Eye candy

Close...

ohh, a la HD

A' la VR!

with clutch and alternator, pics please Paul

my rough calculation shows the idler bearing will be 3 x rpm of the engine. would that be correct?

Nice unit
Is belt tension achieved by the conventional gearbox movement?
If so, why the bottom idler? I can see it marginally increases the "wrap", and hence torque capacity, on the pulleys but at some cost of reducing belt life.
Am I missing something?
Keep up the great work
Cheers
Rob

robs ss said:

Nice unit
Is belt tension achieved by the conventional gearbox movement?
If so, why the bottom idler? I can see it marginally increases the "wrap", and hence torque capacity, on the pulleys but at some cost of reducing belt life.
Am I missing something?
Keep up the great work
Cheers
Rob

Click to expand...

I expect, due to starter/ring gear alignment, the trans must now be kept stationary.

This is a new fit-up of the Kenny Dreer VR880 Norvil belt drive setup with Spyke (HD) starter. Ring gear is carefully mated to the clutch basket, NO intermediate parts whatsoever; OEM alternator (or original style aftermarket unit).

Old Britts has offered the belt tensioner for years; yes, the longer belt is a plus. I don't believe the sealed bearings on the tensioner have ever been an issue.

Used the MkIII or modified earlier transmission cradle; in this case, my Dreer copy "big bearing" conversion using sealed steering bearings and an upgraded spindle that is very easily extracted from the timing side. All fits in SLIGHTLY less space than the original swingarm behind the primary case, so no wearing a big round patch into the backside of the inner case from rubbing.

This solution has been well proven in the VR880s over the years, and I'm really surprised there aren't more of them being done this way. Definitely less complicated than the other options...

(of course, there will be a rebuttal in no time at all)

so, not operational yet Paul, I'm very interested as I'm sure many others are, when can we expect testing results?

madass140 said:

ohh, a la HD

Click to expand...

Don't you mean "Oo-la-la"? :wink:

With the inherent dimensional inconsistencies with the sand-cast primary inner, how much fettling has to be done to the pulley's landing pad to avoid belt crawl? Or, does it even really affect it, since it's on the slack side?

That looks like a very clean installation!

Nathan

Uncomplicated........ I like it!

As I said, Kenny Dreer pretty much perfected this setup over more than a dozen units.

Hey Grandpaul,

I am building a similar Kenny Dreer/QPD starter setup. What does the connection of the starter to the engine cradle look like?

Thanks,
Baldy

Paul, I guess the reason this setup is not produced in numbers is because each inner primary cover and maybe cradle has to be set up individually for each belt drive etc
But for one offs I think its a great concept, nice and simple.

madass140 said:

Paul, I guess the reason this setup is not produced in numbers is because each inner primary cover and maybe cradle has to be set up individually for each belt drive etc. But for one offs I think its a great concept, nice and simple.

Click to expand...

That's true, in order for the system to work without rapid parts wear or failure, the inner primary, transmission case, clutch basket, and transmission cradle all need to be modified to a degree.

Then, the mainshaft and it's bearings, and clutch center with it's bearing, need to be fitted up.

The ring gear is aligned to the clutch basket mounted on the center, then the basket is machined and joined to the ring gear.

After that, it's all assembled together with the starter, and final adjustments are made to the modifications as required for a good final fit. The starter is tested repeatedly for proper engagement with proper clearance and interface with the rotating basket assembly.

A final adjustment on the belt tensioner is needed after the whole affair is re-installed in the chassis with the power unit (the part I have yet to do when everything gets back here from the machinist).

As it turns out, there were around 35 of these VR starter kits fitted, over a dozen of which the machinist was directly involved with, mostly with incorporating much of the above final fitment and correction under warranty. I'm at a bit of an advantage over all the VR owners, as I'm getting the total package fitted up as a complete matched assembly.

baldy, my understanding is that the QPD setup is significantly different from the Norvil setup that I'm using. Kenny switched from QPD to Norvil mid-stream, I believe (due to issues with the early ones, many of which the machinist corrected). The cradle needs cut-outs and lugs welded in place, and the Spyke starter needs an adapter plate. The transmission case needs a bit of relief at the top mounting boss, to allow for the starter body to clear. Of course, the inner primary needs a window cut out for the starter nose.

I spoke at length with the machinist, and his goal is to retire soon and start working on his own bikes while he's still able to enjoy them. So, I believe I'll reverse-engineer the whole kit and maybe make up a few for sale after I make one for my Combat. As a happy coincidence, my custom knifemaker friend is about to buy a new CNC machine, and he wants me to help him set it up and ramp up his production; in exchange, I get use of it (along with all the other shop equipment I've had use of for the last 5+ years).

Who knows, maybe it'll be something...

Feel free to correct me if I am incorrect in my thinking but this system is far from a 'plug and play' and appears as though one would be out in their shop fettling and meddling until the 'cows come home'. That said, why would someone entertain taking on this system when there are already two proven e-starts (cNw and Alton) already out in the marketplace with a proven track record in terms of reliability, full warranties and much easier to install in any bike? Just sayin'...

Bryan H.

I can't afford either of the two top-end systems available, and can build this setup for about 1/2 the price. THAT would be my personal reason.

Others have successfully built their own, and I understand it's not plug-and-play.

Another reason for using this system is if you are building a bike where the CNW or Alton can't be used. That's one of the reasons I'm using a similar build with parts from Old Britts. I'm using a Maney 1006 engine, and didn't want to machine away a lot of the added thickness in the drive side crankcase to fit a normal inner primary cover. I also needed to run a larger front pulley, which the other kits don't allow. And, as Paul pointed out, it does come out significantly cheaper than the other two kits. And yes, it certainly is a far cry from "plug and play."

Having said that, I really like the CNW kit, and if I were just converting a stock pre-MKIII Commando, that's what I'd go with. It's really well designed and very high quality. Nothing against the Alton either, but it did have quite a few reports of problems with the first ones delivered, which would make me a little nervous. I've seen the CNW system, and we all know Matt's commitment to his customers.

Ken

I, too, would pick the CNW over the Alton; less complexity and standardization with OEM alternator.