Bored Engineers

john robert bould · Mar 24, 2013

Many years ago i rebuilt a 650ss, using Norvil Ally barrels, The engine sounded a bit more valve train noisy, so just for curosity i nipped up the tappets, infact i screwed them down a extra 1/2 turn when the clearance was zero.
This produced a lovely quite motor, infact a friend who had just arrived could not believe his ears, he had to look several times to see if the engine had'nt been swapped for a honda! :lol:
After re-setting the clearance again the old rattles came back.
So for the last 15 years i have "toyed" around with a solution to get rid of the annoying clatter.
Lab will hopefully place a picture of the protatype "anti-rattle cam follower's i am working on .
As anyone else done this and what is the problems.. i will explain all when the picture arrives.

Thank's Lab
Well here is the basic blue print,
Central plunger is pre-loaded to approx 15-20 lbs via the spring, this plunger is limited to .020 inchs travel.
The gap under the cup housing and follower top can be seen.
The idea is to pre-load the valve train ,
Setting is straight forward...at the valve end a special lever is used to compress the plunger twenty thou, by lifting the rocker arm up, then set the clearance as normal
Once the feeler is removed the follower plunger takes up the clearance..plus a bit more [12 thou.]

Valve spring seat pressure will be lessoned, so a shim may be required

The prota type is carbonized mild steel , to be added is two vertical 5mm holes drilled down the side's, these are joined to the bottom of the plunger bore. then a small hole in the centre , this will pump collected oil direct onto the cam face...this oil will be sealed via the face's untill the cam rotates..hopefully compressing oil between the follower and cam lobe surface.

Draw back so far is weight ,stock 75 grams these 135 grams, but some maching will bring this down :!:

acotrel · Mar 24, 2013

If you had lived in about 1960, you could have patented the first hydraulic valve lifter. How about designing a desmodromic valve system for a Norton , or a rotary valve head.

john robert bould · Mar 24, 2013

One thing at a time, next will be None rubber isolastic units, radial spring units?

madass140 · Mar 24, 2013

Good idea and I reckon it should work fine, I looked in to manufacturing some followers (Dunstall) some time ago, one concern was the stellite face, but I did find a company in the US , cant remember their name who
did the stellite facing , they would even make the whole lifter, so it seems if you were going to keep with a stellite face then it wont be a problem, I wouldnt worry about the weight to much, any decrease in performance would be outweighed by the nice sound , I mean no sound.

1up3down · Mar 24, 2013

How about designing a desmodromic valve system for a Norton

Norton's Doug Hele designed and built a desmo inlet valve Manx engine, spring exhaust around 1960

In fact I think a full Desmo 500 Manx single put in a couple of non race laps on the Island then

JohnTy · Mar 24, 2013

Hi JRB
looks good and I am sure will be very welcome on the noise/less front. Can you imagine the queue for these from the 4S fraternity :shock: if they can still hear! LOL
If you are looking for any guinea pigs, would be happy to help, when you are at that stage.
Shame the doubting tomasses got in first

Cheers
JohnT

comnoz · Mar 24, 2013

It would be normal to use much tighter valve lash with aluminum barrels. The barrels grow much more than cast barrels so the clearance will will increase a lot when the engine warms up. In fact if you use low expansion materials such as TI or CF for pushrods along with an aluminum barrel you may find the valve clearance will be less than zero when the engine is cold if they have been adjusted for correct clearance when hot. Jim

72Combat · Mar 24, 2013

There was the old guy who built scaled versions of manx nortons here in NZ, he built a 350 desmo Norton

The bike below is one of the rarest bikes you'll find - a desmodromic-valved Manx Norton. It was built by a Kiwi called Brian Thomas to a design by Doug Hele, who was a legendary designer at both Norton and Triumph. It was their correspondence and friendship which led to Doug's bike being re-created. A stunning piece of workmanship.

splatt · Mar 25, 2013

Hello burnt valves

madass140 · Mar 25, 2013

well there's some constructive input John.

Mark · Mar 25, 2013

Tightening up the valve lash will definitely make the top end quieter.
hydraulic lifters seem like a pretty nifty idea.
OR..... how about getting rid of the pushrod stuff altogether and going with over head cams?

I was fortunate to get to know the guy who designed, built and raced this (way back in the 60's!):

1964 Harley Panhead - OHC - Fuel Injection
put together by one guy in his shop back in 1964 (I was 1 year old then)

R.I.P. Stan Dishong - (Badass Motorcycle guy)

john robert bould · Mar 25, 2013

[
Thanks Donald.
For the test units i will carbonize the follower's. then hone the foot.
quote="madass140"]Good idea and I reckon it should work fine, I looked in to manufacturing some followers (Dunstall) some time ago, one concern was the stellite face, but I did find a company in the US , cant remember their name who
did the stellite facing , they would even make the whole lifter, so it seems if you were going to keep with a stellite face then it wont be a problem, I wouldnt worry about the weight to much, any decrease in performance would be outweighed by the nice sound , I mean no sound.[/quote]

john robert bould · Mar 25, 2013

splatt said:
Hello burnt valves

Hopfully these will reduce valve seat wear and tip wear,the valves will be lowered onto the seat and not slammed, plus the tappets will be in constant contact no hammering? paper and real life can be differant,so lets see.

madass140 · Mar 25, 2013

I agree "For the test units i will carbonize the follower's. then hone the foot"
the issue of follower face wear is not the issue so i would probably case harden the foot of the followers
and the other moving part just to get some basic testing done, I can see manufacturing costs in the western world being the biggest stumbling block.
I'm sure there will be much more + and of course the usual negatives input into this idea as time goes by,
nothing ventured nothing gained.

john robert bould · Mar 25, 2013

Donald.
The cost is much lower than expected [basic],it's the stilite foot that would bump up the price.
If the end result is a silent motor, ie no valve train lash, there could be a good market.. i know shock loadings will be eliminated, and the design "pumps" oil onto the cam lobes, so perhaps a stilite pad will not be required?

madass140 said:
I agree "For the test units i will carbonize the follower's. then hone the foot"
the issue of follower face wear is not the issue so i would probably case harden the foot of the followers
and the other moving part just to get some basic testing done, I can see manufacturing costs in the western world being the biggest stumbling block.
I'm sure there will be much more + and of course the usual negatives input into this idea as time goes by,
nothing ventured nothing gained.

Dances with Shrapnel · Mar 25, 2013

john robert bould said:
Donald.
The cost is much lower than expected [basic],it's the stilite foot that would bump up the price.
If the end result is a silent motor, ie no valve train lash, there could be a good market.. i know shock loadings will be eliminated, and the design "pumps" oil onto the cam lobes, so perhaps a stilite pad will not be required?

I like the concept for street applications. It will be interesting to see progress and results.

Herb Becker would make his own stellite face cam followers. I seem to recall it being a low temperature soldering/brazing of the hard face onto the follower.

Before committing to the carbonizing approach at least get a target rockwell hardness reading off of the stellite to see if the carbonizing will be in the same range. I think hardness is one of the more critical factors in managing wear between two surfaces. Generally one must be considerably harder that the other. The other question will be durability of the carbonizing; that is, will it fracture or brinnel.

As a side note, it would be nice to use roller followers but then new porpose built cam profiles are in order.

Several years back Dave Nourish changed his engine designs from hard faced cam followers to roller cam followers.

john robert bould · Mar 25, 2013

Hi D.W.S
Thanks for your posting, I have no idea what the finnished hardness will be, i suppose GOOGLE would have some refferance's.
It's very costly to make extream "parts" desmo head as been suggested...well i dont think the wife would take kindly to me "Hocking" the house to fund such a project :lol:
As with the dampers i produce..cost is prime.
My friend looked into making new heads...£40,000 for just the patterns :!: so i think a Commando Desmo head will be out of the consideration.
I am retired with a bit of time and few bucks, and to stop the old grey from shrinking i think of things to amuse me, Plus i have a LR fast back in bits thats a great test bed.
I am looking at the failings or kinder..the parts Norton choise to make do with, we all know cash and developement was not prime for them.
I think a rig with a vaiable speed motor is a must before commiting the new followers to a rebuilt engine . it will be interesting to see the followers , push rods and valves at 3000 rpm.
Proberly will need a strobe.

Snorton74 · Mar 25, 2013

Pertinent? Some quick pics for the interested.

Dances with Shrapnel · Mar 25, 2013

john robert bould said:
Hi D.W.S
Thanks for your posting, I have no idea what the finnished hardness will be, i suppose GOOGLE would have some refferance's.
It's very costly to make extream "parts" desmo head as been suggested...well i dont think the wife would take kindly to me "Hocking" the house to fund such a project :lol:
As with the dampers i produce..cost is prime.
My friend looked into making new heads...£40,000 for just the patterns :!: so i think a Commando Desmo head will be out of the consideration.
I am retired with a bit of time and few bucks, and to stop the old grey from shrinking i think of things to amuse me, Plus i have a LR fast back in bits thats a great test bed.
I am looking at the failings or kinder..the parts Norton choise to make do with, we all know cash and developement was not prime for them.
I think a rig with a vaiable speed motor is a must before commiting the new followers to a rebuilt engine . it will be interesting to see the followers , push rods and valves at 3000 rpm.
Proberly will need a strobe.

Unless one knows the original alloy composition of the Stellite used in the British twins you will have to test an old tappet for benchmarking purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellite

Apparently Stellite can be very hard as it is used in making metal machining (cutting) tools. If you go with something softer you risk galling the follower/cam.

ando · Mar 27, 2013

John
I have recently used 9000 Eutecbor brazing rods for refurbishing cam followers. Being a stellite based brazing rod they are much easier to apply than stellite weld and have a hardness equivalent to stellite no 1. They are recommended by the manufacturer Castolin Eutectic for cams and followers.
http://www.smenco.com.au is the Australian distributor for Castolin Eutectic products but a google search should find a local supplier.
9000
EUTECBOR
PRINCIPAL APPLICATIONS: Cams, augers, mixer blades
OTHER USES: Patterns, guides, screws
OUTSTANDING FEATURES: Polishes in service; Low heat application; High
hardness and corrosion resistance; Outstanding frictional wear resistance
RECOMMENDATIONS: For TeroCote protective coatings requiring severe
abrasion-and-corrosion resisting deposits, and compressive load strength at
elevated temperatures. For use on steel, alloyed steel, cast iron, high
chromium and nickel alloys. Non-magnetic and non-heat treatable. Deposits
accept a high polish and resist pitting and galling.
Hardness:
Rc 55-62
Bonding temp:
I believe that stellite no 1 was commonly used for cams and followers however I also know of stellite no 6 being used, and probably most other grades as well. Stellite no1 has a hardness of abt 58rc while stellite no6 is only about 32rc. Stellite is regarded as difficult to apply with a torch as the base metal is usually brought to just beyond sweating, with a carburising flame, as the idea is to stop the base metal contaminating or diluting the stellite. The result is that stellite pads often fell off as the weld was inadequate. Stellite hard facing has also been known to fail due to brittleness being introduced into the parent metal resulting in cracking of the parent metal, particularly with high carbon steels, unless the parent metal is properly annealed. The stellite based brazing rod reduces the problems with stellite welding.
Might be worth talking to your local supplier. Good luck with the project.
ando

Bored Engineers

Similar threads