Vincent 1360

Hi CJ
Yes, the collector did come from Cone Engineering, as did the megaphone. The 2" ubends came from another company, can't remember their name at the moment.
I did modify the collector quite a bit, but it was a good starting point. I added slip fit rings to the collector so that it is a rubber mallet tap fit into the headers. A stainless spring on the inside face holds the collector into the header pipes, though the fit is tight enough that it likely is not needed.
With the collector removed the pipes are easy to get on and off individually. With the collector left on the pipes can still be taken on and off (didn't expect that) but it is a bit tricky to get things lined up.

Glen
 
Excellent thread Glen, Lots of work to take photos, crop as needed, post to host and then post here with great documentation.
 
worntorn said:
Continuing on the next day, the slide hammer was used to move the spindles in or out a few thousandths until all were +- .002 the
.424" mark. The tools for measuring this distance were a section of 3/8" precision ground square stock and feeler gauges. The square stock is used as a straight edge across the crankcases timing case joint face, the feeler guages to measure between the top of the straight edge and the underside of a washer tightened down on each spindle shoulder.
Click to expand...

Glen, Were these spindles actually movable with slide hammer at ambient temps? I need to replace a front cam spindle (currently .501 and going to a .503) and also the follower spindle directly to the rear of this front cam (have not removed). I am replacing oil pump at this time as well.
 

Attachments

  • Vincent 1360
    20140215_SpindleMove1.jpg
    119.9 KB · Views: 792
Yes, they moved a few thou at room temps using a specially made slide hammer, a fairly easy tool to make up.
For the amount you plan to move, I would use heat on the cases. You could do it one at a time using a torch just on the case area around the spindle being worked. The slide hammer will still be needed even if heat is used, but with heat you can move the spindle with gentle taps rather than a major effort that could mess up the interference fit.

Glen
 
Thanks, I did make up a 5/16 BSF slide hammer tool and it was very useful both for spindles and oil pump sleeve. Spindles replaced, oil pump replaced.
 

Attachments

  • Vincent 1360
    20150419_newSpindles.jpg
    186.4 KB · Views: 753
john robert bould said:
I want to see your top speed. not on salt! Just down the high way!
Click to expand...

The goal last year was to get the big engine together, installed and running. That was accomplished but then the bike was put aside until last week.
It has about 500 miles on it now, so the rev limiter is set for break in at 5000 revs Max, which is 122 MPH in fifth gear. Once it reaches 1500 miles or so I'll reset the rev limiter for 6800, which I am confident it will pull.

I had it out last night on a lonely stretch. Running at 85 mph in fifth I opened it up. It took off like my Commando does in second at fifty. Just before it hit the rev limiter a second power kick came in, very strong.
Top speed will be more than enough!

Glen
 
Glenn , Thank you , this thread is full of info.
I have a Pazon to install on a Vincent twin and wondered if you have photo of the Pazon modules you installed on this project. It looks like you put them or it under the front mag cover.
Vincent 1360
 
I don't have any photos of it, but yes the ignition module (just one on mine) is under the front cowl. The coils are under the seat.
Pazons instructions advise to keep the module well away from the ignition coils and also the high tension leads.
The ignition fitted is Pazon's high draw setup with two drivers for high compression/racing/alcohol twin plug engines. For Vincent twins they also offer a road going lower draw two plug setup and a single plug setup. I was surprised at the number of Vincent ignition choices offered by them.
I wanted the spark to be as hot as possible to aid with starting, since it is a difficult beast to kick over.
Glen
 
worntorn said:
I don't have any photos of it, but yes the ignition module (just one on mine) is under the front cowl. The coils are under the seat. Pazons instructions advise to keep the module well away from the ignition coils and also the high tension leads. The ignition fitted is Pazon's high draw setup with two drivers for high compression/racing/alcohol twin plug engines. For Vincent twins they also offer a road going lower draw two plug setup and a single plug setup. I was surprised at the number of Vincent ignition choices offered by them. I wanted the spark to be as hot as possible to aid with starting, since it is a difficult beast to kick over. Glen
Click to expand...

Thank you, I did get the module to fit under the front cowl. Mounting Pazon module to clear cowl cover was easier than I thought. I don't have a right front stand, so a hole was available. This leaves a big volume, under the front mag cowl cover, for mounting the hi tension coil........but you are correct in stating what Pazon advises.............mount coil away from......but I am not happy with the Vincent look for this remote coil , at this time anyway......
Gotta go find an ignition switch, and not sure I will like the look of the switch as well, life is tough.
 

Attachments

  • Vincent 1360
    20151007_PazonModuleFit1.jpg
    296.4 KB · Views: 939
worntorn said:
john robert bould said:
I want to see your top speed. not on salt! Just down the high way!
Click to expand...

The goal last year was to get the big engine together, installed and running. That was accomplished but then the bike was put aside until last week.
It has about 500 miles on it now, so the rev limiter is set for break in at 5000 revs Max, which is 122 MPH in fifth gear. Once it reaches 1500 miles or so I'll reset the rev limiter for 6800, which I am confident it will pull.

I had it out last night on a lonely stretch. Running at 85 mph in fifth I opened it up. It took off like my Commando does in second at fifty. Just before it hit the rev limiter a second power kick came in, very strong.
Top speed will be more than enough!

Glen
Click to expand...
Glen - I think very highly of your building/fabricating skills and the end product is simply extraordinary. But do you think it is extraordinary to the point of going 165 mph? I'm not betting for or against, just acknowledging that 165 mph is quite a noteworthy feat for vintage iron to accomplish.


Vincent 1360
 
A standard new 1949 998cc Black Shadow was officially clocked at 128 MPH by a French motorcycle magazine. About the same time the English publication "Motorcycle" got their test Shadow to 123 MPH , timed run.
This engine should make roughly double the horsepower that those Shadows made and the bike is 110 pounds lighter. So I'm not sure what to expect, but obviously a lot more than 128.
Roy Robertson has a 1272 Egli that holds a UK speed record at 160 + MPH. Roy knows what is in my 1360 and thinks it could break his record.
When the rev limiter cuts it off at 5000 rpm and 122 MPH, it is just nicely starting in the big power band and really pulling hard.

I don't know what the top speed will be, but I wish I could make a run for John. I don't have anywhere to run safely at that speed and really should not have done the 122 MPH run. I just wanted to see how easily it would run up to where I have the limiter set for break in. It took roughly 10 seconds from standstill.

Here is Mal Hewitt doing 162 MPH at Bonneville, mostly the same components as I'm running and same displacement but Mal's bike is quite a lot heavier. Also the heads are an older iteration from Terry. The newer heads which are on my 1360 incorporate some of Steve Hamels ideas (158 MPH on gas with 998 CC,Vincent)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ibMu1dBf894

Glen
 
worntorn said:
A standard new 1949 998cc Black Shadow was officially clocked at 128 MPH by a French motorcycle magazine. About the same time the English publication "Motorcycle" got their test Shadow to 123 MPH , timed run.
This engine should make roughly double the horsepower that those Shadows made and the bike is 110 pounds lighter. So I'm not sure what to expect, but obviously a lot more than 128.
Roy Robertson has a 1272 Egli that holds a UK speed record at 160 + MPH. Roy knows what is in my 1360 and thinks it could break his record.
When the rev limiter cuts it off at 5000 rpm and 122 MPH, it is just nicely starting in the big power band and really pulling hard.

I don't know what the top speed will be, but I wish I could make a run for John. I don't have anywhere to run safely at that speed and really should not have done the 122 MPH run. I just wanted to see how easily it would run up to where I have the limiter set for break in. It took roughly 10 seconds from standstill.

Here is Mal Hewitt doing 162 MPH at Bonneville, mostly the same components as I'm running and same displacement but Mal's bike is quite a lot heavier. Also the heads are an older iteration from Terry. The newer heads which are on my 1360 incorporate some of Steve Hamels ideas (158 MPH on gas with 998 CC,Vincent)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ibMu1dBf894

Glen
Click to expand...

Hi Glen,

It seems to me, that in the name of science, you simply must try it out and let us all know. Actually, I think it might be some kind of crime to put all that work into a machine like that and then NOT do so. Heck, if you're too chicken, I'll buy a plane ticket and come and do it myself (note: deliberate attempt to spur you into action)!

BTW, don't forget that weight has comparatively little effect on top speed, but a huge effect on acceleration. Aerodynamics being the opposite.

The effect of aerodynamics increases exponentially with increased speed.

As does the requirement for BHP. I remember reading somewhere the formula for BHP requirement vs speed increase, but can't remember where!

Balancing the argument is the fact that generally speaking, the vast majority of factories rather exaggerated their BHP claims, so the true baseline BHP for the given top speed is lower than most people realise. It still surprises me these days when you hear a classic owner say something like "well my Bonnie was over 50bhp as stock, so with my blah, blah additions it must be over 60bhp now. Utter rubbish!
 
Nigel, the main problem here is finding a place to legally run at high speed. We had a track with a fairly short straight(Westwood) however that is now a housing subdivision.
There is a quarter mile track at Mission BC and I intend to do some 1/4 mile runs there to see how it does over that distance.
Weight does effect top speed to some degree, mainly thru tire/ground friction, especially on a salt flat, but also on asphalt.
Try a top speed run two up with your Commando, I think you will drop several MPH even though frontal area remains the same.


Glen
 
worntorn said:
Nigel, the main problem here is finding a place to legally run at high speed. We had a track with a fairly short straight(Westwood) however that is now a housing subdivision.
There is a quarter mile track at Mission BC and I intend to do some 1/4 mile runs there to see how it does over that distance.
Weight does effect top speed to some degree, mainly thru tire/ground friction, especially on a salt flat, but also on asphalt.
Try a top speed run two up with your Commando, I think you will drop several MPH even though frontal area remains the same.


Glen
Click to expand...

Them there Corbin seats aren't really made for two-up top speed runs Glen! But I get your point. You're just gonna have to find a nice stretch of road, check for cops, and find out once and for all...!
 
Fast Eddie said:
The effect of aerodynamics increases exponentially with increased speed.
As does the requirement for BHP. I remember reading somewhere the formula for BHP requirement vs speed increase, but can't remember where!
Click to expand...
The exponent for estimating the relationship of speed change to HP required to reach the new speed is 3. For example, you can now go 75 mph, and you want to know how much HP would be required to go 100 mph. The speed change is 1.33 (100/75 = 1.33). Then cube 1.33 and the result is the factor to multiply the original HP by to estimate the new HP requirement. So, 1.33^3 = 2.35, so you would need 2.35X the original HP to increase speed from 75 to 100 mph.

Using the above relationship I made a small table below to show examples of how much power increase is required to move in 15 mph increments up from 120 mph. Since a starting HP datum is required to estimate the new HP requirement at each increment, I arbitrarily assigned the 120 mph speed to a 50 HP vehicle. The results look reasonable to me and dovetail well with some Bonneville HP and speed results I know of. As always, interested to hear of others experience to see if they resonate well with the stated relationship (the math, not the absolute speed/HP numbers) or are in conflict with it.

Vincent 1360
 
There is an ongoing discussion in "Other Nortons" titled "Speed Anomaly" in which it is noted that four valve Molnar Manx Nortons are making more horsepower on dyno but less speed than two valve Manxes.
The interesting thing for me has always been how fast the short stroke Manx Nortons are with just about 50 HP. They have been time at 140 MPH and above many times over the years.
So I'm not sure about your chart.
Probably the best answer regarding the top speed of my Project bike, short of taking it to Bonneville, is the result Mal Hewitt had (162 MPH) at Bonneville. Mal's bike has an almost identical engine to mine, but is a substantially heavier bike and also has an older less developed version of the Prince heads. I'm pretty sure he has the same cams, pistons,crank and so on.
More speed would also come with a sea level run on asphalt , if that were possible. But 162 was good enough for the record.

Glen
 
worntorn said:
The interesting thing for me has always been how fast the short stroke Manx Nortons are with just about 50 HP. They have been time at 140 MPH and above many times over the years.
So I'm not sure about your chart.

Glen
Click to expand...
Glen,

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. My attempt to explain the 50 HP datum as arbitrarily assigned, and for the purpose of example only, was evidently not successful. Nor was my comment about …. "the math, not the absolute speed/HP numbers".

To your point, depending on the motorcycle configuration, ranging from a hog on one end of the spectrum to a streamliner on the other, a 50 hp bike might go 80 mph or it might go 180 mph. The point of the table was simply to show the relationship between speed increase and power required to achieve the given speed increase for some generic vehicle. Regardless of the starting HP, the table column titled "HP Increase Factor" remains constant and indicates how much more HP is required to achieve the given speeds.

I redid the table to include several HP datums - 20, 30, 40 and 50 HP. Hopefully you'll find something there that sits better with you, and I pray that I'm clarifying rather than further clouding the discussion.

Vincent 1360
 
No worries, I should have worded my response differently.
I'm not sure about your chart or really any chart because of strange occurances like half century old designs managing 140 MPH on such limited HP.
It must come down to slipperyness of the design that drops the HP/speed number so low for the Manx or for the Matchless G50, but bikes like these do confound.
There was a discussion on the SV 650 forum awhile ago that dealt with this. At a US track, a cluster of Manx Nortons including some original bikes , were run together with SV 650s modified for racing. The SVs had 75 HP or better and modern farings but could not stay with the Manxes in the corners nor on the straights!
Some of the faster SVs could approach 140 MPH in the straights but still had the Manxes pulling away.
One rider reported "All we saw and heard all weekend were those bloody booming megaphone exhausts" :mrgreen:

Using your chart the Manx Norton would sit somewhere between the 30 and 40 HP datums, if we consider it manages just about 140 MPH on 50 HP. This seems to fit rather well given that the 350 CC version produces 35 or so HP and manages about 120 MPH.

Glen
 
Yes, the coefficient of drag (slipperiness) is everything. As I've watched Bonneville contestants over the years it is common to see them move their speed up with HP increases, but after realizing incremental improvements via engine modifications, it becomes obvious that reducing drag pays very significant dividends.

Another data point that fits in perfectly with your observations and also fits the half century old design criteria would be the flathead Harley KR 750 cc that ran in the 140-150 mph range at Daytona circa 1968 on ~ 50 HP. The highest HP number I've ever seen quoted for a KR was ~ 52 HP, so they were right in that ballpark. The Daytona bikes were well faired and wind tunnel testing confirmed that the factory KR fairing was extremely good to begin with and was modified to it's zenith for the 1968-1969 races.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top