batman wrote on 08/18/17 at 16:41:27:The one factor about the way my tensioner is rigged is that the spring pressure applies the same constant force against the rear chain guard and thus the chain, no matter if the bike is stopped /running, cold /or at running temp, at idle or WOT .no other approach can claim the same ,there are to many variables . If one chooses to place a rod in the center of the spring ,how do you determine the length? Keep in mind that the guide is curved toward the chain ,but swings from a bolt at the top in an arc .If the chain places pressure on the guide as the motor warms ,in the direct center of the guide, the movement will be 4 times greater at the tensioner.
Guess I don't understand how you determine this "4x greater at the tensionser" part?
If the timing chain is exerted to the curved chain guide directly to the guide it would be the same amount exerted by the guide to the tensioner. How do you come up with the 4x amount?
The mods suggested by Mr. Verslagen (If I understand them correctly) are to 1) keep the tensioner from falling apart when the plunger extends out too far, and 2) to eliminate the extra force caused by a rigid tensioner (due to pawl ratcheting assy. when extended during cold) and transferring that unforgiving force toward the chain as it and cylinder warm up and expand causing the chain to already be too tight.
The first one is easily taken care of by the pin/screw that prevents the tensioner from separating.
The second problem is the one in question. Some have just eliminated the pawl assy. which prevents the tensioner from becoming rigid, allowing the existing spring to keep pressure on the chain guide but allow it to compress back when the chain/cylinder heats up. I think this is great idea as long as the chain doesn't just "flop" back and forth if the spring may not be strong enough to overcome the flopping pressure. Also, according to Hook's law, the more extended the spring becomes, the less pressure it will be able to exert on the chain. The worst scenario here would be after the chain has worn (stretched) enough to be significant is also where the spring would be at its most extended point and thus the weakest pressure. But, with the double hole added to the plunger, and at this point moving out to the extended hole, the spring would then be re-compressed to near original compression and overcome this problem.
The second way of handling the second problem is to add a spring between the mount pin and the body of the adjuster. Here the dilemma is to get the second spring just slightly stronger than original spring ANDf have enough movement in the "slot" to account for the chain tightenung up after the engine heats up. I calculated .050" added to make the mounting hole to make it a slot with .050 of possible movement. If at the beginning of chain wear, the adjuster produces more pressure than my secondary spring has, I have no more than just allowed the setup to work as it originally did from the factory. If after some extension of the primary spring (thus entering a less-pressure situation), it would then allow the secondary spring to do its thing and allow the timing chain to push back a bit and allow the adjuster to also move back. This situation allows the chain some release from the rigid pressure of the original setup. I can't see why this wouldn't work! My problem is, is how we can actually "measure" how much would be beneficial, as to my knowledge, none of us is doing any sort of scientific" method of testing or measuring. What would constitute an affirmative that it (or any method) is "beneficial"?
Pages: 
