the test stand. Flow should straighten out nicely. The metal orifice plates should be very accurate. The manometers are beautiful. And that vacuum source; speed control, four pumps, 46", what can I say. You really have taken it to the next level. Thanks for running a baseline at 15". Shows my jalopy is probably way off the mark. I'm very interested to see how the calibration turns out. I've been messing around with 35mm valves. Once I opened up the throats to about 87%, the wall of the seats got very thin. I am concerned about that. I use an old junk head that Fast650 sent me. It's my test mule. I guess there's only one way to find out if the seats will stay put. Gotta do the mod to a serviceable head and run it. Pretty risky but no guts no glory. This should give you an idea of what the seats looks like after opening up the throats to 87% (that's 1.200"). |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/01/24 at 02:11:56 To support the larger valves, I also opened up the runner cross sections in way of the apex. They are now .95" x 1.200". There was enough material left on the seats to cut four angles (36, 46, 60 & 75). It blended well. This graph shows the improvement in flow. The low lift flow is essentially unchanged, then at about .250" lift it picks up nicely. That surprises me. I figured the low lift flow would show the greatest improvement since the runner cross sections are limited. I'll take what I can get, but I'm not sure if it's worth the risk. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/01/24 at 13:02:17 Thank you for your kind words, Mike. I hope to get the calibrated orifice this weekend already. I am in contact with some old guys that are into racing vintage cars, and they know a lot, even to the point where they can have custon cams ground based on their flow measurements. I hope to pick their brains, but of course they are wary of a newcomer. I find your work with bigger valves interesting. From the curves you show, I get the notion that the bigger valves (which are now relatively closer to each other) start to negate the benefit of size due to mutual shrouding. Since I dont _know_ anything, I have to rely heavily on what I can read and hear. David Vizards book has turned into a bible for me, worth read and reread again. From it I read about PolyQuad configuration of the valves, a big one and a small one of each. This should change the 4 valve heads predominantly tumble style fill of the cylinder towards a swirl style fill, which is allededgedly beneficial for the low end combustion and thus torque. This would probably lead to the same shrouding effects in the high end, but perhaps not low down. Would need to exchange one of the valve seats for a bigger one though. This work is very interesting, my hope is to get enough power to reach 100Mph without sacrificing the low end. Not that I need it, it is illegel to go that fast here in Denmark, -would have to go to Germany to try it out, and I am not sure I dare to do it either, due to the bike's tendency to go into wobbely oscillations (think it is called tank slappers), hopefully a change of steering stem bearings will help that out. But I think that since the old british singles were able to do the ton, then mine should too. We will see about that. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 02/01/24 at 15:16:49 I have had my Cafe' to 101.1mph, twice - about a year apart. The first time was to see just how fast it would go - the second time was to see if it could be repeated. The bike gets to 80mph pretty quickly, 90 come a little slower.....that last 11 mph took forever! When it reaches that speed it just refuses to go any faster......it has reached it's maximum! The bike gets really skittish over 95 and doesn't track well, and that is a result of the raised rear/lowered front reducing the amount of trail (and possibly my 8" headlight) - it got far more wiggly when I installed radial tires and is more stable with bias ply. A stock Savage should track better and be more stable at speed. I have added a steering damper to help reduce the high speed scariness! My engine is a 95mm Wiseco from a DR650 (pop top), Stage 3 Webcam, exhaust and intake port smoothed, 38mm Mikuni and a somewhat restrictive exhaust (but better than stock or a DYNA muffler). I like a quiet motorcycle and that has likely hurt my top end a bit. I have plenty of low end torque - the mods I have done have made the bottom end pull better. I believe a larger header pipe and better muffler would help my bike breath a bit better and raise the top end a bit. With the work you are doing you should be able to exceed 100mph if you don't mount a windshield and saddlebags! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Gary_in_NJ on 02/02/24 at 06:47:41 Bystander looking at Dave's bike: "how fast is it?" Dave: "It will do the ton" |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Ruttly on 02/02/24 at 09:48:09 With a name like Finn Hammer you most definitely have to do the ton ! You and DBM scare me with your knowledge. While my bike falls short of the ton it hauls as$ and I’ll run it against any Savage in the twisties , drag , tracks. Win , loose or draw it would be an epic race. I won’t bore you with all the crap about it. I know you got this and the ton is just a milestone to be crushed ! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 02/02/24 at 10:23:27 515B5F555E57535A040206360 wrote:
Yep - That is why I had to find out! It is far less scary and fun at 60mph! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by SpamyToo on 02/02/24 at 16:31:45 Are you shooting for a CFM rate? Seems like this poor bike is somewhat limited with its RPMs to move a ton of air. And at some point heat generation with no liquid cooling will be a factor. A 450cc hitting 11k rpm, with a flat piston, ultra light components and water cooling, has a similar pipe diameter. Before all the injections, the single carb is about in the 38-40mm range too. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/03/24 at 01:27:30 SpammyToo, All: Yes, I am shooting for a higher rate of CFM, but also for a higher runner velocity, so perhaps even a smaller runner diameter than stock. A high speed in the inlet runner means that more air will be rammed into the cylinder by the time that the piston is around about bottom dead center, and the inlet valve is already close to shutting, due to the inertia of the air coloumn. Time will tell since, as I mentioned before, I still _know_ only a little, but have read, heard and, in particular, speculated a lot. Time will tell what I can experience, and thus _know_. For example, I thought I knew, due to the written wisdom of Orifices, that they can only produce reliable readings at 50% to 90% of their flowrate. My experience now is that this range can safely be extended to 40% to 100%. What is the point of that, you may ask. For one it means that I can cover the whole antissipated range of flows with just 2 orifice plates, one going from 40CFM to 100CFM, the other from 100CFM to 250CFM. There is no need for overlapping ranges, as I thought before. I can assure you, that having to change orifices during a measurement session can amount to a big nuisance over time. I would use a remotely adjustable Iris orifice if I had the means to properly calibrate one, and if they come with a large enough range (can they close down to a small enough hole): https://continentalfan.com/e-catalog/industrial/dampers-industrial-applications/iris-dampers I am unsure, english not being the first language of mine, if there is some tounge in cheek in your comment about moving a ton of air, but to be clear, the "ton" is a term loosely assigned to large quantities of something, 100 in this case, dealing with speed, in this case miles per hour. I agree that more contemporary engine designs, with shorter strokes, higher rev ceilings, water cooling, injection etc. are hard to compete with, and we shouldn't. We should not expect such high break horse power numbers, as displayed by these modern marvels of engine technology. KTM are pulling 63 horsepower out of their recent severely oversquare 690cc single, at 11.000 rpm, so if we shoot at 45 we would be doing very well indeed. We need power to move the thing, but it is the low end grunt that really counts when driveability is concerned. Meanwhile, let us not forget the wisdom of Carroll Shelby, when he stated that there is "no replacement for displacement", the massive 40 cubic inches being the main reason why I bought this bike in the first place. The low price of it on the used market being the other. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 02/03/24 at 04:07:31 I am not sure who originally stated this: Horsepower sells cars - torque wins races. The Savage engine is really in it's element on curvy mountain roads. The torque allows us to go into a corner and accelerate back out without the need for a gear change. For me this is the appeal of a big single. The engine works without any drama or surprises - it just pulls smoothly when you open up the throttle. The Savage engine can be improved and become a very satisfying engine - but for sure it will never be a race bike. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by LANCER on 02/03/24 at 07:43:42 Race bike it’s not, that’s for sure. The the testing of the LS650 engine by DBM has clearly shown that when taken to the outer edges of performance, parts begin failing. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by ThumperPaul on 02/03/24 at 08:42:46 I like this power/torque print out that DBM shared on his stock S40. It really paints the picture of the big flat torque curve these bikes have. It may not have a ton of hp and torque, but it's delivering 80%+ maximum torque from about 1800rpm up to about 5500rpm. To Dave's point, it's nice to be able to hang out in 3rd or 4th gear rather than running up and down through the gear box with the engine screaming between 6k-12k rpms on a short stroker. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Ruttly on 02/03/24 at 10:33:06 7578777A7C6B2B2E190 wrote:
NOT my intension to piss off anyone here ! However I used Lancers quote cause a lot is said in a few words.Thanks to DBM & Finn for going the extra mile and sharing their work , outstanding. So I’m breaking it down ,”race bike it is not”. I’ve been saying for years “it’s a turd with personality “ , but every bike is a race bike , period. Why did we decide to buy a Savage, really think about it , I know why I bought mine for one defining feature. We were done with BSAs,Yamaha,Honda,Suzukis because of this feature or lack there of. The Happy button is that feature and your lying to yourself if you think other. If the Savage was kick start only , literally no one would buy it , yeah right no one. Ok Happy button and cheap to buy. Moving on , you can’t get blood out of a turnip , no , but it’s fun trying ! DBM/Finn and all the regulars here have done it already so we can choose where to stop on that journey. I’ve built enough engines to know it’s a turd , overly heavy. I had several great teachers and mentors over the years. I build different than I used to , falling back on my training & experiences. Make the bike fun to ride , make the powerband as broad as it is powerful , forgiving but definitely elevated from stock , but still retaining longevity. Cams dictate personality/purpose in most cases gain some , loose it somewhere else. What do you want ? All you can get , light to light , do the ton , what. I’ve ridden so many performance oriented bikes , some fast but just no fun to ride on the street , but on a track ! So what do you want ? Sorry for the rant Finn |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/04/24 at 11:21:37 Finn, I am also a fan of David Vizard. His book "How to Port & Flow Test Cylinder Heads" is very informative. He has a couple of other books that are excellent all around tuning guides. "How to Build Horsepower" and "Performance with Economy" are good practical roadmaps to improved performance. The mods he suggests work. Here are several other books you might find interesting: Practical Engine Airflow by John Baechtel Four-Stroke performance Tuning by A. Graham Bell Harley Davidson Evolution 1340 Performance Tests by Branch Flowmetrics V-Twin Tuners Handbook Vol 1 thru 4 by D. William Denish Don't forget YouTube. In addition to David Vizard's PowerTec, several channels come to mind. Eric Weingartner has a lot of good instructional vids. The MBE Group has some good vids as well. Like all info available on the internet, you have to use your own judgement to determine what might be applicable to your situation and whether or not the info is technically sound. There's a lot of screwy stuff on YouTube. The LS cylinder head looks to me like it might lend itself to Vizard's Poly-Quad setup. The exhaust port sweeps to the right. That might help generate and maintain the vortex that the design is trying to create. A few years back I fiddled around with it a bit, but I only had a larger intake valve. Didn't try enlarging one of the exhaust valves. Someday I might revisit that setup. For now, I have my hands full with the 35mm intakes. Since you have the ability to test at high differential pressure, I suspect you might be able to do a much better evaluation of that Poly-Quad setup. When you go to Germany to set the Savage Land Speed Record (SLSR), you might wanna make sure you have a stock flywheel installed. The heavy wheel is good for a little more top end. Regarding tank slappers, I've never experienced any head shake on my LS. The frame is stock, and the forks are not raised. The only change is the rear shocks are one-inch longer (11.5" vs 10.6"). I think it handles good with that configuration. It runs straight at high-speed, and the low-speed manners are improved dramatically. Never had a problem with head shake. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Ruttly on 02/05/24 at 08:22:27 Four stroke performance tuning is an old book , but is heavy with real good info. In the book he uses a SR 500 as a build model , I learned some good stuff here and still use it as a reference. I was a bit down this morning till I read the SLSR : Savage Land Speed Record , I was laughing so hard I got a cramp in my side. I’m sorry Finn , I am with you on your quest. But that $hit was freakin funny made me spill my coffee. Made me realize we have no such record keeping as of yet. I think if gps is used we could keep records. I think Dave wins so far with 101 mph. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Ruttly on 02/05/24 at 09:18:26 Sorry Dave , 101.1 mph our current SLSR holder ! It also comes with a free target for your back A goal , a quest , who is next to try ? Won’t be me , >:( , my speedo has auto record so if I beat my last record it holds it automatically, just checked my speedo , an embarrassing 93 mph But it’s pretty quick gettin there ! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 02/05/24 at 09:44:40 654243435B4E370 wrote:
I am sure with the proper gearing and straight road DragBikeMike could set a new record.....one that likely would be the terminal velocity for a Savage. There are likely a few other engines that have more power than mine, as I only have a 95mm Wiseco Pop Top piston with 9.2:1 compression. My bike is light and a perhaps a bit slimmer than a stock Savage - but my big headlight is not helping achieve a LSR. My GPS speedo records as well.....and that is the only way I knew how fast I went. The last thing I was going to do was look down at the speedo while hanging on! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/06/24 at 12:42:45 All, I have now got the collection of orifices caracterised relative to each other, so that I can take measurements that span several orifices. At the moment I am using: 20-50 32-80 48-120 103-206 128-320 Below is a set of curves which are important to me. For one it shows the difference in flow through the exhaust depending on whether I suck or blow through the port. It flows better the way it is intended to.It also shows the relationship Inlet/exhaust, which is also an important parameter in a well balanced engine. I am happy that I built this bench, because I am starting to know things, instead of just guessing. I have been promised the calibrated orifice tomorrow, so very exciting to see how far off these curves are, not that it matters since It is the relative progressing numbers that matter. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/08/24 at 00:20:16 Nice graph Finn. If I understand correctly, when you "suck through" the exhaust port, you are reversing flow. You pull air from the combustion chamber side of the port. Do I have that correct? I've never tried that. I use an adapter on the outlet of the head and connect three shop vacs. It keeps flow moving in the normal direction, but I don't know if it causes the bench to behave different from how it behaves if you blow through. When I tried to blow through the port, my jalopy bench could not develop sufficient test pressure. I figure flow is flow regardless of how you make it happen, so as long as the flow goes across the orifice plate, the inclined manometer reading should be the same. Do you have any comments on that? I'm surprised that you realized better flow when the air was moving in the normal direction (blow through). I intuitively thought that reverse flow would be better due to the shape of the valves. Normal flow direction forces air against the flat face of the valve while reverse flow runs across the curved portions of the valve. You got some interesting results. Thanks for sharing. This is the setup I use. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by SpamyToo on 02/08/24 at 07:46:36 All good fun. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/08/24 at 13:06:16 Finn, your tests at 28" show a stock flow bias of 63% (132/208). My tests at 15" showed a stock flow bias of 75% (124/166). Any chance you could check your exhaust at 15" so we could see what effect that has on the flow bias. You tested the intake at 15" but not the exhaust. Recently, I have not been able to replicate my flow numbers on the exhaust port. Whether stock or enlarged, I could not achieve flow numbers as high as I achieved when I first started testing. A few months ago, I worked a head for a guy. The baseline stock exh only flowed 102 cfm, and with a 1.79" exhaust I could only achieve 130 cfm. I checked and double checked everything to no avail. Port geometry was identical to my test mule, but I couldn't achieve the 172 cfm I originally saw on the test mule (and my stage III head). To cross check, I threw the test mule on the bench and same thing, only was able to flow about 130 cfm. I never figured out why. I'm getting old and probably missing something. Maybe I forgot to install the spark plug. Any ideas? Your stock 63% flow bias seems awfully low. As I mentioned, my original tests on the stock head showed about 75%. My stage II flowed 147/195 for a 75% flow bias. The stage III with 34mm intakes and 1.79" exh port flowed 172/192 for a 90% flow bias (probably too high). The stage IV with 35mm intakes and 1.79" exhaust will probably flow 172/201 for a 85% flow bias (assuming I can figure out why my exhaust numbers are off). What sort of flow bias are you aiming for? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/09/24 at 02:38:13 Mike, Yes, when I say "blow" I mean flow in the direction the engine produces during normal operation. I was myself puzzeled by the difference, but am happy I made the comparison, because lazy me wanted to avoid having to reconfigure bench from suck to blow, but now I understand I have to. I have no idea how this difference in flow vs. direction can happen. I think you are right about how you apply the pressure differential across the port, either way should be fine. I had the opportunity to compare my orifice plates to the flow through a Helgesen plate manufactured by a toolmaker guy with a lot of experience , and my gear tracks his within 2.5%, I may correct my plates ratings to match his exactly. I calculated the diameters of my orifices using an Excell spreadsheet, and in this sheet there is a factor called "discharge coefficient" you can set it to whatever you want and this will change the size of the orifice. I set it to 0.62, others have used down to 0.58. Anyway, the resulting orifices show remarkable accuracy, and certainly good to go for comparing progress in the porting process. When we try to compare from your bench to mine, that is when the problems arise, because none of them are presicely spot on. I really have no idea which port bias to go for, I am shooting for what the valve size/port efficiency dictates. Basically, I will take what I can get. As promised, here are the curves taken this morning, comparing 15" to 28". I am satisfied that the 1.366 conversion factor between 15" and 28" has been demonstrated. The port pretty much obstructs any further increase in flow from 0.25" valve lift, and up, but this ought to change when I start to open up the port. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/09/24 at 08:39:14 Ok, enough calibrating orifices, time to rough out the exhaust port. Instant gratification! I started by opening up the pathetic exit of the port, to a generous "D" of 1.65" diametre. this dia. was blended into the port as good as I could do. I did no attempt to produce any particularly smooth surface yet, just roughed it out. I also took the blunt off the left hand valve side of the dividing wall, making the port rounder as it exits the bowl of that valve. Back on the bench I recorded an 13% increase in flow. I am not too concerned about the port volume, there is plenty pressure to blow gasses through, it is a short distance, and I prefer to think the exhaust as a system reaching a long way out the header. Next restriction to adress is around the valve guide bosses, where I dug down beside the bosses, and this gives a better opening just at the bowl/port transition. This produced an increase alltogether of 27% over the stock head. I am showing pictures which reveal that no particular surface finish, or smooth surface geometry is needed to achieve these results, it is going to be exiting to see what follows, when I work the surfaces to a presentable finish. The material thickness between the tip of the "Dipsey.doodle" and the valve springs seats is 7mm, or 9/32" I am pondering the removal of some of it, but risky I guess: heat could get to the valve springs this way much easier. Anyway, a couple of hours work, and 27% better flow, not a bad thing. And now the port bias is 83% Todays work results show me that the effort invested in building this bench has been well spent. It is really pretty cool to be able to measure and record the progress of working that port. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/09/24 at 08:48:29 Here is the latest graph. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/09/24 at 10:18:04 Thanks Finn. Looks like the test pressure makes a big difference in flow bias, probably due to the poor design of the exhaust port. Its performance declines as the differential goes up, whereas the intake can handle the increase in differential. I find it interesting that your data on the stock port at 15" is very close to my most recent testing on the exhaust port (my mysterious reduced flow dilema). You got around 96 cfm, I got around 102 cfm. I'd say that's pretty close considering how crude my bench is compared to yours. You opened your port up to 1.65" and realized a gain of about 27%. I opened the port up to 1.79" and realized a gain of about 27%. Probably no point in going past 1.65". Even with my monster header pipe, 1.65" might be better as it will preserve a small dam around the perimeter to mitigate reverse flow. We are both seeing the stock exhaust flow go flat right around 250" lift. What I find disheartening about that is it also goes flat at .250" after the port has been opened up, regardless of test pressure. So, the flow is improved a lot, but the port is so torturous that it refuses to cooperate. It's lookin like that's all we're gonna get out of her. I don't recall if I tried opening up the throats on the exhaust seats. I'll have to revisit that. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/09/24 at 14:00:34 Mike, all, [edit]I A am getting too old to quote from memory! The maximum flow rate is 147CFM/Square inch, not 110. This makes my conclusions wrong[/edit] The port goes flat at 0.25", but at vastly higher flow rate. I think this shows that we are opening the port up to support what the valves are capable of. And perhaps we are limited by the flow capacity of the valves themselves, at 0.25 inch opening. I seem to recall that valve flow reaches it's max at 0.25 X valve diameter. After that you can open it up all you want, it still don't increase flow (but it reaches full flow earlier). With 28mm valves, this means 7mm opening. At 7mm opening, the curtain area amounts to 0.95 square inches. One square inch can flow 110 CFM max. This means that each valve can flow max 105 CFM @ 100% flow efficiency. Set the flow efficiency to 80%,( I hear that is a reasonable and respectable number), then expect the valve to flow 84CFM. 2 valves flowing 168CFM expected, at 7mm opening. This corresponds well with my latest measurement, 168 @ 6.35mm. If this holds water, then the focus should now shift to working the valves (back cut) and the seats (multible angle throat and deshrouding) to try and approach the 100%. Are there any obvious errors in this assessment? Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/10/24 at 23:18:14 "Are there any obvious errors in this assessment?" Nothing obvious to me Finn, but I'm far from an expert. I think we sort of arrived at the same conclusion. That's why I mentioned revisiting the valve seat throats. But I have a feeling that the pinch point is actually around the valve guide boss. Visually, that appears to be the smallest cross section, and it's torturous too. I taper the guide and round off the aluminum boss, but have been reluctant to lob off a lot of material. Maybe I should try that on the HammerHead and see what I can achieve. I think I should break out the flow bench and try some more tests, starting with a good back cut on each exhaust valve. Then get serious with the valve guides and surrounding boss, try to open up that pinch point. It seems a shame to waste the remaining .12" lift. My DR cam lifts the exhaust valve .366". If the port signs off at .250", all I get from the additional .12" lift is duration and a reduction in the tendency to loft the rocker arm. Would be nice to see that flow continue to increase past .25". My original Stage III data shows flow increasing all the way to .35". I want to try and find that lost flow. You know how it is with old folks, always losing stuff and then wandering around the house trying to figure out where they left it. I figure that's what happened to my flow, I have to figure out where I left it. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Ruttly on 02/13/24 at 10:51:38 And this is why math is power , Stay in school kiddies ! I so enjoy reading their work. Another blue skies , 60+ day here. Heading to the foothills to find a victim for my 93 mph wonder , I’m gone |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/18/24 at 04:00:24 Here is a look at the exhaust ports from the Combustion chamber side. Discussion 2 posts down |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/18/24 at 04:00:40 Here is a look at the exhaust ports from the header flange side. Discussion 1 post down |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/18/24 at 04:01:31 The porting of the exhaust has come to an end. Pictures tell most of it, and perhaps the flow curves tell the rest. Of course the feeling of the bike on the road is the final word, but this is out in the future, up here at 56deg. latitude. I reformed the bowl from a conical shape to a -- well a bowl shape, aligned the throat with the casting, which was underhung, so the throat was enlarged slightly. In the end, I let the burr work as an extension of my fingers and my mind, to create the shape that I feel is right, as close as possible with the dipsey doodle in mind. I wish I did dare to shave half of the chickness off at that point, there are 7mm thickness. But I fear about the oil temperature there. The lublication of the left main bearing is flowing right over there, so better keep heat conduction away from there as good as possible. As shown on the latest flow curve, I lost a bit of flow at lift below 0.22" relative to the previous porting, and gained some above. It also appear that I cracked the 0.25 flat curve enigma, to some degree. The cause of this was opening the throat with about one millimeter. It just now strikes me, that I have one option to regain low lift flow: 30deg. back cut on the valve, I will try this on Tuesday, whefe I have access to a valve grinder. I will now move on to the inlet port, with the short turn radius increasing raised floor epoxy mod. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by zevenenergie on 02/18/24 at 04:50:45 Wow that's a big improvement in flow. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Tanks for sharing your photos and findings so extensively. I'm wondering if you could round the valve guides or even profile them to get more flow. And is it possible to remove them before you start milling and put them back afterwards? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/18/24 at 05:31:23 zevenenergie, Thank you for your kind words. You make some valid points, and both actions are viable. However, since I was already way into the territory of diminishing returns, I found it prudent to call it a day, before I totally botched those ports, which I may already have done. Another point, I felt that improving flow up along the valve guides would perhaps be counterproductive, since it would encourage the flow to follow the top surface of the port, inviting it to slam into the dipsey. Instead I made better room along the bottom of the port. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/19/24 at 02:12:05 Finn, I'm lovin your results. I think I'm gonna try your configuration on the Hammer Head. Try to do a comparison of my current flat-floor D port to your geometry. My most recent exhaust port flowed 130 cfm at 15". If I apply the correction factor (.732) to your 28" data I get 138 cfm. Your corrected data indicates that your configuration flows about 8 cfm more with a smaller outlet. That's worth lookin at. By any chance did you test it at 15"? I should also note that your clean up around the guides and guide bosses looks a lot better than mine. That's a very difficult area to access. Nice job. You noted that you enlarged the seat throats a bit. Did you happen to measure the seat throats. I've been contemplating taking the throats to 88% (.970"). How big are your seat throats? Are you planning to measure the port volumes when you are all finished up? The stock int/exh ports are about 112cc/66cc respectively. I usually end up around 103cc/71cc when I'm finished. I'm thinkin your exhaust port might have a bit more volume. Thanks for posting the pics and graphs. Very informative. Very helpful. You need to be concerned about the special head stud that runs up through the floor of the exhaust port. The head loses a lot of rigidity when you enlarge the port. The loss of rigidity combined with the elevated temperature causes the internal threads to yield. The stud slowly pulls out over time. You can eliminate the problem by replacing the special stud with a threaded insert that installs from the top, through the exhaust port. It's fairly simple and completely eliminates the problem. This old post provides details. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1665791582 |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/20/24 at 12:38:08 Mike, Surprise! I just redid the flow measurement, including at 15" H2O, and indeed, it flows 138CFM, just as you predicted. I guess our benches produce comparable numbers after all. As you see, there are minor differences from yesterdays curves, particularly at low lift. I cannot explain why, but for now I think it is showing the inaccuracies that have to be accepted for now, perhaps I was sloppy when I mounted the orifice plates, or perhaps something else. The conversion factor is pretty accurate from 0.15" lift and up. My throat diameter is 24mm or ~0.94". I have been pondering the need for a particular valve/throat ratio, in particular why is it so desirable to choke the inlet tract just before the valve seat? I think perhaps it is not so much the choking that is important, instead it is a necessary evil stemming from the desirability of the stepped multi angle valve job: Without this choke, no material to form the multi angle valve seat from. What do you think? I do indeed intend to include your excellent modification to the under exhaust head fastner stud, and I am very gratefull for the tip! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/21/24 at 21:01:12 Really nice flow numbers Finn. I find it gratifying to see how the two benches compare. If you ignore the actual flow numbers and simply look at the percentage of flow increase, we seem to be very close. On the head I recently modified, the exhaust flowed 27% better. I didn’t enlarge throats by any appreciable amount, just what was necessary to blend the seats in. Your second exhaust attempt was a similar configuration and you improved it by 27%. Then you opened up the exhaust seat throats to .940” (about 1mm) and your numbers improved to +40%. My Stage III pumped flow up to +39%. Very close. I think you have found my lost flow. I must have overlooked the seat throats. When I encountered the mysterious loss of flow, I did a cross check using the HammerHead. I assumed I had configured that head identical to my stage III. The Stage III is currently on my engine, and I wasn’t about to rip it off just to see what the exhaust was flowing. Since I’m sure that the former flow data came directly off the Stage III, I bet I opened up the throats on that head. Time to test that on the HammerHead. Totally cool, so glad you are doing this project, and very appreciative of you sharing the data. Those seat throats look like they are critical. I also have pondered the concept of choking the inlet tract just before the seat. I have read and viewed supposed experts claiming that it creates a venturi or nozzle that accelerates the flow. I’m not sure. Eric Weingartner discusses throat size a lot, but he generally relates it to leaving sufficient material to cut the various angles below the 45. I can confirm that if you get carried away with the throat, there’s nothin left for the 75 and the 60-degree cuts. But that’s a bit off topic for now. The exhaust port is the current topic. I recently made a cutter to allow very accurate enlargement of the valve seat throat, but that cutter is specifically for the intake. I think I need to come up with a similar cutter for the exhaust seats. Then I want to try and take those seats right out to 88% (.970”). And as you stated, pay particular attention to the back cuts on the valves. I’m in the middle of a project to salvage a head with wiped cam bearings. It is proving to be quite a challenge. After this project is complete, I will be breaking out the flow bench. Can’t wait to see how you do with the intake port. BTW, I recently purchased a set of Honda 34mm intakes off eBay from an outfit called "Getor" (located in Germany). The valves were reasonably priced, and the shipping was cheap and fast. They appear to be high quality Japanese replacement parts. The stems are a little longer than stock LS valves, but I've been running these Honda valves for a long time with no adverse effects. The eBay item number is 394193921223. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/22/24 at 11:38:48 I just received the 12mm x 1.25mm bolts for the exhaust cylinder head stud, and it strikes me, that if a stud with 12mm thread is pulled out, then surely the inlet side stud, with it's 8mm thread, should be pulled out too. If not, then it must be the thermal cycling at the exhaust port that does the damage. Perhaps I will do a similar modification on the inlet side, the insert could even be shaped into a sort of anchor for the epoxy filler. Regarding the epoxy filler, I purchased the J-B Weld "High Heat" variety, which is a putty roll of intriguing design. The 2 parts of the uncured putty are delivered as a sausage like structure, one part as a core inside the other. Intriguing to me, how these 2 parts are kept from reacting with each other at the interface, but I guess there is one other ingredient in between the 2, that acts as a barrier between them. Anyway, when kneaded together to form the final putty, I really wish there was a more liquid primer to enable the putty to wet the surface of the base material. It will probably be just fine, although it doesn't feel just right at this moment, when I am doing a test bond to a scrap piece of alluminim stock . [edit] I just tried to chisel off the glob of J-B Weld, from the piece of scrap alluminum, that I had prepared as per DBM's advice, by scratching up the surface with a rotary burr. It was impossible to separate the Epoxy from the metal. It sticks exeedingly well. I will use it to raise the floor of the inlet without any hesitation. [/edit] I think I will stick to the standard valves on this build, spring time is approaching, and I must have the bike ready to ride the season which is short up here, 6-7 months due to much kold and dark season here. Then on the head I pull off the bike, I can perhaps try to do the PolyQuad configuration with different sized valves on both inlet and exhaust. This is a rather involving modification,, that includes installing new valve seats on 2 valves. Sounds very interesting with the repair of the shot cam bearings, I am very interested in hearing more about that. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/24/24 at 12:22:24 Finn, I assure you that the stud that runs into the intake port is strong enough. No need for any special treatment on that stud. I do use a slightly longer stud so that it runs up through the epoxy to provide an anchor, but the M8 x 1.25 threads are more than adequate. The exhaust side is subjected to extreme heat. Aluminum loses strength at relatively low temperature. That's why the factory used a special stepped stud. The M12 threads afford significantly more shear stress area so they can get away with the reduced material strength at higher operating temps. But when we open up the port, we reduce the rigidity of the head which results in increased stress at the center fastener (the 8mm stud). Bump up the CR and the situation gets worse. It's not the cyclic heat, it's the cyclic stress combined with reduced strength. The aluminum threads give up. I believe you will find the High Heat putty much easier to form than a paste. Standard JB Weld paste settles and runs. It's great stuff and even has a higher temperature threshold, but it would prove difficult to form into the basic shape you are shooting for. Mineral spirits (used sparingly) helps to keep the stuff from sticking to your finger as you shape it. Win, lose, or draw, I intend to write a report on the cam bearing fix. It's just too interesting to pass up. Gotta share. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by zevenenergie on 02/26/24 at 05:40:08 I'll just trespass with something that might be relevant. I've been thinking for a long time about how to fill up the dipsiedodele In the exaustport. Epoxy never stays put and you can't reach it with Tig welding. so I thought I would take a MIG and then fill the exhaust passage with shield gas and then weld the hole closed with a MIG torch without a sleeve. But today I saw that there are electrodes that you can weld aluminum with. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wp7hB02N1JQ That of course makes it very simple and it doesn't have to be pretty as long as the hole is filled. You could also weld up the side where the oil is located so that you can further mill away the obstacle on the inside. What do you guys think? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 02/26/24 at 14:20:20 As you have found out, it is not all that impossible to fill that void, from a welding tech. Point of view. But the question, as I see it, is: would it help? Personally, I would prefer to weld on the other side, fit shorter springs etc. and then remove the ridge in the port instead, producing a better port top surface. Welding on a head seems risky to me, I could imagine all sorts of problems arising from misalignment due to warpage etc. I am not going to do it. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 02/27/24 at 03:29:21 I had a small aluminum head welded once. The head was a single cylinder air cooled head with a port for fuel injection that was used to replace a cracked head on a 6 cylinder engine. The other 5 cylinders were from an engine that didn't have the fuel injection port and I wanted it welded up so all the head matched. The head was spotlessly clean, and the fellow took a large acetylene torch and slowly heated the head evenly prior to welding. He then took the Tig welder and filled up the port, then he took the torch and heated the head up again and carefully got the entire head heated evenly. Then buried the head in a bag of oil dry and told me to come back tomorrow to pick up the head. The head worked perfectly and and not damaged in any way by the welding. I am pretty sure for an engine like the Savage it is not worth that kind of effort to weld a head, as DragBikeMike has already proven that even without welding you can start making more HP than the transmission can handle. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 02/28/24 at 13:04:58 "I am pretty sure for an engine like the Savage it is not worth that kind of effort to weld a head, as DragBikeMike has already proven that even without welding you can start making more HP than the transmission can handle." Absolutely correct. It's pretty easy to make more power than the stock setup can handle. First thing to upchuck is the clutch, then the head stud in the exhaust port, then the trans. But there seem to be solutions for those weak points. Armen's rule: you find your limits by exceeding them". Wouldn't be any fun if there weren't any limits to exceed. There is a little more to be had by filling in the dipsy doodle, but as it is you can reach a flow bias that seems to exceed accepted norms for a naturally aspirated engine. If my memory serves me right, about 70 to 75% is desirable. An engine with a power adder should be up around 85 to 90% (or something in that neighborhood). That stick welding looks pretty cool. Never heard of stick welding aluminum but it's not an application that requires a lot of strength, you just want the filler material to stay put. Seems like the stick welding might apply a lot more heat than wire feed, but that's just a guess on my part. I have very little hands-on experience with welding. Why couldn't you use wire feed and just let the wire pay out farther before striking the arc. You could flood the port with argon with a hose at the valve seats. I definitely would be concerned about weld shrinkage. It's gonna pull on the guide bosses and I suspect you will end up with loose valve guides. They sell oversize guides and a special reamer, but given the fact that the bosses have been distorted by the weld I suspect the finished guides will be grossly misaligned with the seats. It will rapidly become brain surgery, waaaaaay past any skills I have. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by zevenenergie on 02/28/24 at 14:36:17 Ok tanks guys, for sharing your thoughts. You expressed the concerns I also had. But I thought the transmission would be fine if I left out the larger piston. I spoke to a tuner who welds a lot of aluminum crankcases and cylinders and said that with Tig the distortion is not too bad. But that with electrodes and MIG cracks sometimes occur due to local heating. He also said that hammering on the hot weld minimizes deformation. And he advised me not to weld close to bearing fits. So if it's not really necessary why should I do it. I'm not that stubborn anymore. Or am I [smiley=happy.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/04/24 at 12:23:26 It is with great regret I have to conclude, that my work with the inlet port has not given the results that I had hoped. The very best I have acheived is an increase in flow rate of 7%, from 207CPM to 222CPM. The work included smoothing out rough transitions, and raising the floor to get a larger radius on the short turn. But that is it, and after all, I have not been working with engines for my intire life, I have only been _thinking_ about them for my entire life, and there is a difference. So I will move on from now, and the next project is the exhaust. I have all along wanted to build the High flow quiet muffler: https://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1609379913 and feed it with a 1 3/4" 45mm header. The header has now been welded up. I is a bit too pointy for my liking, but this was the largest radius mandrel bend I could source on the planet, so for now it will have to do. My search for the correct radius bend is an ongoing endevour, since I am not into the pie style exhausts. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 19:32:50 Finn, you did a fantastic job on that header. That pipe is a real beauty, and the correct size too (1.75"). That piece is a treasure. I'm sorry to hear you are not having much luck with the intake port. I'm also sorry that I didn't see your PM until this afternoon. You sent it on the 29th. I need to log in more frequently. Hard for me to assess just based on the pictures, but I will give it a try. Your approach is exactly the way I went at it, use clay first, then after arriving at the best shape, replicate with the epoxy. I have marked up your pictures. Based on my experience, your clay build-up runs too far into the bowl area. Your clay goes through the bowl and almost touches the seat. I experienced similar results when I ran my build up into the bowl. The area I have circled in yellow shows your clay well into the bowl. Try and pull the clay out of the bowl and blend the remaining clay into the aluminum. That will probably require that you move the apex further back. I find that if I wet my finger with water it helps to smooth the clay. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 19:45:30 The sides of the port need to blend into the widened area adjacent to the valve guides. You should be able to look into the port and not see any overhanging aluminum before the widened area. Just as if you were training your line of sight along a wall to see if the wall is straight, you should be able to train your eye along the side of the port and see the side of the bowl. So, the blending should start well back from the valve guide area, close to the carb flange. There also appears to be an excess of clay. This is difficult to determine from a picture. I would try to remove small amounts of clay in the portion of the port leading up to the apex. You can use a small wooden dowel dipped in water to smooth the clay surface and verify it is a straight ramp with no low spots. It should be a straight incline running up to the apex from the intake flange. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 19:53:13 This picture shows how I work on the side of the port to widen it and blend it in to the are aft of the apex. Sorry, this is the best pic I could dig up. The port is not finished, but it should give you an idea what I was trying to accomplish. I don't think you have to worry about making a lazy port. The epoxy build-up reduces overall volume, so the air velocity remains high. Widening the runner to blend it all the way back isn't gonna hurt velocity. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 20:05:55 Your bridge in the center of the port seems too wide. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 20:07:06 Try thinning it and removing some of the clay. This is fairly close to how it should look. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 20:08:28 This is how things should look viewed through the valve seat. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 20:25:26 I have found that the placement of the apex is critical. You are approaching the problem correctly. Moving the apex fore & aft to find the sweet spot, that is a good method. Have you tried using a wide flat-blade screwdriver to find the sweet spot? With no clay in the port, I have found that you can move a wide screwdriver around on the floor of the port while the flow bench is running. When the screwdriver aligns with the sweet spot the increase in flow is very evident. One thing to note is the stock flow. Your stock flow data (207 cfm @ 28") seems low to begin with. When corrected to 15" H2O that works out to 151 cfm. All the stock heads I have tested so far have been around 164 to 166 cfm at 15". Although the two benches are completely different, and I would expect disparities, your stock flow being so much lower than the numbers I get could hold a clue. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 20:35:34 Regarding the jack bolt for the cam chain tensioner, you asked why I locate that bolt on the 2nd fin vs the bottom fin. If you try to install the bolt on the bottom fin, there will be no material left for the spot face. You need the spot face so that you can use a cap to lock the bolt in position and seal off the penetration. This jack bolt system works superb. It acts as a fixed fulcrum, so you really don't need to be concerned about leverage. In addition to the concern over the spot face for the cap, you also do not want to thin out the material directly above the head gasket surface. The area directly below has a lateral oil passage in the cylinder, so you want to maintain rigidity to ensure a good seal. This is the spot face that I incorporate. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 20:41:28 You can see that without the spot face, installing the lock/sealing cap would not be possible. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/04/24 at 20:44:01 Please tell us more about your experience with the intake port. That port really yields a big increase in power. You should be able to get that thing flowing well. Sorry again for not logging in and checking my messages. That header combined with the high-flow muffler is gonna be killer good. Very nice job on the 1.75" header. I guess I missed the stats on the ID. Is the ID about 1.62"? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/05/24 at 11:00:57 This morning, I broke out the old HammerHead and took a few more pics. Hopefully, they will add a little clarity. Here, you can see how the epoxy filler does not extend into the throat. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/05/24 at 11:04:40 This shows the bridge and the runner ovality. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/05/24 at 11:06:46 This shows the side of the port and how the runner blends, as viewed through the valve seat. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/05/24 at 11:07:54 And this shows the side of the port and how the runner blends, as viewed through the intake flange. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/05/24 at 11:15:37 I could mail the HammerHead to you so that we could learn a few things. You could run it up on your flow bench so we could compare data between the two benches, and you could do a thorough dimensional comparison. If it is not too crazy expensive, I would be willing to pay postage to you if you are willing to pay the return postage. I want to use the HammerHead for my Stage 4 head project, so I need it back. But you are welcome to use it in the interim. I think it would be a good collaboration. If you are willing to share your city and country, I can check with our postal service to see what it might cost to send it. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/05/24 at 11:37:09 Mike, you are too kind. Let me try some of the things you suggested first, then we will see. I am certain the floor is not a flat, or linear slope up to the apex, instead it raises up in a curve, the lip in between the 2 throats also needs to be worked to an almost knife edge, the straightness of the outher bounds of the port, I need to get them straight too. And then the surface finish could be better too, I wil improve on that. It is so strange, when I look at the head, I think it is all right, when I take pictures they reveal that the port is not so well done, yours has really good finish and blends. I appreciate your offer, and I am definately game on your terms. But lets hold the horses for a moment. I could also send you a couple of orifices caracterised on my bench, and you could use them to see how your bench matches mine. Great collaboration going on here. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/06/24 at 02:13:48 Finn, I just thought of something else. You are testing at a very high differential. The air velocity is also very high. Your clay may be shifting. When I first started messing with the port flow, I had trouble keeping the clay in the dipsy-doodle. The tests results were inconsistent, and I ultimately gave up on the clay because it kept pulling out of the dipsy-doodle. I was doing the tests on the HammerHead, and since that is my test mule and will never be installed on an operational engine, I went ahead and filled in the dipsy-doodle with epoxy. The intent was to determine if there was anything to be gained by filling it in. If I could shift the clay with my anemic setup, you certainly could shift the clay with your supercharged bench. You might wanna consider lowering your test pressure just to find the sweet spots for the filler material. Then, once you have determined the correct geometry, replicate the shape with epoxy and test at 28". If you don't get it just right, it's easy to make adjustments, add filler, or remove the epoxy and do it over. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/07/24 at 08:32:09 Mike, Those pictures did add clarity, even though I did not manage to get the gain in flow when trying to replicate the design. I am starting to think that I have arrived at the flow that is possible with the stock valves, and the associated throat diameter. I don't want to enlarge them at the moment. The clay I am using sticks really well, unlike PlayDoo, which falls off very easily. I think I will just finish the exhaust system, and then I can take the head, cylinder and piston off. This will allow me to make measurements on the original head, I think I need to do that to get a bit of clarity about how the 2 heads I have compare. If I don't get conclusive numbers from that, Then I will gladly take part in the Flying Hammerhead Deal you suggested. I got a bit further with the muffler today. The design I am using calls for a truncated cone to adapt from muffler to header. (Actually a 50mm tube to make a clamp on to the header). This is the first step in manufacturing this important part: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/07/24 at 08:32:18 After smoothing the cuts a bit, I start to bend the cone in the vice: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/07/24 at 08:32:27 Then I start to beat it with the soft hammer, to adapt to a piece of brass stock |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/07/24 at 08:32:38 After a trip to the lathe, some welding, it ends up on the front of the muffler |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/07/24 at 08:32:49 And this is the way It will look. I made a fastening similar to the original one, using some square tubing, cut in a tapered fasion, to fit the lift to the aft, which I like very much. I am satisfied with the looks of the exhaust system. All I need now is the inside tube with the baffle and all the holes, and the clamping detail between muffler and header. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/07/24 at 11:10:25 That is a sweet lookin exhaust system. How did you attach the mount to the muffler? Do you have any pics. I've been contemplating stainless steel pop rivets. Can't wait to see how you construct the baffle. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/08/24 at 04:37:58 Starting with the mostly internal details of the muffler, here is a drawing of how it is constructed. The 2 1/2" tubing on the muffler is cut off, and the cone is welded to it instead. So the cone bridges the gap between the muffler and the 50mm tube that forms the clamp piece. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/08/24 at 04:38:55 This 50mmŘ clamp piece is to be joined to the internal 45mmŘ baffle tube, so it has to be swaged into a smaller diameter at the one end. This is done by chucking it around a brass mandrel (steel would do as well, brass was what I had on hand in the right dimension) with a couple millimeters overhang, then just hit it with a hammer and lay the edge down on the mandrel, This is surprisingly easy to do. (well surprising to me since it is the first time I tried to do a thing like that.) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/08/24 at 04:42:57 The clamp part has had a spin in the lathe, to make the proper fit with the baffle tube. The joint here will be welded. I use TIG welding exclusivly. When the baffle tube has been manufactured it will be welded here, and inserted into the muffler, and then the cone will finally be welded to the clamp piece. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/08/24 at 04:43:41 In the other end, the baffle tube will have a ring attached, and this ring will be placed close to the round part of the muffler. I hope this will look more badass than ridiculous. The baffle tube itself will be made directly according to the design you layed down in your thread. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/08/24 at 04:45:54 To finally answer your questions, Mike: The bracket for the muffler is made out of a 110mm long piece of 20x20 stainless steel square tubing. This has been cut in a taper to make the muffler point slightly up at the rear end, and welded directly to the muffler. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/08/24 at 04:46:48 You mentioned using stainless pop rivets, and I have had the same idea, but since I have the option of welding that is how I proceded. I have no doubt that pop rivets would be just as good a solution, and in that case, a Omega shaped bracked might be the solution. I would put 5-6 rivets each side. Only problem might be to get the nuts fastened. There are nuts that rivet into a hole, don't know how to source only a couple of those, though. I just welded mine in place on the inside of the bracket. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/09/24 at 09:33:03 Thanks for the pics and sketches Finn. Excellent job on the mounting bracket. I have a slightly used hi-flow that I want to install on my next project. I'm gonna try to pop rivet a bracket onto that muffler. It has a slightly larger baffle with more perforations. I ran it for a short time, but it doesn't have provision for an O2 sensor, so I took it off to do some testing and just never reinstalled it. I need to modify that one with your bracket and an O2 sensor. Are you planning to do any sort of flow testing on your muffler? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/10/24 at 04:04:23 I could do some flow testing, but I am not quite clear about the method, perhaps you will fill me in on the procedure you use, so we get comparable results. I seem to recall that you suck in one end of the muffler through a tee, where the 3rd leg, through a tube, goes into a bucket of water to measure the depression in "H2O. I am courious about your use of the lambda sonde, do you use it to adjust the carburettor, and what instrumentation does it take to take measurements? Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/10/24 at 13:03:46 Finn, I simply set the muffler in my test bench and measure how much depression I can pull with two shop vacs. I don't use an orifice or the inclined manometer, just pull vacuum in the normal direction of flow and see how much depression results. The muffler with the lowest depression should have the best flow. Since we have two completely different vacuum sources, I don't think we could learn much from comparing data. But you could certainly use your bench to compare your before and after results. This old post should provide the necessary info. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1605160449 I use the O2 sensor to help me dial in my carburetors. I am always trying new things, so instruments come in handy to ensure I have the best tuning for a particular setup. I have found that air/fuel ratios around 11.8:1 to 12.5:1 usually result in the best WOT acceleration. I use the acceleration data along with the A/F ratio to arrive at the best size main jet. The A/F meter also provides interesting insight into carburetor behavior, how the A/F ratio corresponds to throttle position and load. It doesn't behave like I thought it would, so it's an excellent learning tool. The instrument I use is an AEM 30-4110 Wide Band UEGO with Bosch LSU49 02 Sensor. I made my own instrument housing. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/10/24 at 13:04:45 I install the O2 sensor in the inlet cavity of the muffler. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/14/24 at 00:55:19 The center tube, or baffle is shown here, along with the end plug ring. During the drilling of the many holes, I forgot how many was neded, and I ended up with 120 holes on each side of the baffle plate. Since the hole size is 4.5mm, and the target is 108 holes of 4.34mm, I selected to block off 20 holes, to end at 100 holes each side. Nothing is pretty here, I just wanted to get the job finished in a couple of hours. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/14/24 at 00:55:51 The clamp is similar to the solution I used on the clip-ons on my Yamaha YDS3 back then in 1972. I did not cut the slit yet. And those welds sure aren't pretty. But they are _my_ welds, that matters to me. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/14/24 at 00:56:28 Here is the finished header/muffler project, this is good, because it means that I no longer need the old engine as a welding fixture, but can start to dismantle the head, cylinder and piston, and rebuild it as the high comp, funky DRcam, ported head and mikuni carb fed, beefed up clutch, high flow oilpump, modded cam chain tightener and high flow exhaust engine. Did I forget something? Gotta be a blast! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by zevenenergie on 03/14/24 at 04:52:41 Wow man, your realy killing it... [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 03/14/24 at 12:14:37 That is an exhaust that I have been dreaming to build for the last 10 years! It looks great! I have not been able to locate anyone that will mandrel bend a stainless pipe for me locally. I bought a big rosebud torch that uses propane for fuel - I am going to try bending a pipe with sand inside. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/15/24 at 09:37:20 Dave, Good luck with the bending. I did a beach buggy exhaust back in 1976, in Mombasa, Kenya. It included several 180deg. bends, and it is doable. Getting the right die seems to be the problem, though. I am looking into getting a local (well, semi-local), shop interested in doing these bends, and if they show interest, I will organise a group buy. If not, I might even produce the die set myself, we will see. Welding them up like I did seems like too expensive in Argon and labour. Anyway, back to the High Flow exhaust. I did a flow test of it, and the stock muffler, at 28" depression. Stock flows 60CFM High Flow does 120CFM So the change from stock should prove beneficial, but then that is already expected. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/16/24 at 10:34:44 That is an impressive increase in flow. Thanks for taking the time to run it up on the bench. Twice the flow with only a slight increase in noise, what's not to like about that? Next time I set up my flow bench I'll have to see if I can do some tests with the orifice and inclined manometer. Cool the way you are covering holes with the sleeves. You might even be able to make the sleeves adjustable so you could fine tune them. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/16/24 at 12:52:38 Better flow, only a slight increase in noise, and not to forget a vast decrease in weight. About making those sleves adjustable.... I work as a volunteer in a lokomotive workshop, (tuesday morning till noon, out in an abandoned bog moor, turned museum) where there are several motor guys too. I drilled the holes in that workshop, because there is a better drill press there and those gear heads all suggested I should make the baffle adjustable, as you also mention. But I was too lazy to redraw the muffler, instead I stuck to the previous design, where everything is welded and stuck in place. An idea for the next iteration. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/17/24 at 10:34:26 Today was a turning point, tearing down the tower right to the foundation ;-). I felt well equipped, and had made the extractor as described by DBM, but dang! those long studs were seated solid in the crankcase. The special tool did not cut it!. I had to make special 9x1mm nuts from 8mm stainless nuts, and when I jammed them together as much as I could, I managed to get the 2 left, and the fore right stud off, but the rear right one would not budge. After making an extractor with all right hand threads, and also failing to extract the stud with that one I decided there were 2 options left (well 3, really, but I don't want to talk about the third one) so either go whole destructive and tig a nut to the top of the stud, or bend the stud to get the head off, and gain access to the full length of thread, and use the 2 nuts that worked on the 3 other studs. I chose the latter, and finally the stud gave way and came out. I did not expect any of this, but the stud was easy to straighten, although I will spend the 7.5€ for a new one. Cylinder and piston off, and amazingly, the bore and piston look like new, hardly any wear after 15K miles. So now the process starts in reverse, erecting the building in reverse, with some great new parts. Wifey came in from the garden, asking when is the motorcycle finished. Short pause.... 2 weeks I replied. Wish I can manage that! Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/25/24 at 05:28:15 All, I thought it might be interesting to see a picture of that 4th cylinder stud bolt, which was so hard to get out. As you see, at the top of the thread there is evidence that the stud was screwed so forcefully into the crankcase, that there is galling of alluminium on to the stud. No wonder it was stuck like that. It beats my imagination why anyone would do this. The way I think about it, any tension applied to the threads this way, subtracts from the available tension total that can be applied to the stud from the top end, before the threads gets pulled out of the crankcase. My comments about Mikes extractor tool was not meant in a derogative way, as you all know I am i awe of mikes work, and copy it all the way. It is a great tool, and I will use it to reseat the studs, while making sure they are not over tight. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/25/24 at 05:28:25 In line with the copying, here is the cam shain tensioner as per DBM. The idea is to push the cam guide from the rear, so that it keeps it's curvature, and thus keeping the spring tensioning plunger from protruding excessively. The bronze part is a counter nut and seal around the piece of all thread that can be screwed into pushing the cam guide. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/25/24 at 05:28:31 Here is the bronze nut seen from the other side revealing that a o-ring is used to seal off any oil leak. On this head casting, there was too little material at this place, so I had to build up with JB-Weld around a countersunk allen screw, which's head, machined, became the mating surface of the bronze nut |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/25/24 at 05:28:40 This picture reveals why I chose the DBM tensioner mod. What you see is the old tensioner and a new one. The old one has wear marks which would appear to stem from contact with the cam chain on it's downward trip from the camshaft. The cam chain does not show any obvious signs of damage, which could show that it is much harder than the follower. Anyway, I think it is best to keep the chain tight by supporting it with the originally designed curvature of the guide. On many a car engine, I see that the cam guides are backed with solid alluminium castings, whereas the Savage cam guide is weak springy thing. Luckily enough this makes it possible to nudge it back in shape with a small piece of allthread. Am I the only one to experience this wear pattern on the lower part of the cam follower? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/26/24 at 20:42:55 Finn, looks like you are making good progress. Can you elaborate on: "bend the stud to get the head off" How did you do that? Regarding your comment : "It beats my imagination why anyone would do this." I don't think that someone intentionally drove that stud in so hard that it galled. When you go to tighten your head nuts you will probably notice that as you approach final torque, the stud starts to wind up and spring back when you release the torque wrench. The nuts develop so much friction in the threads that they start to grab the stud. At that point, the stud starts to rotate with the nut. That's why it is so important to make sure that the threads are perfectly clean and that the nuts rotate freely for the full length of the threads. As a minimum, the threads, bottom of the nut, and copper washers should be well lubricated with oil. I personally prefer oil on the threads and bottom of the nuts, nickel based anti-seize on the bottom of the copper washers (RF, LF, LR), and Teflon sealant on the top and bottom of the copper washer on the right-rear. Even when they are cleaned and lubed properly, the nut still tends to grab the threads on the final phase of the torque procedure. Regarding this comment: "It is a great tool, and I will use it to reseat the studs, while making sure they are not over tight." The cylinder studs should only be threaded into the engine case by hand. You only need to make sure that they are fully engaged (about 15 to 16 turns). Use your fingers, no wrenches. If properly cleaned they should thread all the way in by hand. The o-ring groove in your "bronze counter nut" looks to me like it is too narrow. I think the groove needs to be a bit wider to allow room for the o-ring to spread out. Pretty cool the way you incorporated the socket head cap screw along with the small holes for a pin spanner. I suspect that wear on your rear chain guide is due to over-extension of the tensioner plunger. The stock tensioner plunger becomes unstable as it extends further out of the aluminum body. The toothed rack aggravates the condition. Not only does the plunger start to move up & down, it also starts to allow movement right & left. Since the plunger is used to restrain the right & left movement at the bottom of the chain guide, the loss in rigidity caused by the over-extension allows the guide to start rubbing on stuff (chain, primary drive gear, etc.). Some of us have switched from the plunger with the toothed rack to a plunger with no rack. We make the plunger longer and set it up such that it only has about 1.0 to 1.5 mm of back travel. That system is much more stable and works excellent. I periodically check mine and in the event that the back travel exceeds 1.5 mm I simply adjust the jack screw to restore correct back travel. I check mine every oil change (3500 miles) and in the last 20K miles it has not needed adjustment. With a new rear guide, you would probably need to adjust it a few times while the rubber guide beds in, then it just seems to never need much attention. I believe Dave recently did a post on how to make one of these plungers without the toothed rack. It's easy. March 31 is just around the corner. Wifey is watching you. She expects a ride on April 1. We are counting on you to hold up your end of the bargain. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 03/27/24 at 03:23:25 My work on the tensioner plunger begins on post #136 of this thread: http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1613911521/135 |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by badwolf on 03/27/24 at 13:47:42 I was going to start a new thread about this, but, you guys have already brought it up so here goes. At 80,000 miles I put one of Lancer's hardened cam chains on my bike, without changing the follower. The plunger was out quite a ways, and I thought it cause of the old follower. Fast forward to 113,000 miles. I put one of Sneeze's clutch levers in and saw the plunger needed to go out to the second hole. I turned the plunger upside down to disable the pawl and put a plug spacer behind it to limit it to 1.5mm travel. Fast forward to now with 153,000 miles. It was using oil, like 8 oz per thousand miles, so it's time for rings and valve guide seals,,,right? I pulled the head and jug off in the frame (by the way, those cylnder studs are m9x1.25 thread, RARE, I found nuts to fit off a Vespa crankshaft! had to get them from Italy!) No measurable wear to the cylnder, no lip on top, and the new rings had the same end gap as the old ones! The valve guide seals LOOKED fine, but I changed them anyways. Where was the oil going??? The holes in the sides of the piston were clogged solid. Not allowing the oil to pass from the cylnder in or from the inside out to the cylnder. I cleaned them out with a drill bit by hand and am in the process of putting it all back together now. Back to the tensioner. After 40,000 miles the slop had grown from 1.5mm to 6.5mm, waaaay tooo much. I swaped to a new follower, but the two of them side by side showed there was wear from the chain into the rubber, but the curve had not changed. I made a new plug to bring the plunger movement back to 1.5mm and am going to check it every 20k from now on. 1mm wear or so every 10,000 miles I can live with. The first cam chain lasted 80k, I think without the pawl this one will last at least 120k. So if you are willing to check the plunger every so often, (yea you have to pull the exaust, drain the oil, make a new spacer, and buy/make a new gasket,) a plug/spacer behind the upside down plunger SHOULD make the cam chain last longer. YOUR RESULTS MAY VARY,,,A LOT!!! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/28/24 at 10:24:04 About bending that Rear Right stud: Lifting the head up along the rear right stud, untill it touches the frame, initially I felt some hope that I could get the head off without doing damage to anything, but no way, It just exactly will not pass the top frame tube, even when I rotate it CW about 80 deg. I did not want to pull the engine out of the frame, so I just grabbed the head with my left hand at the stud side, with my right hand out on the free side, where the front left stud hole is, applied downward pressure to the head with my right hand and bent the stud about 30deg. . Crude, hack, jerry-rig but effective. A desperate action but a new stud is 8 bucks, or so, so what the heck. I start to realise that these studs are something very special, (stretch bolts) and I will use all the fancy lubricants that I have, to avoid any galling this time. I even have some silver powder based grease to avoid galling in stainless/stainless applications, so I think I will be allright. Mike, your attention to detail is remarkable, and you are right, the groove for that o--ring is really too narrow for the o-ring shown, I will purchase a narrower o-ring. The 8 holes in the perimeter are for the securing wire, the opposing hole is in the second top cooling fin of the head. I follow you all, (thanks Dave for the link) (thanks, Badwolf for your input) about the modified plunger, where I figure It might be prudent to also fabricate a new plunger body to cover up the protrusion of the plunger.... (does the bessermachen ever stop, I ask, retorically, probably not because it is fun!) The cylinder head top cover with the rockers has spent all this time, wrapped in a towel, on the work bench, and now that I was going to fit the new rockers I discover, to my horror, that the exhaust rocker spindle is left floating, retained only by the o-ring that keeps oil from spilling out that way. When it comes to strange occurrences, this engine just keeps giving. Bitten, my better half, does not fancy trips on the passenger seat, I don't plan to put it back on the bike either, so I am safe, and I have also traded deadline days in, for forced labour out in the garden...... I hope before first of may.... |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 03/28/24 at 17:54:37 16393E3E18313D3D3522500 wrote:
The rocker shaft is retained by a bolt that goes in from the top and screws into the shaft. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 03/29/24 at 03:33:11 62595443525E454358505D42310 wrote:
Thanks, Dave, I stand corrected. Should have investigated this better before writing about it. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 03/31/24 at 10:55:27 "I start to realise that these studs are something very special, (stretch bolts) and I will use all the fancy lubricants that I have, to avoid any galling this time. I even have some silver powder based grease to avoid galling in stainless/stainless applications, so I think I will be allright." Finn, I caution you against using thread lubricants other than the oil, Teflon sealant, and nickel based anti-seize that I specified. That is especially important for the threads, which should be lubricated with clean engine oil. Each lubricant has a unique coefficient of friction. If you use a lube with a lower coefficient (like molybdenum), you will stretch the stud farther than desired because the nut will rotate more to achieve the specified torque. You can take the stud to yield, or worse yet, pull the internal threads out of the aluminum case. This old post provides details on stretching the studs. Since the initial post, I have modified the procedure slightly to help prevent the terrible galling that occurs on the bottom side of the copper washers. Instead of applying Teflon sealant to all four washers, I use nickel based anti-seize on the bottoms of three of the washers (RF, LF, LR). You probably still want to use the Teflon sealant on both faces of the RR copper washer since it operates submerged in oil. You don't want a leak. You want to use the Teflon sealant specified in the old post. So, clean oil on the threads on all four studs. Clean oil on the bottom face of three nuts (RF, LF, LR). Nickel based anti-seize on the bottom face of three copper washers (RF, LF, LR). Teflon sealant on the top and bottom of the RR copper washer. In the event that you don't want to mess with the anti-seize, you can use the Teflon sealant on all four copper washers in lieu of the nickel anti-seize, just like I did in the old post. I currently use the anti-seize because it's easier to clean up. They both seem to have identical coefficients of friction. I achieve about the same stretch with either product. This is the old post. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1576269113/12#12 |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/01/24 at 11:37:13 Mike, Thanks again a lot. It is hard to remember having at one time read all of your good advice, so thanks for reposting that information about proper torquing, and tightening those bolts. I will get a tube of the Loctite 592 in the mail ASAP. Recent activity was drilling the DR650 cam, a job I had postponed due to lack of knowledge about cams. I took for granted that a cam in a 4 stroke engine was hardened to something resembling the hardness of glass, and thus would post a major challenge to the tooling used to drill the hole. I had purchased 2mm drills, the tungsten type used for drilling printed circuit boards, PCB. These boards are made from extremely abrasive glass-epoxy material, something that will wear down a standard HSS drill in no time. Well, as all you who has tried this already know, the cam is pretty soft material, so the drilling went without a hitch. This also goes for the hole in the end/center of the cam. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/01/24 at 11:37:23 The cylinder I have had 15K miles on the clock, and there was a slight step at the top due to wear from the top ring, this step was sitting 9mm down from the seating surface of the cylinder. Since the top ring of the high comp. piston rides higher, and would therefore have to bump over this step, I had to hone the cylinder to the point where this step was removed. I used one of those stupid spider hones, with 160 grit stones. This is a look at the cylinder after the honing process was finished. If you look closely, the faint shadow of the step can be seen. But it cannot be felt with a fingertip. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/01/24 at 11:37:30 These spider hones do an ok job producing the surface roughness needed to bed in the compression rings, but they don't improve on the cylindricity of the bore. This soon started to ruminate in my brain, and in the end, I had to purchase the proper tool to get assurance of how bad the situation was. It takes a special extension tool to measure deeper in the cylinder, at least with my size of hands, so here are the numbers, showing the dimension of the bore after honing, up to 30mm into the bore. Out of round, at the top, 1thou, or 0.04mm Taper may be the biggest problem, because the ring will have to expand and retract cyclically during the cycles. Let's say the rings have to move 0.03mm in and out of the ring groove, every stroke. At 6000RPM that is 200 times per second. So the ring will move back and forth with a speed of 200 x 0.03mm = 6mm/sec. or 1/4 inch per second. That doesn't seem like a potentially damaging high speed to me. But I don't know much about engines, have little experience, so I will just have to hope this goes without the rings leaking badly. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/01/24 at 11:37:37 The dreaded leak from above the front right cylinder stud will not haunt me, I am sure. The top groove is for inserting a screwdriver, to pry the plug out during dismantlement of the cylinder head. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/01/24 at 11:37:46 So far so good, the days where the bike starts to come together are rapidly approaching. I bought a set of cam + rockers for the DR650 early on in this project, only to realise that the exhaust rocker of the DR does not have the de-compression prong on it, so I am waiting for new proper rockers, and now I am happy to say, they will come with the better wear-pads on them. And then of course I will have to wait for the Locktite 592 also. But after that, together it is coming, and since I have all the right tools, what can go wrong? (humor) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/02/24 at 10:57:55 Finn, those 160 grit stones are pretty course. Hard for me to tell what your finished size is on your cylinder. As I recall, Wiseco specifies .0025" clearance, but I personally prefer .0030" to .0035". If you haven't reached .0035" clearance, you might want to kiss that bore with some 220 stones to provide a smoother finish. If your "spider hone" is a spring hone, you must be very careful not to introduce out-of-round and taper. If I am interpreting your readings correctly, you are currently at .0016" out-of-round and .0018" taper. IMO, that's acceptable, but I suspect you are taking the readings without torque plates. If you just kiss the bore with 220 grit stones should be OK. Just enough to smooth it out a bit. Looks like you have a good cross hatch. What is your current bore size? Be very generous with your ring gap. I suggest "Blown Race Only" spec. If you are running a 94mm piston that should work out to .024" top ring and .026" 2nd ring. I see you have your high-speed oil pump gear installed. Will you be installing an oil pressure gage to monitor pressure? What are you planning to do with the excess oil? I know it works fine with oil pressure about 10 to 12 psi at 4000 rpm. If you don't bleed off excess oil, you will exceed that. I have no idea what it will do if the oil pressure is higher than 10 to 12 psi at 4000 rpm with the oil up to normal temp. Are you familiar with the bleed jet in the oil filter housing? Very nice job on the head plug. I like the idea of the groove to aid removal. Where do you stand with the port work? How long have you had these tools and where did you get them? They must be very, very old. Cool that you are still using them. I have a few tools from my late father's collection, but nothing as old as these. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Ruttly on 04/03/24 at 08:31:58 Those look to be true legacy tools , bare minimum 3rd owner. I am swimming in used tools , I dislike new tools. They are truly special when they are handed down. I have my brothers , fathers , grandfathers tools , the first ones I reach for ! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/03/24 at 11:47:09 Crap, Loctite 592 is not available within European Union, or so it would seem. Amazon automatically refuses to ship it to Denmark, and Danish resellers of Loctite tells me they are not allowed to access it. I managed to get it from EBay, England, but with an up to 2 weeks delivery time. This means that I will have time to do the extended plunger project too. Mike, thanks again for the heads up on oil pressure with the speed up pump drive. Made me reread the full 8 pages of: https://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1695617698/0 I really only want to try to save the top end oil pressure from running low during idle, and did totally miss the possibility of overpressurizing the system. I have the gauges, 100psi and 15 psi. I guess the latter will have to be sealed off during warm up in order to survive. We will see about that. So, should I install the relief, or drain jet, which dumps oil right back to the primary transmission plenum from the filter cover? Perhaps it would be possible to mount a spring regulated pressure relief valve up in the valve cover, and dump the excess oil into the exhaust spring pocket, so that the main bearings could benefit from it? I cannot help thinking that a pressure relief valve up there would be the right thing to have. https://www.mcmaster.com/products/miniature-relief-valves/ I will use the generous ring gaps you suggested, and see how the piston mates with the cylinder. It is the 94mm high compression 13136M09400 from Lancer. The porting work is on hold for the moment. I still need to measure port volume on the stock head, and on the ported one, as well as compare the 2 heads against eash other flow wise, and will probably do now while I wait for the Loctite 592. But before I move on with porting I feel I had better get some experience with valve seat shapes. It is one of David Vizzards center points, and not just him. Most porters seem to agree that the shape of the valve seat, or pre-seat, is the most important aspect of porting. One place in David Vizzards book about porting and flowing he writes, that when people gain power by putting in bigger valves it is mainly due to the fact that they can get a better shape just up stream of the seat. The picture I show is from a french amateur porter, from his Hayabusa, posted to a facebook porting group, and he got a lot of praise for his work. He puts all 5 angles into the throat/seat transition. Not that I understand why it should be beneficial to have those sharp steps there, Intuitively I would assume a smooth transition would be better, like everywhere else. In fact I secretly harbour the opinion that the only reason to make the transition with steps is that it can be done with standard cutters, by anyone, whereas doing it in one smooth curve requires a dedicated seat cutting machine, with curved cutting inserts, or as of now, a CNC controlled cutter with one point tools. Man - it is a can of worms. However, what I wish to do is create a simple fixture where I can mount replicate valve guides made on the lathe, and test the shapes without spoiling a head. Now, about the antique tools. Frankly I don't use them. I have good modern stuff. I bought the monkey wrench off EBay a couple of years ago, and the micrometer I found in the bottom of an old wooden box in the corner of a cubboard out at the museum in the moor where I spend tuesday mornings. Frankly, it is a joke. Perhaps I should stop joking about old tools. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/03/24 at 20:34:33 Finn, I am not familiar with Wiseco piston 13136M09400. When I Google it, I see it's for a CanAm. What sort of piston is it. Please post some pics. Might be that I have a prototype of the 94mm flat-top so the part number is different. Maybe Lancer can shed some light. I wouldn't struggle with any sort of pressure relief valve, especially if you are not fully instrumented (tach, pressure gages, thermometers, etc.). The #120 (1.2mm) bleed jet in the seal retainer should work fine. See reply #95 in my oil system post. I don't think you will be able to juggle with isolating the pressure gage during warm up. Just get a 0-30 psi gage. You are correct about the valve seats. The throats and seat angles are very important, and so are the back-cuts on the valves. Since you will be running 33mm valves, you don't want your throats to exceed .170" (90%). When you open up the throats too far, you no longer have sufficient material left to incorporate a multi-angle valve job. The photo you posted on the Hyabusa seat is a good example of a 5-angle seat. I think you can visualize that if the throat was too large there would no longer be any material left to do the transition angles below the 45-degree seat. The goal is to help the air turn the corner gradually rather than force the air to turn abruptly. You are also correct about the five angles being an easy way to make the gradual turn using standard seat cutters. Radiused seats are obviously better, but I bet they are very difficult to do in a home shop. This video by Eric Weingartner should provide some insight on how to deal with the valve seat throat. He does a pretty good job of explaining why you don't want to get carried away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFflEhZVYog I have recently moved away from hand grinding the throats. It is very difficult to maintain dimensions and keep the throat concentric with the valve guide and 45-degree seat. So, I made a pilot and a cutting tool that can be adjusted to the exact dimension you are trying to achieve. It is not too difficult to fabricate the tool, you certainly have the lathe skills. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 02:47:33 Mike, As you see, I've got the tach, and I will follow your advice about the 1.2mm bleed hole for now. Have to get the bike on the road, and perhaps I will purchase a second engine, to modify with the dream lubrication system later. That top should be swimming in oil, as should the transmission, the main and balancing shaft bearings. Perhaps a squirt up under the piston too. Piston identity should be clear on the picture, I hope. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by LANCER on 04/04/24 at 05:35:59 DBM, the piston # 13136… is the current production in use, which is the 2nd generation of the flat top dished design we put together. Piston # 12212… is the 1st generation (I have 2 in stock) and you may very well have a 1st generation unit if I didn’t send you a 2nd piston later. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:24:54 I have been practicing how to assemble the cylinder top and valve train today. I got lucky when I searched through my measuring tools, I found a 14-17mm internal micrometer, which will come in handy, machining the plunger housing for the cam tensioner. The original plunger housing was worn badly in the front part of the bore, due to the extended plunger wiggeling. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:25:09 Good tooling is beneficial in the process of making accurate parts. A smooth sliding fit starts with a hole close to nominal dimension. In this case 15mm +0,01mm Here i have turned the outside and the inside of the plunger body. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:25:26 I really wish I had a milling machine, but with a 4 jaw chuck, most of the operations can be done, with a little patience. Here I am turning the face that goes towards the crank housing. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:26:04 If you swing it right, most everything is possible. Here the other side of the housing is turned down. From here it is just hacksaw file and drilling machine. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:26:46 Just like Dave, I am using an old bolt as donor for the plunger. Almost all of my turning is done with that small boring bar. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:28:10 After it has been shaped inside and out, it is time to drill the hole. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:28:28 The extra long plunger housing interfered with the clutch cover, here I am checking the clearance with modelling clay |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:28:39 And here is the point of impact on the cover. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:28:48 This is my take on the cam chain tensioner. If a plunger is going to move smoothly in a bore, I find it preferable that it engages with that bore at a length that is 3 times the diameter. This is an old toolroom rule I find it hard to deviate from. The original has 2 times the diameter when the plunger is inserted fully. I like a bit more. The housing got a bit ugly when I started to file away, to clear the interference with clutch cover, I could probably have gotten away with just turning the end down to plunger diameter + 2mm. That will be for the next iteration. Together with the top adjusting screw, this arrangement works great, at least with the engine standing still. Cheers, Finn Hammer |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 11:40:10 I installed "Open Camera" to my Android phone. What a relief to be able to take photos in the resolution that fits the forum. Before I had to reduce their size in Photoshop which could take ages. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 04/04/24 at 12:05:33 The modified tensioner body and plunger looks great. I added a small hole at the top of the uphill end to allow oil to get inside the plunger. One goal was to allow oil to enter for lubrication - the other benefit I had hope for was that it would allow oil to gather behind the plunger and dampen any larger movement. (I have no idea if the hole has any real benefit). |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/04/24 at 13:47:19 Thanks Dave. I intend to drill a similar hole, can't have too much oil in there. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by zevenenergie on 04/04/24 at 13:55:24 It all looks nicey nicey :) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/05/24 at 11:47:28 Finn, what sort of carburetor do you intend to run, and what air filter setup? You will have a free-flowing exhaust and a head that should also flow a whole bunch more. What are your plans for induction? I drilled that oil hole in my CCT. I never find any evidence of oil in the hole, and never find the CCT filled with oil. It's wetted with oil on the inside, but I never find it filled. That might be due to the location of my hole. The plunger overlaps the hole. It might be better to place the hole at the rear of the bore so that it remains uncovered by the plunger. The green circle is my proposed location. Regardless, it never gives me any problem and rarely needs any attention. The 1.5 mm back-travel seems just about right. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 04/05/24 at 12:15:59 On my Cafe' bike I have been running the stock plunger, the pawl removed, and a spacer inside the tensioner body to limit the travel backwards....I believe I started at 1 or 2mm of back travel. The tensioner that I made the plunger for isn't in use yet - but it looks like this: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/05/24 at 13:44:11 36mm Mikuni from Lancer. I turned the adaptor flange out in a straight taper, to join stepless into the 42mm inlet. The first miles, it will be running a UNI foam filter, but I worry about the sound from that inlet, and will probably weld up a custom filter cage, allu or pvc, with generous filter area, and flow, but also damping the sound. There is extra space for this, with new lithium battery taking muc less space up. I have taken a big mouthfull of modifications this winter, and need to ride the bike to see what I like. The Loctite 592 appears to already clear customs this weekend, so I can get the engine together pretty soon, just need to gap the rings, except the top cover, because the delivery of the rockers has been delayed by 14 days. Anyway, it is still winterlike here so probably fine so far. So many things I would like to change, put the engine over in another frame, for example. If it could fit into a Yamaha RD350 YPVS frame, I might do it. Byby Bobber boy! But I am rambling! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 04/06/24 at 03:40:02 The carb spigot being a mismatch for the cylinder had always bothered me - I like that you have been able to machine it to be a smooth transition. (Did you flow bench test that change to see if it provides better flow?). I have a big foam Uni filter on my Cafe' bike - the inlet noise isn't objectionable......however I always wear ear plugs when I ride to reduce the wind noise in my helmet. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/06/24 at 12:42:19 Dave, Thanks for your comment about the inlet sound. My first bike was a Yamaha YDS3, and it was infamous for it's howl. I exchainged it with a Kawasaki A7SS, which had the inlet to the rotary disk controlled carburettors, all covered inside side covers, so it had no inlet sound at all. So the prospect of noise from an open inlet had me worried. The spigot is an easy fix, if you own a 4 jaw chuck. Just chuck the carburettor in the end that mates with the air filter. Center it using a lever type dial gauge, which can reach all the way into the finished part of the carburettor bore. Then mount the spigot, and with trial and error, or trigonometry, turn the surface to start at 42mm and finish at 36mm, at a suitable depth inside the carb. I did not flow it. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/06/24 at 13:18:12 Dave, looks like you got that hole in the perfect location. Nice big countersink too. Very interested to hear how it works. Finn, it's a shame you didn't flow test that mod. Would have been valuable info. You could probably turn it into a 38mm if you were willing to take the risk. I have had good results installing large cylindrical filters directly into the airbox. The Uni will fit if you remove the red sock. Using the airbox permits retention of the decorative tins on right & left sides, and the stock ignition module mount. It also provides good weather protection. I cut out a large section of the rear of the airbox to allow room for a 3.5" x 5" K&N cylindrical filter, but that probably wouldn't be necessary with the Uni since it is more flexible. That would provide even better weather protection. It's also very quiet, and stealth. The long 90-degree street elbow provides additional length to the intake tract, and I suspect it might be beneficial. You want a PVC elbow, not ABS. It's a very simple, inexpensive, sanitary, and functional. This old post might be helpful. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1625732492 BTW, I had one of those 350cc A7s back in 1969. That little sucker could rip. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/07/24 at 11:44:22 I may still get to that, flowing the full induction system. Mike, you bring some good points about keeping the stock air filter boot. Attachment to the side covers and the ignition module is a good thing, and will make the bike look as good as stock. Which is a benefit if I get pulled over by nosy cops. I never felt comfortable with the foam filter, don't know how to maintain it, but assume it would have to be taken out for regular cleaning and oiling, so I prefer a paper filter. Since the K&N RD-0710 is available here in Denmark, I bought one, and so will have a similar induction system as yours. I test assembled the clutch today and ran into some interesting problems. First it dawned on me that the only way I could put it together was to assemble the complete clutch (ex the release plate) and insert it as a unit. Then when I get the plates stacked, there is amble room in the basket (I call the exteriour for the basket) the fingers on the outside friction plate are about 2mm away from the front of the notches that they ride in. However, when the splined hub gets fastened to the shaft, the pressure plate is so close to the basket that it rubs on it. Thus no room for release travel. I felt there were 2 solutions: either skim materiall off the pressure plate and the splined hub, or introduce a 2mm thick washer between the basket and the splined hub. I chose the latter (there is already one washer there) and turned one washer out of stainless sheet. This seems to solve the problem, and extending the release plunger by 2mm (a sawed off disk from a 6mm rod) made the external clutch lever align with the 2 marks on the clutch cover. I am a bit surprised by this, I am using the DR650 splined hub, as well as the narrow but thick outher friction plate with steed disk and so called wave washer. Shown is the washer that saved the picture |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/07/24 at 11:47:34 Here is the clutch in the state of full release. The pressure plate and the splined hub are still engaged here. This is also the position the friction plates were in before the introduction of the 2mm washer. But the splined hub was in contact with the outher friction disk then. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/07/24 at 11:48:00 And here the pressure plate is in the state where the plates are compressed (or almost, trying to do it with one hand and hold the phone with the other. But I think the plates align perfectly with the basket. There is no rubbing between clutch and inside of clutch cover. I know the parts are full of dangerous dirt now, metal filings and such, i will wash them carefully before final assembly. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/07/24 at 22:45:58 Finn, very confusing problem. Let's start by getting the nomenclature that we use in agreement. This is an exploded view of the clutch assembly. Use the nomenclature provided in this illustration. Although the illustration is for an LS clutch, the DR clutch should use the same nomenclature. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/07/24 at 23:02:39 You have an early model LS with the 4-speed transmission. Do I have that correct? If I understand correctly, you have installed a DR650 Sleeve Hub (4) in the LS clutch assembly. Did you also install a DR650 Pressure Disk (13), or did you bore out the LS Pressure Disk to suit the new DR Sleeve Hub? When the DR Sleeve Hub (4) is used with the LS Primary Driven Gear (1), the Sleeve Hub should be like this when everything is assembled correctly. Note the position of the Sleeve Hub (circled in yellow). It does not stick out as much as yours. I assume that's because of the additional washer you installed. The gap between the inner most Drive Plate (8) and the edge of the slot in the Primary Driven Gear (1) should be as shown in my picture (red lines). |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/07/24 at 23:42:52 You should not need an extra Washer (7). There are two thrust washers in the assembly (2 & 7). They are both 2mm thick. Washer (2) is 44 mm O.D. It goes in between the Spacer (3) and the transmission bearing. Washer (7) is 40 mm O.D. and it goes between the Sleeve Hub (4) and Spacer (3). It is nested inside the Primary Driven Gear (1). I suggest you assemble your clutch on the input shaft and leave out the clutch plates. So, install the Washer (2), Spacer (3), Primary Driven Gear (1) with Oil Pump Drive Gear (17) and Roller (18), Washer (7), Sleeve Hub (4) with Pressure Disk (13). Install Nut (5) and lightly tighten. You will essentially have the clutch assembled on the input shaft but there won't be any clutch plates. Verify that the input shaft will rotate independently of the Primary Driven Gear (1). Verify that the Primary Driven Gear (1) is free to rotate within the backlash limits of the Primary Drive. The Primary Driven Gear should be free to rotate slightly and wiggle a bit. It should have about .010" axial movement on Spacer (3). Verify that the Pressure Disk (13) is free to move in & out and that it engages with the splines on the Sleeve Hub (4). Verify that the Oil Pump Drive Gear (17) is free to rotate slightly on the Primary Driven Gear (1). It should not be pinched between Washer (2) and the Primary Driven Gear (1). It should move in & out slightly, and be free to rotate within the limits of the drive pin (Roller 18) and slot in the gear. Take a bunch of pictures and let us know what you find. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/07/24 at 23:51:54 Stack up the clutch plates (8, 9 & 12) and measure the thickness of the stack. You should have 6 steel driven plates (12), 6 fiber drive plates (8), and 1 special drive plate (9). This stack of plates should be very close to 1.209" (30.72 mm). Lightly clamp the stack together as shown in my picture. If you have a significant deviation over 1.209" (say .010"), measure each plate individually and let us know what you find. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/08/24 at 00:03:19 If you have difficulty rotating the Primary Driven Gear, make sure that your Oil Pump Drive Gear (17) is oriented correctly. I know you have made a set of high-speed oil pump gears. Make sure that the drive gear isn't too thick and that it isn't turned around. Make sure that some feature on your gear (like the small screws used to fasten the gear tire onto the new hub) isn't interfering with the Primary Driven Gear (1). As previously mentioned, the oil pump drive gear should be free to rotate slightly on the Primary Driven Gear (1). It should rotate within the limits of the drive pin and move in & out slightly. None of these screws should hit anything. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/08/24 at 00:06:32 The steel face on the spigot of the Primary Driven Gear (1) should protrude from the aluminum hub on the Oil Pump Drive Gear. The surface that the yellow arrow is pointing to must stick out of the Oil Pump Drive Gear. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 04/09/24 at 04:23:40 DragBikeMike sure is thorough! My clutch assembled properly with the DR650 parts inserted - no additional washer was needed. Something you did isn't proper. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 14:29:05 Finn, after pondering your problem and reviewing your posts, I was baffled. I don't think I fully understand your explanation/description of the problem. I think you are saying that you have insufficient pressure disk travel. My original hybrid clutch was set up in a late model primary driven gear (1). I never tried it in an early model clutch. I decided to try and simulate your setup. I have an early model primary driven gear (1). It has the 68-tooth gear (late model has 67 teeth). I also have a DR650 sleeve hub (4), but I do not have a DR650 pressure disk (13). So, I took a stock pressure disk and bored it out to 1.738". |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 14:37:07 Although the early model primary driven gear (1) looks pretty much the same as the late model, I did note a few differences. The early model has these unique semi-circle stops cast into the bottom of each slot. Looks to me like these are intended to act as stops for the tangs on the innermost drive plate (8). I believe they are incorporated to prevent the tang from binding in the radii at the bottom of the slot. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 14:40:57 The early model primary driven gear (1) also appears to have taller hard stops for the pressure disk. The early model stops are about .055" above the thrust washer, while the late model stops are only about .035". |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 14:53:18 I assembled a clutch using the early model primary driven gear (1), the modified (bored out) LS pressure disk (13), and the DR650 sleeve hub (4). I installed six drive plates (8), one drive plate (9), and six driven plates (12). I used the stock thrust washers (2 & 7). I left out the wave washer assembly (10 & 11) because it is very hard to compress and will interfere with travel checks on the pressure disk. To get accurate travel readings you must start with all the plates in intimate contact. To permit checking travel, I assembled the clutch with two light checking springs. These light springs will bring all the components together while still allowing me to cycle the pressure disk with my fingers. The light checking spring is on the left, stock spring is on the right. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 14:55:37 To measure pressure disk travel, I have a special sleeve that I attach to one of the spring posts on the pressure disk. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 14:56:18 This is the special sleeve installed on the pressure disk. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 14:58:58 With the early model primary driven gear and DR sleeve hub, the pressure disk travel was only .042". That is way too small. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:05:29 Since the clutch release mechanism travel is .065" to .070", the pressure disk will hit the hard stops before the clutch hand lever has moved through its full range of motion. Something will eventually break. Adding another washer (7) might fix the travel problem, but it moves the rotating release plate (14) too close to the release arm (24) in the clutch cover. IMO, this is a bad idea. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:10:32 To gather some additional reference points, I decided to take some measurement on the clutch plate tangs. This will also help to determine if there is sufficient clearance on the tangs to permit full release of the clutch. This shows a late model primary driven gear with the 13-plate clutch stack in the fully engaged position. The clearance between the tang and the bottom of the slot is about .155". |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:14:38 This shows a late model primary driven gear with the clutch stack in the fully released position. The clearance between the tang and the bottom of the slot is about .080". So, the allowed movement is about .075" (.155" - .080" = .075"). |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:17:17 This shows an early model primary driven gear with the 13-plate clutch stack in the fully engaged position. The clearance between the tang and the bottom of the slot is about .130". |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:22:30 This shows an early model primary driven gear with the clutch stack in the fully released position. The clearance between the tang and the bottom of the slot is about .100"". So, the allowed movement is about .030" (.130" - .100" = .030"). That's not very much. Since there are a total of 13 plates, there are 26 friction surfaces. That leaves only about .0012" clearance between friction surfaces. The clutch won't release. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:26:28 To double check, I placed the clutch in the full release position and inserted feelers between the face of the sleeve hub (4) and drive plate (9). Yep, only .030". Looks like the early model primary driven gear needs a little work to permit use on the 13-plate clutch mod. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:39:49 To use the early model primary driven gear on the 13-plate clutch mod you need to increase pressure disk travel, and increase tang clearance for the innermost drive plate (8). You can accomplish that by installing an additional washer (7), but I don't think that's a good idea. It might work, but it could also be very bad if the release plate hits anything. It might work at first, but as the clutch wears the release plate will drift out closer to the release arm. You can try it, but I wouldn't add any more washer than necessary to achieve .075" pressure disk travel and .075 tang clearance. The 2mm washer is too much, a 1mm washer would accomplish what you need to do. In addition, you should trim the tops of bolts (16) to provide an additional margin of safety. You MUST do clay checks to confirm adequate clearance. I personally prefer machining the hard stops and hand working the slots in the primary driven gear. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:44:33 I wanted to see how hard it would be to trim the hard stops in the primary driven gear. I didn't want to tamper with the early model primary driven gear at this time, so I decided to try it on a late model unit. I have several of those and they are easy to come by. It chucks right up in the lathe and runs fairly true. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:46:49 Since the hard stops in the late model primary driven gear are about .035" higher than the face of the thrust washer, I trimmed them back .030". It worked good. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:50:29 Then I checked contact by painting up the stops with Sharpie pen and installing the pressure disk. The contact is a bit sketchy, but the pressure disk is an unmachined casting. Looked OK to me. This shows the hard stop contact. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 15:52:43 And this shows the transfer onto the pressure disk. Looks like the cast face of the pressure disk is not perfectly square. I think that's OK. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 16:04:12 To provide additional clearance for the drive plate tangs, you could hand work the bottom of each slot in the primary driven gear. You don't want square corners as they will promote cracking, so a small round file is in order for the radii, and a small flat file to remove the semi-circular cast stops. Just remove enough material to permit the drive plate tang to move down into the slot about ,045". |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/09/24 at 16:10:26 All of this clutch modification work mandates thorough clearance checks. Clay checks to verify proper running clearance between the rotating clutch and the clutch cover/release mechanism must be accomplished. Pressure disk travel checks with a dial indicator are necessary. If you choose to skip these checks, you do so at your own peril. This is true regardless of the approach you take, adding a washer or machining the primary driven gear. Keep us posted. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:13:31 Mike, To repeat the words of Dave, you sure is thorough!. Thanks for taking interest in this detail of the build. I know how long time it takes to build a case, I am still in the process of gathering all points in mine, and have not gotten to the end yet. I do feel somewhat redeemed by your last series of entries, regarding the clutch mod using the 4 speed variety of transfer gear. To be honest paranoia started to creep in in the form of fantasies, someone with interest might start to think along these lines: If he can't put the clutch together correctly, how on earth is he going to get the valve timing right. But to the point of clay tests, here with the extra 2mm washer installed. There are a couple of places that don't give cause for worry: First is the area around the release cam, plenty of clearance here. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:13:43 Then there are the bolts that hold the release plate. when I fit the bolts shown, there are 2mm clearance to the face of the flange on the sleeve hub, and the clutch is not going to wear that much. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:13:56 Therefore the main places of concern are situated around the parts of the clutch cover which are circled in red: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:14:08 Here is the preparation for the clay test: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:14:16 Immediately the part to the right looks dodgy: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:14:32 But let's cut the clay and get a clear view of the cross sections involved: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:14:59 And yes: there is interference right here: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:15:10 This could be remedied by shaving a bit off this corner, since the sleeve hub is fixed in axial position : |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/10/24 at 13:15:24 So far so good, the 2mm washer can work, although I am not rejecting the suggestions you make, Mike. But there are other worries: First, in this state, the maximum travel allowed is 2.1mm but i really need 2.5mm to cater for the full travel of the clutch handle. (18mm travel on the cable, 7:1 reduction ratio on the release arm/cam). Biggest worry is the very limited amount of mesh between pressure disk and sleeve hub, only 1.5mm in my case. This has me seriously worried for 2 reasons, one is the risk of disengaging them during clutch release, but also that the area of contact between the parts is very limited. In the original clutch, the pressure disk and the sleeve hub engaged in 4.5mm meaning even when the clutch handle was pulled all the way into the handle, there was still 2mm of engagement. Here is a picture of the wear pattern on the pressure disk, showing how deep the sleeve hub engaged with it in the original configuration- I have some ideas where to shave off a bit of material to remedy these worry points, but it is getting late, and I have to go to bed now, to be continued |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/11/24 at 03:42:11 I like the way you used those button head screws on the release plate. That provides a lot more clearance. I'm a little concerned about the gap that I see between the flange on the sleeve hub and your outermost drive plate. That drive plate should be contacting the aluminum flange, but the photo shows what appears to be a large gap. Am I seeing things? I see a gap in several of your photos. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/11/24 at 03:44:59 Your release plate also looks much lower than mine, but that could just be due to the angle of the photo. Mine is situated .210" below the surface of the sleeve hub. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/11/24 at 04:09:15 The clutch plate stack height controls the elevation of the release plate. What is your stack height? The extra washer you intend to install should have no effect on the spline engagement between the pressure disk and the sleeve hub. Likewise, reducing the height of the hard stops will also have no effect on spline engagement. The spline engagement is controlled by the clutch plate stack height. I'm not sure how you arrived at 2.5 mm travel. I never got more than .070" empirically. I measured it with a dial indicator and also feeler gages. As I recall, those readings agreed with my calculated travel. That data along with the methods I used are in my original post. I assume you measured your pressure disk travel with a dial indicator. That should have been accomplished with the clutch plates installed without the wave washer assembly. So, you ended up with 2.1 mm (.084"), do I have that correct? By any chance did you measure travel without the special washer installed? If so, how much travel did you have without the washer? It would help us all understand your problem if you were to tell us what your clutch plate stack height is. It would also be helpful if you could check your outermost drive plate with a feeler gage and verify that it is in intimate contact with the aluminum flange on the sleeve hub. I might add that on my first iteration of this hotrod clutch, I had a set of plates that were significantly thinner than what I am currently running. Over time, as I developed more & more power, I switched plates to eliminate slippage. The set of plates I am currently running should be very close to the same stack height I recorded for this post. Although my spline engagement is minimal, it has performed flawlessly over many miles. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/11/24 at 08:39:09 I agree about the stack height, and will adress it later in the post. Sometimes it is a good idea to sleep on things, in this case certainly so. My main concern about engagement debth was due to my erroneous assumption that this small amount of engagement was taking active part in transferring the power from the engine to the wheels. Now I find it hard to understand how I could have come to that conclusion, but at least now, I understand that this is not the case, the pressure disk is solely used to compress the plates, so that the friction discs indexed to the primary driven gear can transfer power to the plain disks indexed in the sleeve hub. So far so good. I arrived at the 2.5 mm travel this way: The clutch cable maximum travel is 18mm and the relationship between release arm and release cam is 7:1, so 18/7 = 2.57. I realise this is the extreme absolute maximum travel of the pressure disk. I do not under any circomstances want that disk to disengage from the sleeve hub, so that is why I go to lengths to assure that. My stack height is 31.2mm |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/11/24 at 08:39:17 and the free length of the sleeve hub is 33.4mm this should give me 33.4mm - 31.2mm = 2.2mm engagement. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/11/24 at 08:39:24 But there is a catch: the splines in the pressure disk start 0.6mm under the friction surface of the disk, resulting in an index debth of 2.2mm - 0.6mm = 1.6mm which I think is too small, because I fear that the pressure disk can slip out of engagement during a deep pull on the clutch lever. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/11/24 at 08:39:32 As a remedy, I first skim the friction surface of the pressure disk down to flush with the splines, this brings engagement back up to 2.2mm It also eases the compression of the clutch springs by 0.6mm and it brings the release plate forward by the same amount, but I don't think this will cause amy interference. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/11/24 at 08:39:41 And finally I skim the sleeve hub 0.3mm to give me the 2.5mm that makes my nights sleep so much better. :-) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/11/24 at 08:39:51 I don't think I have a problem anymore, the clutch seems solid and has the clearance needed, only one more thing: The hole in the end of the gear box axle, where the clutch push piece enters, has an unacceptable surface finish. I think someone forgot to load the reamer in the tool changer bay, in the machine shop that day they turned this shaft, because it is really ugly and not at all suitable for an o-ring to mate with, and allow axial movement. The original o-ring was all chewed up, and I can hardly make a fresh ring engage with that hole. It is 12.4mm in diametre, the bottom of the o-ring groove in the clutch push piece is 9.5mm. Since the o-ring is a 1.9mm cross section, the interference amounts to 9.5mm + 1.9mm +1.9mm = 13.3 - 12.4 = 0.9mm which is also too much. I have ordered an adjustable reamer so that I can get the surface finish on par with what is to be expected. Have you experienced a hole like this, Mike? |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/11/24 at 11:02:17 About the position of the release plate with the stack fully compressed between sleve hub and pressure disk, here is a pic. The gap between vernier caliper and the button head bolt is 1.6mm. This leaves 3.6mm of plate wear before the bolt heads can interfere with the shaft of the release arm. How much do clutch plates wear typically, over say 10K miles? The ones originally had no measurable wear after 16K miles, and that was with a slipping clutch. (slipping with my hands on the throttle, not sure about the previous owners :-) ) Wow, Loctite 592 arrived today. Assembly of engine can start! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/11/24 at 19:35:34 Finn, I am lovin that vernier caliper. Accurate to within .05 mm, sweeeeet. Your stack height is .020" (0.5 mm) more than mine. That explains some of your problems. All these small variations combine to have a significant effect. That .020" increase in stack height decreases your pressure disk travel by roughly 27% of what is required. Was the wave washer assembly in the stack when you measured the stack height? I love your machine work on the pressure disk and sleeve hub. Your solution for holding the pressure disk in your 3-jaw is clever. Nice job. Your input shaft bore is pretty ugly. I don't know how an expandable ream will work on that hardened shaft. This is what a normal shaft looks like. The bore is .485" (12.32 mm). As you can see, surface finish is very smooth. You are already .003" over that. After you finish reaming it's gonna be way oversize, and it might still need some honing to improve the finish. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/11/24 at 19:47:01 You might want to consider an appropriate ball hone to polish things up. You should also be looking for o-rings with a larger cross section, maybe metric 2.0 mm or SAE 3/32". An SAE o-ring that is 3/8" ID x 3/32" cross section might be good. The SAE dash number for that particular size is -110. You may need to widen the groove a bit to accommodate the larger cross section. Surface finish is important for this particular o-ring. It moves in & out so you need a very fine finish in the bore. The seal is important too. If it leaks, you will lose pressure to the trans idler bearings and the clutch bushing. A ball hone will do a good job on the reamed surface. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/11/24 at 19:49:28 The groove in the push piece is .100" wide. You may need to open that up a bit. Maybe widen it to .110" or .120". Given the sliding application, you may need to do a little trial and error fitup. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/11/24 at 19:56:30 One thing you need to be thinking about is your hub nut. That nut is extremely thin (.238"). And 50% of the external threads on the shaft are missing due to the splines. Your extra washer along with the longer DR hub take that nut all the way out to the end of the shaft. I put mine together with an extra 2mm washer to see how the nut is positioned. I don't think it even achieves one nut-thickness of thread engagement (when you consider the chamfers). You need to check yours. If you don't have a bit of shaft sticking out of the nut, you need to consider a counterbore in the sleeve hub. You don't want to damage threads on that shaft. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/12/24 at 04:35:24 Mike, Lots of usefull input as usual. I have left out the so called wave washer from all my work up to now. I am still debating with myself, should I just do as yourself and at least also Dave, and put those 2 washers in, and miss most of the friction from the outher face of the narrow friction disk, or should I do the scientific thing, omit them, and experience the lousy clutch operation that demonstrates the need for them. Still does not at all make any sense to what they can possibly benefit, or the mechanism involved in making them work to the benefit of the clutch engagement. Yes, perhaps a good idea to skim a couple millimeters off the sleeve hub to benefit the nut engaging the shaft. Btw. regarding the hardness of the shaft, I tested it with a file, as I always do when contemplating "going at" a potentially hardened workpiece with HSS tooling. The shaft is not hardened inside the hole: not a surprise! Shafts like these are not hardened throughout. If they were, they would be prone to splinter during shock loads. Instead high strength and ductility is needed, how do they do it? They make the shaft from a steel type formulated for case hardening. This means that the steel is alloyed with chrome and molybdenum, but has low carbon content, below 0.3%C or thereabouts. It is the carbon content that makes it possible to harden the steel. So they machine the shaft to final dimensions where no particularly fine surface finish is needed, but leave 0.2mm where grinding will be needed after quench hardening. They leave the diameter a couple of mm thicker in places where no surface hardness is desired. This will be turned off later. Unhardenable areas can also be created by covering the part partly by for example copper, you probably still remember those beautifull copper plated conrods on the A7? After this, the shaft is submerged in a special salt solution which is heated to some 500-600 degrees centigrade, and this allows carbon from the salt to diffuse into the outher layers of the steel. It is the iron portion of the steel it enters. The iron molecules are organised in a cubic structure, meaning that there is an iron molecule in the corner of each cube. The carbon molecules then wander into this lattice, so that it is situated on one of the faces of the cube. In this state, the material is called cubic-face oriented, this is the normal state at elevated temperatures. And the percentage of carbon will be above 0.9% possibly 1.2% When the carbon has entered into a debth of around a millimeters deep, the shaft is taken out of the salt bath, and allowed to cool slowly. During this slow cool down period, the carbon molecules wander into the center of the iron cubes, and the material is now cubic-center-oriented, which is the norm at room temberature. It is now still relatively soft, and surprisingly nice to machine, if this should be desired. For example, if there are areas of the part that should be left unhardened, it is now time to turn away the layer with high carbon content. The hardening process can take place now, by heating the shaft to red hot, and quenching it in oil or water. During the heat up, the carbon moleculed wander back into the face-oriented position, and during the quench, they cannot return to cubic center orientation, so the stresses caused by the carbon molecules being trapped outside their normal position inside the iron cubic structure is causing the hardness. It is now needed to anneal the material, to avoid cracks to form, you can say it is a calibration of the position of carbon in the lattice that is taking place. The shaft is heated to a couple houndred centigrade, some of the hardness is lost, and much ductility is regained. Finally the part goes to the grinding machines to produce the fit and finish for the gears to mate to. In the case of my shaft, apparently the hole was either shielded in the salt bath, or it was drilled afterwards. But they either forgot the reamer, or they used a too large drill, rendering the reamer inefficient it being too small for the bore. So I do not worry too much, the adjusteble reamer will produce a superiour surface, I am confident about that. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/13/24 at 15:20:12 Don't know much about metallurgy, but I'm pretty sure you will end up with a bunch more clearance than design. By design, it already has pretty generous clearance (.012") between the push piece and the input shaft. I can see by the wear marks in my photo of the push piece that it engages with the shaft about .75". That will help keep it straight when the release cam cycles the push piece. But that generous clearance still allows the assembly to tip a bit. IMO, that's what the wave washer is intended to mitigate. The wave washer helps keep the pressure disk perpendicular to the input shaft, so the pressure is evenly distributed around the drive plates as the clutch engages. Dave & I have both experienced rough engagement when the wave washer is left out. In both cases, installation of the wave washer assembly completely eliminated the chatter, squealing, and grabbiness. Once you ream out the input shaft, the clearance will be increased significantly, and the push piece will be allowed to skew and tip more than desired. I wouldn't even consider leaving out the wave washer. Not a big deal if you do leave it out since it is easy enough to reinstall. As long as you use the special drive plate (9) you won't change your stack height. But I think we have already established that the clutch doesn't work correctly without the wave washer. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/13/24 at 15:28:16 When you ream and polish the input shaft, you want to make sure that chips and abrasive debris don't migrate into the shaft. One thing that will help is to feed compressed air into the trans oil supply. You can do that by removing the special orifice and blowing compressed air into the feed hole. You should blow the air continuously during the reaming and polishing. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/13/24 at 15:29:20 The orifice just pulls out. Here you see the orifice on a pin gage. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/15/24 at 08:33:03 The hole made by the reamer turned out to be 12.35mm, so probably I made an error measuring it earlier. A pinkie finger inserted into it confirmed that the surface finish is A1, something that the pictures don't seem to convey, but trust this old toolmaker. The nut overhangs the shaft by 0.15mm, so I see no urgent reason to trim the hub down. Clutch is good to go, with so called "Wave Washer" and all. It will be mounted with stock springs, since my left hand hurts too much with the DR springs in it. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/15/24 at 08:33:49 Piston is in, |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/15/24 at 08:34:02 So is the DR650 cam, here at TDC |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/15/24 at 08:34:29 So enginewise, this is where I stand. The cam chain push rod will be replaced by one made from stainless steel. The main hold up is the rockers, which will ship from Holland on friday, so by the end of next week I should be on the road. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/15/24 at 08:35:00 But I want to talk about the induction system. This picture holds a lot of information. Here in Denmark, it is near impossible to source a plastic (or metal for that matter), tube elbow unless it is either 50mm or 75mm PVC or PolyPropylene. I went with the 75mm PP elbow. To join a 64mm carburettor to a 75mm elbow, you have to source a hose in the form of a truncated cone, not easy. So I made my own. On the picture in white, you see a paper template. I used half of the template to mark out copper sheet, 1mm thick. From this sheet, I made the mandrell shown. I also cut 1mm EPDM rubber using the same template. (I have a lot left over from a roofing project). Wrapped it around the mandrell one turn, then gluing it with isocyanoacrylate glue as I progressed the second turn. This produced the black hose shown, which fits great. What You also see is the multicutter saw which is invaluable for cutting the filter case. I don't know how I could have done without it. First plug the hole with a piece of wood, and use a circular saw to make the round hole, then start gouging away with the multicutter. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/15/24 at 08:38:42 The filter fits neatly inside the molested filter case. To my great relief, there was no need to cut the case open in the back, facing the rear wheel. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/15/24 at 08:39:11 This side view reveals that things are tight, but it is easy to get to things, and easy to assemble and take apart, something you can't hardly say about the stock arrangement.. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/15/24 at 08:39:56 Top view tells the same story. I reversed the wires going to the starter relay, and that helped a lot. By now, battery is connected, carburettor is mounted with a #200 main jet and #20 idle jet, needle in the middle groove as delivered by Lancer. Catch can is in the works. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/16/24 at 10:52:06 That input shaft cleaned up nice, and you are only .001" oversize. Seems impossible given the phonographic finish you started out with. How did you manage to get so lucky? I assume you have only installed the head temporarily. Did you save your old head gasket so you can check piston-to-valve clearance when you get your new rocker arms? What is your deck height? I like the intake boot you made. The divergent feature from the elbow to the carb might work better than my straight cylindrical boot. How thick is the material? Is there any concern over the boot collapsing at WOT? By any chance did you do any sort of test on the Polypropylene, EDPM and the cyanoacrylate glue to see how they behave when exposed to fuel? I had a problem with ABS plastic deteriorating. Those components are exposed to a heavy dose of fuel vapor. What is the purpose of the white nylon bolt & nut that you have installed in the elbow? Looks like you will be on the road soon. You will have all summer to play. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/16/24 at 23:58:39 Regarding the hole in the shaft, I like to think it is not just luck, but also a fair bit of skill 8-) ;-), combined with competent selection of tool. A reamer is the most dilligent tool in the machine shop, when it comes to producing a hole that meets strict demands to both dimension and surface finish. I torqued the head down, shame on me, I fear this will cost me a head gasket, and the not unconsiderable hassle of cleaning Loctite 592 off the RR stud. I guess I had better start to adhere strictly to the WIMGA* rule. Frankly I am under the impression that others have already done this piston and cam conversion, so that if I just don't also throw bigger valves into the mix, I'd be safe. Deck height was eyeballed to 1.5mm, but due to liberal amounts of Redline assembly lube, I am not sure. Will I absolutely have to do a clay test on the valve/piston clearance? Has anyone here done the conversion already without experiencing catastrophical engine failiure? I tend to work from my flaky memory, which is perhaps not such a good idea, since when I check on the durability of EPDM rubber, it is stated that apart from its many favourable durability properties, resistance to fuels and oil is not one of them. The isocyanate glue is used in the industry to make custom o-rings, by gluing lengths of rubber string together end to end, so I have little doubt about that it will endure fuel too. But as I write this, I realize that I have lived my life without an intimate relationship with gasoline, and its property as a solvent, so I guess it is time to drop the assembly into a can of gas to see if it swells, cracks or gets slippery. If I could get hands on an HDPE elbow, I would take it. I have all sorts of thin glass fibre sheet, and I am already preparing for a second version of the boot with embedded longitudinal stringers to secure WOT performance. Don't want to risk the boot getting sucked in :-). The nylon bolt and nut is there, and where it is, to be out of the way of the seat, but to offer something to grab, when I want to pull the elbow out of the boot. Edit, after 4 hours semisubmerged in the drink, the boot has swollen from 75mm to 90mm, what a bummer. I need nitrile rubber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrile_rubber. The polypropylene shows no signs of failure, but then I am positively biassed towards polypropylene due to it's superiour properties as a high frequency capacitor dielectric. *What Is Mike Going to Ask |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 12:31:18 "Will I absolutely have to do a clay test on the valve/piston clearance? Has anyone here done the conversion already without experiencing catastrophical engine failiure?" That is a good question. It all depends on your tolerance for risk. The type of failure associated with clearance issues is generally not pretty. Also, the main benefits from the flat-top piston are increased compression and tight quench clearance. It seems logical to me that you would want to set it up with optimal quench clearance to take advantage of the piston design. The flat-top runs very close to the head, and the valves get really close during TDC overlap. I personally would never put it together without checking all the clearances, and also the valve spring pressure. Too much to lose if anything hits. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 12:41:16 I have built a couple of flat-top piston engines, one with a 94mm, and one with a 97mm. The 94mm engine had a Web 340b cam and heavy valve springs. That cam has more lift and more overlap. The quench clearance was set up at .038". It had ample valve-to-piston clearance. I used lead wire readings to verify the quench clearance. Place appropriate feelers and strips of lead wire on the piston, install the head (without cam & rockers) with a used head gasket, tighten up the nuts, turn the engine through several turns, then disassemble and measure. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 12:42:57 Pull the head back off and measure the thickness of the lead wire and feeler. If you don't have the desired .035" - .040" clearance adjust the base gasket thickness. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 12:45:46 Once you have the desired quench clearance, check the valve-to-piston clearance. You mentioned that your visual estimation of your deck height was about 1.5 mm (.060"). This is a picture of my deck height on the 94mm build. It was about -.010". |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/17/24 at 12:56:24 What is the optimum quench clearance, and why not just measure it from the top of the cylinder to top of piston with a depth micrometer. Then again, is there a need to replace valve springs, and in the case of a yes, which springs? edit, just read it: 0.035" to 0.04" |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 12:56:59 The stock head gasket compressed thickness should be right around .028", so you want the deck height to be around -.007" to -.012". The main reason I asked Lancer to make the flat-top pistons was to achieve this tight quench condition. That design improves combustion and suppresses detonation. The result is improved power and fuel economy. The tradeoff is that engine assembly requires a lot more attention to detail. You can see from this picture that on my 94mm engine I had ample clearance (radial & vertical) on the exhaust valves. I suspect that since your cam has a lot less lift and duration you should have adequate clearance too (key words and phrases, "should"). |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 12:59:32 On the 94mm engine, the intake valves also had plenty of clearance. Again, since your cam has less lift & duration you "should" have ample clearance too. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 13:03:44 But there are all sorts of dimensions involved, and as you know, every dimension has a tolerance, and then there is the potential for dimensional changes due to prior work accomplished on a component (i.e. resurafcing). On my 97mm flat-top build, instead of having a negative deck height, the piston stuck up past the deck. It had +.005" deck height. So, the base gasket had to be adjusted. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 13:09:32 And even after setting the 97mm engine deck height to within .035" to .040", I still had a problem with valve-to-piston clearance. The intake valves hit the top of the piston. This was with a DR cam. Granted, the valves are 34mm, but that's only .020" (0.5mm) larger on the radius. Even 33mm valves would not have corrected this condition. The piston rocks. As I recall, you want at least .080" clearance. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 13:10:43 To correct the interference problem, I had to flycut the valve reliefs. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/17/24 at 13:14:45 I can do the quench test now, and the clearance test with the old rockers, so i know how to pass the weekend. Thanks for your continuing support. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 13:31:13 I have to admit, if I were in your position, I would be tempted to leave it as-is. There seems to be little risk of a collision. Your visual estimation of deck height indicates that you have more quench clearance than I had on my 94mm. Your cam has less TDC lift and overlap than my 94mm had. Seems like there should be enough room, and you can turn the thing through carefully before starting it. But you don't know what the quench is and that's why you installed the flat-top in the first place....and.....there's Murphy's law. I think I would check the clearances. Regarding the springs. As I already mentioned, things get very close with the flat-top piston. Loss of valve control is a real concern. You have a used engine with used valve springs. A weak spring can kill that motor just as bad as a direct mechanical interference issue. You should check your spring pressure at installed height (1.300"). You want the spring assembly (inner & outer) to exert at least 55 lbs at installed height. That would be with the stock retainer. You also want to make sure that the springs are installed with the close pitch end down against the head. Compounding the close clearance issue is the new potential for stratospheric RPM. You have set your engine up with a lot more flow. From the free-flowing airbox to the high-flow muffler and everything in between, you have given you motor the ability to rev. The valve springs are critical. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 13:39:35 It's a shame that the EDPM doesn't tolerate the fuel. I would be careful with the elbow also. My ABS elbow was in service for a very long time, and then it just failed. I was surprised. A big chunk of plastic running through the intake valves could have been bad. I tested the new PVC elbow for about one week, but I still don't trust it completely. I inspect it every time I do a service on the bike. It's been in there about 2.5 years now. So far so good. This failure occurred with no warning. Seemed like one day it was good and the next it had failed completely. And after I removed the elbow, it continued to deteriorate on the workbench. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/17/24 at 13:41:01 After sitting on the workbench for a fairly long time I picked it up and it just fell apart. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by LANCER on 04/17/24 at 19:22:49 Must have been handicapped when it was born. They depart this life early for sure. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/18/24 at 11:53:37 One thing is assuming that things will be ok, and it is fine too, particularly if you have some background to base assumptions on. My background is flaky to say the least, so for me, knowing is better by far. In short, I decided to follow good advice and check both quench clearance and valve -piston ditto. The cylinder stud tool was in for a busy day, and it came in right handy. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/18/24 at 11:54:08 The first step was to measure deck height properly, and the vernier caliper said piston is 0.8mm below cylinder top surface. I am no expert in terminology, but does that mean deck height of -0.8mm? This is with an uncompressed base gasket. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/18/24 at 11:54:30 Next is measure quench clearance with feeler gauge and solder tin. I was expecting around 1.5mm clearance, so I used the cam chain sprocket washer, cut in half, for 1.02mm thick feeler gauge, and 1mm solder tin as compressible calibration element. A crude selection of tool, but 1.02mm is 1.02mm no matter where the strip of metal originates. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/18/24 at 11:55:27 Then it is just a matter of attaching the cylinder head to cylinder, torque the bolts to spec, and turn the engine back and forth over TDC a couple of times, disassemble again and see what gives. It was obvious to me that the solder had been compressed a lot, because the piston did not pass ovet TDC without a bit of effort. not massive, just enough to indicate that the solder had been flattened thoroughly. Therefore I was not surprised when I saw this: |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/18/24 at 11:56:38 Checking with the micrometer read 1.13mm quench clearance. That equals 0.044". Spot on since it is probably a bit less due to the lack of further compressibility of the tin. So far so good. I am getting my quench all right! Next thing is place clay on top of piston and assemble the top once again, this time totally with functional cam and tappets in spec. When I started this checking procedure I was wary of the tedium I anticipated, but when I got going, I started to really enjoy the procedure, learning small tricks along the way, that make assembly easier. It started to feel like a love affair with the engine. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/18/24 at 11:57:35 First set tappets to zero clearance, to get valves as close as possible to the piston, then rotate engine past TDC a couple times. After that, tear the engine down to the piston top and check the clay for interference. Things are looking safe and sound, and it only took around 2 hours in total, hours well spent for certainty instead of guessing. I only have to check the valve springs for pressure and reverse a couple of them, then the engine can go together for good. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/18/24 at 11:58:58 I also had time to talk to a guy in the industry, in a company that specialises in tube and fittings for agressive fluids. He could recognise the ABS plastic failiure as a probable thing to happen, but he also said that PVC is not all that bad with petrol. I will buy some corner bends made from polyetylene, and that should keep me happy. BUNA rubber sheet is on the way also |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/19/24 at 11:22:24 Thanks for all the pics Finn. Looks like you have plenty of clearance between the valves and piston, and the quench clearance looks good too. I'm not sure how you arrived at the 0.8 mm negative deck and then ended up with .044" quench clearance. The head gasket should be .028" and when combined with .031" (0.8 mm) negative deck you end up with .059 quench, but the real test is the lead wire. That's the real deal. I agree that it should end up a little less than .044" given how much you crushed the lead (you can almost see through it). Your valve-to-piston clearance looks to be more than what I had. I'm not sure why, but Lancer previously mentioned that I have an early prototype of the 94mm flat top piston. I believe that Wiseco made some changes to the valve reliefs on the 97mm flat top, but I don't know if they did something similar to the 94mm. Hey Lancer, if you are following this, did Wiseco increase the reliefs on the 94mm also? I must apologize, I have forgotten what country you reside. However, if you want an easy fix for your elbow and air boot problem, you can purchase those items off eBay, and they ship to both the Netherlands and Denmark. The street elbow (spigot x hub) requires a short section of 2" pipe to set it up with a spigot fit on both ends. If you can find a spigot x spigot would probably be better, but I can assure you the spigot x hub fits perfectly. The street elbow has a larger radius so it will flow much better than a standard 90 degree elbow, and the required length for the air boot is reduced significantly. Hopefully these two links will be helpful. Elbow 2" PVC 90 Degree Street Elbow Fitting In Wall Central Vacuum Pipe Suction Tube | eBay Rubber Coupling Flexible PVC Rubber Coupling Connectors with Stainless Steel Clamps 1"in-8"in | eBay |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/19/24 at 11:25:33 Let's try again on those links. Not sure why they aren't active. 2" PVC 90 Degree Street Elbow Fitting In Wall Central Vacuum Pipe Suction Tube | eBay Flexible PVC Rubber Coupling Connectors with Stainless Steel Clamps 1"in-8"in | eBay |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/19/24 at 11:28:27 Hmmm, still not active. Let's try another way. https://www.ebay.com/itm/235264292538?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-166974-028196-7&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=235264292538&targetid=2208464322141&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9031117&poi=&campaignid=20374417326&mkgroupid=149816951885&rlsatarget=pla-2208464322141&abcId=9316227&merchantid=8487414&geoid=9031117&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy7W-tdzOhQMVE87CBB0zOwq4EAQYDCABEgJTxvD_BwE https://www.ebay.com/itm/224480913284?chn=ps&var=523263414908&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1hW0sdC2fTWy3olmfhrWzaA71&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=523263414908_224480913284&targetid=1584739239494&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9031117&poi=&campaignid=19894961968&mkgroupid=148855406073&rlsatarget=pla-1584739239494&abcId=9307911&merchantid=8571504&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5LDwmODOhQMVEiCtBh1V0gFxEAQYAyABEgLcqfD_BwE |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/19/24 at 11:31:56 Just dawned on me, I ran a bigger cam in my 94mm flat top. That would account for a little bit of the disparity between our clay checks. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/19/24 at 13:12:47 Thanks for the links, Mike. I have already cut the BUNA rubber sheet for my custom boot. It will incorporate 3 layers of this rubber, which is much more flappy than the EPDM, although not so forgiving regarding expansion. I laminate it with radial strips of FR4 classfibre sheets, 0.3mm thick, and this should produce a failsafe, semi rigid boot. My Suziki parts supplier keeps pushing the delivery date for the fancy Boulevard rockers forward a month at the time, so I am going to assemble the engine with the rockers from my original engine. I really would have appreciated pristine surfaces touching my brand new DR cam, but I don't want to wait untill mid May to premiere my bike. The first fills of oil will be redline racing motorcycle oil, 20W50, for generous phosphorous and zink ~<2000PPM, as well as clutch saving JASO MA rating. From there it will be Mobil1 racing 4T for adequate ZDDP <1200PPM and JASO MA2. Cant get Rotella overhere in Denmark, and Mobil1 V-Twin neither. :-( |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/21/24 at 12:57:15 Busy day today. I put the rest of the bike together. Valve springs measured 56 pounds at installed length, so on to the head with the cover. Boy is it awkward to get to those tappets and adjust the clearance. The compression topped out at 200psi, but I think it is higher, I just failed to press the gauge hard enough against the spark plug hole. We have 100 octane fuel readily available here. I did not get the oil gauges connected, that will have to wait untill I pull the top cover off when the Boulevard rockers arrive. Engine started right away, and it seems to run well. Started it up inside the garage, and can't wait to take it out for a spin tomorrow. The tone of the exhaust is very pleasing, sounds just like a real motorcycle should sound, and I did not notice any noise from the inlet. Clutch seems to work really well. The stainless header got itself a nice tan within the first couple of minutes, and I expect to see some blue as soon as I hit the road. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by Dave on 04/21/24 at 19:11:45 Now the real fun begins! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VkrUG3OrPc[/media] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VkrUG3OrPc |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/21/24 at 22:59:31 Nice lookin motor Finn. Can't wait to hear how she runs. You put a lot of hard work into it. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/24/24 at 12:47:37 It was only 42deg. Fahrenheit, but I had to go for a little spin again today. Of course, as soon as I left home, the dry road turned wet, further out a drizzle, so I was thoroughly frozen when I returned after 45km. Mostly around 55MPH but on the highway, I hit 70MPH, and at that speed it felt as I was barely moving the trottle into the needle area. There is a lot more power to be had, but I also feel I should let the engine bed in before I try WOT. It accellerates really well, engine braking has entered the equation, something that I felt the stock trim lacked. Sounds good, today I noticed a bit of backfiring on decell, but that should be an easy fix, with the idle screw and perhaps a bigger idle jet. The deep end grunt has diminished a bit - - perhaps, I have no data, so only an impression, but the way it behaves, I have no complaints. Mike, you have used one of the Drag Specialities rev. counters https://www.denniskirk.com/drag-specialties/electrical-mini-8000-rpm-tachometer-2211-0057.p408090.prd/408090.sku and I bought one too, from EBay If I remember right. Reason I ask is mine doesn't work, it could be faulty as I assume, but thought I'd run it by you. The signal that I measure with my scope on the "ground" wire looks like this: It is a 350V spike, about 8µS long. I belive this is what a revcounter expects to see to start counting. The instrument boots up all right, with the pointer going through the full 270deg. movement, but it doesn't react to the input from the ignition coil |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/24/24 at 12:50:54 I attach external wires to hook up the scope, and it is the blue one that delivers the signal shown. This corresponds to the white/black wire from the harness, as shown on this picture. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/25/24 at 06:12:09 Had another short trip today, 50km due to nice warm weather, it was 50deg F today. I could not help myself, took the bike to 80 MPH, then shortly to 90, and there is still more. This bike's got balls, I like it. I tightened the rear shocks all the way up to max stiffness, and that has stabilized the bike to a point where I feel safe from wobbles, something that had me worried all winter since the old configuration started wobbling at 80MPH severely. The exhaust is starting to show a few blue notes..... I really like the way this stainless exhaust is taking on colour. And should it turn ugly, it is only a matter of a couple minutes with emery cloth to reset it to pristine silver colour, and start over. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/25/24 at 06:14:41 And here is a picture from beautifull Denmark. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/25/24 at 11:57:34 Finn, so glad you got it runnin. That is a beautiful picture. Denmark looks like it is very nice, perfect for long rides in the country. Your Savage is a slick hotrod. I don't know what to tell you about your tachometer. You seem to have the correct "dual fire" model, part number 2211-0057. Your connection seems correct. You have identified the harness lead as "black & white", but I believe it is actually "black & yellow". The tachometer green wire ties into the harness black & yellow wire. The tach cycles when you power up. It should work. Tell us a little more about how your bike is running. How are the noise levels (intake, exhaust, mechanical)? How is the starting? Vibration levels? How's the oil pump drive? Did you install the #120 bleed jet? Any unusual noise coming from the primary case area? How is you clutch action? Does it drag? Is engagement smooth? How is the lever-pull? I am sure you are gratified after all that hard work. You came up with a lot of good ideas. We can all benefit from your experience. Thanks so much for all the photos and valuable information. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say keep it comin. Good stuff. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by ThumperPaul on 04/25/24 at 16:40:59 Heck of a build! Well done! Nice bike and landscape to match! Enjoy your hot rod! |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/26/24 at 05:53:59 I want to extend thanks to all who have responded to this thread during the build, in particular DBM for "everything" but also Dave for making the budget head available to me The Sneeze for supplying me with a proper clutch release cam Lancer for carburettor and flattop piston Verslagen for inspiration to the top plug and soon also Rycashawn for a front brake upgrade. So how is it running? Vibration level: Nothing worth mentioning, smooth as a whistle Starting: effortlessly, although I still think I need a bigger idle jet. Noise levels: No inlet sound when starting and toddeling around the neighbourhood, but at near WOT it starts to be known, not offensively though. Then again this only happens on the highway or when far from inhabited areas, where it is only me and the bike. Exhaust is only slightly louder, my spouse did not notice any change from last year, but with a deep plaesant tone to it. I've said it before, it now sounds like a real motorcycle. Then there is the mechanical sounds from the engine. I have to say: this is no sowing machine. There is rattle and scramble from the engine, and I am having some trouble finding out if it is serious of just what to expect from a big single. When I drive on a level road and ease off the throttle to the point where the engine neither drives the bike nor is driven by the bike, it sounds like the piston is clonking in the cylinder. I beleive this has been referred to as piston slap. I am seriously challenged on my vocabulary when it comes to describing the sounds, and it may well read worse than it is. Edit: I have moved the spedometer into a cocpit up front, so there is a hole directly dovn to the engine, then there is the wind noise from around the helmet, and my total newbie-ism about judging the noise. We will see. We will see soon when I do the first oil change, if there is ground off allu dust in the oil. Instead of finding a #120 jet, I just drilled the bolt with a 1.2mm drill. No noise from that area. The clutch engages smooooothly, there is no drag, and none of the associated CLONK when putting in the first. I can (but will not regularly) make a long sliding engagement with half or so throttle, to get going in style. The lever-pull was excessive at first, and I had ordered a new cable. In the mean time I lubricated the old cable with a mix of copper eaze, redline assembly lube and engine oil, and this did wonders to the point that I consider putting the DR650 springs into the clutch next time I pull the cover. The engine is oil tight, at least I have not found any leaks yet. I have nothing bad to say of the bike yet, and the next few houndred kilometers should reveal whether the sound of the engine is normal or something that needs attention. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/27/24 at 10:44:28 Excellent. You've done a stellar job. No issues and it runs sweeeet. Can't get much better than that. "There is rattle and scramble from the engine, and I am having some trouble finding out if it is serious of just what to expect from a big single. When I drive on a level road and ease off the throttle to the point where the engine neither drives the bike nor is driven by the bike, it sounds like the piston is clonking in the cylinder. I beleive this has been referred to as piston slap." The Savage is a rattle trap. It makes all sorts of mechanical noise even when everything inside the engine is perfect. Your forged piston will make more noise than a stock cast piston, so the condition you describe sounds normal to me. If the noise gets worse, you might wanna do a recording and post. The flywheel nuts come loose and that makes a pretty loud clack, clack, clack when you throttle up. I have an old post somewhere if you are interested. Glad your clutch is working good. That was a significant hurdle. If the clutch isn't slipping, I would leave it alone. The DR springs are on the ragged edge of coil bind. I would save those as a last resort. If you ever get an oil pressure gage installed, let us know what your pressure is at normal operating temp. What did you figure out with the tachometer? That seems to be a mystery. Careful with the revs. There's no built-in rev limiter. With all the newfound flow, your motor will rev to stratospheric heights. Be especially careful in 1st & 2nd gear, it will bury an 8K tach in a heartbeat. Probably don't want to exceed 7.5K, and there's not much point runnin past 6.5K. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by LANCER on 04/27/24 at 14:09:59 My engine has seen 7k a number of times and the engine sounded good and strong, and 8k maybe twice. At 8k it was wound pretty tight and sounded like it. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/28/24 at 07:45:23 I like to monitor speed and engine revolutions effortlessly, so I had this cockpit water jettet from 2mm stainless. A great convenience, in particular when I get a revcounter installed |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/28/24 at 08:00:21 I assume the rev counter was a dud, but since I bought it in december when the engine was dismantled, and I had no way of testing it, the return window has closed. Instead I ordered a new one from France, should be here first in may. I took it apart to see if there was an easy fix, but the manufacturer presumably wanted to protect his intelectual property, and block any attempts to repair, by grinding off the chips identifiers. This leads me to beleive that there is a dedicated rev counter chip out there, instead of a programmable one. A programmable one can not be replaced by the user due to the lack of software. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 04/29/24 at 11:16:44 I like that dash setup. How do you weather protect the speedo? What did you use for a speedo cable? I assume you intend to end up with tach, speedo, oil press and oil temp. The dash is very nice. Regarding your tach problem, that blue wire you show in your picture is just a piece of scrap you are using for the oscilloscope, correct? That isn't the blue wire from the tach, is it? The blue wire from the tach is for the light. The green wire from the tach goes to the coil terminal with black/yellow wire. It's a shame you had to cut it open. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by FinnHammer on 04/30/24 at 12:06:27 You are right about the instrumentation, although I initially want 2 pressure gauges. The only weather shielding was some black paint, more to make the instrument semi invisible. The blue wire is indeed a temporary lead to attach the scope. At this point, cutting the tach open was the only solution, I had to see how it is made, and since it would otherwise be scrap, I might as well see if I could learn something by peeking inside. The speedo cable. Advised by some armchair specialist on a Facebook Savage group, I purchased a cable For the GT500, and although it mated to the spedometer end, it was both too short and did not mate to the engine end. So I mounted the original cable to the engine, the GT500 cable to the instrument, and zip tied them together where they overlapped under the tank. Then I cut them both with the angle grinder and cut the outher sheaths another 25mm back. Thus there is 25mm inner cable protruding from each cable. I now take 125mm lengths of 20mm shrink wrap (with glue), feed them on to the cables, and stuff them as far away from the joint as convenient, so that they don't start to shrink when the soldering takes place. I also feed a brass tube, could be any metal, really, and push it up the cable. Before all this, clean the inside cable with gasoline, heat it with a torch, blow it free from oil, rub it with emery cloth to a shine, and tin it using methods known by plumbers. Then join the parts, so that the tinned cable ends are introduced into the copper tube, which is also tinned on the inside. Finally heat all 3 members and apply a bit more tin to the solder joint. After this, slide the brass tube over the joint, and shrink the wraps down from each side, so that they overjap each other, the brass tube and each their own cable end. Hope this helps. |
|
Title: Re: Finn Hammer's Savage Post by DragBikeMike on 05/01/24 at 01:22:49 Finn, you are always ready for a challenge. Pretty cool approach on that speedo cable. Thanks for the sketch. Pretty neat trick. In the event that it gives you problems, you might wanna get in touch with Fast650. I believe he runs an Intruder speedo on his bike and if I recall correctly, he used the Intruder speedo cable. It was a bolt on mod. Do you think you could fabricate a clamp ring to reinstall the bezel on the tach? Maybe you can fix that tach. You seem to know your way around electrons & chips. This is a picture of the Fastman's 650 Custom. You can see the speedo on top of the tripple crown. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |