Crank shaft HP

beng · Sep 12, 2012

Poor Jim Schmidt, and anyone else who has to pick through the usual pages of drivel shit-out by DWS, MS, Rohan, the aptly-named JAW and Hobot for Norton information anywhere on the World-Wide-Web......

Anyone with any brains have any information on the question raised by the poor bastard at the start of the thread?

Matt Spencer · Sep 12, 2012

beng said:
Poor Jim Schmidt, and anyone else who has to pick through the usual pages of drivel shit-out by DWS, MS, Rohan, the aptly-named JAW and Hobot for Norton information anywhere on the World-Wide-Web......

Anyone with any brains have any information on the question raised by the poor bastard at the start of the thread?

EIGHTY FOUR ; assumeing the rests near standard . :shock:

though variation wouldnt be over TWO POINT FIVE . :| HAPPY . :?:

Hobot · Sep 12, 2012

As for the Norton sleeve bearing there are at least two types (and probably more) that I am aware of; the earlier Commando and Mk3 Commando. I do not recall the particulars. In your case it sounds like a complete starvation and then heat and then all is lost. Seems like some sort of scrolling and maybe relief drilling would help, then again it may make a mess and too much oil would then pass and leave an unsightly puddle on the garage floor.............uhhhh.....never mind.

Kind of scary when ya find I ain't as off the wall as hoped.
The 2 types of sleeve bushes are the early 2 short bushes that can bunch up in center of shaft instead of staying at the more effective end positions and newer longer pair the about butt up against each other, instead of sticking a 3rd used one in between the short kind. I long ago spiral scrolled all 3 short stack bushes to help the Dextron get in better but stopped just short of breaking past end of the outter bush edge so Peel's box held on to it ATF. What I ani't figured out as didn't think I'd need to til now - is if one de-clutches tranny to coast so engine is at idle while bike at 20 to 80 mph, does the sleeve area spin surfaces slow down any or even stop?

Dances with Shrapnel · Sep 13, 2012

Matt Spencer said:
Its the Conductivity that counts :? as in Glycol / radiator anti freeze is MORE conductive than water . Unfortuately glycol can burn . Cooling oil , Hobot .

Why dont the skinflints throw needle rollers in the Sleeve Gear , and a few other laces in the Trans . Just Needles the Dia. of the Bush thickness .
With end keeper rings . Knock em up in a few enenings .

+1

The solution is a TTIndustry gear box, all others make due.

As for the sleeve gear on the AMC box, I was not aware that it was such an apparent shortcoming on the AMC gear box. I get the feeling this whole discussion of AMC sleeve gears is more of a solution hunting for a problem, need to keep it all in context.

Dances with Shrapnel · Sep 13, 2012

beng said:
Poor Jim Schmidt, and anyone else who has to pick through the usual pages of drivel shit-out by DWS, MS, Rohan, the aptly-named JAW and Hobot for Norton information anywhere on the World-Wide-Web......

Anyone with any brains have any information on the question raised by the poor bastard at the start of the thread?

Ah yes, my meager and unworthy opponent spewing out more self projected hatred and contributing vastly by asking a question that has been answered in so many ways in this thread.

Speaks much about reading comprehension.

Entertainment 1, unfortunately value added 0

J.A.W. · Sep 27, 2012

+1, Beng being the boorish bastard, ah well...

Mark · Sep 27, 2012

imho:
It is a bummer when a person asks a genuine question here and then has to sort through all of the
Opinions, Guesses, Bullshit, Attempts at humor, Incoherent ramblings and responses that have absolutely
nothing to do with the original query.

Are you guilty ? if so, then please stop and consciously try to help make this an informative site.
If you need any help or direction on how to productively contribute to a thread, just take a look at some of
LAB's or comnoz's posts for examples of informative replies.

iceteanolemon · Sep 27, 2012

Mark said:
imho:
It is a bummer when a person asks a genuine question here and then has to sort through all of the
Opinions, Guesses, Bullshit, Attempts at humor, Incoherent ramblings and responses that have absolutely
nothing to do with the original query.

Welcome to the internet. If it was any other way it would be worse. I have to weed through the bullshit on many other sites but I know without things being open we would not know the good from the bad.

Dances with Shrapnel · Sep 27, 2012

Mark said:
imho:
It is a bummer when a person asks a genuine question here and then has to sort through all of the
Opinions, Guesses, Bullshit, Attempts at humor, Incoherent ramblings and responses that have absolutely
nothing to do with the original query.

Are you guilty ? if so, then please stop and consciously try to help make this an informative site.
If you need any help or direction on how to productively contribute o a thread, just take a look at some of
LAB's or comnoz's posts for examples of informative replies.

jseng is a smart cookie and I know he has cut through the unfortunate chafe to figure it out. Follow suite and try and do the same.

Mark · Sep 27, 2012

Dances with Shrapnel said:
jseng is a smart cookie and I know he has cut through the unfortunate chafe to figure it out. Follow suite and try and do the same.

Are you guilty ? if so, then please stop and consciously try to help make this an informative site.

Dances with Shrapnel · Sep 27, 2012

Mark said:
Dances with Shrapnel said:

jseng is a smart cookie and I know he has cut through the unfortunate chafe to figure it out. Follow suite and try and do the same.

Click to expand...

Are you guilty ?

No. Just cut through the chafe a bit or buy the BS, really up to you. With all due respect any more along these lines should be taken to PM out of respect the list members. Again, your choice.

pommie john · Sep 28, 2012

Mark said:
imho:
It is a bummer when a person asks a genuine question here and then has to sort through all of the
Opinions, Guesses, Bullshit, Attempts at humor, Incoherent ramblings and responses that have absolutely
nothing to do with the original query.

Are you guilty ? if so, then please stop and consciously try to help make this an informative site.
If you need any help or direction on how to productively contribute to a thread, just take a look at some of
LAB's or comnoz's posts for examples of informative replies.

Well excuse me for taking an educated guess in post three of this thread. If you really want a definitive answer it's this:

The question is meaningless because no two dynos read the same, and if you take one reading from a rolling road and another from a crank mounted dyno, the two will not be comparable.

Snorton74 · Sep 28, 2012

Pretty sure he wasn't talking about you. Its all the other crap, attitude, bickering,etc.

Hobot · Sep 28, 2012

Points to ponder on the pundits here wishful thinking of how much more powerful a Cdo engine is at crank w/o the huge % of drive train drag along with the clamped down distorted rear tire on rolling drum dyno's. Here some others miss-lead as hobot to see through the bovine fertilizer.

http://www.s1000rrforum.com/forum/bmw-s ... -loss.html

I was wondering what everyone thinks the drivetrain loss would be. I've read anything from 5-16%. In the OTL magazine we got they say 188.79bhp for the BMW (page 7) and I think BMW claims 193bhp if I'm not mistaken. 9% loss would be spot on for what my bike made on the dyno 171. Find it kind of interesting how some people put down 180's stock making it seem the bike has virtually no drivetrain loss.

http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/f15/ ... ant-43154/

The drivetrain loss cannot be a pure percentage, nor a fixed value.
Yes, the more force, the more friction involved in transmitting that force through gears. But, there is also the frictional loss directly to the oils that are being stirred by those gears, which will be the same at any given rpm. Also, if the dyno is the inertial type, that is, it measures horsepower by extrapolation from the acceleration rate of a mass, there is the inertial loss to all of the spinning components; this will also be a fixed value.
So, there is both a fixed portion and a frictional component to the loss, both of which are affected somewhat by the temperature of the components and oils.

Within the drivetrain itself, the primary loss sources are the differential and final drive, with further losses stemming from within the transmission, and in the case of AWD vehicles, from the transfer case. Within the transmission, as much as 30 to 40 percent of power loss can be attributed to the pump, with the clutch contributing another 20 to 25 percent. The rest of the loss within the transmission comes from seal drag, gear meshing, bearings, bushings and windage (drag on the gears caused by the gear oil). However, when dyno testing in the direct drive (1:1) gear, power is delivered directly through the mainshaft of the transmission, so the only loss sources are windage, friction and drag, resulting in total at-the-wheel losses as low as 1.5 to 2 percent, according to the published data.

It's also worth noting that the more powerful you make your engine, the greater the thrust force and angular acceleration it's able to exert on the drivetrain, generating even more friction and heat in the process. But because both steady-state and dynamic friction vary depending on engine speed, engine load and the efficiency of the engine and drivetrain's design (how well they limit friction and the associated thermal conversion of torque to heat), there's no way to apply a universal percent loss to it. Nor is it possible to apply a fixed drivetrain loss figure to your car (say 60 whp from my RevUp G35 example), because as you modify the engine and increase its output its ability to generate thrust force and angular acceleration also increases (though not in a linear fashion).

In the end, there's no easy way to estimate the drivetrain loss your vehicle experiences on the road or even on the dyno. Coast-down tests are sometimes used on a dyno to attempt to measure frictional losses, but because this test is not dynamic (meaning they're not done while accelerating, but rather while coasting to a stop with the direct drive gear engaged but the clutch depressed so that the engine and transmission aren't linked) it really only captures steady-state drivetrain losses as well as rolling resistance. So rather than attempting to convert your vehicle's dyno-measured wheel horsepower to a SAE net horsepower figure using a percentage or a fixed horsepower value, you're far better off accepting the fact that these two types of horsepower measurements aren't easily correlated and forego any attempt at doing so.

Someday I'll get something like one of these [that's not a plug into OBII factory 'puter] to hand out to others for bragging rights...

http://www.auterraweb.com/dashdynoseries.html

DashDyno SPD is an exciting new in-vehicle mounted device for the automotive enthusiast. Measure instant and average fuel economy, data log engine sensors and GPS position, measure horsepower and torque, trigger alarms lights, and diagnose that pesky Check Engine light. Using a PC, watch a synchronized playback of sensor and GPS data with Google Earth flying above the terrain you just traveled. DashDyno can do this and a whole lot more.

Dances with Shrapnel · Sep 29, 2012

"The drivetrain loss cannot be a pure percentage, nor a fixed value.
Yes, the more force, the more friction involved in transmitting that force through gears. But, there is also the frictional loss directly to the oils that are being stirred by those gears, which will be the same at any given rpm. Also, if the dyno is the inertial type, that is, it measures horsepower by extrapolation from the acceleration rate of a mass, there is the inertial loss to all of the spinning components; this will also be a fixed value.
So, there is both a fixed portion and a frictional component to the loss, both of which are affected somewhat by the temperature of the components and oils."

Well this sums it up about as concisely as what was presented on the first page of this thread. I don't necessarily agree with the statement about the oil friction but I have no data to back up any position on it, just intuition and logic.

Hobot · Sep 29, 2012

So Damage Dodger with the in depth covered non-linear variables, my guessimate is; with rear tire mashed down on dyno drum and engine in peak rpm power band: 10 hp as realistic drag cost, but on the fly with engine in top gear topping out, the tire is slung into a rather hard ring so even less drag to subtract from crank. What's your best guessimate to commit too or not?

Dances with Shrapnel · Sep 29, 2012

hobot said:
So Damage Dodger with the in depth covered non-linear variables, my guessimate is; with rear tire mashed down on dyno drum and engine in peak rpm power band: 10 hp as realistic drag cost, but on the fly with engine in top gear topping out, the tire is slung into a rather hard ring so even less drag to subtract from crank. What's your best guessimate to commit too or not?

Hobot, earlier in this thread (I think it is this thread) I presented calcs with a reference on tire rolling resistance. I can provide you with calculation if I have not already done so. PM me and I will send. If you are spreadsheet savy I'll send you what I put together and you can play around with it a bit to see what tire pressure does t the rolling resistance. No QA/QC on the spread sheet but on the other hand, we are not building a Nuclear Reactor here..........yet.

As for wheel mashed down on the dyno I don't think it is much different than when on the fly on the road with your carcass or mine. Naturally (I would think) more mashing down equals more rolling resistance.

For a stock or near stock Norton we can arm wrestle over whether it is 7 hp or 10 hp full tilt loss on a rolling road dyno. I think Jim Schmidt has what he needs on this thread.

pommie john · Sep 29, 2012

Dances with Shrapnel said:
........
As for wheel mashed down on the dyno I don't think it is much different than when on the fly on the road with your carcass or mine. Naturally (I would think) more mashing down equals more rolling resistance.

For a stock or near stock Norton we can arm wrestle over whether it is 7 hp or 10 hp full tilt loss on a rolling road dyno. I think Jim Schmidt has what he needs on this thread.

FWIW last time I took my BM to the dyno I thought the operator strapped it down too hard. He really did up the ratchet straps tight. I thought we might be loosing HP there so we did two runs, one with it tied down tight and one much looser. No difference at all.

Hobot · Sep 30, 2012

I'd had a complete rear flat at 90 mph or my SV650 [i'd pulled a tar cord out spining on Gravel before pavement] and did not feel a thing wrong with handling or response till my truck pass had to slow down for a 30 mph turn and almost lost it in surprise squirms by time I got to lower 40's and began to lean some, Weehooie. Since that time = any time I can't tell wind gusts from road texture I either swing my head to check for tire squash print or pull over and kick em. I killed my second dear at 75 with my head still swinging back from a tire glance before I nailed the rising sweeper. So above my guessimate of real power lost in driving a rear tire on the fly near the ton is under 10 hp. I have watched rear spun up on center stand to see it expand its OD after like 70-80 mph indicated. To get better guesstimate of fire drag on drum one should repeat at various tire pressure up to ridiculous like I have on the road.

Here's a blip on tire factors but no actual values.

How do the tires affect the results?

The tires are part of the overall drivetrain and can be considered a test condition. "If you change a test condition, you may see a different result," says Mustang Dynos. "A tire change can result in more or less force at the wheels (tire diameter), more or less tire inertia, and in some cases more or less traction (coefficient of friction). All of the above affect power at the wheels and where it occurs in the speed range." And according to SuperFlow, "The tire is a power absorber, so tire losses will vary with drive-axle weight, inflation pressure, tread pattern, and carcass design, but generally account for 1 to 3 percent of the total wheel power."
Chassis Dyno Guide
A classic Dynojet inertia dyno's drums rotate freely on bearings. The time and force it ta

Tires will grow as wheel speed increases and the rubber heats up. Different tires have different coefficients of friction, which could impact the amount of slippage on the rollers. Tire changes affect an inertia dyno most, as it changes the effective rotational mass and overall gear ratio. As Dynojet puts it, "Going to a smaller-od tire is like increasing gear ratio; you lose horsepower."

Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/techfaq/hrdp_0405 ... z27vm2rL6x

Dances with Shrapnel · Oct 1, 2012

pommie john said:
Dances with Shrapnel said:

........
As for wheel mashed down on the dyno I don't think it is much different than when on the fly on the road with your carcass or mine. Naturally (I would think) more mashing down equals more rolling resistance.

For a stock or near stock Norton we can arm wrestle over whether it is 7 hp or 10 hp full tilt loss on a rolling road dyno. I think Jim Schmidt has what he needs on this thread.

Click to expand...

FWIW last time I took my BM to the dyno I thought the operator strapped it down too hard. He really did up the ratchet straps tight. I thought we might be loosing HP there so we did two runs, one with it tied down tight and one much looser. No difference at all.

And a repost from earlier in this thread:

Dances with Shrapnel said:
Using the typical laden weight of a Commando with a 200 lb rider, recommended 26 psig rear tire inflation and the factory indicated weight bias of 45.5% front and 54.5% rear (which is awful by the way) you have the following power losses:

50 MPH 0.6HP
80 MPH 1.4HP
100 MPH 2.2HP
115 MPH 2.9HP
120 MPH 3.2HP
143 MPH 4.9HP

Interesting observation there "pommie john". The above numbers are for a specific set of conditions (air pressure, load and speed) so your conditions are more than likely different (heavier bike, different air pressure, speed?). So if you were doing a dyno pull in the 50 MPH range you would expect to see a 0.5 HP difference; not much.

In your case, my hunch is that what you lost on rolling resistance with the bike cinched down tighter was equal to what you lost to wheel slip (power loss) on drum when loosened it up. Compound this with an assumed lower MPH dyno pull and it would all get lost in the wash.

It stands to reason that tire deformation is work and the faster you spin (or do work) the greater the power required.

Crank shaft HP

Similar threads