- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,362
dave M said:
Crankcase Breather
- Thread starter swooshdave
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 1,623
Marinatlas, I'm sure that there should be only one scavenge hole otherwise it will be like trying to drink a soft drink with a straw that has a hole half way up it; lots of air and not much drink! I am still inclined to try the standard breather with a PCV valve in the line. I have already milled the scraper from a set of cases that I will be putting together very soon, so trying to get some direction on this which would be helpful. At the moment I am leaning towards putting it back together with the existing breather and monitoring the results.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,253
I am not sure how Old Britts Is doing their 72 case mod for the oil scavenge other than removing the scraper. Regardless, one pickup hole at a point low and back is the best although I have seen cases done with multiple holes along the bottom and they seemed to work fine. Jim Comstock
grandpaul
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,242
That's a lot to read (I had skipped this thread until now).
First of all, I think the breather pickup right at the puddling point of the crankcase oil is possibly not the best solution if all you are trying to do is deal with crankcase pressure.
Second, the multiple drilling of the revised oil pickup gallery amounting to a drinking straw with multiple holes sounds like a valid comparison; perhaps 2 holes close together, down low?
Third, I didn't invent anything with the 880 I'm building, just stumbled upon turning down the Kawasaki steering stem to fit Norton head bearings, modifying the pre-Mark III rearsets to allow for Left-foot disc brake actuating, and welding two tabs to the frame to mount the top of the monoshock; everything else regarding the monoshock is Kenny Dreer's design, I just lucked into being able to buy the last remaining parts to build the bike with.
Fourth, I appreciate Matt's work greatly (tops in the field, in my opinion) and I believe the elegant breather kit should have been patented after spending a significant chunk of money on development; it's bound to be copied and produced commercially somewhere.
Fifth, Jim Comstock's work is much appreciated; and seems to be freely shared. What more can a nortonphile ask for?
Sixth, There are multiple similar ideas that all have proven to work well (although specific cases seem to defy logic); the XS breather and others involving one-way PCV valves have been shown to be effective.
Lastly, I have to admit that as the beneficiary of some of Jean's handiwork (FCR manifold adapters & idle knob clip), I don't begrudge him duplicating successful ideas, as long as he keeps giving them to me free!!!! if he thinks HE'S cheap, he just doesn't know me that well; i have him beat hands-down.
First of all, I think the breather pickup right at the puddling point of the crankcase oil is possibly not the best solution if all you are trying to do is deal with crankcase pressure.
Second, the multiple drilling of the revised oil pickup gallery amounting to a drinking straw with multiple holes sounds like a valid comparison; perhaps 2 holes close together, down low?
Third, I didn't invent anything with the 880 I'm building, just stumbled upon turning down the Kawasaki steering stem to fit Norton head bearings, modifying the pre-Mark III rearsets to allow for Left-foot disc brake actuating, and welding two tabs to the frame to mount the top of the monoshock; everything else regarding the monoshock is Kenny Dreer's design, I just lucked into being able to buy the last remaining parts to build the bike with.
Fourth, I appreciate Matt's work greatly (tops in the field, in my opinion) and I believe the elegant breather kit should have been patented after spending a significant chunk of money on development; it's bound to be copied and produced commercially somewhere.
Fifth, Jim Comstock's work is much appreciated; and seems to be freely shared. What more can a nortonphile ask for?
Sixth, There are multiple similar ideas that all have proven to work well (although specific cases seem to defy logic); the XS breather and others involving one-way PCV valves have been shown to be effective.
Lastly, I have to admit that as the beneficiary of some of Jean's handiwork (FCR manifold adapters & idle knob clip), I don't begrudge him duplicating successful ideas, as long as he keeps giving them to me free!!!! if he thinks HE'S cheap, he just doesn't know me that well; i have him beat hands-down.
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,793
Interestingly a patent protects an idea from being copied and sold, it does not prevent copying for the copyists sole use. So patents are a great way of finding out how to solve a problem as long as when you apply it you do not sell it on to a third party.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,451
grandpaul said:
I think the money lost with people borrowing his and Mr. Comstock's work on the breather will pale in comparasin to what it costs to patent something. CNW is going to put that on every rebuild they do anyway so it's worth it to them to have developed the idea.
Either way, less leaky Nortons is a good thing. All the little fuzzy kittens and birdies will thank us for a cleaner environment. :wink:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 11,520
grandpaul said:
Ironically you suggest that Matt patent the breather and at the same time praise Jim (who developed said breather for Matt) for sharing the info about it. There isn't enough of a market for these breathers to justify the patent costs.
grandpaul
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,242
"Ironically you suggest that Matt patent the breather and at the same time praise Jim (who developed said breather for Matt) for sharing the info about it."
I was commenting on Jim's entire body of work, not the specific breather apparatus.
I still think placing it down low in the oil collection area just means you have to deal with oil issues instead of just crankcase pressure relief.
I was commenting on Jim's entire body of work, not the specific breather apparatus.
I still think placing it down low in the oil collection area just means you have to deal with oil issues instead of just crankcase pressure relief.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 11,520
I'm pretty sure in Jim's testing he would have run across oil issues (aside from the wetsumping scenario I mentioned, because I have a feeling Jim's bike don't wetsump 
).
From what I understand of dry sump engines, there shouldn't be very much oil in the crankcases while running. If the stock location for that breather was in a bad location we would have countless stories of oil being blown out of the stock breather from day one. Yes, no?
). From what I understand of dry sump engines, there shouldn't be very much oil in the crankcases while running. If the stock location for that breather was in a bad location we would have countless stories of oil being blown out of the stock breather from day one. Yes, no?
cNw
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2009
- Messages
- 485
Hey,
If anybody was to put a patent on the Breather it would be Jim Comstock. He is the one that put countless hours into making it work. CNW is just very fortunate to be working very closely with Jim on many of his developments, and I hope that we will be for years to come.
Sure we are the ones offering it but we wont take any credit for any part of it other than doing what we had to do to produce the different parts and packaging it so people can benefit from it on thier own Commandos world wide.
The different points about Patents are all valid depending on how you look at it. Fact is that for the most part its not worth the expense (time) to do it in our relatively small market. I have been asked several times why I dont copyright any of the pictures we create. The way I look at it is the more those images surface out there the more exposure the Commandos get and that is something that will benefit all of us that like working with these old machines. Well not everone likes it since more attention is usually responsible for driving up costs as well.
I case it wasnt clear in a previous post I will say it again. I dont have a problem with people copying parts that we offer, for thier own use. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, nor can you control it. What amazes me is that somebody that does (copying), considers it a big deal, when its so very simple to do. We have to take note and thank Jim for making this happen. Not thank some guy that is taking all the work that has gone into it, copying it and then posting with like it was something special to do. It seems to me that when following this thread that many people have been more impressed with the copying aspect than with the modification that Jim worked so hard at developing.
As opposed to comparing it to food, like in an earlier post, its much like learning to play a song that somebody spent countless time and effort in producing. Learning to play it is very easy, creating it is what takes talent, time, money and dedication.
As far as placement of the breather......consider what time Jim has spent testing several different locations and how it affected the performance. If this wasnt the 'right' place, then it would have been located somewhere else. We also have to look at something that works for all year Commandos and since they are a bit different this is not always easy to do.
I for one am done with the Breather modification. Its there and it works !!! Now its onto something else that needs to be addressed on these machines to make them better.
Matt / Colorado Norton Works
If anybody was to put a patent on the Breather it would be Jim Comstock. He is the one that put countless hours into making it work. CNW is just very fortunate to be working very closely with Jim on many of his developments, and I hope that we will be for years to come.
Sure we are the ones offering it but we wont take any credit for any part of it other than doing what we had to do to produce the different parts and packaging it so people can benefit from it on thier own Commandos world wide.
The different points about Patents are all valid depending on how you look at it. Fact is that for the most part its not worth the expense (time) to do it in our relatively small market. I have been asked several times why I dont copyright any of the pictures we create. The way I look at it is the more those images surface out there the more exposure the Commandos get and that is something that will benefit all of us that like working with these old machines. Well not everone likes it since more attention is usually responsible for driving up costs as well.
I case it wasnt clear in a previous post I will say it again. I dont have a problem with people copying parts that we offer, for thier own use. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, nor can you control it. What amazes me is that somebody that does (copying), considers it a big deal, when its so very simple to do. We have to take note and thank Jim for making this happen. Not thank some guy that is taking all the work that has gone into it, copying it and then posting with like it was something special to do. It seems to me that when following this thread that many people have been more impressed with the copying aspect than with the modification that Jim worked so hard at developing.
As opposed to comparing it to food, like in an earlier post, its much like learning to play a song that somebody spent countless time and effort in producing. Learning to play it is very easy, creating it is what takes talent, time, money and dedication.
As far as placement of the breather......consider what time Jim has spent testing several different locations and how it affected the performance. If this wasnt the 'right' place, then it would have been located somewhere else. We also have to look at something that works for all year Commandos and since they are a bit different this is not always easy to do.
I for one am done with the Breather modification. Its there and it works !!! Now its onto something else that needs to be addressed on these machines to make them better.
Matt / Colorado Norton Works
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 11,520
CNW said:
I assumed you've seen Jean's pictures. Copying the breather isn't notable at all compared to the amount of machine work he's done, mostly with a lathe. That is the part I found ingenious. Like you said anyone can copy.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,693
I'd have to agree there. I am far from having the sort of machine workshop that would allow anything like that. And at the price of machine work one is often best off just buying a developed device. There are always going to be a few talented and equipped folks out there but they are few and far between.
- Status