ANTI anti-wet sump device logic?

DogT inspired me on this rant, I'm just the messenger...


I've been left feeling depressed inferior owner, an undisciplined risk taker and lazy ass never learn nothing stupid bumkin - for not ever draining a wet sump, nor installing an anti-wet sump device. What if the rest of the world had it wrong?

Prior to Commando era Norton had a cam oil bath tub, so lobe wetted just finding compression to kick over. Most the wear occurs on start ups cold or otherwise. If sump full of oil enough flywheel touches it then just kicking over would throw some oil up and for sure soon as it fired the splash would soak the cam/lifter. So am I nutz to think that a dry sump at start up delays cam/lifer surfing oil - waiting for oil to enter pump then crank then shells and out enough for sling to matter meanwhile the head dribble finally gets draining down on lifters. Maybe to save a few very rare oil seal blow outs - you're traded for accelerated lobe/lifter wear?

One thing for sure I've heard rather more reports of the very rare anti sump device failure than I have of the so worried about crank seal blow outs, which I can't fathom mechanism how if case vented to matter, one way valve or just open to air. So what am I missing besides extra wear?

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

Unless you drain the sump after running or leaks really bad out the bottom, there is always 5 to 7 oz's left in the sump from residual and rundown, always. Whether this is enough to fling oil up to the lifters, I cannot say, but is more than enough to feed the pump.
Now quit worrying so much and get some sleep.

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

I suppose you could install a manual priming pump, probably find one on an old chain saw, and use it to tickle the cam surface with oil just prior to kicking your bike over. It is almost surprising now that I think about it, that they aren't more common!

Russ

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

A friend likes the fact that his bike is a bad wet sumper. This bike is older than our Nortons and has no crankcase seal to blow. He feels that with the crankcase so full of oil, the startup will immediately push big volumes of oil everywhere.
While that might be the case, sometimes it wet sumps so badly that things "hydraulic" to the point that one can stand indefinitely on the kickstart without movement. You might as well be standing on a rock.
My thinking is that when the cases are just slightly less full, at a point where the engine can still be started, there must be some hideous hydraulic pressures at work. With that excess of oil in an engine designed to have only a cup or two on board, damage could occur. Fortunately for me, so far it has only been the crankcase seal that blew on the Commando.When starting a bike with extra oil in the sump Im always wondering if I will hear that dreaded metallic "clink" sound of a ring breaking or worse. And I no longer will start one up with a really full crankcase, best to drain some off.
So I do not think it is a good thing to run a dry sump engine with a crankcase filled with cold oil!

Glen

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

In our Commando's I can not see any way for oil to hydraulic lock even if all the oil down in cases. This was the case on my 1st Combat that puked 2 qts of oil on the floor in less than a minute when seller topped off tank w/o knowing. As pistons descend the oil level just gets pushed up around crank and into cam area then out any venting exits. I can picture hydraulic impact shock waves by rods decent [on first ignition] possibly transmitted hard enough to slap & test seal binding, but I can't see volume change pressure waves doing it on pistons descent, as the air space above would compress to absorb really hi PSI spikes. What I can understand is a bad made seal or its bore wallowed out some, as these are Nortons made in desperate conditions on worn machines by pissed off or hung over workers. So to include your very rare seal loss in my logic scope, I would concede that those with proven seal weakness fit anti-wet device and/or hassle to drain often. The rest of us may be better off with some good wet sump splash/sling 'pre'-oiling. I was very surprised on a couple of opening of TrixieCombat to see valve/rocker ends and cam liter faces polished burnished better than new, no wear evidence at all and that was on slightly too thin for traditionalists 15-40 oil. Trixie wet sumped to show oil tank screen regularly so would throw a dash inside when screen mostly showing above oil, but not if most the screen not exposed. Combats with their big secondary return line may be better protected from wet sump spikes than the lessor thrilling models, so maybe my logic only applies to Commando 'cream of the crop'. I leave crank throws near TDC when finished riding, may or may not help or hurt.

Glen you did remind me of my many thoughts-ways to pre-oil Ms Peel, which will have air pressure tank and a spinal column full of over head oil, by 3 ways, one just open a valve to let some oil direct drain through push rod tunnels, 2nd sprayed on cam directly via external line and nozzle in case, or 3rd open valve to pressurize her sealed oil system to force some wet sump though pump, crank and head spindles leakage onto cam. Ugh, I've provided a manual fail safe on/off ball valve on Peel already, when I was still thinking like others w/o initial splash logic musings.

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

hope i'm not out off the topic but is anyone tried use this valve

maybe it can be fitted on ignition on and off and use a transparent oil lines to see if its flowing or not
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2way2position-D ... 20c3c199f4

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

Says it's for water and air. I would suggest testing it on 300 degree oil BEFORE taking a trip beyond the driveway.

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

Duh, dudes, this poster is questioning the wisdom and rationale of even trying to prevent Norton static wet sumping, not about how to prevent it.

My opinion (yes I have one occasionally) is that pre-oilers are not that great. Yes they help, but the primary thing in a Lycoming that needs pre-oiling is the cam lobes. A pre-oiler doesn't do this. The cam lobes are oiled only by "splash" with the engine running.

Click to expand...

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=12624

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

that valve can do oil see the below description but only for 85 degree celcius condition...

300 degrees celsius or fahrenheit??

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

hobot said:

Duh, dudes, this poster is questioning the wisdom and rational of even trying to prevent Norton static wet sumping, not about how to prevent it.

Click to expand...

I thought that's what you were driving at!
Never given it much thought personally... they do it, but as my bike still starts fine with a sump-full of oil it can carry on like that as far as I'm concerned.

Cam wear is a different proposition IMHO - I had to get mine re-stellited and it had only done around 12k - I suspect that had it been correctly hardened in the first place it wouldn't have needed it.
Seems to have been an issue from around '73 or after but not before - from recollection, but I'd happily stand to be corrected

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

Oh ugh, Andy poor parts finish will accelerate wear but would still last longer to discover by- wisdom not to drain the sump before 1st kicking off. In further support of my defense of us lazy asses having a better habit to follow - are the wear tales we've read here of turning engine over and over for initial build start up till seeing oil flow in head and out open sump plug. IIRC Comstock was one of those - so no longer doing pre-oiling engine turn over much.

Here's an appropriate blog on cam bath history of wisdom and lack of it in Commandos. Scan down till the references jump out at ya to ponder.
http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthrea ... mber=65854

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

I think it would be a stretch to argue that wet sumping helps save cam lobes. Are we trying to find an excuse to have excess oil in the sump, or trying to find a way to save cam lobes? The next generation of barn finds will probably have rusted cranks from anti-sumping valves being installed on this generation of bikes. Here is my plan to take care of wet sumping and cam lobes all at once. Drain the oil from the sump and dump it into the rocker boxes before each start up!

Russ

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

Alrighty Russ brings up a valid point of a barn find with an anti- drain device properly dry sumped - for some ignorant owner's mis guided sense of protective convenience - being the difference between worth someone recovering it or just tossing the rust bucket out. Other than popped carnk seal I"ve yet to learn of a downside to wet sump starts - so still open to correct my current opinion. I've video of weeks set up Trixie being started in freezing garage just enough oil in tank to prime pump, took 4 kicks with 2 tickles, but no smoke or motor oil in primary ATF. I'm posted two other lists to see what they think and reports of wet sump issues in any way.

What comes to mind to me on Russ's very reasonable & effective pre-oil protective procedure - would be a valve in sump plug one could drain into a tube with jar on end then a fitting on each rocker box to let it drain back in - hehe - into disiplined self induced labor wet sumped condition - to feel all warm tingly inside you avoided another blown out crank seal horror story of grimed clutch plates. I don't know about others factory assembled Cdo's but Combat rocker covers are a bit tight to fiddle with coils so close to top nut and must be nipped up rather snug careful not to pull out the rocker stud so tends to cut up paper of even silicon gaskets to nurse along.

Btw after seeing how much oil Combat breather can throw back i can't believe they wet sump any more than regular Cdo's, just that they can turn engine into more elastic seams weeps than lessor models.

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

Most second hand cams on Ebay show signs of the follower/lobe being out of square,having a polish/wear mark not over the entire surface.
This is due to the machined cam bores being "canted over" of follower cylindr bores not true..or...well i recon you get the picture!

B+Bogus said:

hobot said:

Duh, dudes, this poster is questioning the wisdom and rational of even trying to prevent Norton static wet sumping, not about how to prevent it.

Click to expand...

I thought that's what you were driving at!
Never given it much thought personally... they do it, but as my bike still starts fine with a sump-full of oil it can carry on like that as far as I'm concerned.

Cam wear is a different proposition IMHO - I had to get mine re-stellited and it had only done around 12k - I suspect that had it been correctly hardened in the first place it wouldn't have needed it.
Seems to have been an issue from around '73 or after but not before - from recollection, but I'd happily stand to be corrected

Click to expand...

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

Noting can make up for bad parts so don't apply to wet or dry sump starts wisdom. So just what are we saving or risking by not splashing oil on start ups?

Gosh darn another not so rare dry sump start device story off Brit Iron list today.

I had one of these anti wet sump valves on one of my Victors, mainly because I dont use it much, it had been on for quite a while with no problems, however, last time i used the bike to get it tested, a trip of about 3 miles, after a couple of miles I felt the engine start to pinch up, I pulled the clutch right away and on kicking over it felt completely free, so I started it again and figuered I was nearer the bike shop than home so carried on riding, it did the same again and I checked on restarting that no oil was returning to the tank.

So now being at the bike shop, I bought a bit of oil pipe so I could remove the anti drain valve and sure enough it now returned oil,

The bike still ticks over the same, it doesnt smoke, goes as well and doesnt make any noises, it has a roller big end so Iam wondering if I got away without doing any damage?

Pete Charlton

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

I have a hard time believing/accepting wet sumping as a side benifit aiding in the prelubrication of vital system entities as "Logical". Santa Claus? Of course! Wetsumping? No!

But my dad taught me, "Live and let live" and "to each his own."
The sump will never be dry unless drained leaving 5 to 7 ounces due to residual and rundown for the top end and timing chest.
If you do not believe me than go check for your self.

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

I have another argument against an anti wet-sumping valve:

I was talking to a Norton guy up at Barber. He had a customer who put an anti-sumping valve on his Norton. Problem was, his oil pump was pretty worn, and it lost its prime after sitting a few weeks. On start-up, there was insufficient suction to open the valve, and the engine stopped after several minutes of running with zero pressure.

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

So, now wet sumping is a Norton feature?

Dave
69S

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

BillT said:

I have another argument against an anti wet-sumping valve:

I was talking to a Norton guy up at Barber. He had a customer who put an anti-sumping valve on his Norton. Problem was, his oil pump was pretty worn, and it lost its prime after sitting a few weeks. On start-up, there was insufficient suction to open the valve, and the engine stopped after several minutes of running with zero pressure.

Click to expand...

It would seem he was living on borrowed time with or without the valve.

Although many people swear by them, I'll trust my own habits before i trust those flow robbing spring loaded check valve. The suction side of the pump is oh so vulnerable compared to the pressure side.

There is no general rule for these and should be considered as an "as needed" rather than an essential item.

Re: ANTI anti-sump device logic?

pvisseriii » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:15 pm
I have a hard time believing/accepting wet sumping as a side benifit aiding in the prelubrication of vital system entities as "Logical". Santa Claus? Of course! Wetsumping? No!

Click to expand...

Dear pvisseriii, what I -we don't know is how much the initial wet sump splash is worth in extending lobe life and I am very curious of the reasons for your "belief", where as there's plenty of evidence its a good thing not like riding in a dirty diaper.

This is a good place to collect-count anti-wet sump devices failures vs the blown seals or what ever is the wet sump danger, of which I'm still waiting to learn. Thanks BillT for feeding the fire in hobot camp. So let me get this straight by restating it... "a worn pump that helps create the anti-wet sump market > puts engine in real risk of dry running".



Yes DogT, by all logic and recent, additional examples, wet sumping is a desirable innate Norton Commando feature and anti-sump valves are risking business failures with no possible profits just drain parts account faster.

This is a winter heating oil thread ya know, so here's some data points on initial start up on nano layer of Zn-Ph pads (Zinc dialkyldithiophosphates) that only form on boiling hot surfaces.
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article ... y_how.aspx
http://www.diagnosticnews.com/tech/oil- ... pplements/

This one is just being mean but scanning reveals how thin and varable ZDDP is.
home.physics.wisc.edu/gilbert/publications/90.PDF