1007cc motor questions...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hot diggitydog Jimmy music to my Peel ears and assume the aggressive over lap cam would make the starting CR lower for easier starts than might be expected. Low down torque is great but its like hot foreplay cut short if not continued to hi rpm power peaks. There is an inverse advantage to hi rpm in lower gears, engine drag can be more useful and ready to thrust like crazy an instant later. If really serious low down rpm grunt it is hard to hook up giving mush or any throttle as each combustion jerks tire loose with enough momentum does not hook before next combustion pump hits. I guess 1007 long stroke tops out the pure power displacement potential so glad to ilived long enough to all about it.
 
I'm kickstarting a 10.5 to one 1360cc Vincent with big squish bands and a radical cam(helps), so 1007 at 10 to one should be doable.
The only thing is, the 1360 has a compression release and would be impossible without that. Has anyone found a way to add a compression release to a Commando engine?

Glen
 
Glen I think the Commando has less KS foot side ratio advantage than other makes so keep that in mind as plenty of HD are impressed or even embarrassed first try on Commando. ES may just chew up its drive on a 1007 beast with decent CR. No way to fit releases on the bore or hemi chamber area with 10 mm thread size fitting like HDs fit to make much difference. Me and 1 other fella have figured out releases but neither of us has constructed them yet. If Peel hurts me much I have items on hand to process.

Ken Canaga examined Peel head closely for poppet chain saw HD type to cross off that route.
1007cc motor questions...
 
There is a very tiny poppet style compression release available, I think it is 4 mm for part of the barrel but only requires a 2 mm hole thru for the last bit.

Glen
 
Ancient Fings just had a fing that held the rocker slightly depressed . A Lever . Set Clear it was clear . Depreseed it kept the rocker a few thou unclosed .
 
jseng1 said:
The bigger your motor the more cam you need. A bigger motor with the same cam will have more low end torque and less top end. So a JS3 is not extremely radical in a 920 or a 1000. Think in proportions. The same applies to ports and exhaust. When I switched to an 850 I was disappointed - lots of bottom end but nothing more on top. My lap times didn't improve until I calculated the percentage difference between a 750 and an 850 and increased all my 750 port, exhaust specs and everything else in proportion until I had the same power band for the 850.

I haven't personally tested a JS3 cam in a 1000 on the street so I can tell you about the power band. But you would for sure want a JS3 in a 1000 on the track and nothing less.

I forgot to mention that the Dave Watson racer had a Maney stage 3 head.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense Jim, thank you.
 
Just returned from the NJMP AHRMA races and INOA annual rally in Asheville, NC as well as an add-on road trip. Great seeing the familiar faces there as well as having the opportunity to meet and associate with some familiar online names and acquaintances.

About the 1,007cc Norton

Fast Eddie said:
Ladies,
Was jus' wundrin' if any of you out there who have played with a 1007 motor could share your knowledge on the following:
Is it possible to retain the squish band (which will be quite large on an 83mm bore) and have a reasonable compression ratio?
Click to expand...

There are many issues (besides quench area) to consider when pondering a 1,007cc engine. Depending upon what compression ratio you are targeting, I am pretty sure you will need to dish the pistons if you are considering a lower, more tame compression ratio. It is all too easy to get compression with a 93mm stroke. Although a flat top piston would be better, I do not believe a dished piston is the end of the world, especially if you gain an appropriate quench area.

Fast Eddie said:
What sort of compression ratios have people run?
Click to expand...

Currently at around 10.5:1 but the motor, as originally configured, was around 12.5:1

Fast Eddie said:
Are they as impossible to kick start as legend suggests?
Click to expand...

What legend? This particular 1,007cc is in a Colin Seeley Mk2 replica frame and kick starts easily with no center stand nor any side stand. If I recall correctly, the Steve Maney drive belt drive turns the motor a little quicker and we use a special kick start lever which is designed to clear the rear controls and peg and again, if I recall correctly, offers an increased lever advantage.

The real key to easy starting is good ignition and good carburation. Swoosh Dave posted a video of the bike starting at Barber a while back. It starts similar to but not exactly the same as a Commando.


Fast Eddie said:
Can anyone give us some riding impressions?
Click to expand...

The motor is very terse, abrupt and in your face with torque and throttle response yet it idles fine and can be kick started. I can see this bike easily high siding me with less than judicial use of throttle.

The motor as currently configured is running the Megacycle "D" grind with the above mentioned compression ratio, Kiehen 39mm flat slide carbs, 39mm ports and 44mm intake valves, larger exhaust valves, no welding of combustion chamber or head, Steve Maney lightweight crank, barrels and cases and lightweight JS light weight steel rods and pistons. I believe the motor configuration as well as the light weight bike results in one nice race bike but a bit of a monster for the street. When we conceptualized this bike, this motor more or less presented itself to me and we used it more or less as received. If I were to do it again, I would design the motor to a specific performance and application.

I believe a 1,007 is an excellent choice with new options of improved crankcases, barrels and crankshafts but it should (must) be tailored to a specific purpose. Unless you are pushing a certain power/torque threshold, according to Steve Maney, you do not necessarily need to go with steel rods but can stay with the Commando rods (to reduce build cost) but there is a lot to be said about reducing reciprocating mass. I do believe that larger valves and ports are a good idea for this motor, really a necessity if you want to realize the power of the added displacement.

One should really look at the whole picture for any build before going down the path.
 
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Just returned from the NJMP AHRMA races and INOA annual rally in Asheville, NC as well as an add-on road trip. Great seeing the familiar faces there as well as having the opportunity to meet and associate with some familiar online names and acquaintances.

About the 1,007cc Norton

Fast Eddie said:
Ladies,
Was jus' wundrin' if any of you out there who have played with a 1007 motor could share your knowledge on the following:
Is it possible to retain the squish band (which will be quite large on an 83mm bore) and have a reasonable compression ratio?
Click to expand...

There are many issues (besides quench area) to consider when pondering a 1,007cc engine. Depending upon what compression ratio you are targeting, I am pretty sure you will need to dish the pistons if you are considering a lower, more tame compression ratio. It is all too easy to get compression with a 93mm stroke. Although a flat top piston would be better, I do not believe a dished piston is the end of the world, especially if you gain an appropriate quench area.

Fast Eddie said:
What sort of compression ratios have people run?
Click to expand...

Currently at around 10.5:1 but the motor, as originally configured, was around 12.5:1

Fast Eddie said:
Are they as impossible to kick start as legend suggests?
Click to expand...

What legend? This particular 1,007cc is in a Colin Seeley Mk2 replica frame and kick starts easily with no center stand nor any side stand. If I recall correctly, the Steve Maney drive belt drive turns the motor a little quicker and we use a special kick start lever which is designed to clear the rear controls and peg and again, if I recall correctly, offers an increased lever advantage.

The real key to easy starting is good ignition and good carburation. Swoosh Dave posted a video of the bike starting at Barber a while back. It starts similar to but not exactly the same as a Commando.


Fast Eddie said:
Can anyone give us some riding impressions?
Click to expand...

The motor is very terse, abrupt and in your face with torque and throttle response yet it idles fine and can be kick started. I can see this bike easily high siding me with less than judicial use of throttle.

The motor as currently configured is running the Megacycle "D" grind with the above mentioned compression ratio, Kiehen 39mm flat slide carbs, 39mm ports and 44mm intake valves, larger exhaust valves, no welding of combustion chamber or head, Steve Maney lightweight crank, barrels and cases and lightweight JS light weight steel rods and pistons. I believe the motor configuration as well as the light weight bike results in one nice race bike but a bit of a monster for the street. When we conceptualized this bike, this motor more or less presented itself to me and we used it more or less as received. If I were to do it again, I would design the motor to a specific performance and application.

I believe a 1,007 is an excellent choice with new options of improved crankcases, barrels and crankshafts but it should (must) be tailored to a specific purpose. Unless you are pushing a certain power/torque threshold, according to Steve Maney, you do not necessarily need to go with steel rods but can stay with the Commando rods (to reduce build cost) but there is a lot to be said about reducing reciprocating mass. I do believe that larger valves and ports are a good idea for this motor, really a necessity if you want to realize the power of the added displacement.

One should really look at the whole picture for any build before going down the path.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the excellent feedback sir. Sounds like you're on a sales commission from Steve Maney !!

What legend you ask, well, legend has it that Mr Maney himself broke his leg starting such a beast. This is untrue, it was a humble N15 (if I recall correctly)! I have since seen the video of you starting yours and it does indeed look ridiculously easy!

Like you, I have JS long rods in my 89mm stroke, so it would seem a fairly obviously good idea to have them in a 93mm stroke.

I gotta ask, if you were starting afresh, in what way would you change the spec etc?
 
The motor is very terse, abrupt and in your face with torque and throttle response yet it idles fine and can be kick started. I can see this bike easily high siding me with less than judicial use of throttle
Click to expand...

Sounds like the perfect date to me, a purring kitten in public but a Roaring Lion let loose on tracks. Why else would one buy into this? No sense to this hobby but the sensations.
 
I wouldn't be too sure about stock alum rods in a 1000. I've heard 2nd hand ( I think from Ken Canaga if I'm not mistaken) that they start cracking below the wrist pin boss.
 
jseng1 said:
I wouldn't be too sure about stock alum rods in a 1000. I've heard 2nd hand ( I think from Ken Canaga if I'm not mistaken) that they start cracking below the wrist pin boss.
Click to expand...

I broke a Norton rod in a 75bhp (at the wheel) motor. And they had been cracked tested and polished prior to the build. What was a real pisser was that I had only just fitted them as they were out of a low mileage motor and I thought the previous ones would be past their best !!
 
Lowering the CR is not that big a deal. Especially with a flat top piston. Its easy to lower the crown and there are no worries if you don't need deep valve pockets (and you don't with lower CR). Lowering the crown makes the pistons even lighter. Fine tuning of the CR can be done with thicker head gaskets.
 
Yoose guys continue to blame Norton rods when something else let go first or rod had a fault. TC knows they are more than up to the task. Did Axtell and Woods engine have steel connecting rods? Did any of the Norton that made Norton famous have non Norton rods? When I first got a Combat only Norton sources I could find were defunct shop of Norton drag racer that said about 100 hp AMC gearbox vomits on track but the Norton rods did fine. Still can not hurt to buy lighter longer steel rod if spending this much anyway.
 
hobot said:
Yoose guys continue to blame Norton rods when something else let go first or rod had a fault. TC knows they are more than up to the task. Did Axtell and Woods engine have steel connecting rods? Did any of the Norton that made Norton famous have non Norton rods? When I first got a Combat only Norton sources I could find were defunct shop of Norton drag racer that said about 100 hp AMC gearbox vomits on track but the Norton rods did fine. Still can not hurt to buy lighter longer steel rod if spending this much anyway.
Click to expand...

Tis true Steve that in the shrapnel from a blow up, cause and effect can be difficult to tell apart!

However, on this occasion I am fairly certain it was the rod. It broke above the big end (yes, the thick part) and the poor old big end bolts were mangled, but intact!

I would agree that I must have had 'a bad one' and that most are indeed good. But how do you know prior to disaster? And is it worth the risk? Not for me anymore, steel only from now on!!
 
Fast Eddie said:
I gotta ask, if you were starting afresh, in what way would you change the spec etc?
Click to expand...

This really depends upon what you are specifying. There are so many options and so little money to try them all! :P

The original concept was a solid supercharged 1,007cc but due to time constraints we settled on what literally dropped into our laps; a naturally aspirated (and untested) race engine. Steve Maney said the crank, cases and barrels would but up to the task.

For spirited street riding I would personally consider something along the lines of a heavier flywheel, smaller ports and slightly smaller intake valves, more moderate compression ratio and maybe something on the order of a MegaCycle 560-020 cam, flat slide carbs with accelerator pumps, mufflers and air silencers. But before I went down this path I would sort out the handling and brakes.
 
jseng1 said:
I wouldn't be too sure about stock alum rods in a 1000. I've heard 2nd hand ( I think from Ken Canaga if I'm not mistaken) that they start cracking below the wrist pin boss.
Click to expand...

Hi Jim,

I was going by what Steve Maney cautioned me on. He stated that once you get above something like 80 or 90 RWHP on the 1,007cc engine he was seeing the stock aluminum rods splitting across the wrist pin on the rod side of the wrist pin bore and down the rod (as you describe). I have no first hand experience with this but knew that I would be over the threshold that Steve Maney mentioned so steel rods was my direction. I am speculating here but suspect the piston to rod loading of spirited 83mm bore plus the diameter of the wrist pin may be causing excessive bending of the wrist pin.

We inherited the engine with aluminum rods and from what I gathered, we had to change them out.
 
jseng1 said:
Lowering the CR is not that big a deal. Especially with a flat top piston. Its easy to lower the crown and there are no worries if you don't need deep valve pockets (and you don't with lower CR). Lowering the crown makes the pistons even lighter. Fine tuning of the CR can be done with thicker head gaskets.
Click to expand...

Fine tuning the CR with thicker or thinner gaskets will be mucking about with the quench clearance. You really need to design for a CR and set the quench in concert.
 
hobot said:
Yoose guys continue to blame Norton rods when something else let go first or rod had a fault. TC knows they are more than up to the task. Did Axtell and Woods engine have steel connecting rods? Did any of the Norton that made Norton famous have non Norton rods? When I first got a Combat only Norton sources I could find were defunct shop of Norton drag racer that said about 100 hp AMC gearbox vomits on track but the Norton rods did fine. Still can not hurt to buy lighter longer steel rod if spending this much anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually, Steve, Ron Wood did use steel rods in his short stroke 750 engines, as did the factory.

Ken
 
Kens there is always exceptions to the rule w/o exception. As Norton rods not correct length for stroke changes makes sense to go to steel but that is more a fit issue than strength, I think. I am sure some Norton engines can over whelm Norton rods and some rods are faulty but Norton rods are as good as alu rods get for use well above they normal use. Not saying steel in stronger and can be lighter just Norton rods are rarely the show stopper. Peel was planned around Norton rods till JSM kit became available and do breath easier about rods. Having power to weight enough you can rarely use WOT is wonderfully frustrating ticket bait.

Oh yeah I hear tell that quench/squish effect is over rated concern in hemi chambers like Nortons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
still more A65 motor questions
Replies
2
Views
990
slimslowslider
S
Back
Top