Old mail flash back learning curve balls with DynoDave hand holding.....
5/22/2003 11:29 PM
dynodave@GIS.NET
DD> You have a new clutch height, so all bets are off.
>> .050 short make a difference....sure, harder to pull, about 25 lbs
>>
http://www.gis.net/~dynodave/images/comclu.jp
h> *Hmm well as I said I considered the old thin clutch wonderous
> easy, no slip and no stick. Only used it to on take offs anyway.
> Lets see, if I clean old frictions and use em instead of new ones
> I get mathemathically with alloy pressure plate and 3 steels
> .504" + .350" + .24" = 1.094".
> This leaves ~0.58" to make up for ideal. Belt drive info I've
> seen [none with the Dreer supplied unit] mentions a steel plate
> should interface with the alloy clutch basket backing. I didn't
> do this so maybe that's what's missing in my case. Do you
> think it wise to add such and is such a thin plate practical
> here or should some be taken off the other steel plates so
> extra plate can be make more rodust?
>
> *If this is all merely academic for the weak fisted fellas then
> I'm ok with a heavy clutch as long as it functions well otherwise.
>
> Popeye grip hobot.
==================================
DD>> Never heard of your tab washer problem before?
>> How does YOUR tab compare to the pix?
>>
http://www.gis.net/~dynodave/images/crslg.jpg
>> As you can see tab washer shouldn't even come close to diaphragm.
h * Well nope it don't exactly since I put tab washer on top of
> the thick slit/lock washer so it stood off the face of the center
> to get distorted on 1st torguing down later beat into submission.
> Hey I looked in Haines manual to see and that's the way their
> photo of an 850 shows it installed, with a thick washer under
> and tab washer standing proud of the center face. sheeze.
> Even so your seal fit just right, no gap betwix the fixing nut.
> ...............................................
DD> Add them all up, which is the one/ones acounting for the difference?
h> OK old pack 1st -
> 1x .229" + 3x .080" + 4x .126" = .973" mathematically.
> Acutally measured .968", .005" less, assumed d/t wear.
> OK my new pack next.
> 1x .350" + 3x .080" + 4x .1185" = 1.068" mathematiclly.
> Actually measured it at 1.10", .042" extra, don't know why.
> Either old or new pack falls .119" to .058" less than expected.
> .........................................................
DD> pressure plate- how thick? Since you say thicker than stock....
>> than WHICH stock pressure plate, this doesn't make sense to me.
>
h *Me niether till your list, original [stock one to me] is .229"
> *while the new alloy anodized plate is .350" thick.
> ..................................................
DD> How many of each kind of piece....?
h> *I found 3 steels [installed now, didn't measure em prior],
> *4 friction, old ones being .126" each
> *while new clean ones [Barnett 524-73] are only .1185" thick.
> ..................................................
On Thu, 22 May 2003 20:41:53 -0500,
> David Comeau wrote to hobot's hand holding request again:
DD> Check parts against my list.
>>
http://www.gis.net/~dynodave/clutchpak.htm
>> What is the starting point for your clutch thick or thin?
>
h> *Then I guess as my original wondrous clutch pack only = 0.968"
> ......................................................
DD > your bike has at some time been modified to a nonstandard combination of parts
1. You have 73+ thin clutch components in your 72. ie thin friction plates and thin pressure plate. You are short 2 pieces.
2. Stan sent you a 72/earlier thick pressure plate.
3. You need to decide which way you want to go and get the correct combination and # of parts.
4. I'd suggest make a late thin (style) clutch.
5. send the pressure plate back and get a thin one.
6. Add a steel plate and a friction plate to get a "complete" thin clutch pack.