Bee Hive Shaped Valve Springs

Has anyone used these , there seems to be no listing for Norton ? The smaller valve cap looks like a good idea.

http://rdvalvespring.com/vintage.html

acotrel said:

Has anyone used these , there seems to be no listing for Norton ? The smaller valve cap looks like a good idea.

http://rdvalvespring.com/vintage.html

Click to expand...

If they don't list 'em for Nortons... why not go to a supplier that not oly does beehive springs, but specialises in Nortons? Seems to me you'd be more likely to get the best product for the job.
http://www.jsmotorsport.com/technical_beehive.asp

Thanks for that, Eddie. I'd looked at the JS long rods and light pistons previously, however had not fully perused his web site. I did not know that he has domed hi-comp pistons, and that makes finding the money to buy a set of rods and pistons from him much more important to me. If I can get my motor up to about 12 to one comp. that would be excellent. The bee hive valve springs and BSA lifters look great too, however I will never intentionally increase the top end of my usable rev range. I cannot see myself ever making a billet crank, and buying stronger crankcases to stop the motor from destroying itself .

I was very impressed with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX0rn_QosTg

I run the JS Beehive springs with the stage 1 radius cam and BSA radius lifters. Awesome combo.

acotrel said:

Thanks for that, Eddie. I'd looked at the JS long rods and light pistons previously, however had not fully perused his web site. I did not know that he has domed hi-comp pistons, and that makes finding the money to buy a set of rods and pistons from him much more important to me. If I can get my motor up to about 12 to one comp. that would be excellent. The bee hive valve springs and BSA lifters look great too, however I will never intentionally increase the top end of my usable rev range. I cannot see myself ever making a billet crank, and buying stronger crankcases to stop the motor from destroying itself .

I was very impressed with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX0rn_QosTg

Click to expand...

Yes, it is impressive!
I'm lucky. My cam followers and cam follower tunnels are very badly scored. So much so that I'm pretty sure that even +0.020 oversize will not clean it up.
I'm even luckier that my cam is also scored / marked (I assume that the foreign material that caused the scoring then caused the cams to be drip fed a kind of grinding paste).
So, I'm lucky, because all of this makes buying Jims cam and follower kit a 'no brainer' !!
BTW, I personally do not believe that one needs to be pursuing a higher max rev ceiling in order to benefit from these lighter parts. They will help the motor spin up to your current ceiling faster. And with less stress.
I'm planning a 7k ceiling for mine. But am hoping to minimise the time taken to get there!
I assume your motor is solidly mounted? If so, you've got more to gain than most by using light pistons and longer rods.

Alan try this link,I am quite sure this where a lot of vendors get their products from
I also run behive springs in my RH10 head and Black diamond valves with excellent results.
Regards Mike
http://www.kpmivalvetrain.com/index.html

Brooking 850 said:

Alan try this link,I am quite sure this where a lot of vendors get their products from
I also run behive springs in my RH10 head and Black diamond valves with excellent results.
Regards Mike
http://www.kpmivalvetrain.com/index.html

Click to expand...

That's a tease...
They do a beehive spring and 6mm valve stem kit for Triumphs... But only standard type valves and double springs for Nortons!
That's just not cricket...

acotrel said:

Has anyone used these , there seems to be no listing for Norton ? The smaller valve cap looks like a good idea.

http://rdvalvespring.com/vintage.html

Click to expand...

Look again, they do list Norton 3/4 down the list.

901-N Norton 750/850 - Titanium 0.450 $212.10

From the bottom of their web page.

Broken link removed

"Due To The Ever Rising Cost Of Titanium, R/D Valve Springs Will Be
Offering Most Of Our Kits In Aluminum. Call For More Information."

Aluminum is fine if you plan to rebuild and replace regularly but I would prefer the durability (endurance) of Titanium. Think of the cost of a dropped valve.
Unless you are using significantly greater valve acceleration rates or significantly higher lifts or RPM, a long stroke Norton does not really need much more in this area. One could make the argument for reducing parasitic engine losses by using lighter components and lower spring rates.

Say What Dances, ya can't mean putting beehive lipstick on - & its still a sNorton ...

Dances with Shrapnel said:

From the bottom of their web page.

Broken link removed

"Due To The Ever Rising Cost Of Titanium, R/D Valve Springs Will Be
Offering Most Of Our Kits In Aluminum. Call For More Information."

Aluminum is fine if you plan to rebuild and replace regularly but I would prefer the durability (endurance) of Titanium. Think of the cost of a dropped valve.
Unless you are using significantly greater valve acceleration rates or significantly higher lifts or RPM, a long stroke Norton does not really need much more in this area. One could make the argument for reducing parasitic engine losses by using lighter components and lower spring rates.

Click to expand...

While there were durability problems with some of the older aluminum retainers I would have no hesitation in using the Kibblewhite spring kit with 10 degree collets and aluminum retainers. They are lighter than RD Ti retainers [not the beehive ti retainers] and I have been using them for many years ,both race and street with never a problem. That is what I have had in my fuelie.

I don't know what RD is using for aluminum retainers. If they do not use the special 10 degree retainers I would not use them.
I have used RD ti retainers and they were good -but expensive. Jim

Not for a Norton but just bought Manley SS valves, beehive springs and titanium retainers for a 500 cc BMW engine I'm building.

I think I would spread the bottom end long before the valve gear gave a problem. I was wondering more about reliability, and spring collapse. I don't use cams with increased lifts or dramatic lift rates , I usually look for longer duration and better timings to give more midrange. My 850 cam works well, so much so that I am surprised it is as good as it is, it being for a road bike. I am used to race cams in Triumph 650s, where a pair of E3134s are a bit too exciting for road use. A 1963 Bonneville fitted with both exhaust and inlet E3134 cams usually goes extremely well (the exhaust cam has a different number due to the points facility).

Do stronger valve springs really have a noticable effect on performance, if nothing else is changed ?

As mentioned here prior the more spring pressure adds wear and friction drag to engine, so unless you have valve control issues at hi rpm putting in race level-rate springs is shooting road going in the foot. I am so sold on the cryo tempering after both chain saw and Ms Peel insane testing with squids that think they'll live forever and stuck throttle way way past red zone and zero peg stop. Worst engine damage was all the suff on both ends of crank and crank itself but the head kit survived fine to be reused in next Ms Peel 920. I was almost killed during 1st week of my 1st factory Combat w/o working tach, passing a semi with on coming > valve float horrific noise and power loss hit about trailer/cab area but didn't blow up so able to snick 3rd and get around in nick of time. A few days later was at drag strip time trials getting wheelie hook up jump ahead of pure race bikes til out horse powered after 80's mph snick to 3rd w/o an issue and rode another 6 mo's till so many leaks I learned the insides of Commando, to discover the valves had swallowed and chewed up Amal slide piece that curled and notched valve rims and seats. IIRC JIm Comstock said the long stroke friction of 850 makes going over redline a waste of time so not that much spring pressure needed to control even over size valves.

Oh, Bee Hive!

read some of these and let me know what it means to us.
https://www.google.com/search?q=valve%2 ... 3Aofficial

Didn't read much because the link did not work on the most interesting - but this comment : 'As spring force is reduced, this reduces frictional loads between the lifters and cam lobes. So, the use of titanium valves offer both higher engines speeds.'
I was under the impression that titanium valves allowed higher revs due to reduced inertia in the valve itself, not by reduction of friction. Perhaps it means that spring forces can be lower with Titanium valves thus reducing friction ? I did not realize that engine builders used weaker springs with Titanium valves. Wouldn't that put you back where you were before you fitted the valves as far as allowable revs are concerned, even if the valve train friction was reduced ? My feeling is that if everything in the valve train is worn, a bit sloppy and well lubricated, the friction effect is minimal. The only thing which is critical about valve train clearances, is more about using the three cutters to get the valve seat right. Have you heard of the 'law of diminishing returns' ? It's corollary is 'pushing shit up hill'.

When I had my short stroke 500cc Triumph engine, the approach to getting power was different, and I looked at Titanium valves. After I cut 1000 RPM off the top end by fitting a two into one pipe to get some torque, the opportunity to increase the allowable rev range did not matter any more. The standard lightened Triumph valve train can be run successfully to 10,500 RPM provided the cam lift is gradual and not too high. The valve seating is critical at those revs. The Norton 850 motor is a totally different concept. I never look for top end, only more midrange. Somebody mentioned that they were trying to get their motor to spin up quicker - mine spins up too quickly, there is no lag where there should be. Every time I increase the gearing the bike just goes quicker, and that is why I bought the 6 speed TTI box. I've just found some bigger engine sprockets, so I can increase the gearing and speed the gearbox up at the same time, and still get decent starts in clutch start races.

Alan, as a valve is thrown off the cam lobe crest at high rpm its inertia tends to keep it moving open beyond rocker contact and then also resist reversing in time to miss the rising piston or other valve. So less mass mean lighter spring to keep in control for less pressure on lifter friction. The main thing I got out my brief scan of the articles is valve train friction can be in the 10-30% of engine drag up to mid range rpm, then seem piston friction kicks in even more on top the valve train. What we don't know is how much hp our valve trains suck up, just that they must. Splitting the theoretical friction range percent to 20% in our old fashioned things, a 100 shaft hp engine must make 20 hp for valve train alone that's not seen at the wheel just blown off cooling fins in delayed acceleration.

Very exciting to hear your sense of the Y pipes adding power and speed but cutting 1000 rpm off top end as that's exactly what occurred in Ms Peel 750 pulled better longer as i geared her up. If track has more turns than a big oval for sure I'll take the torque over top end and let em try to catch up before end of straights and even if they do both they and I know for sure who is having the most fun where it means the most. Only two things we can do to make more power - reduce friction by mass, special finishes and fitment and get more mix in per glup, rather than more glups per minute.

The JS Beehive kit has been carefully matched with either "street" bottom washers that give you correct spring pressure for the street. Or "race" bottom washers that give you correct spring pressure for the track. They go with special valves with the collet groove moved to accomodate the length of the beehive springs. And they have been thoroughly tested (my farovite job).

Hey Dances - that's a very sexy pig with the lipstick etc.