Fullauto Cylinder Head

Status
Not open for further replies.
I started this thread because I am really impressed by Ken's Fullauto head, simply as an exercise in casting and machining technology. The commando cylinder head must be one of the most difficult to re-engineer ever. I had a look at the inlet and exhaust ports and there are obvious detail differences. The inlets looked as though they were fully tapered and the exhausts were substantially different. Who is to say what works and what does not ? - However Ken's customers sound very happy with their purchases. It is a pity that doing the manufacturing exercise is not more cost-effective. If I was still racing my short stroke Triton, I'd really like a cylinder head which is technically as good as the Fullauto commando head. I think we should all be grateful that Ken has done the hard yards with his cylinder heads - pretty inspiring.
It is a problem with road racing that historic racing precludes a lot of development, and other types of development classes are very rare. Otherwise we could have some really good fun.
If you look at the situation critically we have mostly lost the opportunity to be creative. That has implications for our economy generally.
 
Good comments Alan.

swooshdave said:
I keep hoping this thread will die.
You have someone who is spending every cent he has to make something he doesn't have to and two yahoos disparaging him about it.
It's so sad and says nothing good about those two. :(

Whats this "disparaging" business.
We iz jist curious.
As everyone here should be ?
Kenny let the cat out of the bag with that "performance" word, zip to do wif Fullauto.

And Fullauto wasn't even involved here until WELL into the conversation.
He coulda just sat back and watched developments.

We fully understand why he doesn't done any dyno testing.
(He doesn't have a Marketing Dept !!!, or need the publicity)

Agin, we iz jist curious....
And questioned a few dubious statements thrown into the mix along the way.
I'd be disappointed if someone hadn't commented on those....
Its the stuff answered here that makes Access more indepth than t'others...
 
swooshdave said:
I keep hoping this thread will die.

You have someone who is spending every cent he has to make something he doesn't have to and two yahoos disparaging him about it.

It's so sad and says nothing good about those two. :(

To which 'two' are you referring Dave?

I admit I am guilty of being in a very small minority, that is, a road bike rider who already had a perfectly good RH10 head, but was looking for a performance boost. Taken in that simple / narrow (some would say futile) context, a FA head is something of an expensive unknown. This statement is in no way disparaging about Ken, he does not market his heads as a performance part.

I actually offered to buy one from Ken at a discounted price (hence no cost to him) in return for fitting it and doing back to back dyno tests. My thinking was that he, and his distribution network, would then be free to use the data and pictures, and even benefit from a magazine article that one of the classic mags was interested in doing by following this little escapade.

I thought this would be: A) an interesting little test B) save me a few quid and C) encourage him to market his heads as performance parts and open up another small slice of market to him, and thus help the cause in some small way.

Ken however, politely declined as he thought that such a deal would be seen as 'going behind the backs' of his official distributors, something that frankly never occurred to me, and that I fully appreciate and respect.

Ken is doing something that not many others could or would be prepared to do, he knows my respect for him and his cause. He and I had, and continue to have, perfectly cordial communications with each other.

And for the avoidance of any other misunderstanding, Ken invited me to share this with y'all.
 
Interesting background there FastEddy.

On another forum, there is recorded that Ken gave a head to DynoDave,
who was somehow involved in the production of these heads.

On the performance aspect of these heads.
Without wishing again to be seen to be making 'disparaging remarks', there is earlier in
this thread a comment by Ken that he made these heads as a replacement spare part.
Therefore there was no need to 'prove' them on a dyno.

This is not strictly true though, is it.?
With Jim Comstocks involvement, and the widely trumpeted porting modifications,
these heads became an IMPROVED version...

Enough said ?
Its easy to take the high moral ground when you are right....
 
We can quite see your point Ken about not getting involved with dynos,
when you sell all you produce and its not really a money making proposition anyway.

But you won't take your place in the brit motorcycle industry until there is a number recorded against your head (!).

Its worth repeating that the brit motorcycle industry ate lived and breathed dyno figures.
Ever since the horsepower was defined, (in a number of ways it must be said), dynos were thought of, and terms like volumetric efficiency and thermal efficiency became all the rage - fed by the motorcycle mags
and he man-in-the-street motorcycle magazine readers it must be said,
brit motorcycle makers have thrived on horsepower numbers.
Not to mention that for many years, all brit motor vehicles were taxed on (nominal) horsepower -
a carryover from the days of steam.

The postwar Vincent Rapide had set in stone that 55 horsepower number,
and the famous JAP racing 8-80, of immortal nominal 8 HP and actual 80 brake horsepower output,
EVERYONE had been compared against those benchmarks.

Thus we have the Comnmando at 60 hp,
the Combat at 65 hp,
the Honda 750/4 at 67 hp,
the Z1 at ~80 hp.
and the FullAuto head at xx ??

Numbers made up by the marketing depts maybe, as discussed here muchly, and t'other places.

Cheers.
 
Well, according to that list, fitting 10.5:1 lightweight pistons, and Axtel # copy JS1 cam, 35mm FCRs, etc result in MINUS 3 BHP ...
 
Rohan said:
Its easy to take the high moral ground when you are right....

I love this thread, if only to out things like this.

If I were in Ken's (FullAuto) position I would skip the dyno thing altogether as he has stated his position or keep results in a back pocket only to flush out naysayers on a case by case basis. I would love to hear Jim Dour's response (Megacycle Cams) if an armchair pontificate came to him with a mandate, cajoling or even suggestion to provide dyno figures. How naive and self-centered can one get? Well, this is why I enjoyed this thread, to watch and see, if only out of morbid curiosity!

One problem I see with the supplier providing stock versus new component dyno numbers is, who determines what the baseline is. There are a variety of Commandos out there with a variety of exhaust systems; which one do you test? Or do you test them all; get real! Another problem is the vendor under-reporting the "potential" that the new component has. It potentially does the vendor a disservice. This (as in the case of cams and other components) is best left to privateers, developers, and paying customers to sort out and report as they see fit.

I venture to say that at least one well-known and very well respected supplier of these heads could run a simulation to answer a customer's inquiry on most any given specific configuration but he could also do it off the top of his head and get pretty damn close. From what I can tell, the two proponents of HP figure in this thread have no intention of paying for a FullAuto head. Naysayers of simulations have made negative remarks on this approach but after being asked, have not indicated any qualifications or direct experience in the matter; only misguided questions and scenarios. Crickets?

If anybody is really interested in the answer to performance, the answer(s) are already on this forum. The flow versus lift curve for the intakes has been published on the forum and they are very impressive. If one knows what they are doing, one could easily run a baseline and then FullAuto simulation and get a good idea of the net. Even Smokey Yunick would have used simulations if they were available in the day - why? Because he was smart, real smart. To achieve flow characteristics of that of a FullAuto head using an OEM head would require welding, paying somebody that knows what they are doing, and lots of money. The welding softens the alloy so go see how many AccessNorton posts there are on head leaks, retorquing and blown/leaking head gaskets.

I really cannot wait to see the next pontification.

The more I have thought about this, the more I see the cajoling for "a dyno number" is folly. I am really glad we have Ken and FullAuto making these marvelous cylinder heads.
 
Doing a before and after test of any of the models would show the potential ?

Where did I say we expected Ken to provide a dyno number !
Having said that though, I'd expect him to at least show some interest in this, rather than deny its lacking !!
I love the way you twist and misrepresent stuff, and then project it on to them. ?

And, we note, some folks got provided with a free head.
And others have dynoed their builds with them.
Kenny said they build all their street bikes with them (?).
Maybe someday someone will report ??

P.S. I know someone who bought a kit, a good while back, that said 100 hp for your H*nda 4.
He bought it, built it, and tried it.
I went for a short test ride, and saw 150 mph+ on the speedo, so the blurb probably wasn't lying....?
 
Rohan said:
Doing a before and after test of any of the models would show the potential ?
Yes, go for it as a paying customer......oh, wait a minute, never mind. Short answer is different models will have different results. Black cap versus pea shooter versus two-into-one-into two exhaust will likely show difference; combat cam vesrsus Commando cam will be different. What does a vendor set forth as "the" number without setting up for potential customer disappointment.

Rohan said:
Where did I say we expected Ken to provide a dyno number !
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....oh wait, here it is, expectation, yep, got it:
Rohan said:
Having said that though, I'd expect him to at least show some interest in this, rather than deny its lacking !![
I have made a case where it makes sense not to. Talk to Jim Dour of Megacyle about providing the same. Talk to Steve Maney about providing the same. Talk to JE Pistons about providing the same. See a pattern here.
Rohan said:
I love the way you twist and misrepresent stuff, and then project it on to them. ?
Back at you my friend.
Rohan said:
And, we note, some folks got provided with a free head.
And, we note, some folks are in dire need of......................
Rohan said:
And others have dynoed their builds with them.
And note the absence of complaints and unsatisfied customers? Furthermore, what were their expectations.............published dyno figures? Get my drift?
Rohan said:
Kenny said they build all their street bikes with them (?).
I would say someone's reading comprehension skills are abhorrent; go back and reread Kenny's post and report back.

Also, please answer my question I had regarding your first-hand experience with numerical modeling, specifically engine modeling and simulation. I am dying to know the basis of your critique of the technical approach to engine simulations. Crickets?

Time for another Negra Modelo and then bed.
 
Put it this way. I get my bike dynoed as a standard 850 with a Fullauto head with a single Mikuni carb. I get say, 48 BHP at the wheel. I publish the figures.

All the Commando owners out there scream "Oh my God!! It gives 12 horsepower less than a standard 750 or 850 Commando!! What useless crap they are!" I mean, the factory wouldn't lie, would they? They wouldn't even look at the graph, just straight to the number at the top of the page. I was told by a respected Norton mechanic and builder here in Perth not to run my dyno day. He said they will all be disappointed with the low numbers!

Yes, Rohan, the British motorcycle industry were RIGHT into dyno figures. Bullshit dyno figures! Because they knew that dynos were almost unheard of in private hands and nobody would check. The other factories certainly weren't going to give the game away because they were doing the same!
 
Fullauto said:
I get say, 48 BHP at the wheel.

If you'd followed any of the previous BS (?) here on dyno figures,
you'd know that 48 hp would be pretty good for a (stock) Commando.

Those folks who DO have dynos or access to them generally get 40 to 43 hp - at the REAR WHEEL.
(Few more for a Combat).
Few reports in magazines back then too, all fairly similar figures.
Emphasise stock bike though, once its more than a bit modified anything goes.
(As that 90 hp big motor racer that JS noted here recently.)

So you'd be a good 10% up on a stock bike - especially with a single Amal.

AND, thats why we have, repeatedly, mentioned those before and after figures.
Its those before-and-after numbers that would be of interest.
(And the torque curve, its what happens low down in the rpm range that can really boost it for road riding).
Cheers.
 
Rohan said:
Doing a before and after test of any of the models would show the potential ?
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Yes, go for it as a paying customer......oh, wait a minute, never mind. Short answer is different models will have different results. Black cap versus pea shooter versus two-into-one-into two exhaust will likely show difference; combat cam vesrsus Commando cam will be different. What does a vendor set forth as "the" number without setting up for potential customer disappointment.

My interest in this case is purely academic. And see below.

Its the BEFORE-AND-AFTER results of any model that would show the potential.
That notional 10% just mentioned would be a good yardstick, if it indeed was the result that emerged.

More than one test of more than one model would at least show the trend.
Could well be the MK 3 or 1A or 2A models weren't as amenable....

As noted before, I did Engineering 101 in my youth, and part of that included a formal session on dynos and theory and application and mathematics and power V's torque. I've kept that interest ever since, mostly as an interested observer.
I've had a (now old) V8, and the forum chat there was the cheap simulators were cr*p.
The one YOU suggested was V8 specific !!
 
You guys still don't get it...

When you buy a Fullauto head, you get a new head, there is no other place you can get a new head.

If you have a damaged head, or don't have a head at all ( my case! ), you get a new head!, with LOADS of potential and life expectancy.

It has greater integrity than the heads delivered by Norton way back when, and, what a bonus!, it will perform better than an original head, and has the potential to be developed even further. That is what you are buying, quality, potential and peace of mind.

Except most of you guys aren't buying, you are talking.

I bought, and I am extremely happy, and I know I have more RWHP than if I had used an original head withh anything less than radical modification, and withh the Fullauto the potential is there for even more.

What more endorsement does Ken need?

Dyno figures are a hiding to nothing here. You cannot tell me that you can strip and rebuild an engine and not change it. You just fitted new valves in new seats in new guides, with new rockers and spindles.....

If I tell you that with no modification of the head, as delivered, I got 60RWHP at 1500rpm under the motor's potential before it was run in.....what does that mean to you? Nothing. This motor was built by me, not a practiced specialist.

If I tell you the Nortons I passed during last year did not have the same potential, that I finished 2nd in the CRMC 1300 twins championship in my first attempt at a championship in 40 years, riding in only a selection of the events, and I know the motor still has more potential, what does that mean to you? I means a lot to me.

If you are buying a Fullauto to get 10% more horsepower on a dyno it is just the wrong reason.
 
Rohan said:
As noted before, I did Engineering 101 in my youth, and part of that included a formal session on dynos and theory and application and mathematics and power V's torque. I've kept that interest ever since, mostly as an interested observer.
Something to be admired - never loose the passion.
Rohan said:
I've had a (now old) V8, and the forum chat there was the cheap simulators were cr*p.
The one YOU suggested was V8 specific !!
So all along the basis for your critique of using an inexpensive engine simulation software is.............forum chat. I pretty much knew that from the questions and arguments you were presenting but at least there's honesty in admitting it.

The relatively inexpensive engine simulation I suggested (Desktop Dyno 5) is not, I repeat, is not V8 specific............from first-hand experience so again, your assertion is incorrect. But don't take my word for it, do some research. Desktop Dyno 5 may offer a suite of pre-configured parameter files for popular V8's, it is by no means limited to V8's The other engine simulation I recall mentioning is Virtual 4 Stroke which is probably very costly. Either system will do a fine job in this scenario if one knows what they are doing. Engine simulation is almost a perfect application for what we have been debating here where you develop a base case model of a Commando and then replace the intake flow parameter data file with a flow data for a FullAuto head and viola!; net change. Been there, done similar.

Another potential pitfall of a back to back dyno comparison is conducting a baseline dyno pull with the original (old) head if it is worn or plain clapped out, then replacing it with say a fresh FullAuto head. A proper dyno comparison would require a fresh head to fresh head comparison, otherwise, the results will be overstated.

A lot of this work can be obviated through engine simulation; even without a baseline dyno curve. I believe you could get quite good information by using the baseline peak torque-RPM and peak HP-RPM to get an engine model close to a base case (assuming other basic baseline parameters including valve flow, valve-cam motion, bore-stroke, intake and exhaust tract dimensions etc. are correct), then evaluate results by changing one parameter data file (new cylinder head flow characteristics).
 
You still seem stuck on a faux version of the real world ?

OK, I'll admit I was (lightly) involved in an early version of engine simulation stuff, although it wasn't called that back then. It was pretty primitive too - as were computers back then.

Someone just now has recommended another package - which takes 2 weeks !!! to input enough parameters, measurements and data before it can start chugging away. By eck....

If the dyno of a FA head on a std bike shows north of 45 hp, thats already better.
Regardless of how knackered the old one was.
Enquiring minds, enquiring minds...

Wonder if that chat of say 48 hp has eased some concerns ??
Perhaps someone knows more than they have let on ?
 
And you only need about 10hp to do 60 mph - the legal limit many places.
Silly idea having all those extra ones...
 
Rohan said:
You still seem stuck on a faux version of the real world ?
Not at all as Dyno data has its place. Engine simulation is just a better way to answer more questions and judging by your posts there are lots of questions????????? A dyno pull will give you data for one set of parameters only. You must physically change and modify the engine and ancillaries to find out how else it will behave. A lot of work. The reality is to work smarter, not harder. I seem to recall in this thread that you are keen on old school paper and pencil figure it out kinda stuff. Engine simulations (simple and complex) are deterministic numerical models (even when utilizing CFD). These models are a series of calculations that are precise and repeatable.

I recall that DeskTop Dyno 5 allows parametric analysis where it will run and generate a suite of curves (three-axis surface chart) based on varying one (maybe more) parameters such as compression ratio, intake tract length, exhaust length etc... A pretty powerful tool.

There are those here on record who are using or are about to use a FA head and a single carb set up will respond differently than a bone stock engine or a race engine with high-performance cam and say a Steve Maney exhaust and different carbs and intake tract length (different from stock). I am sure at least one person on this forum could probably rattle off a pretty good set of performance numbers from their head based on their vast and well-respected knowledge and first-hand experience with Norton cylinder head flow characteristics. So what is the answer to the question; well it really depends on the customer's application.

Rohan said:
OK, I'll admit I was (lightly) involved in an early version of engine simulation stuff, although it wasn't called that back then. It was pretty primitive too - as were computers back then.
Involved, like 35 years ago walking past someone in a hallway that does engine modelling for a living?

Rohan said:
Someone just now has recommended another package - which takes 2 weeks !!! to input enough parameters, measurements, and data before it can start chugging away. By eck....
Talk about faux. Did this "someone" meet you late at night in the basement of a Washington, DC parking garage? Was he speaking in a low tone and smoking a cigarette? Did you get a clear look at his face in the shadows? Un named package? I think this is material for a movie. :roll:

Furthermore, if someone else "recommended something", that clearly infers it has merit or utility above and beyond other approaches and methods. Correct me here if I have just twisted YOUR words around but it sounds like someone else is recommending simulation. Naturally you can and should take time when new engine concept is being tested from scratch where you may, for example, need to build a three-dimensional mesh of the intake port and exhaust port as well as intake and exhaust tract, run and validate a CFD of the port(s) both forward and reverse, design and validate valve motions, then link all to an engine simulation system. I am sure I am missing a few steps but this is not what we are talking about. These rigorous models are for such things as new concepts or when attempting to tweak performance (emissions, fuel economy, etc...). With analysis, I am a proponent of the KISS principle whenever appropriate and believe it applies to this hypothetical Norton performance question. Complex systems have their place in breaking new ground but a Norton Commando is hardly new ground now is it?

Although a bit off topic, do you think any group can cost-effectively design, cast/machine/fabricate, test on a dyno and repeat the whole process numerous times within two weeks for less money than creating a numerical model and tweaking it? Who is living in the faux world?

Rohan said:
If the dyno of a FA head on a std bike shows north of 45 hp, thats already better.
Regardless of how knackered the old one was.
Enquiring minds, enquiring minds...
Well then, it appears that you are suggesting no need for a baseline dyno pull and that a FullAuto head dyno pull showing anything over 45 hp would be attributed to a FullAuto head.

Rohan said:
Wonder if that chat of say 48 hp has eased some concerns ??
Perhaps someone knows more than they have let on ?
I see a similarity of the above questions and comments with politics and news media today where we are the uninformed/innocent/manipulating posing insinuating questions and/or spread misinformation and repeat it as often as possible until the masses believe it as the new truth. The concept of repeating a rumor/misinformation/lie often enough that people begin to believe it as the truth is as old as the hills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top