Hard to pull clutchHey,
The Norvil clutch basket is in fact slightly deeper and designed to use an additional steel plate (1st one in). Then installing a full 850 stack (with the thinner 850 style pressure plate) will give you the right size stack. This will, compared to a std chain drive clutch, put your spring closer to its release and will therefore give you an easier clutch pull.
Matt / Colorado Norton Works
NOW, the latest rabbit from AN is not as good as an old rabbit from an Atlas? If so, why hasn't AN gone to the better profile?
To disengage the clutch the following observations can be made. The clutch carrier is pushed out .035" than the clutch starts to disengage. At this point the high fingers have been well lifted and the lo fingers are now just starting to lift off of the clutch pressure plate. By .050" lift both sets of fingers are free and clear of the clutch pressure plate and the clutch should have almost no engaging properties. The atlas actuator cam certainly has more than an adequate lifting range for a commando clutch, and in fact the commando actuator cam has more than double the lift needed to completely disengage the clutch. This makes the ROD/cam ball free play adjustment of little concern in actual use, with the commando actuator cam.
My only test fixture was for measuring the diaphragm spring deflection rate. It consisted of an empty clutch basket with the diaphragm inverted in it. This sat on my bathroom scales in my 25 ton hydraulic press. Dial indicator, clamped to the press ram, measuring to the clutch basket. Pounds indicated on the scales and spring deflection measured on dial indicator.
Was that measured on one of your test rigs or a working Commando clutch as my Commando's clutch, when set to 0.130" 'carrier' lift, doesn't even begin to free off (pressure applied to the kickstart lever) until 0.070" so the spring fingers can't be totally "free and clear" even at that stage but only lifted sufficiently for the clamping force to be removed from the pressure plate and that's without any additional plate interface lift required for a drag-free clutch as BDM mentions in which case my Commando's actuating lever can't be providing "more than double the lift needed" to fully disengage the clutch.
The release measurement was done on my regular driver combat with a dry belt drive.
From my article:
"Regardless of the reason for slipping, the results are all to real to the owner/rider and therefore making the dry clutch design argument a rather moot point. "
"By .050" lift both sets of fingers are free and clear of the clutch pressure plate and the clutch should have almost no engaging properties."
However remember his assertion that this is designed as a DRY clutch.
So why can't I do testing with a dry clutch? The clutch plates are released from pulling torque due to plate compression but residual gear and primary oil contamination provide sticky drag.
The whole point of my article was to mitigate the problems of a commando clutch apparently over 6000 CCRS owners were convinced...
why am I now the bad guy?
Everyone may want to know the .050" clutch center lift I measured represents .025" at the pressure plate contact ring/circle.The next time I remove the primary cover I will check the finger lift but my own clutch not slipping until 0.070" seems to suggest the fingers are not clear of the pressure plate by 0.070".
And my article mentions it and BDM even acknowledged it in this email to me:Yes, "designed" but in several places makes it absolutely clear that the clutch doesn't operate in a dry environment (Section 5. DRY AND WET CLUTCHES, TORQUE AND OIL. for instance).
Everyone may want to know the .050" clutch center lift I measured represents .025" at the pressure plate contact ring/circle.
I doubt the norton commando factory has ever advertised that the primary with a chain should be run dry.
The clutch may have been designed by an outside vendor for dry service, but then the factory would have knowingly installed a dry clutch into a wet application.
How BDM redefines my statement as his fiction?
"Dyno Dave’ (a British bike expert?) appears to believe that Norton would not place a designed to be employed DRY clutch within their OBCCs and tells the World exactly that in his Commando clutch web page"
I have not audited his writings, but it would appear he mainly/only mention OBCC. I don't readily see gearbox mainshaft oil problem as being ever mentioned. A rather significant omission, IMO.
Please note the chart shows pressure at the clutch center and therefore the pressure on the clutch stack would be approximately double."
"Please note the chart shows pressure at the clutch center and therefore the pressure on the clutch stack would be approximately double."
The thrust measured is from the bellville washer, that IS the diaphragm thrusting force. The stationary force origin is the outer rim held by the circlip.
The thrust is applied, to the pressure plate thrust circle, just inside of the cut circles on the diaphragm. This defines the inner end/rim of the bellvile spring.
The release arms extend bellville washer physical connection inward to connect inside the release body. The length of the arms are about equal to the rim to belville Inside diameter. This gives the release arms 2x mechanical leverage on the spring.
My chart shows lever force therefore the spring force (applied to the pressure plate ring) is twice the chart indication.
I had perceived this as 9th grade physics?
I did get an A in 9th grade physics, and a C in everything else.