Author Topic: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners  (Read 801704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2295 on: January 24, 2016, 03:15:12 PM »
Thanks for the info.  I will get one of those. 

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2296 on: January 30, 2016, 09:28:46 PM »
Right now I am on the road with my little truck, the open trailer, and two bikes on it.  Security is a big issue.  One of my bikes was stolen years ago and I do not like to leave bikes on a trailer in a parking lot at night.  There was a big chance the truck, bikes, and trailer would be stolen in the city where I grew up so I am doubly sensitive to this issue.

In the summer I sleep in the truck with the trailer attached and the bikes on it.  Right now I am far too close to this big mama of a volcano and it is dang cold outside.  These KOA cabins are a good deal.  The campground is sorta secure and the bikes, trailer, etc are just outside the window.  There is a heater in here and it is warm and cozy.  Some of these cabins have kitchens, showers, and indoor plumbing.  This one does not and the can and shower are about two stones throw to the west.

Tomorrow night I am in another KOA in Ramona, or Panoma, or some town with a name like that near LA.  These cabins are a good setup for the guy that travels light with the race vehicle on a trailer.

Offline Old Scrambler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Age: 72
  • Location: Wherever I park the RV
  • Going Fast - Slowly
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2297 on: January 31, 2016, 01:53:24 PM »
Bo..............I like my enclosed trailer and my conversion van for traveling with bikes......................NO ONE KNOWS what is inside :wink: :wink: :wink:...............I have some familiarity with Smith & Weston.......but more so with Sturm-Ruger :-D
2011 AMA Record - 250cc M-PG TRIUMPH Tiger Cub - 82.5 mph
2013 AMA Record - 250cc MPS-PG TRIUMPH Tiger Cub - 88.7 mph
2018 AMA Record - 750cc M-CG HONDA CB750 sohc - 136.6 mph
2018 AMA Record - 750cc MPS-CG HONDA CB750 sohc - 143.005 mph
2018 AMA Record - 750cc M-CF HONDA CB750 sohc - 139.85 mph
2018 AMA Record - 750cc MPS-CF HONDA CB750 sohc - 144.2025 mph

Chassis Builder / Tuner: Dave Murre

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2298 on: February 01, 2016, 12:19:45 AM »
An enclosed trailer was something I considered.  Towing it would require a six cylinder truck as well as a new trailer.  It all gets to be expensive.

The city is Pomona were I am camping.  There was snow on Grapevine Hill and Tejon Pass.  In the song they race up the hill on their hot rods.  Not today.  It was stop-and-go traffic on the steepest part of the hill.  In Oregon we would have snow plows, de-icer sprayers, and sanding trucks clearing the road and prepping it to resist the night freeze.  There were no CalTrans people seen anywhere on the pass.  We would be in the boss's office getting our butt's chewed if we were that casual about snow removal.  Someone might get fired or reassigned.  The truck and car drivers did a good job in those snowy and almost blizzard conditions.  There was only one idiot that I saw.  All the rest drove smoothly like they did it on a regular basis.  They normally do not drive in winter weather.           

Offline tauruck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4883
  • Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2299 on: February 01, 2016, 03:35:45 AM »
Take the hitch off the trailer and chain the bikes through the frames with the lock under the trailer.
My take is that the guys are opportunists. :cheers:

You figure the rest and Old Scrambler is right. Sending some lead down range is a deterrent.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2300 on: February 08, 2016, 09:55:29 PM »
Our Oregon handgun permits do not work in California and the judicial system there has a tendency to protects the criminal.  I would probably loose everything I own in litigation if I shot someone.  The pistol was left at home.  My only protection from theft was being vigilant.  Those little cabins are not insulated.  It gets cold at night in them.  Fortunately all had some sort of heater.

The big end shells from 2014 and 2015 all had more wear on the shell edges than in the centers.  The 2015's had more wear than the 2014's.  The crank pins are not barrel shaped.  I measured them on both sides and in the middle.  The expert says rod distortion is likely the culprit. The Carillo rods are H-beam style with the beam flanges on the sides.  This transmits greater power loads to the shell edges than to the centers.

The 2014 engine had 995cc with 10.5 to 1 compression.  It had 75 horsepower adjusted for Bonneville salt flat altitude.  The 2015 engine had 856cc with 8.9 to 1 compression and 80 horsepower at sea level where I raced.  These are gasoline fuel figures.  The 865 engine put out much more power when I used the jungle juice.  The greater power of the 2015 engine made the shell distress problem worse, is my guess.

This fall two ignition modules were programmed with curves retarded 2 and 4 degrees.  I will try them both and use the box that gives the most retarded timing without sacrificing peak torque.  The crankpins will be further past TDC when the power pulses hit.  It will be easier for the connecting rods to push the crank around when the push happens further from TDC.  The highest numerical gear ratio will be used that will not hurt top speed.  This will spread the engine's work over more rpm and reduce bearing loads.  These two ideas are ones I thunk up.

The expert said I can not go wrong by using Mobil 1 and he uses it in his vehicles.  He also said the Joe Gibbs "Driven" oils will work and he gave me a reference to call for advice.  The engine will be broken in on Joe Gibbs break in oil.  I probably will switch to another of their products for race use.

The next post will be on shell to journal clearances. 

 

 

Offline tauruck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4883
  • Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2301 on: February 08, 2016, 10:14:47 PM »
Maybe you should switch to Crower Rods if they make them for Trumps!. :cheers:

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2302 on: February 09, 2016, 09:30:19 PM »
Thanks for the suggestion.  The rods might be OK and my tuning may need improving.  Other folks using these rods have no issues.  I might have less of a problem than I thought.  Advice from the expert is "Finally, as race bearings go, yours actually look pretty good!  My old mentor, who knew far more about bearings than me, used to say: 'expect some distress on racing bearings.  It comes with the territory.'"

Advice from the expert.  "Bearing clearance:  Our bearing clearance recommendations are:  .0017" min to .0022" max.  As the bearing clearance gets larger, the bearing to crank contact area gets smaller.  Your measured .0027" is a bit more than I'd like to see.  As the contact patch gets smaller, the load gets higher, not what we want to see in a racing engine."

"Your suggestions for 2016:  Have your white shells coated by a reputable bearing coater.  The coating is about .0003" thick per shell and that would get the White Shell clearance down to around .002".  The coating will also slow down the edge wear on the bearings, too.  I have personal experience with three and can recommend any of the three.

1) HM Elliott in Mooresville, NC
2) CALICO Coatings in Denver, NC
3) POLYDYNE in Houston, TX

Beyond these three, you are on your own."

"All your shells are the same part number , so switch them around from location to location until you get the clearance as close to the same as you can.  Measure with Plastigage.  It is oil soluble so don't try scraping it off.  Finally, use a prelube and oil brand and stick with it."

"Recommended bearing clearance calculations:  .00075" to .001" clearance per 1" of shaft diameter plus add .0005" to final calculations for racing engines.  Coatings are better than non-coated bearings.  All 1/2 shell bearings taper from the center of the shell to within about 3/8" of the parting line by .0003" to .0005" each side.  From 3/8 " of the parting line to the parting line, they fall off .001" or more in a process called parting line relief.  All clearances are calculated at the center of the shell."

The basic advice I get on the internet and from conversations with a lot of late model Triumph tuners is "use white shells."  The expert's advice goes beyond that simple statement.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2303 on: February 15, 2016, 10:31:17 AM »
The machinist mentioned that the facing on these shells is soft and the tips of the bore gage plowed furrows in them during the measurement.  The measured readings were much higher than when I plastigaged the big end clearances during assembly.  The big end diameter measurements with the bore gage are suspect.

The shells are measured with the tubing micrometer.  The used shells from 2015 first, the new red coded shells second, and the new white coded shells third.  They are positioned on the rods the same way they were when the bore gage was used.  The first sheet follows.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2304 on: February 15, 2016, 10:36:37 AM »
The second page.  Note that the third new white shell is significantly thinner than the other new white shells.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2305 on: February 15, 2016, 10:59:53 AM »
The third page.  The difference between bore gage and tubing mic is less with the used shells.  The surfaces were compacted and polished from use and the scratches in them from the bore gage did not appear to be as deep as with the new shells.

The clearances measured by the tubing mic seem reasonable.  I have not found the "smoking gun" that caused the shell pitting.  The main bearings have three years of use and this includes maybe thirty dyno runs, six passes at Pendine, and at least six more at Bonneville.  They might be worn and oil bleeding by loose mains will reduce the oil pressure at the rods.

Six white shells and the pistons are going out by UPS to Polydyne in Houston.  Bearing coating for the shells, ceramic HS coatings for the crowns, and RP coatings for the skirts are ordered.  It is unlikely that I can meet minimum clearance requirements with two coated white shells on each rod.  The clearance might be too tight.  A coated shell on the rod side and an uncoated shell on the cap side might give me the clearances I need.  I asked the expert about this and he said it should work OK.

The engine is coming apart today, too.  New main shells will be installed.  The 2015 white, new red, and new white shell clearances will be checked with plastigage.  A comparison will tell me about the usefulness of the bore gage and tubing mic for figuring the clearances.


 

Offline fordboy628

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Age: 3
  • Location: Koozebane
  • GONE FISHIN' . . .
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2306 on: February 15, 2016, 11:35:31 AM »
Bo,

Just looked at your numbers very quickly and it seemed to me that there was a "sizing correlation" consistent with the size differential of the crank journals.   .0003"  If that crank is at standard size and within the factory "tolerance" for sizing, there is not much you can do about it, except check the clearance with various "graded" thickness shell halves.    If you ever need to "resize" the crank, make sure you use a quality crank shop that can hold the size within .0001" per pair of journals.   This is not as difficult as it sounds for specialty crank shops.   You could try having a crank shop "polish" the larger diameter journal down to the smaller size, but this needs to be done so that the journal(s) remain "round".   If you can get the equal clearance you want by changing around the shells, I would not bother with polishing.  Having said all this, polishing off .0002"/.0003" ought to be reasonably simple, unless the crank is really hard on the surface.   If you do not have a local source of "good" crankshaft work, I would inquire at Marine Crankshaft.    Others on the board might have other recommendations for a crank service.

I've found that "Sunnen type" dial bore gages with small diameter balls on the measuring fingers, can leave dents or tracks in the plated surface layer of various bearings.   Harder bearings, ala Clevite 77 material, seem to be less susceptible to "denting".

 :cheers:
Fordboy
I used to be a people person.  But people changed that relationship.

"There is nothing permanent except change."    Heraclitus

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."     Albert Einstein

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4983
  • Age: 66
  • Location: backwoods Oregon
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2307 on: February 15, 2016, 11:45:55 PM »
There is some variance in the shell thickness due to variation in manufacturing.  Some careful shell selection might be enough to get the clearances spot-on.  It will be easier to do with the crank out of the bike and laying on the kitchen table.

The choice of "coat" or "do not coat" the piston top and combustion chamber is based on quite a bit of research.  These coatings are thin and they reflect heat as well as act as insulation.  They are proven to do this.  Enough thermal transmission is needed to heat the piston so it expands into the warming and expanding cylinder bore.  A person does not want too much insulation.

The coating makes sense when one looks at rate of heat transfer.  The heat buildup in the engine castings, etc is reduced when the rate of heat transmission into the engine more closely matches its ability to shed heat.  The coatings do not need to be hugely effective at insulating to do this. 

   

Offline fordboy628

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Age: 3
  • Location: Koozebane
  • GONE FISHIN' . . .
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2308 on: February 16, 2016, 09:15:09 AM »
Bo,

I hope you (or your cylinder head guy) find the additional data interesting.

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,14175.msg287690.html#msg287690

 :cheers:
Fordboy
I used to be a people person.  But people changed that relationship.

"There is nothing permanent except change."    Heraclitus

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."     Albert Einstein

Offline Interested Observer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2309 on: February 16, 2016, 10:58:26 AM »
“These coatings are thin and they reflect heat as well as act as insulation. They are proven to do this.”

What coatings?
Where is the technical data on them?

Yes, they do reflect (to some degree, like anything else) and they conduct heat (to some degree, like anything else) but do they have anything more than an insignificant effect on the heat transfer rate in this application?  Where is this “proven”?  Just because the guy selling it can SAY it is so, isn’t “proof”.  Some people selling engine coatings state that it is not an effective insulation method.

The reduced conduction argument can be easily discounted analytically, and the reflection argument is almost nonsense, since thermal radiation just reflects back and forth in the combustion chamber successively being absorbed through the walls.