No more FullAuto heads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jseng

I fitted my Fullauto head a couple of months ago, following an engine rebuild on my modified Mk3. The original modified RH4 developed an irritatingly persistent oil leak in the dreaded third fin region.
This used standard size Black Diamonds and blended 1.0/1.5mm seats with lightened valve train. C.R. is a measured 8.6:1 as I only have estart with kickstart assembly removed and is easy on the sprag clutch assembly.
Worked perfectly with Premiers, velocity stacks (with K&N ovals) and a wonderful Johnson J380 cam. This combination and standard 4.38 850 gearing allowed 7000 top gear runs and at Spa in 2011, way beyond during an unguarded moment in 3rd gear.
Unfortunately the engine rebuild was caused by cam follower failure, ruining the cam with the bits going through the motor before clogging up the sump strainer and magnetic plugs.

Ordered a Fullauto directly from Oz and what a stunning piece of engineering it is, full credit to all involved, especially the machining and design. The CNC inlet ports and chambers are a great feature.
Stock Andover rocker shafts, Black Diamond valves, 850 exhaust nuts, threads, all perfectly matched to the head. Stainless RGM exhaust nuts fitted neither the Fullauto or the RH4 and were returned.

The standard inlet manifolds need work as there is a mismatch in the angle to the port, easily seen and apparent in a resin cast I made of the port and manifold.
I blended the manifold lower side to straighten it up and this has worked fine and keeps the original head/carb/manifold vintage look I prefer.
The inlet seat geometry wasn,t ideal so I fitted 0.060" oversize, backcut Black Diamond inlets using Nuway 60 and 45 degree hand cutters, the top cut and bottom of the 60 were hand blended into the chambers and pockets.
The exhaust port has the cast finish smoothed and blended, with the area by the guide opened out. A burette check showed both chambers identical at 51.6cc.
The Fullauto port shapes were left as they were.
My lightened rockers were fitted so the head had the same spec as my RH4 and on Comnoz advice ordered a similar to stock Web 312 as J380,s are no longer available. A lovely street cam and 0.006" valve clearances make it quiet.
This combination works perfectly for my long distance road bike which doesn,t just potter through villages at 1500rpm in 5th but will see the redline as required.

Carb settings still being finalised but unlike my modified RH4, this modified Fullauto runs fine on standard early 850 jetting with performance similar to my RH4, but rolling on in top gear sees the tach rising toward the redline easier than before, though not to the extent seen on my similarly modified FJ1200....
Happiness is an aircooled engine.

And this is where the strength of the Fullauto lies, not as an all out, optimised race ready head as you suggest, but a well designed, finely crafted stock replacement, far beyond the original specification and performance, which can be easily adapted to suit individual requirements and it is unfair to criticise it in this respect.
I,m just glad I got one and big thumbs up to the Aussies on this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KiwiNeill said:
And this is where the strength of the Fullauto lies, not as an all out, optimised race ready head as you suggest, but a well designed, finely crafted stock replacement, far beyond the original specification and performance, which can be easily adapted to suit individual requirements and it is unfair to criticise it in this respect.
I,m just glad I got one and big thumbs up to the Aussies on this one.
Click to expand...

As I think I have demonstrated, it makes a good race head straight out of the box, with further scope if needed.

The original valve angle is better for those not going oversize, so why compromise the average road bike, where higher sales are surely likely.

When Jim talks about selling in quantity we need to recognise that the currently race active number of Norton twins is small and reducing!

And consider that Ken was prepared to supply unfinished heads for those with further intent.

I think some need to sit back and realise that at every occasion the heads are discussed, a statement of how to do it better trots out. They may be sounds observations if considered from your own standpoint.

But you should not be surprised if the person who took on the project and invested his time and money decides he has better things to do with his time than trying to please you lot!
 
Last edited:
I think that selling the heads varying degrees of unfinished state was very good move to cater for the odd balls and racers.

I don’t know, but I’d guess that sales of such were a handful!

So all in all, I agree with Steve!
 
Let's not form a negative atmosphere where ideas and proposals are suppressed, especially if those ideas have some merits. It should be legitimate to discuss possible improvements to a product without being accused of disrespect to the founders or accused of boasting only. There are also lessons to be learnt here. Steve - Isn't your expressions the form of attitude which brought the british m/c industry down? Loyalty to an ongoing project and the people who run it is a good quality while it lasts, but the FA project has been terminated finally as I understand Ken's public postings.

I am sure I speak for Jim also as I would like to express gratitude and admiration of the tremendous effort put forward by Ken in creating such a complex and high quality product at an affordable price, and I for one will regret having missed the opportunity to buy one or more heads.

SteveA said:
<...> The original valve angle is better for those not going oversize, so why compromise the average road bike, where higher sales are surely likely.
Click to expand...

Is it better? Is that statement based on dyno evidence, your sole opinion, or an opinion of consensus from track testers? We have seen the Cycle World torque graphs of roadster 750's and 850's w/OEM heads quite recently and there are large weak domains above 3500 rpm and too early drops at higher rpms when compared to the contemporary Ducati 750's, for instance. Yes, Jim C. has proven very good breathing of the FA head design, but I have yet to see a torque graph of the FA heads enabling a comparison with the afore mentioned graphs.

SteveA said:
But you should not be surprised if the person who took on the project and invested his time and money decides he has better things to do with his time than trying to please you lot!
Click to expand...

Steve - I think your last comment is completely inappropriate at this point in time. A venture like this has to be based on commercial desicisions only, unless health or old age comes into play.

-Knut
 
Last edited:
Never mind the CAD what about the pattern maker ? And then finding a foundry that will do small batches of sand casting ?
 
Knut, I think Steve was thinking commercially.

The FA head is a super niche market product. Squished heads, Harley ports, re angled valves, etc are all niche within a niche of niche.

How many Harley port heads would Ken sell per year? I’d say you could count them on one hand. It just would not pay for any extra work in terms of design, casting, machining, etc.

Then there’s the issue of stock. The small numbers involved means Ken has to make them in batches. The greater the number of variants, the greater the numbers in stock... and the greater the amount of cash tied up.

I get the impression that even selling just two versions was an incredibly difficult task. And it’s a task that would be exponentially more difficult with added versions.

If we were talking Harley’s, it’s a different ball game due to the numbers involved. But the Norton market is just SO small.
 
Last edited:
Eddie,

Maybe I am missing a piece of information here. Allowing the FA head to evolve by incorporating a Narley port design and other modifications without compromising exterior looks doesn't necessarily mean additional variants, does it? Of course such developments have to prove a benefit to the end user at no or negligible added cost. However, if such developments were to require different pistons and conrods, non-standard rockers, different camshafts, etc. then we are truly talking of a niche product within a niche market.

The same goes for new solid crankshafts. We all know the standard design was vastly underengineered for the 750's and upwards. So, how many improvements can be buillt into the new product without missing the market demand? Increased mains? Increased drive shaft OD? Offering 80.4mm stroke only?

I agree that batch production is the way to go for small operations. However, it takes time to penetrate the market and the marketing effort should not be underestimated. The absence of a dedicated web page, proving hard facts including Dyno results, and short duration of offerings is where Ken lost a big chunk of the market opportunity, IMHO. It takes stamina to be successful.

-Knut
 
Last edited:
KiwiNeill said:
...And this is where the strength of the Fullauto lies, not as an all out, optimised race ready head as you suggest, but a well designed, finely crafted stock replacement, far beyond the original specification and performance, which can be easily adapted to suit individual requirements and it is unfair to criticise it in this respect.
Click to expand...

KiwiNeil - you missed my point. Yes the FA head is excellent as provided. But it would be even better if you had the choice of enlarging the valves without having to re-angle them (by providing them already re-angled but with stock valves). And it would be even better to be able to widen the ports if there was enough meat there to make this possible. Suggesting that the improvements of the FA head could be taken further is not a criticism - its a positive development of something good that has already been started by Ken and needs an ambitious push to keep it going.

Imagine someone offering new heads again. Stock heads, or FA heads, or FA heads with thicker port walls and stock size re-angled valves for street. Which ones do you think would sell the most?

FYI - FA heads already came with somewhat thicker port walls and were available on special order (I was fortunate to have one) with 1/4" guide bores w/o seats so you could re-angle them and still use 1/2" OD guides. So the trend was already in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
Niche market? of course.
But since there are already molds, I could see some "artisan" foundry making quality castings.
Sell them raw and let the engine builders machine them any way that they want.
 
New
Unless you've taken the time to design something and find a way to have it made, you probably have no clue of the effort and expense. I've designed three small parts. 1 for BSA/Triumph, 1 for Triumph, and 1 for Norton. In each case, I needed the part and thought others would too. In each case, I was wrong. So, I'm out a few hundred dollars. I can't imagine how much time and money it would take to design a head, have a prototype made, design around the problems, have a small run made, and finally deal with (hopefully) orders. Get that wrong and you're out thousands, not hundreds.
 
But in the case if this head, The hard work is already done (making the molds and cores).
 
doesn't sound like there are any going with that alone, how much are the molds worth?
 
Last edited:
jseng1 said:
Imagine someone offering new heads again. Stock heads, or FA heads, or FA heads with thicker port walls and stock size re-angled valves for street. Which ones do you think would sell the most?
Click to expand...

the cheapest available suitable for normal street use, for a start
 
One of the problems with someone else picking up the production of these heads is finding a willing foundry. While talking to Jim Comstock at the rally last week, he mentioned that the Norton head is a complex casting, requiring a lot of sand cores to be assembled accurately for the final mold. It's pretty old school in comparison to modern casting methods, and hard to find a company in the USA that is willing to take it on. I think Ken had some similar problems in finding a willing foundry down under. I suspect that's also a big reason Kenny Dreer went with a simpler head design for what is now the 961. Still, I'm with the crowd hoping someone does pick it up and continue making them, either just as they are or with changes.

Ken
 
Mark said:
No matter the product, If the profit margins are large enough, someone will always accept the challenge.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however that won't be for a while as (fullauto)heads are still available and looking at the current price for a new head it might pay to buy a complete Commando or engine to get a replacement head ;)
 
marshg246 said:
I've designed three small parts. 1 for BSA/Triumph, 1 for Triumph, and 1 for Norton. In each case, I needed the part and thought others would too. In each case, I was wrong. So, I'm out a few hundred dollars.
Click to expand...

Please tell us more. Which part did you design for Nortons, was there an added value built-in, what was the asking price (vs. a comparative product), how did you market it, and for how long?

-Knut
 
lcrken said:
One of the problems with someone else picking up the production of these heads is finding a willing foundry. While talking to Jim Comstock at the rally last week, he mentioned that the Norton head is a complex casting, requiring a lot of sand cores to be assembled accurately for the final mold. It's pretty old school in comparison to modern casting methods, and hard to find a company in the USA that is willing to take it on. I think Ken had some similar problems in finding a willing foundry down under. I suspect that's also a big reason Kenny Dreer went with a simpler head design for what is now the 961. Still, I'm with the crowd hoping someone does pick it up and continue making them, either just as they are or with changes.

Ken
Click to expand...


Anyone wanting to pursue this really should contact Pete Langley at Port Townsend Foundry. He specializes in marine hardware but is old school, brilliant and does custom aluminum casting. I have not spoken with him in years now, but I know he has done automotive castings to replicate vintage race motors.

http://www.porttownsendfoundry.com/
 
lcrken said:
One of the problems with someone else picking up the production of these heads is finding a willing foundry. While talking to Jim Comstock at the rally last week, he mentioned that the Norton head is a complex casting, requiring a lot of sand cores to be assembled accurately for the final mold. It's pretty old school in comparison to modern casting methods, and hard to find a company in the USA that is willing to take it on. I think Ken had some similar problems in finding a willing foundry down under. I suspect that's also a big reason Kenny Dreer went with a simpler head design for what is now the 961. Still, I'm with the crowd hoping someone does pick it up and continue making them, either just as they are or with changes.

Ken
Click to expand...

On my shelves sits a cup spoon and saucer , nothing remarkable about that,the cup sits on the saucer and the spoon is inside the cup , however it was cast in aluminium using mansfield foundry sand for the moulds in conjunction with a 4 way split core . It was given to me by the man who taught me about casting . In comparison with casting a head and working out shrinkage for the patterns and cores etc childs play,but I wonder how many could sand cast such an item now.

In complete agreement Ken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top