No , My tracker is down right now for seat , paint and a lot of odds & ends. Spent today modifying wiring harness , moving horn & ignition switch & putting my helmet lock back on. Next is GPS speedo. Then the lighter light flywheel and couple other minor things to engine. Then regear it to 18/51 from a 17/54. So the Sportster is my ride for now. It gives me a great workout on the really tight twisties , but it flys thru the sweepers. There is almost a 200 lb difference between the two bikes. I miss the tracker !

Yup I'm not tall or young anymore , me and the RYCA tracker are the perfect combination, we can slice n dice the twisties ! Did you build a RYCA too ? Or mod up a stocker ? Interested in your build. I,m started this project 3 1/2 years ago , but having fun , don't know if I will ever call it done , but getting closer !

I am going kind of the opposite direction from a RYCA build. More along the lines of a mild chopper, but with enough motor to have some serious acceleration when I want. Street port job, 1 3/4" exhaust, some air box mods, lighter flywheel, and possibly a regrind on the cam. Just a nice cruiser that is a lot of fun to ride.

You really want/NEED a good camshaft, it makes a fun bike REALLY FREAKIN FUN !  😎🏍

Ruttly wrote on 06/18/17 at 19:08:14:


I have not personally tried one in one of my bikes, they both have an upgraded cam already.  If you have already looked at the lift and duration of the early DR's they are significantly up from the cams I use, especially the lift, it is really high.  I have not doubt that the valve train is capable of handling it since the DR and LS have virtually identical systems.  It is the exhaust ports that are radically different, the DR has really nice straight shot ports, while ours is a crooked maze.  I don't have the engineering background to know for sure what the exact negative effect is from our ports are but it seems logical to me that it would be significant.
Perhaps some here with the engineering background could help, unless you have some direct experience with this type of situation.  If so, I certainly welcome it.

I think the biggest problem is that when the exhaust valves near fully open the speed of the exhaust gases drop to sub sonic ,and as they pass the "shelf" in the roof of the head they expand (pressurize ) killing the flow out the exhaust pipe .If the size of the channels in the head just behind the valves started at 85-88% of the exhaust valve size and increased to only the size of the valves when they reached the exhaust header ,then the velocity of the gases would be maintained and the head would be more effectual.

I think that if the shelf was blended to match the rest of the port wall it would be better too. That step from a somewhat round port to the flat shelf has to create a lot of turbulence. Since the exhaust cam lobe has more lift than the intake lobe, it would seem to indicate that it does cause a restriction in exhaust flow.

I was thinking more along the lines of filling in the area and blending rather than simply removing material around the shelf. That way it would have more of a uniform shape rather than the abrupt step that it has.