RGM Cam followers - Lifters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Burgs said:
Hi
For what it's worth I bought new lifters from RGM that were in an Andover plastic bag and tag, looked good but they were tapered, had to spend a lot of time hand lapping the inner faces to get them true again (inner faces was the problem all four were the same), from memory it was about 0.005" top to bottom, luckily the thin end was on spec.
I would have sent them back but I was in a hurry.
They seem to be good otherwise with no visible signs of wear last time I was in there :).
Burgs
Click to expand...
Five thousandths taper? On the diameter of the O.D.? You lapped the flat surface to bring them in to fit? Could you elaborate please?
 
Concours
The round section (diameter) was OK the error was in the flat faces, I would think that the machinist was the fault, something in the setup and not checking overall dimensions of completed job.
The followers would just fit (and lock) in their bores one way and would not enter the bores when turned around, took lots of bearing blue/measuring and elbow grease.
Would be interesting to see how they held to grind the flats, this IMHO would be the tricky bit the grinding otherwise is straight forward?
Burgs
 
My genuine AN followers, supplied by RGM, came this morning. They fit in the Maney barrels perfectly !

So far so good...
 
The reason I recommend Megacycle cam is that you don't need to TEST them!
 
Fullauto said:
I see. Your tooling was worn out. Why is it that I get the same smell here as when I ride past a dairy farm?
Click to expand...

Come on Ken, not everbodys an over achiever like you getting a major part reproduced. It hard finding enthusiastic take care of business develop a process and keep it going machinist these days. Didn't you have the same problem? 9 shops wont do the work that 30 years ago most shops would have been happy to do.
 
Last edited:
i put new andover followers in my rebuilt engine (its broken now but soon to be fixed again) they went in after some honing of the barrels and were a nice smooth fit.
 
Madnorton said:
Stellite has never been used, only Delchrome C, which in the old days was made by a company called Stellite and thus the confusion.

As I found out a couple of weeks ago, Stellite, about 30 different grades, but the most used and useful is 6B, it has excellent wear properties, but not that high in hardness. Delchrome C an excellent material, higher hardness and tough, for lower temp applications, like our aircooled engines, before someone says the engine gets bloody hot, it doesn't when you compare it to where Stellite can be used. What I also found out is that the companys making hard facing materials, work very closely together to reduce fake stuff that can be had out there. It was the only time I have seen a welding machine and huge purpose made chuck move independently of each other to apply weld to a huge industrial valve seat.

Ken, I thought even you could work that one out, as I have said before, ease of manufacture, the tooling was also old resulting in too much additional material to be removed in the grinding stage, that is why we sell plus 0.020'' tappets. It also takes away the loss in processing due to incorrect braze penetration when brazing, its not an upgrade - very early tappets were one piece cast iron, so nothing new. The material will be the same as the old tappet tip, so again no real upgrade.
Click to expand...

So, you only found out a couple of weeks ago about stellite? Are you serious? The tappets haven't been one piece cast iron since the days of the Dominator but you present this as if it was the same with early Commandos. I wonder how you got your "engineering" qualifications sometimes. The Google School of Engineering, perhaps?

Personally, I think the problem is with a complete lack of quality control within your company. I speak to people in very distant places and one particular, well known Norton expert told me that of twelve followers tested, only one was in spec for hardness. This is quite telling as far as I am concerned. Considering the damage that can (does) happen, this reflects badly on your quality control. The fact that followers are still not available on your website (after how long?) tells me that there was a total lack of preparation for replacement of tooling or that you were caught with your pants down when the spate of failures hit and denied there was a problem until you were well down the track on this debacle. The fact that you tell everybody that there isn't a problem only shows your complete lack of respect for your customer's bikes which are being fitted with your poorly made parts. The damage to my bike was catastrophic, with everything being needed to rectify the problem.

You and your boss seem to ignore this and only post what's happening when you are called on this. How about letting everybody know what's going on with your production. Norton owners have a basic right to know what is going on and that it is safe to put your parts into their bikes. You have let the posts on this fall into the distant past, in the hope that everybody will forget what happened, which, to my mind, is a very poor attempt to control the fallout from your lack of quality control.

After all, who, within AN is responsible for quality control? Oh, that would be the nearest thing to an engineer that you have. Which would be YOU, wouldn't it?
 
edgefinder said:
Come on Ken, not everbodys an over achiever like you getting a major part reproduced. It hard finding enthusiastic take care of business develop a process and keep it going machinist these days. Didn't you have the same problem? 9 shops wont do the work that 30 years ago most shops would have been happy to do.
Click to expand...

So, you don't care about the quality of parts in your motor? Good luck with that.
 
Ken Stellite Delchrome C is on the drawing and has been since the late 50's, I read the drawing in 2015, so I did not just find out about it two weeks ago, and my previous posts in other threads saying that it has always been Delchrome makes you out to look stupid in your response to suggest I only found out 2 weeks ago. The way you read into things is like you are on a different planet. Stellite was the company that the Delchrome C was bought from - can you not see this. If you think it is stellite, then that is so easily determined, even your engine builders chemistry report said 'Ferrous' not Cobalt, why not spend the rest of your pent up frustration proving me wrong to try and find one that has Cobalt in it, and not a refaced one at that.

As for quality control, your heads were not great, the porting works well, but that is about it, some of the issue I have spotted have spotted by others as well. I will not discuss the failings as we may end up in competition with STS, or did you forget to tell them we had a quote done like you did to Bushell, but seeing as you were a supplier at the time we decided to not enter into competition with you and just accept the numbers that we were going to get delivered, not the numbers we ordered. We are waiting to see what STS produce and at what cost. Having read this, no doubt STS will ring me next week, they have my number as they have rang me in the past prior to buying your patterns about gears. Something tells me they will not be happy.

I gained my qualifications in the Royal Navy as an weapon engineering artificer, these qualifications directly relate to the RAN as many RN engineers I know have ended up there. Also some none engineering qualifications ones as well, small arms armourer, weapon instructor, range supervisor and Ships Command protection adviser as well, from what I have seen on the web you may relate to some of these qualifications as well. And if you wish to challenge my engineering qualification I have told you how to do so through the globally recognised Engineering Council of the UK.

With the inventory we have and just me to resolve issues it is a huge task and not one that could be easily undone after years of changes by some that did not think to check the mating part / parts. Even some of the drawings from 1974/5 are not correct, a period of no money, drawings were changed and the parts never made from them at the time.

Considering you have the attitude of someone who is always right, one day you might just contribute something useful to this forum, instead of being so negative, no wonder you gave up so easily on your cylinder head and sold it, or did the failings of it dawn on you.
 
Madnorton said:
Ken Stellite Delchrome C is on the drawing and has been since the late 50's, I read the drawing in 2015, so I did not just find out about it two weeks ago, and my previous posts in other threads saying that it has always been Delchrome makes you out to look stupid in your response to suggest I only found out 2 weeks ago. The way you read into things is like you are on a different planet. Stellite was the company that the Delchrome C was bought from - can you not see this. If you think it is stellite, then that is so easily determined, even your engine builders chemistry report said 'Ferrous' not Cobalt, why not spend the rest of your pent up frustration proving me wrong to try and find one that has Cobalt in it, and not a refaced one at that.

As for quality control, your heads were not great, the porting works well, but that is about it, some of the issue I have spotted have spotted by others as well. I will not discuss the failings as we may end up in competition with STS, or did you forget to tell them we had a quote done like you did to Bushell, but seeing as you were a supplier at the time we decided to not enter into competition with you and just accept the numbers that we were going to get delivered, not the numbers we ordered. We are waiting to see what STS produce and at what cost. Having read this, no doubt STS will ring me next week, they have my number as they have rang me in the past prior to buying your patterns about gears. Something tells me they will not be happy.

I gained my qualifications in the Royal Navy as an weapon engineering artificer, these qualifications directly relate to the RAN as many RN engineers I know have ended up there. Also some none engineering qualifications ones as well, small arms armourer, weapon instructor, range supervisor and Ships Command protection adviser as well, from what I have seen on the web you may relate to some of these qualifications as well. And if you wish to challenge my engineering qualification I have told you how to do so through the globally recognised Engineering Council of the UK.

With the inventory we have and just me to resolve issues it is a huge task and not one that could be easily undone after years of changes by some that did not think to check the mating part / parts. Even some of the drawings from 1974/5 are not correct, a period of no money, drawings were changed and the parts never made from them at the time.

Considering you have the attitude of someone who is always right, one day you might just contribute something useful to this forum, instead of being so negative, no wonder you gave up so easily on your cylinder head and sold it, or did the failings of it dawn on you.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that, in amongst your bullshit, that I will put my reputation for providing a quality product against yours ANYDAY. Why is it that you keep referring to your Delchrome story in every post and say that I am the denier. I only quote your posts when I reply and I request that anybody who follows this to go back over your posts in this thread and the other two threads regarding my and Jim Comstock's failures of your crap followers to see who is inconsistent in their claims.
I'm sure that John is happy with what he has purchased. Sounds like sour grapes to me. If you and your boss, hadn't been such arseholes, you could have bought everything and showed the world what quality heads you could produce. The fact that Mr Bushell had his laughable bid in for the goods was not worth mentioning, considering his reputation in the field of British bikes. In fact, I suspected some collusion over that little waste of time. Nothing concrete, but it smelled a lot from where I stood.

But, I guess I have the attitude of someone who is always right. Not like you at all. Humble to a fault.
 
Thinking about it, how DID you know about Mr Bushell's involvement in this. Nobody at my end even knew he'd put his feelers out except me and a couple of trusted friends. If you spent as much time on quality control as you did on ducking, diving and forgetting the lies you tell, you could probably get a handle on your quality control issues. No, on second thoughts, probably not.
 
This arsehole is not telling - ask him if you can contact him. And yes, I also smelt a rat, there always is with Bushell, he used to deal with someone up in the midlands, but even that has now fallen over I believe. I know how he operated, not a method I would get involved with.
 
Was in to borrow head tooling from my friend Dan Smith last week.
By chance he mentioned the 5 -6 RC cam to follower difference.
About twenty five years ago and using that guideline, he had cams made for his Shadow. Cams at 62 RC and followers at 57.
For some reason that setup ate itself in 10,000 miles. So much for the 5 RC difference rule, or old wives tale as he refers to it.
Nowadays we're just using the same stellite on cams and followers, supplied by Gary Robinson of the UK.
Premature wear has not been a problem, lots of very high mileages have been done.


Glen
 
Last edited:
worntorn said:
Was in to borrow head tooling from my friend Dan Smith last week.
By chance he mentioned the 5 -6 RC cam to follower difference.
About twenty five years ago and using that guideline, he had cams made for his Shadow. Cams at 62 RC and followers at 57.
For some reason that setup ate itself in 10,000 miles. So much for the 5 RC difference rule, or old wives tale as he refers to it.
Nowadays we're just using the same stellite on cams and followers, supplied by Gary Robinson of the UK.
Premature wear has not been a problem, lots of very high mileages have been done.


Glen
Click to expand...

I would expect Norton cam and follower failure with a cam at 62 and a follower at 57. I have collected quite a few like that.

I shoot for a cam at 58 to 62 and a follower 3 to 6 points harder. Jim
 
Last edited:
Here are testimonials from some using the 62/62 Robinson setup.
I know most of these fellows, the numbers are real.
Different engine and valve geometry from the Norton, but I think the 5 RC rule is a general rule for pushrod engines?

 
worntorn said:
Here are testimonials from some using the 62/62 Robinson setup.
I know most of these fellows, the numbers are real.
Different engine and valve geometry from the Norton, but I think the 5 RC rule is a general rule for pushrod engines?

Click to expand...


I suspect the Vincent motors are a little easier on the cams than a Norton motor although I don't have any experience with Vincents.

I have gone through my used Norton cams and followers.

In almost every case the failed lobe was running a follower that was considerably softer than the cam and the best looking lobes had a follower that was harder than the cam.
 
Fullauto said:
Have them and the cam you are going to use hardness tested before you use them. And then you probably won't use them.
Click to expand...

Hardness is probably not a reliable measure of wear characteristics. If you want to cut something which is very hard, you often find a soft wheel cuts faster than a hard one, but also wears faster. With cams and followers, it also probably also depends on which oil is used. What you are relying on is the knowledge of the person who specified the material for the after-market items. With Norton, the designers probably had a lot of experience to help their judgements when choosing materials. The trouble is that what materials were available back then, might not be available now.
 
Bearing materials have a property called 'embedability' which is their capability to absorb hard particles circulating in the oil within their surface and still present the bearing material and not the hard particles to the journal. Once this embedibility is breached the hard particles become the effective running surface and this then wears the journal, an example of a bearing material with excellent embedibility is whitemetal, I doubt whether stellite has much embedability so will load up with hard material quickly.
 
comnoz said:
I would expect Norton cam and follower failure with a cam at 62 and a follower at 57. I have collected quite a few like that.

I shoot for a cam at 58 to 62 and a follower 3 to 6 points harder. Jim
Click to expand...


When it read 62-65 RC cam you had me kerfuffled :)
If my memory is correct you found most of the Webcams around 55 RC or so?
I was thinking this is why the lifters should be 58 or better as going the other way would be too low for lifter hardness.

Some seem to say that hardness difference is needed, but it doesn't much matter which part is the harder as long as it's there and both parts are hard enough.
So perhaps if the Norton cams were harder, a lower value lifter might work?


Then there is the crowd that says it doesn't matter , use same stellite for both ( Robinson)




Anyway, I have a 64 RC cam 58 RC follower and very bumpy cam in the 1360 and not much of an oil pump.
It will be interesting to see if it lasts!
So far it is just starting to shine up nicely, but still low miles.

Everything is getting BelRay oil from now on, should last forever!

Glen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top