Connecting rods differences (2013)

Status
Not open for further replies.
RennieK said:
I'm just sayin - that could explain different part #'s

The number usually found on the beam section (23258) isn't an actual "conrod" part number, the conrod is supplied as an assembly "Connecting rod with cap" - (NM)25369 and that's the same part number for all Commandos '68 - '74. For '75 many part numbers were updated, the number then became 06-4896.

http://www.nortonmotors.de/ANIL/Norton% ... e-list.php

064896 CON ROD ASSY. NM25369

Found 0 item(s) in the parts list matching 23258


The "Rxxx" number appears to be irrelevant as far as conrod identification is concerned.
 
More about conrods with n.23258 R2R stamped on.
They seem like commando conrods but:
- have the oil hole in the top;
- dont have the oil holes from the down size to upper shell,
- the upper shells are the same n. 23255 like down shells without holes!.
May be are the Atlas conrods?.
Considering that they seems like Commando, could i make the holes and fit on commando crankcase?.
Thanks.
Ciao.
Piero
 
When facing with con-rods with no holes where they would have been I would not drill the holes. The holes where drilled to give a squirt of oil towards the piston every revolution, trouble is the hole is a weak spot and cracks propagate from the hole upwards and split the rod, with modern synthetic oil the piston oiling will be fine.
 
Durring early Commando production piston seizures occured and first factory thought was wrist pin lube issue so tried the rod holes which I've tested to squirt a pencil lead thin jet at the piston seam of wrist pin boss but didn't help. Eventually found issue was bad batch of pistons but since they had big order with holely rods just used them up, like the tradition of new wife cutting ham in half before placing in pan like her mother did, till finding out mother could only afford a small pan back then. The holes are best covered but such a non issue it was 1st only done by racers seeking every last endurance advantage possible.

Its takes over half a liter a minute to begin to effectively cool pistons our size so two sprizt a cycle ain't doing nothing heat wise.
 
Hi Hobot,

Very interesting your explanation, but I did come a big doubt about how it is better to cut the ham.
I'll write to the forum "Access Ham" and I'll let you know.

Ciao.

Piero
 
hobot said:
Durring early Commando production piston seizures occured and first factory thought was wrist pin lube issue so tried the rod holes which I've tested to squirt a pencil lead thin jet at the piston seam of wrist pin boss but didn't help.

The conrods with bleed holes were introduced on the Atlas model from serial 116372 in 1966 so well before the start of Commando production.
 
"have you seen a sulzer engine doing 350 rpm? you can feel it in your bones."
No but Ive seen and worked on many many that ran at less than 100rpm
If you are referring to Sulzer Low Speed engines they dont do anything like 350RPM.
 
I stand corrected by LAB >>> The conrods with bleed holes were introduced on the Atlas model from serial 116372 in 1966 so well before the start of Commando production ...
which were later found to be unneeded d/t a bad batch of pistons but the useless rod holes carried on into Commando era error.

At least non of the Norton rod are ever a weak link to worry about unless damaged by something else first. For racing and just for fun I'd polish up then shot peen then cryo temper de-stress.
The water pump engines of Miami Fla are like 3 stories tall and have full size doors to enter engine between the cylinders.
 
I mean Sir,
but why i have a Commando 139... With a conrods without down holes?
In any case , do yo think is possoble to make the holes?
Ciao
Piero
 
johnm said:
Les Emery. Tech talk. D rods be gone.John

I scrapped out 3 850 engines and still have the rods out of them here, all three engines used rods with different stampings side to side. The E-start had a D rod in it. Les Emery has a slimy enough reputation that I would not listen to anything he said, and would not be surprised if he bad-mouthed stock parts just so he could sell some new ones to put extra dollars in his pocket, that is what he is all about.

Expanding on what Hobot said about the Hogslayer, the man who built it John Gregory told me that in the early 60s they ran nitro burning bikes with the early 650/Atlas rods that had less meat around the base, the Bracebridge Street jobs, and he never had one of those break either, he said it was just important to have them torqued up to spec. He suspected that some of the early 650/750 engines got their rods torqued to the lesser 500/600cc value and that may have caused problems and a reputation.

I am sure that lots of 89mm stroke Nortons have lost con-rods, but there are so many factors that could trigger that event that it would take some real research to get the facts, and I don't know of any that has been done, and at this late date all that is left to test is old used rods anyway. Oil pressure can be marginal, there is the known aluminum-chip under the rod-bolt head trick etc.. The early 650/750 rods were installed with un-polished beams with a very rough ground parting line, and there are some of those still running around, I ran a 650 with those rods down a drag strip more than once with no problem.

If the rods are for a street bike, assembled by a good mechanic and ridden by a sane man history shows they should work well no matter if they are from a 1961 650 or a 1975 850.
 
Here below the conrods without holes.
Suggestions please?.
Ciao.
Piero

Connecting rods differences (2013)


Connecting rods differences (2013)


Connecting rods differences (2013)
 
Hi Piero,

Old thread. I suggest you use them in motors with a 3-start oil pump only. They are probably from an early Atlas motor (1962-02/66).

-Knut
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top