Both the bushings and shafts are improved . The rockers are only 58 euro each , but then you must also pay for the fitting of his bushings and shafts . You can also take your machine down and send yours in . Rockers are OEM Norton .Tony,
I know that Ollie's rockers have better bushings, but what other advantages do they have over the stockers?
Care to revel price?
You should ask Ollie , he answers his email's.Well, 58 euros is pretty reasonable.
What is the turn around time?
You're right.You should ask Ollie , he answers his email's.
Got it, well kinda.It may be worse than 15ml per 300 miles. But what is wrong with being proactive ? Besides , how do you expect to modify heads and ports and such without a spare ? I thought it was clear what I was doing - improving my 961 ... I am not hiding anything , my bike runs good. BUT , it's not as good as it should be. My head was not touched at Coote's just decabonized . I v'e already told you that my piston/bores have too much clearance , hence why the oil in airbox. We examined the rocker shafts that's all. I want a bike that runs as good as yours did !![]()
I have to admit that I was also a " bit confused" at first until I realized that TonyA was just doing what TonyA has always done....trying to make his 961 the best it can be while spending his own money and then sharing the results with the rest of us. That is a stand up thing to do and I, for one, am most appreciative!Tony, I can’t be the only one who’s a bit confused as to what you’re doing!
You’ve already blue printed your engine, now you appear to be building another new top end.
You can’t seriously be going to all this expense and trouble just for 15ml of oil per 300 miles in your catch bottle surely ??
Are you just bored? Is your current engine faulty? Or ...
Why not gapless rings than?Hello Voodoo , This was done to get to the bottom of my oil in air box issue . Lets use the 1oz. (30ml) per 1000 miles of riding as a minimum goal , and I will hope for better and I think that is achievable . My last test showed ~ (15 ml) in 300 miles at best . That is at a relatively steady 70 mph. As far as performance increase , if I get any I will take it .![]()
Spot on!Those parts all looks really nice. No signs of porosity etc, nice machining. Good to see.
I like the proper squish design of the bathtub combustion chamber. But I notice the step around the outside of the piston crown. That’s strange, it means that even if that step is gapped properly to the head to get a good squish, the rest of that squish area on the head is wasted. Ideally any recess in the piston should match the bathtub shape. Even more ideally, no recess is needed!
I’d look into what the CR would be with a flat top piston and a 0.040” gap. If you assume 1mm it makes it very easy to calculated the volume of that squish gap to add to the measured CCV to calculate CR.
As I’ve discovered on my 920 engine, a working squish allows a surprisingly high CR without issues. But you boys in the US who take long trips do have to factor in using low octane fuel when needed.
I have spoken to David C. and he said he has used Total Seal Gapless rings on his engine . He has the part number that works with the 961 piston and nikasil cylinder.Why not gapless rings than?
So... why not use them...?I have spoken to David C. and he said he has used Total Seal Gapless rings on his engine . He has the part number that works with the 961 piston and nikasil cylinder.
They're going in just as you see them .Pictures can be misleading but that crosshatch angle looks a bit shallow to me.
A gapless ring helps prevent blow by, and compression loss.They're going in just as you see them .