Oil Pump and Wetsumping

Status
Not open for further replies.
CNW said:
just because CNW sells them does not make it a justifiable reason to use onete
Click to expand...

Bill,

Important fact is that CNW is not a parts seller like many other companies out there. Our main business is building complete machines as well as engines and we also sell some of the parts that we use in ALL of our builds. We only sell the parts we are willing to stand behind as far as performance and quality. In other words we are not a parts house offering hundreds of different products needing to move volumes in order to make the business operate. We simply decided to offer some of the parts that we stock and develop for our own machines, for those that want to work on their own bikes. As it turns out people really like the idea and the parts section has grown. Then working closely with people like Jim Comstock and Ken at Fullauto, well needless to say, there are some very exciting new products made available due to their efforts.

So what I am getting at is that is not that we just sell the valves....we use them in 100% of the rebuilds we do and we have done so for several years. I am not saying that there arent other opinions out there for what works, but we trust these valves to work and if we didnt we certainly wouldnt take any chances with our machines because of a 70.00 valve.

Whats great is that people have the choice to run with it or not.

BTW Bill.....I dont think Barnett offers a kit for your Tricycle so you couldnt use one even if you wanted to.

Thanks

Matt
Click to expand...


Matt
It was not meant as a dig on you or CNW products I just don't like ANY obstruction in a suction line. if for ANY reason the pump does loose its prime it could starve the engine of oil. I would say if you do run one I would HIGHLY recommend an oil pressure gauge to go with it. Now if I just convince you to switch over to the sufflex clutch. :mrgreen:
 
Bill, What is this grabbing you speak of? I have used Barnett clutches in all of my bikes since the 70's and never had a problem with them. Both dry and wet, They seem to last a long time and can also handle a lot of abuse too. Just my opinion. Chuck.
 
my experience with barnett clutches in nortons is they have a VERY narrow engagement point. so it makes it hard to modulate and as a commando has absolutely no shock absorber in the drive line (except MK3) I prefer the softer and wider engagement of the surflex plates.
 
bill said:
my experience with barnett clutches in nortons is they have a VERY narrow engagement point. so it makes it hard to modulate and as a commando has absolutely no shock absorber in the drive line (except MK3) I prefer the softer and wider engagement of the surflex plates.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I'm dense but those rubber buffers are in the rear wheels of all Commandos, no? We can debate the effectiveness but they at least exist.
 
Bill,

I didnt think you were knocking us as a company but rather had a problem with the valve and its placement. There are many that are not comfortable putting something in the feedline (eventhough a blocked line anywhere will cause you some problems). What I was getting at was that we dont just sell parts but we use them all in our machines as well. This is a good thing since we get a first hand experience with how things install and also how they perform. This way we get a good feel for the products that we offer. If we dont like them....they will end up on THE shelf, and there are a lot of parts on that shelf.

As far as the Barnetts......well we have had a lot of luck with them. We also run belt drives on all but MKIII's so that does soften the blow. Maybe not as much as you would like to see in the final drive but any cushion is good.

The one thing I have learned with working on these machines is that each and every bike has its own personality and requirements....just like their owners. You really cant please them all if you build them all the same.

Matt / Colorado Norton Works

PS. I still want to see your Tricycle !
 
as week as the commando gearbox is they are not very effective. look at the jappers from the same era, nice large rubber cush. even the atlas had a better cush in the clutch hub. why norton when the commando went into production removed the cushion in the clutch hub but still used the bolted rear sprocket from the atlas is beyond me. the paddles and hard blocks was not much of an improvement IMHO. if i remember Norton would NOT warranty a gearbox failure if a barnett clutch was found to be installed.my first experience with a barnett clutch in 72 with a new combat cost me 6 gears both shaft's both shift forks 2 ball bearings and the main case. after that I started using halve and halve barnett and surflex than 5 surflex and a belt drive.
 
swooshdave
Sorry if I'm dense but those rubber buffers are in the rear wheels of all Commandos, no? We can debate the effectiveness but they at least exist.
Click to expand...

The 69 and early 70 did not have the rubber buffers. Just being anal.

Dave
69S
 
CNW said:
Bill,

I didnt think you were knocking us as a company but rather had a problem with the valve and its placement. There are many that are not comfortable putting something in the feedline (eventhough a blocked line anywhere will cause you some problems). What I was getting at was that we dont just sell parts but we use them all in our machines as well. This is a good thing since we get a first hand experience with how things install and also how they perform. This way we get a good feel for the products that we offer. If we dont like them....they will end up on THE shelf, and there are a lot of parts on that shelf.

As far as the Barnetts......well we have had a lot of luck with them. We also run belt drives on all but MKIII's so that does soften the blow. Maybe not as much as you would like to see in the final drive but any cushion is good

The one thing I have learned with working on these machines is that each and every bike has its own personality and requirements....just like their owners. You really cant please them all if you build them all the same.

Matt / Colorado Norton Works

PS. I still want to see your Tricycle !
Click to expand...

matt
I guess we can agree to disagree on the anti sump valve and barnett clutch. I know very well your products, quality and that you wont sell some thing that you would not use . a friend has a lot of your stuff on the bike that I helped him build (tom in winter springs fl).after spending 35 years in the automatic transmission field, engine rebuild and machine shop I am not fond of ANY restriction in the suction side of an oil pump and even more so if the pump is not submerged in oil as it gets easer to lose its prime.

We can agree on the belt drive but for different reasons. IMHO the belt does not act so much as a shock absorber but the better benefit is less weight and less harmonics in the primary drive to hammer the gears. either clutch is an improvement over the over weight bronze clutch. I do ride a fair amount of miles and have seen more wear on the splines of the barnett than the surflex and i like the feel of the surflex engagement better.

I sold the tricycle many years ago :D
 
DogT said:
swooshdave
Sorry if I'm dense but those rubber buffers are in the rear wheels of all Commandos, no? We can debate the effectiveness but they at least exist.
Click to expand...

The 69 and early 70 did not have the rubber buffers. Just being anal.

Dave
69S
Click to expand...

And now you know why they got added back. :mrgreen:
 
Maybe its just the way we use our clutches, I for one want my clutch to grab when I let it out. Could it be the way it is adjusted? Or maybe the stack height, I still don't understand what you mean. Sorry. Mine is very smooth when engaged, If I dump it sure it will grab hard. Supposed to as I see it.
 
Bill,

I agree with you on all the benefits of using a belt drive. I think its one of the single best upgrades you can do to a Commando. Sure there are some different belt drives available but any quality unit will work great.

Hortons Norton said:
Maybe its just the way we use our clutches, I for one want my clutch to grab when I let it out. Could it be the way it is adjusted? Or maybe the stack height, I still don't understand what you mean. Sorry. Mine is very smooth when engaged, If I dump it sure it will grab hard. Supposed to as I see it.
Click to expand...

Chuck,

You need to experience the hydraulic clutch that Jim Comstock developed. It transforms the clutch feel and the engagement is extremely positive yet silky smooth. It took me 1 ride to decide that these would be standard on all of our builds.

Matt / Colorado Norton Works
 
I'm sure if Jim developed it and your using them I would also like it, At some point it may be something I will look into. Right now though the wife is uncertain of her job future and she has kinda put the clamps on my spending, LOL or so she thinks. When her next contract comes up the picture may be a little clearer. Hope all is well with you and the guys and hope to see you in Lumby, Are you planning on going? Thanks again for the great rally you all put on in Colorado last summer, We had a blast. Someday we plan on doing a vacation there and more riding, If God owned a bike that is where he would live, Great riding, Awesome place. Take care and ride safe, Chuck.
 
I understand why there is reluctance to put a valve in the oil line. I also understand why a manual valve doesn't appeal to many, depsite the fact that you probably havent forgotten to turn on the petrol taps since the last time you decided to go for a ride after a 12 pack. But it seems that the position of the oil line relative to the kick start would make it very easy to put in a ball valve that interfered with the ability to kick the bike when it was closed, i.e. the handle would be hitting your ankle. The biggest problem I see with that is that it would look rather agricultural. So maybe it is time to develope handles for a SS ball valve that look cool enough to belong on the bike?

Just a thought,
Russ

Edit: I also realize that stopping wet sumping and providing good oil pressure are related per the philosophy on oil pump clearances but solving one doesn't necessarily cure the other.
 
I have been planning to have a check valve installed in my 73- 850's timing cover Or buy a MKiii one if that works. It has very good oil pressure even when hot but does wet sump baddly. Will having the timing cover mod done ussualy solve this? Any recomondations on who to use?
 
rvich said:
I understand why there is reluctance to put a valve in the oil line. I also understand why a manual valve doesn't appeal to many, depsite the fact that you probably havent forgotten to turn on the petrol taps since the last time you decided to go for a ride after a 12 pack.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you forget to turn on the petcock your engine doesn't go boom. Big difference.
 
gtsun said:
I have been planning to have a check valve installed in my 73- 850's timing cover Or buy a MKiii one if that works. It has very good oil pressure even when hot but does wet sump baddly. Will having the timing cover mod done ussualy solve this? Any recomondations on who to use?
Click to expand...
There are horror stories of check valves sticking. To try and idiot proof our Nortons is saying that we're idiots. Please do not take offence, my bike makes me feel like an idiot offen...... then I go for a spin and I feel better. Recondition the oil pump is a great place to start and check the amount of oil in the sump before and after it sit for a while. 6 to 8 oz is normal after riding.
 
When you install the valve in the cover or use a mk3 cover and valve they will slow down the wet sumping considerably but will not eliminate it. The mk3 valve is prone to stick but when they do stick, they stick open and the bike will wet sump just like the valve was not there. I have never heard of this style of valve [on the pressure side of the pump] sticking closed and causing loss of pressure. The way they are built I don't think it could happen. AMR does a mod with a ball valve that reportedly works well also. Jim
 
swooshdave said:
rvich said:
I understand why there is reluctance to put a valve in the oil line. I also understand why a manual valve doesn't appeal to many, depsite the fact that you probably havent forgotten to turn on the petrol taps since the last time you decided to go for a ride after a 12 pack.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you forget to turn on the petcock your engine doesn't go boom. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Dave, I agree completely, thus my comment that I understand the reluctance. I wouldn't ever try to sell the idea to somebody who didn't like the way it sounded either. What's the point of that? Some people like more complex solutions, I happen to like simple solutions. I personally like the idea of a manual valve, the handle of which blocks my ability to kick start the bike when it is closed. Seems to me the worst case scenario is I forget to close it when I am done riding. I am in search of one now that won't make the timing side of the bike look like a powerwasher. :shock:

Russ
 
rvich said:
I am in search of one now that won't make the timing side of the bike look like a powerwasher. :shock:

Russ
Click to expand...

How about this manual one, same size as the RGM automatic valve.
Oil Pump and Wetsumping
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top