The Sportster and Buell Motorcycle Forum - The XLFORUM®

The Sportster and Buell Motorcycle Forum - The XLFORUM® (http://xlforum.net/forums/index.php)
-   Ironhead Sportster Motorcycle Talk (1957-1985) (http://xlforum.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Ironhead Shovster build take2 (http://xlforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2077210)

billeuze 12th July 2020 07:50

Shovster build take2
 
Some of you may remember that I started building a shovster a little over 10 years ago:
http://xlforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=682824 and
http://xlforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=867879...

And that project has been mothballed for over 9 years now while circumstances had me moving from city to city, sometimes starting to set up a shop only to move again before I could get started working on it. Finally It looks now like we are settled and I have built a shop and slowly started to unpack and get re-acquainted with this project.

Actually last year, even before I had my shop finished I was already planning getting started. At that point I had some spare cash and decided to order a new set of flywheels. There were a couple of reasons. At this point my compression ratio is quite low (I'd have to get out my notes and measurements to check what exactly, but its somewhere around 8/1. Moving up to 4-5/8 wheels from my current 4-1/2 would be one way to accomplish this. Plus that would increase my displacement yet a little more which can't hurt. And I had struggled to true my current wheels and just had not got the close enough yet. So I shipped my crankshafts, crankpin, shafts, etc to Truett and Osborne to have them assemble the whole thing for me, ready to insert in my cases.

After some phone calls with T&O to sort out the details, and a little wait, one day a package arrived for me while I was at work. The box looked pretty beat up. They had assured me they would package it so it would arrive safely but this didn't look very good. Had I been there to accept the package, I probably would have refused it or at least taken photos and had them sign for and acknowledge the condition so I had some recourse if turned out to be damaged inside, But My wife had already accepted it and paid the extra they charge. Here in Canada, even if a shipment from the US is supposedly fully paid, we still have to pay another $100 or so (for customs brokerage, duty and taxes and whatnot) directly to the driver before they hand it over to us.

I unpacked and found the styrofoam that the flywheel assembly was packed in was completely smashed up on one end. At that point in time I was not setup in my shop to measure this new assembly for trueness. Once I removed the broken styrofoam, the rotating assembly sure looked good, and I really hoped it was still true. But I feared it wasn't. Now if I had been in the US, I would have shipped it straight back to T&O and have them recheck it for true and ship it back to me. But shipping it back and forth again from Canada would have cost me a few hundred more dollars, so I just hoped it was still true

It wasn't. I don't remember exactly how much it was out but I think it was .003" which is outside of specs. Anyway it wasn't till months later when I got my wheel truing stand out and was able to check them:
https://i.ibb.co/x5DSS4H/T-Owheels.jpg

By this time it was really too late to try make a claim with the shipping company. And I didn't have the cash to ship them back and forth so I took them apart to work at it myself. Now the wheel truing stand I have is not really the right tool for the job, but it can be adapted to work. It needs a bit of bracing to stiffen it. Here it is re-arranged to measure if the pinion shaft is true perpendicular to the flywheel. It wasn't and took a lot of wrangling to get it true:
https://i.ibb.co/0cQwsx7/Wheel-True-Pinion.jpg

And this is how I set it up to check for trueness of the crankpin:
https://i.ibb.co/cvhFYSQ/Weel-True-Final.jpg
measuring the way they describe in the service manual I couldn't easily tell which side of the crank ping needed adjusting in or out. Like this I could tell. It took me a few weekends just to figure out how to set this up and use the dial gauges accurately. The crank side, I really only had one option to position it as shown, so I use the same angle on the pinion side and placed the indicator the same distance away from the roller bearing as on the crank side.

It took a few weekends to get the knack of measuring and then how much to clamp or wedge in order to adjust it, getting closer all the time. At one point, I took the wheels off the stand and placed it on the bench and turned my back to do something else. I heard a sickening thud. I knew what it meant but was afraid to look. Finally I did look and found my flywheel assmbly lying on the concrete floor. when I measured, as expected, it was WAY out of true. I expected this meant my wheels where damaged beyond use. Nonetheless I spent the next few weekends trying to coax them back into true. But alas, they are good for nothing but paperweights now.

So, armed with many weekends of learning how to do it, I got out my S&S 4-1/2" wheels that I had previously given up on, and started over with them. Then it was many more weekends to get them trued to less than .001" on each side.

How many weekends it took exactly, I didn't keep track of but it was many. I finally got it. Theoretically the stand configured as above should work. But I had to be sure so I reconfigured it to measure as per the service manual. I was really expecting it to measure the same, but I couldn't know for sure until I tried. And yes, there it is. I finally have a trued set of flywheels ready to insert into my cases: https://youtu.be/NkuWtNGn4lA

Now that i'm into the 2nd take of this project, I'll keep posting my progress to this new thread...

Ferrous Head 12th July 2020 14:30

Sorry to hear all of that.

I am surprised. I had them build a complete stroker engine for me and had it shipped out here to Australia.

No problems at all.

There probably isn't a better way to store/ship a set of flywheels than installed in a set of cases. I think if I was getting them to set up rotating assembles for me I would just send them the cases and what parts I wanted them to use.
They know how to do this work.

I actually sent them an engine stand an had them bolt that into a crate.

I'm never happy about moving cranks around outside of serious support.

But what would a project be without some drama's ?

Things can only get better.

IronMick 12th July 2020 15:41

Hey Bill, welcome back! Hope it all goes well from here :)

billeuze 12th July 2020 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferrous Head (Post 5836239)
Sorry to hear all of that.

I am surprised. I had them build a complete stroker engine for me and had it shipped out here to Australia.

No problems at all.

There probably isn't a better way to store/ship a set of flywheels than installed in a set of cases. I think if I was getting them to set up rotating assembles for me I would just send them the cases and what parts I wanted them to use.
They know how to do this work.

I actually sent them an engine stand an had them bolt that into a crate.

I'm never happy about moving cranks around outside of serious support.

But what would a project be without some drama's ?

Things can only get better.

Send them the cases, of course, that's a great idea, why didn't I think of it?

Of course in retrospect it is easy to think of these things. Like to put a curb on the edge of your bench to stop heavy, round, delicate, off-balance assemblies from rolling off the edge. But sending them the cases, sure that's got to be the best way to transport them.

Frankly I was surprised that what they used was a shaped styrofoam block in a cardboard box.

And yes, a little drama is part of the fun!

ryder rick 12th July 2020 17:54

I have received packages from UPS with tire marks on the box.

You know they hired the American Tourister gorilla to sort packages?

You simply can't ship anything sensitive without killer packing, and never wait to open a package that won't be used right away. (Bill now knows this one the hard way).

I have had insurance save me more than once, not counting the hassles to get paid.

And beware of sellers poor packaging, I have received, fuel tanks with the petcock sticking out a hole in the box (an idiot with no packing skills), another that comes to mind was a pair of wheels with rotors that were stacked on top of each other in the same box with no separator or padding. (a pissed seller giving me the finger for a low bid win)

rokytnji 12th July 2020 18:09

Yeah. Luck of draw on shipping lately.

I don't consider it truett & osbornes fault. Generation what ever is being paid nothing to work in this heat. Steel in box. Too Heavy. Let's stack the whole lot on top. You might probably do the same at their age.

Looks like you got a handle on it and only adjustments are needed. No scored parts. Like the truing stand.
I will be giving truett & osborne some business later this winter on 2 ironhead bottom ends I have.

Ferrous Head 12th July 2020 22:52

Been a while since I had one from them but I think S&S rotating assemblies come the same way. Heavy cardboard box, Styrofoam.
First job out of school I was a store-man and packer. We sold steel ball valves, big ones and glass tubing.
I soon learned that if I marked the boxes with glass tubing "FRAGILE" the transport guys would kick them around like a football. I started marking them as "Steel Castings" and the breakages stopped.

The Post Office people aren't all that happy about heaving very heavy boxes around. The prefer small letters. I think they sometimes show their displeasure to the package.

If you lived in Witchata it wouldn't have been a problem.

But maybe CJ needs to re-think their shipping arrangements. At the very least I hope you notified them ?

If you EVER get a chance to visit the shop - take it. It's a real eye opener.

Maxeffort 12th July 2020 23:26

Delivery

RicThompson 13th July 2020 17:00

Sorry to hear about the shabby shipping. I purchased a used set of S&S 4 and 5/8's flywheels off of Ebay for my bike. It was actually the entire rotating assembly. It has polished stock rods. I was concerned when I received it because the cardboard box didn't hardly look large enough to contain it. To my surprise it checked out fine. Rods felt good, piston pin bushings looked almost new, pin fit nice. Called S&S and asked about them, they had been manufactured in 1984, no special mods. Bike is absolute blast to ride.

wedge 13th July 2020 18:13

So, doesn't this crank lower the compression again?

Maxeffort 13th July 2020 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by wedge (Post 5836401)
So, doesn't this crank lower the compression again?

I read it as going to a longer stroke

The longer the stroke, the more compression (assuming chamber size, bore, piston dome, etc.. stay the same)

billeuze 13th July 2020 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by wedge (Post 5836401)
So, doesn't this crank lower the compression again?

Yes, I’ll have to deal with that by milling the heads and/or the cylinders

billeuze 13th July 2020 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxeffort (Post 5836407)
I read it as going to a longer stroke

The longer the stroke, the more compression (assuming chamber size, bore, piston dome, etc.. stay the same)

The bigger t&o wheels I purchased would have increased the stroke and compression. But I broke them do I am back to my s&s 4-1/2” wheels.

davixlrtt 13th July 2020 19:55

Bill, I know that the crank assembly fell from the bench, but what part about it has actually been damaged enough to render the wheels useless?
........Davi.

billeuze 13th July 2020 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitabel (Post 5836420)
Where is your quench clearance?

I don't have my notes with me. But that will be dealt with and accounted for at the same time as milling the heads to increase compression ratio

Quote:

I've no contact with one of these engines, the throttle response must be great with the small OD (7-7/16" vs. 8-1/2") and light weight (20 lbs? vs. 25 for S&S BT).
I hope so, we'll see...

wedge 13th July 2020 21:05

Davi asked my next question. I'm not even involved and this is driving me nuts. I have been in your place once and it just drains the blood from your brain. In my case the wife and I were installing a very expensive redwood sign that was already attached to the posts. We leaned it against a tree for me to take a quick survey of the holes to be sure we were ready and I heard that same sickening sound as it hit the ground after a gust of wind knocked it over. Split the face into a few pieces, so we loaded it back into the truck and went straight into making another one.

In your case, I think we all want for you to find a solution that has you using the new wheels.

billeuze 13th July 2020 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by davixlrtt (Post 5836422)
Bill, I know that the crank assembly fell from the bench, but what part about it has actually been damaged enough to render the wheels useless?
........Davi.

Good question. Maybe they do still have a use.

I cannot get the crankpin anywhere close to true on them anymore. I can force it to true but then as soon as I apply more torque it goes way out of true again. I don't remember how much they are out but it is definitely closer to .01" than .001"

So what has been damaged? I think the tapers. I assume that with the momentum of the assembly landing on the floor, something had to give, or break, or bounce. So with the hard steel crankpin in relatively softer cast iron flywheel tapers, it is the cast iron that gave, deformed. I also assume that if we tried to correct the taper by re-machining that would make the taper bigger so the crank would go in deeper pinching the connecting rods.

If anyone knows otherwise or would have a use for these "damaged" flywheels, let me know.

needspeed 13th July 2020 22:52

Diameter of stock sportster flywheels = 7-7/8"

brucstoudt 13th July 2020 23:25

good looking video bill.when i was taught to check flywheels it was to hold the rods across your fingers in an open hand and turn the flywheel assy with your opposite hand.doe's anyone else do it that way?

Ferrous Head 13th July 2020 23:51

Paperweights ?

If it helps any, with the 4.5 inch wheels you don't actually have to move the oil holes.

And in theory the shorter stroke will allow higher revs which the Shovel Heads will be able to feed.
You should probably always skim alloy heads in any case so not really any extra cost there.

With the alloy heads you can up the compression more than you can with the cast iron Sportster version.

How much to take off ?

Dunno about that with Shovel heads. I would do a dry assembly and do a measure. Your also going to need to cc the combustion chamber to get a ball park figure.

It's not going to be "Super" critical either way. Too little of and you wind up with less compression than is optimal which you can correct by skimming again.
Too much can be alleviated by running thicker head gaskets.

The real go would be to try for some quench area. Then accept whatever clearance is required for that.

RicThompson 15th July 2020 00:14

You killed a set of 4 and 5/8's flywheels? AAAHH. A moment of silence please.

billeuze 15th July 2020 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferrous Head (Post 5836465)
Paperweights ?

If it helps any, with the 4.5 inch wheels you don't actually have to move the oil holes.

Ha, no doesn't help as I have no oil holes in my shovster cylinders, I'll have to use external oil returns
Quote:

And in theory the shorter stroke will allow higher revs which the Shovel Heads will be able to feed.
You should probably always skim alloy heads in any case so not really any extra cost there.

With the alloy heads you can up the compression more than you can with the cast iron Sportster version.

How much to take off ?

Dunno about that with Shovel heads. I would do a dry assembly and do a measure. Your also going to need to cc the combustion chamber to get a ball park figure.

It's not going to be "Super" critical either way. Too little of and you wind up with less compression than is optimal which you can correct by skimming again.
Too much can be alleviated by running thicker head gaskets.

The real go would be to try for some quench area. Then accept whatever clearance is required for that.

billeuze 15th July 2020 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitabel (Post 5836479)
Diameter of stock sportster flywheels = 7-7/8"

Were you going to re-clock the rocker arms?

I don't know, what does that mean?

billeuze 15th July 2020 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by RicThompson (Post 5836665)
You killed a set of 4 and 5/8's flywheels? AAAHH. A moment of silence please.

Yes, the poor buggers ended their useful life far too early, sigh!

gobowept 15th July 2020 16:41

Flywheels
 
I've had a bad experience order car accessories from eBay. The quality was just so poor.

billeuze 16th July 2020 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitabel (Post 5836849)
The RPM difference between 4-1/2" and 4-5/8" at the same level of inertial (tension) stress isn't 4.500 ÷ 4.626 (2.7%). It's its square root, or 1.4%.

The shovel rocker arms all "point" at a central cam core (as do all single-cam pushrod engines), each base circle and lobe occupy the same position. The Sportster cams are in 4 different places (as are all 4-cam engines), and are now at the wrong angle for proper rocker arm geometry.
This is not an adjustment, it requires surgery, specifically cutting one lever (usually the pushrod end) off the rocker shaft and re-orienting it to point to its cam lobe, and welding it up.
All 4 rockers should be modified, resulting in 2 different mirror-image angles: intakes will have a smaller correction than exhausts, and front & rear cylinders will be opposites. Baisley has probably done this.

Hmm, No that job was not on my radar. would it not run OK without said surgery? It is not a race engine. I see what you mean, the angle would be off by a few degrees, exhaust worse than intakes. But even so the pushrod end fits in a socket and should not pop out. And its not perfect anyway, the pushrod goes up and down while the rocker rotates on an arc and the vector of the "push" changes as the rocker rotates back and forth. But yes, the starting point of the "push" would be a bit inward from the ideal starting angle, and the angle when the valve is fully open would probably be better.

rokytnji 16th July 2020 02:51

Probably somebody who built and owns a shovster without the mod would be the best answer.

Probably rare as hens teeth.

Ferrous Head 16th July 2020 03:01

Quote:

The RPM difference between 4-1/2" and 4-5/8" at the same level of inertial (tension) stress isn't 4.500 ÷ 4.626 (2.7%). It's its square root, or 1.4%
Granted, it's not a lot more.

But when running a rev limiter you might just feel that little bit better about setting it at 6500 instead of 6 where you know it will be safe.

There's no doubt the Shovel Heads breathe better than Iron Sportster junk. EWrrr.... heads. And being alloy you can afford to go higher on the compression ratio. If your going to go to all that trouble to adapt Shovel Heads you are probably looking for HP as much as torque and you'll want to spin it to take edbantage of them.

Well, I would.

mrmom9r 16th July 2020 14:24

FE you're dead wrong about Shovel vs IH airflow.

Ferrous Head 16th July 2020 14:57

Oh ! I was under the impression the Shovels did a lot better.

I've never ever played with them, so no real idea. When I think about it, it might just be an assumption of mine.

I thought they put a fair bit of effort into those heads after having problems with th Pans. Being designed a lot later than the Ironheads I can't imagine why they wouldn't be a better bet. I would have thought at the very least having to feed a 1200 as opposed to a 900 the port sizxes would have been bigger to dtart with. Though I know bigger does not always mean better.

I know the poor geometry of the push rods versus rocker arms is one thing that limits how fast you can rev those poor old things. And I'm pretty sure everyone who builds a Shovester cuts the rocker arms.

Ferrous Head 16th July 2020 23:49

I can't remember reading earlier posts on this engine build but if the Shovel heads don't flow more air than Ironheads someone is going to have to do some port work.
The good head porters need relevant information to do that work. I would have thought that would mean telling him/her/it that it's a top end to go on a an Ironhead and would have guessed all this would have come up then ?

Iron Mike 17th July 2020 00:55

I do see the points that Kitabel has mentioned within the rocker geometry (thank you), but I don’t see how the engine from the piston crown and above would know the difference if the flywheels are supported in a Shovel or an IH lower end. Am I missing something here? (could very well be) but I would like to hear if there would be a difference.

Iron Mike 17th July 2020 02:17

Thanks Kit. I am aware of the differences eng to engine, but in the realm of porting the heads, I don’t see the relevance to what bottom end is used. Shovel heads, shovel pistons, Ironhead crank and cases. I would think everything north of the crown has no idea of what is being used to reciprocate the pistons, whether IH or FL lower. Or am I missing something?

Interesting thread here. Please continue the conversation guys.

billeuze 17th July 2020 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitabel (Post 5837019)
This may help:
H-D rocker arms' long (valve side) levers begin with the valve stem angle to the bore axis (39.25° for the shovel, 45° for the XL?) with the valve closed. The 2nd angle aligns the short (pushrod side) lever with the tappet. If the total of both angles is correct, the alignment can be adjusted with stem height and rocker box height, etc.
This is why Evo rockers are not a drop-in for shovel - the stem angles are completely different (27° & 31° IIRC).
This 2nd angle not only differs with cam placement but also with deck height (very tall cylinders reduce errors).
The pan and shovel rockers are made as 2 pairs of mirror images (cheaper), but they don't align as well as the knucklehead rockers.

Once I get that far in the assembly I will certainly check the pushrod to rocker arm angle which I believe should be perpendicular at 1/2 way up its travel. I have a set of rocker boxes with big viewing holes cut out. Then I'll check in here to see what everything thinks - to reclock or not.

billeuze 17th July 2020 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferrous Head (Post 5837091)
I can't remember reading earlier posts on this engine build but if the Shovel heads don't flow more air than Ironheads someone is going to have to do some port work.
The good head porters need relevant information to do that work. I would have thought that would mean telling him/her/it that it's a top end to go on a an Ironhead and would have guessed all this would have come up then ?

Yes, I did actually send out these heads to get ported many years ago (by Perry at Flo Headworks) and yes I told them what was the application. He also set up the valves for .49" lift.

But me too, I always thought shovel heads flow more air that ironheads. Unless worked on they may not flow better as I think XL heads flow the air faster and the fuel is better atomized than in a stock shovel. So stroking a shovel helps speed up the air to get better atomizing. Good head porting can olso optimize the atomizing

Iron Mike 17th July 2020 02:37

I would think Dan B would be able to do the corrected geometry with the proper application information.

Iron Mike 17th July 2020 03:43

Interesting food for thought Kit. Would love to hear more if you have anything else to add, or anyone else for that matter.

What route do you think you’ll take Bill? Roller tips are an option.

Bwf347 17th July 2020 04:34

Ron Trock Jr can plug your shovel rockers and machine for the new geometry. He did mine. He can also drill for external drain. I actually have an extra front head and rocker I can lend if you want to do it yourself

https://i.ibb.co/N3PZ3sZ/20181029-190441.jpg


https://i.ibb.co/9h3GRZQ/20191209-173451.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/VWvpbLK/20200716-223318.jpg

needspeed 17th July 2020 04:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitabel (Post 5837130)
... The box height can also be adjusted by milling or shimming which leaves the stem height alone but lowers or raises the rocker arm shaft on the head ...

Usually raising a Harley rocker box is a good way to screw up rocker arm geometry. Imagine an axis through the center of the valve stem and an axis through the center of the rocker arm shaft. The distance between the two axes increases if you shim the rockers up.

So if you have a relationship of rocker to valve that puts the contact patch roughly in the center of the stem and then raise the rocker shaft up, the contact patch will be moved towards the side of the stem tip. The side closer to the rocker shaft.

Easy to visualize if taken to a ridiculous extreme. Raise the rocker box up a half inch or more and the rocker tip will be so far away from the valve it won't even touch it.

kitabel 17th July 2020 17:33

Sorry, some of that is copyright protected, I need permission from the publisher to post it.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:50.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
XL Forum® - Linson Media LLC