Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hoist!]

what kind of spikes would you expect to find with an engine putting out 140+ foot pounds at the rear wheel? Do you think that it is possible to make up that kind of difference by simply reinforcing the crankpin?

With my my engineering hat off I would say yes. John Hoban, Darkhorse Crankworks guarantees his factory reworked cranks for life against slipping wheels and coming out of true. They are a top notch firm and would be in trouble if they had plugged cranks coming back on them.

DJ you bring up what on the surface seem like logical arguments for the most part however I revert back to anecdotal evidence.

I worked at the dealer and an indy during the early 2000s and we built high performance 95-124" motors and they were relatively reliable bikes. Many lead hard lives. Not so long gone and not forgotten. It was not uncommon to build a 120hp 103" and 124" motors were 130 right out of the box. The 5 speed held fine, the cranks didn't slip except in the most extreme condition like a crash. The transmissions were not noisy when we used shockproof heavy oil, and shifted smoothly. They had no IDS, no retarded spark tables, and other peripherals to help make them stable, they just were inherently that way. A robust platform to add SE or aftermarket parts. Not so today and hasn't been the case since 2002.

II think the pendulum must swing wrong way for it to come back extreme the other wrong way and will eventually find center. HD is in a quagmire now and the first phase of that pendulum swing, similar to the American car manufacturers situation post muscle cars last good year 1970. Emissions, unleaded gas, and CAFE were the hitters. We are in the dog years now with the only light I can see being chassis and brake improvements. The pendulum will likely swing extreme on another tangent before it settles in the center and hopefully the SE program will survive and prosper. Today it is foolish to sell high rpm fire breathing parts for the motors that have such a weak foundation and drive train that causes a 10% HP and TQ loss compared to the 5 speed belt drive drive train. Sad state of affairs but it will improve and hopefully survive the hiccup.

I like this a lot! Very logical response, and I can't disagree with any of it! I'm very cynical in my replies, but am, and have been saying this for the past 3 years in my own words, THIS CHIT AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE!!! Thanks man!

Hoist!

[skreminegul07]

This has been a great discussion.

I have one question though:  Most of the discussion revolved around modifcations to increase HP/TQ.  Why were so many early cranks failing on totally stock 110" with low mileage?  At 4000 miles, totally stock, never going over 4500 rpm, mine was .020.  It seems that this was an early manaufacturing defect of some sort.  I heard from a reputable dealer, that assembly lube was being used by mistake in production of the crank assemblies.  Of course, increasing the runout spec also helped "fix" the issues.

[sadunbar]

A bit of a side track conversation on the topic...

This came off a friends bike who has a SE compensator that has gradually been getting noisy... He has about 6,000 miles on the SE compensator assembly.....  He has decent power in his motor - more than stock - but rides it very easy...  Upon installation, the SE Compensator ran very quietly.  After a few thousand miles, he began to notice a definite clunk upon acceleration (even reving the motor in neutral would produce a clunk) - then it just gradually became more noisy over time - almost sounded like a rattle after a bit.  So I took it all apart for him and found some wear on the fiber disc - and found I could move the compensator by hand - which I could not do on initial installation.  Not easily, and not enough to begin to slide it up the ramps, but I could get movement out of it by hand.  He already sold his stock compensator - so there is no going back - and now has the dilema of what to do...  For now, I just flipped the fiber disc over so the grooved worn side faces outward and the unworn side faces the compensator.  After flipping the disc over and reinstalling it, I can no longer move the compensator by hand.  The disc is only about .010 thinner than stock at the worn surface  - but where it is worn is very smooth as compared to the unworn side (less friction?)  Everything else in the compensator looked like new.  Starting the bike upon reassembly, there is still a clunk - but the rattle is gone (for now).  The compensator assembly was torqued to the spec as stated in the installation instructions - no more/no less.

DJ - opinions on how to proceed?  Replace the thrust washer?  or?  Any assembly instructions or hints other then follow the provided instructions?

[Hoist!]

A bit of a side track conversation on the topic...

This came off a friends bike who has a SE compensator that has gradually been getting noisy... He has about 6,000 miles on the SE compensator assembly.....  He has decent power in his motor - more than stock - but rides it very easy...  Upon installation, the SE Compensator ran very quietly.  After a few thousand miles, he began to notice a definite clunk upon acceleration (even reving the motor in neutral would produce a clunk) - then it just gradually became more noisy over time - almost sounded like a rattle after a bit.  So I took it all apart for him and found some wear on the fiber disc - and found I could move the compensator by hand - which I could not do on initial installation.  Not easily, and not enough to begin to slide it up the ramps, but I could get movement out of it by hand.  He already sold his stock compensator - so there is no going back - and now has the dilema of what to do...  For now, I just flipped the fiber disc over so the grooved worn side faces outward and the unworn side faces the compensator.  After flipping the disc over and reinstalling it, I can no longer move the compensator by hand.  The disc is only about .010 thinner than stock at the worn surface  - but where it is worn is very smooth as compared to the unworn side (less friction?)  Everything else in the compensator looked like new.  Starting the bike upon reassembly, there is still a clunk - but the rattle is gone (for now).  The compensator assembly was torqued to the spec as stated in the installation instructions - no more/no less.

DJ - opinions on how to proceed?  Replace the thrust washer?  or?  Any assembly instructions or hints other then follow the provided instructions?

Don't know what to tell ya on this Scott. Mine was also moveable by hand even though the bolt was tight. Removing the friction material creates a void and allows the whole assembly to almost act like the comp bolt is loose. No chance of it backing immediately off I guess, but the looseness wears the whole assembly even more, until the whole thing becomes trashed. I understand dj's description of how this thing is supposed to handle much higher torque loads. But I can't believe that something handling this much torque, can be built with such a sensitive wear part. I agree they need a higher load handling comp. But this is NOT the way they should have tried to accomplish that IMO.

In your case I'd either get a new stock assembly, and put it back to stock like I did, or call Jenni and have her get the parts list for the SE Comp and order all the bad parts from her. Don't see what other choice you have here.

Hoist!

[sadunbar]

Don't know what to tell ya on this Scott. Mine was also moveable by hand even though the bolt was tight. Removing the friction material creates a void and allows the whole assembly to almost act like the comp bolt is loose. No chance of it backing immediately off I guess, but the looseness wears the whole assembly even more, until the whole thing becomes trashed. I understand dj's description of how this thing is supposed to handle much higher torque loads. But I can't believe that something handling this much torque, can be built with such a sensitive wear part. I agree they need a higher load handling comp. But this is NOT the way they should have tried to accomplish that IMO.

In your case I'd either get a new stock assembly, and put it back to stock like I did, or call Jenni and have her get the parts list for the SE Comp and order all the bad parts from her. Don't see what other choice you have here.

Hoist!

Howie,

Did yours come apart (break apart into peices) or just wear?  This isn't worn to the point of being sloppy loose - just enough to reduce the clamp force of the large spring washers to the point it has become noisy.  I suspect this is a combination of less clamp force and smoother (less friction) surface - but am curious as to DJ or Jim's (HD dude) take on it.

Scott

[Hoist!]

Howie,

Did yours come apart (break apart into peices) or just wear?  This isn't worn to the point of being sloppy loose - just enough to reduce the clamp force of the large spring washers to the point it has become noisy.  I suspect this is a combination of less clamp force and smoother (less friction) surface - but am curious as to DJ or Jim's (HD dude) take on it.

Scott

Mine was shattered into tiny pieces, all laying at the bottom of the primary when we pulled it apart. None at all left on the thrust washer. In retrospect, and after reading dj's thorough explanation of this part, I have to believe it was damaged due to Vern's old school method of using an impact gun to tighten the comp sprocket assemby, in lieu of the specified method of tightning them. However, a part like this should not be NEARLY as sensitive as it seems to be. If your friend's was installed "by the book", then what's the explanation of that part wearing so badly. Hence my opinion that they might have had a good idea, but REALLY lousy execution!

Hoist!

[sadunbar]

Mine was shattered into tiny pieces, all laying at the bottom of the primary when we pulled it apart. None at all left on the thrust washer. In retrospect, and after reading dj's thorough explanation of this part, I have to believe it was damaged due to Vern's old school method of using an impact gun to tighten the comp sprocket assemby, in lieu of the specified method of tightning them. However, a part like this should not be NEARLY as sensitive as it seems to be. If your friend's was installed "by the book", then what's the explanation of that part wearing so badly. Hence my opinion that they might have had a good idea, but REALLY lousy execution!

Hoist!

I know it was installed by the book - because I did it...the first time and again yesterday.  It doesn't seem the small amount of thickness loss is enough to significantly reduce the holding force of the spring washers - but the resulting smoothness may be enough to significantly reduce the friction.  It would be easy enough to make and add a stainless washer behind the disc to increase the holding force - but I would not want to guess and add to much holding force - negating the effect of the compensator.  Which is why I am curious as to DJ or Jim's opinion...   

[SBB]

Which is why I am curious as to DJ or Jim's opinion...  

I would like to know what Deweysheads (Don) thinks about this also!

SBB


 

[geezerglide]

So anyway, the conversation came to my rattles.  He acknowledged that the piston skirts were short, but his take on the noise was more harmonics in the valve train.  I saw the Beehive valve springs on the wall and coming from a streetrod background I asked him about the Beehive springs.  He said they were SE parts and available for use.  His opinion was the same as others within the car aftermarket industry that they worked better and did not set up any harmonics as they were progressively wound and used different gauge wire in different areas to cancel out vibrations.  A single Beehive spring can respond faster and reduce valve float in V-8s better than just going bigger and heftier in the double springs.

So my question here is, has anyone done the Beehive springs as part of the head work or just for the sake of cutting down on some of valve train harmonics?

I think if we took a survey on what rpms we ALL have this rattle at, about 2500 to 2700 rpms on the low end and on the top end 3200 to 3500 rpms would get just about everyone here.  If it were a mechanical rattle, like hitting something, it would not stop at the higher rpms as pronounced as it does.

The $64,000.00 question, would Beehive valve springs be worth installing when the heads are off for rework or headgaskets?

    

Dan_Lockwood,

In regards to the beehive springs the 2010 Ultra Limited with the 103" Engine have the beehive springs in them the same as the Police Bike and the Trikes.

geezerglide

[HD Street Performance]

Those valves in those 103" heads are 7mm stems and weigh considerably less than the CVO valves that are huge and bulky. Not apples and apples.

[geezerglide]

Those valves in those 103" heads are 7mm stems and weigh considerably less than the CVO valves that are huge and bulky. Not apples and apples.

What are the exhaust and intake valve size in the 110" and the old SE 103"?

geezerglide

[SBB]

What are the exhaust and intake valve size in the 110" and the old SE 103"?

geezerglide

Here is the intake and exhaust valves for my 09 SEUC.


SBB

[djkak]

what kind of spikes would you expect to find with an engine putting out 140+ foot pounds at the rear wheel? Do you think that it is possible to make up that kind of difference by simply reinforcing the crankpin?

With my my engineering hat off I would say yes. John Hoban, Darkhorse Crankworks guarantees his factory reworked cranks for life against slipping wheels and coming out of true. They are a top notch firm and would be in trouble if they had plugged cranks coming back on them.

It seems to me that the .007” interference of the crankpin is near the practical limit. In the hypothetical example the torsional spikes at the crankpin exceed 15 times the engines torque output. The engine’s output is then increased nearly 50% while the crankpin and flywheel dimensions remain unchanged.

I can understand how mechanical dampers would be effective in reducing the extreme torque spikes in order to maintain crankshaft stability. I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of increasing the torque capacity of an assembly like this, to such a significant degree, without changing it dimensionally.

Considering that the increased load in 2007 was primarily the result of driveline and gearing changes, it seems odd to me that it would be considered inappropriate to manage these loads in the driveline.

What do you think might happen to a 2002 Twin Cam with a driveline and gearing that is identical to the 2007?

[geezerglide]

Here is the intake and exhaust valves for my 09 SEUC.


SBB

SBB

What are the actual measurements?

geezerglide

[djkak]

This has been a great discussion.

I have one question though:  Most of the discussion revolved around modifcations to increase HP/TQ.  Why were so many early cranks failing on totally stock 110" with low mileage?  At 4000 miles, totally stock, never going over 4500 rpm, mine was .020.  It seems that this was an early manaufacturing defect of some sort.  I heard from a reputable dealer, that assembly lube was being used by mistake in production of the crank assemblies.  Of course, increasing the runout spec also helped "fix" the issues.

My reason for including high performance machinery in the exchange is to bring some attention to the changing dynamics in high performance machines as well as the need to consider and manage them.

Regarding the early ‘07’s, it is certainly possible that there was a manufacturing issue which resulted in the failure of some crankshafts. If this was the case, the issue coincided with changes in 2007 which substantially increased the maximum torsional loads that the crankpin is subjected to during operation.
 
My understanding of the conditions resulting in the extreme loads initially causing problems is that they were the result of very low RPM operation in higher gears. The torque smoothing calibration was intended to address this.

I believe that the increased runout specification is related to a process intended to minimizes movement of the assembly during the truing process. I understand that the act of moving such a tight press fit after assembly has a significant negative impact on the maximum torque capacity of the assembly. My understanding is that the specification was the result of a modified assembly process, yet it seems that in practice the assembled crank falls well under the outside limit of the specification. Maybe there is some sort of standard variance, or stack-up of some sort that the specification must account for; I don’t know for certain.