Cool lifter design I stumbled onto...

I stumbled upon this over on a brit bike forum, the name Heintz and others was mentioned. I believe this example was off of a 500.
Thoughts? Looks like it could really lighten up the lifters. Anyone know more.

My guess would be Heintz Kegler. Interesting concept. Any other pictures or information, say side profile picture and/or materials of construction?

I was doing a Google search for images to see if my Dunstall should have a rear fender or at least half of one, when I stumbled on this picture,
I looked a little at the forum it was on, but my computer went nuts and I lost the page. So the picture is all I have. I'll see If I can find it again.

Found it, in here somewhere

http://www.nortonownersclub.org/noc-cha ... int=30&-C=

It was mentioned on the NOC that that was something that came out of Nortons experimental dept.
And only noted after several owners and clearouts...
And since nothing came with notes or explanations, it was unknown whether anything was a brilliant idea, or not so good.

You'd have to weight them, and calculate the reciprocating mass to even guess if they were any possible improvement.
Nortons didn't jump it into production (?), so it wasn't proceeded with. ?
But as you say, maybe someone knows of it.
Apart from maybe Heinz.

Might be wishful thinking, but someone shouldda asked those guys all these questions 50 years ago, when AMC shut down Bracebridge St, and they were still around.
Most of them didn't do the shift to Plumstead Rd.... ?

Found more. Thanks bwolfie

Interesting concept. One challenge I see for the larger displacement Nortons is that there is less realestate to fit the pivot pedastal in. I certainly see opportunity for further mass reduction and the broader tappet face would allow for more aggressive cam ramps etc.. Too bad there's no information that goes along with it.

Dances with Shrapnel said:

I certainly see opportunity for further mass reduction

Click to expand...

Makes for longer pushrods though.
More mass, and more whip.
swings and roundabouts.... ?

Come one Rohan, an inch or more of thick cast iron tappet for an inch or more of hollow steel or aluminum pushrod. Yes you now have to figure out the inertial mass of the rotating cam follower but I was thinking about making those rotating cam followers even lighter. Pushrods on a Norton twin are not terribly long anyway.

Even the Dunstall and BSA cam follower use solid steel as a direct replacement for some of the pushrod length.

There is also the friction reduction from using needle bearing pivots versus the standard lifter oil film sliding.
I'm sure the design was fine, but materials of the time were the limit, it was the early 60's.

A viable modern version could be done.

It's reviving history like this that I find fascinating.

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Come one Rohan, an inch or more of thick cast iron tappet for an inch or more of hollow steel or aluminum pushrod. Yes you now have to figure out the inertial mass of the rotating cam follower but I was thinking about making those rotating cam followers even lighter. Pushrods on a Norton twin are not terribly long anyway.

Even the Dunstall and BSA cam follower use solid steel as a direct replacement for some of the pushrod length.

Click to expand...

Didn't the race engines go back to steel pushrods, when they found whatever they were using were flexing. ?

Ben showed somewhere the bucket followers that the 500 Domiracer was using.
Rigidity is sometimes more important than weight reduction....

And JS recently showed his lightweight 500 followers....

Studies and math have been done that reveal the mass of the push rod side of rocker has very little effect compared to the valve stem side mass. Its about a nullity to worry- bother much with the valve train as factory lifters lightened a tad or BSA adaptations can well handle the rpm range the crank shaft or stroke friction is the limiting factor. K/W Black Diamond valve with 6 mm stems and Jim S's bee hive springs or regular race spring set will easy out survive what crank jump rope rpm can. We hear of split cases way way more than valve float clash damage. As stated the Main Feature to seek in p-rods is their stiffness but also their correct length to compensate for base plate head gasket, head milling and cam profile. I suspect the above is why it didn't get populized even with Hien's name associated. Before rod links my main question to any and everyone was what breaks first at rpm then what next then what after that. Unfortunately Peel got to test prove everything I just stated in spades.

Steve, a lot of careful valve gear design had been done to get Dommies and Commandos not to float their valves. Road tests done in the early 1950s had practically every bike tested floating their valves on test in the lower gears - except dommies and vinnies (and 2 strokes !). Even the Big4 sidevalve wasn't immune from this.
Don't assume this 'feature' can't be designed back into them though.....

Rohan said:

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Come one Rohan, an inch or more of thick cast iron tappet for an inch or more of hollow steel or aluminum pushrod. Yes you now have to figure out the inertial mass of the rotating cam follower but I was thinking about making those rotating cam followers even lighter. Pushrods on a Norton twin are not terribly long anyway.

Even the Dunstall and BSA cam follower use solid steel as a direct replacement for some of the pushrod length.

Click to expand...

Didn't the race engines go back to steel pushrods, when they found whatever they were using were flexing. ?

Ben showed somewhere the bucket followers that the 500 Domiracer was using.
Rigidity is sometimes more important than weight reduction....

And JS recently showed his lightweight 500 followers....

Click to expand...

I have seen very successful Norton racers with pushrods both ways, steel and aluminum. They both work. I recall one Commando race bike out of New Orleans that ran carbon fiber pushrods at Daytona; same bike also broke carbon fiber pushrods at Daytona. The fellow had little bolt on hatches on top of the head that allowed him to fish out the broken ones and put in replacements - WTF.

Those bucket followers were certainly cool and promising but you are still carrying a full length of follower (albeit lightened) plus the pushrod so sort of double dipping there...in the wrong direction.

Certainly lengthening the pushrods will adversly effect the slenderness ratio. I'll have to revisit the old Euler formula to see how much, but not before I learn to speak Portuguese fluently......backwards.

I believe JSMotorsports is using the BSA tappets so you are replacing light weight pushrod for solid (or near solid steel cam follower stem.

It all changes nothing as the pivoted followers could be made lighter yet, and I see an advantage in being able to use more aggressive ramps on the cams due to the broader foot. As stated earlier, I think it becomes too crowded and the pivots too short when you start looking at larger bores - just run out of space.

hobot said:

Studies and math have been done that reveal the mass of the push rod side of rocker has very little effect compared to the valve stem side mass.

Click to expand...

This was discovered by Smokey Yunick while developing pushrod engines that had a much higher rocker arm ratio than Norton twins. Since the Norton rocker ratio is very close to 1:1 the weight of it's entire valve-train makes a difference.
The cylinder in the photos with the finger-followers has nothing to do with Heinz Kegler. Some guy in England dug it out of his shed after it sat there for decades and he does not remember the history or details of where it came from, he said it could have been a Dunstall experiment or that of another rider he used to know.

When Norton used the bucket tappets, they were used on the 500 which had a shorter cylinder and took shorter push-rods than all the larger twins anyway. Kegler and his rider tested his 88 racer with bucket tappets to 9000 rpm and used 8000 as a redline over it's decade-long racing career.

Very clever design back when options more limited.

Very early on my 1st Combat in '99 almost got killed on my first discovering factory Combats have a built in rev limiter d.t valve float while trying to pass a semi in time with horrific noise misfiring power loss till I lost some time and acceleration backing off to snick another gear and swing in front of the semi in nick of time. On tear down it was hard to tell any valve clash damage from prior lips chewed up form a thumb nail size carb slide piece inhaled before I got it.

Just to be clear on my hard to understand grammar. You can't hardly go wrong with the lightest valve train you can afford, but its don't take that much improvement to be enough to take more than the best crank and cases and bearings can. Less wear factor and allowing extra aggressive cam for more power within the crank tolerance is a good thing of course. Hard to get more aggressive than a Norris D+ that's in Peel with stock lightened lifters and Dreer K/W valve and spring kit that got tested beyond belief and may of saved poor Peels crank if they'd only limited the power burst. New pistons and valves would of been a lot cheaper to replace than poor Peel's crank and old pump and TS case oil feed boss.

Here ya go, CF pushrods
http://www.ebay.com/itm/360566142516?ss ... 1423.l2649

Rohan said:

And since nothing came with notes or explanations, it was unknown whether anything was a brilliant idea, or not so good.

Click to expand...

Let me put is this way: Finger follwers replaced tappets on all high-perforamce applications I'm aware of. Nobody would design a high-revving engine with tappets nowadays. Less friction and inertia and a more defined operation (e.g. you don't run into problems with unwanted or insufficient rotation of the tappet around its axis etc.) due to the different kinematics are the main benefits. The only real advantage of cup-type tappets is packaging, in order to get finger follwers to work nicely you have to find a good compromise between follwer length, inertia and packaging, especially if you consider rotating direct of the cam shaft. They work a little better if the are "pulled" instead of "pushed" by the cam lobes (in terms of realtive movement of the sufraces).

I'm not surprised that Hele, Heinz et all worked on this.


Tim

'Nobody would design a high-revving engine with tappets nowadays.'

Nobody should try to develop a high revving motor from a commando engine. 7000 rpm is enough, the rest depends on torque. Once you have overported the head, forget it. The cams used in the early commandos shoud be enough for anyone. It is probably possible to develop cam profiles which give better torque and less valve float. My short stroke Triumph 500 always had lightened valve gear, however I've never bothered to go down that path with the commando engine. Everything I do is about fattening up the power curve at lower than 7000 rpm. I read somewhere that Norton actually bought E3134 Triumph racing cams to copy for the commando engine. The E3325 ramp cams used in the 1958 Thunderbird gave better torque characteristics and still plenty of top end. I used E3134 cams in many 650 Triumph engines, when I bought my standard 1958 Thunderbird, it was better to ride , and just as quick as the bikes with the race cams. With the Triumph 650 engine the rev limit is about 8,000 rpm, and they blow up at that if you do it too often. 6,300 is the designed limit. If you are racing one 6,500 rpm is enough to win races. And the crank balance factor is usually 79%, ( nothing like 53% ).

acotrel said:

Nobody should try to develop a high revving motor from a commando engine.

Click to expand...

Nobody should try to develop a high revving motor from a commando engine unless you know what you are doing or running an 80.4mm stroke or 75mm stroke and wanting to make real power.

acotrel said:

And the crank balance factor is usually 79%, ( nothing like 53% ).

Click to expand...

Though a compromise, higher balance factors only for Commando engines in solid mounted frames.

For the Commando engine in an Isolastic system, wise to stick with factory recommended BF (like 53%).

beng said:

Since the Norton rocker ratio is very close to 1:1 the weight of it's entire valve-train makes a difference.

Click to expand...

THATS RIGHT. Smoky was talking about auto engines with much high rocker arm ratios. Stock Norton lifters weight a whopping 80 grams each. The BSA lifters weigh less that 1/2 of that so you save 40 grams each (multiply times 4) and the pushrods actually come out shorter because the BSA lifters are longer. This is a huge jump in efficiency. Not only does it eliminate valve float but it saves HP that will go to the rear wheel, reduces heat, and reduces wear. This is what the USA dirt track Norton factory Norton racers did to keep their short stroke motors together. The cam photo below is after a year of average riding.



Throw in the beehive springs to further reduce weight and your valve train is at ease. Stock springs & retainers weigh 80 grams. The Beehive springs & retainers weigh 37 grams. Multiply that times 4