hobot said:Ok that's politian talk. What would bigger or smaller valves be expected to do to Axtell's velocity?
lcrken said:For a Commando gearhead, this has to be one of the most interesting threads on the forum, and a great education in the intricacies of getting a Commando head to flow better.
Ken
SteveA said:lcrken said:For a Commando gearhead, this has to be one of the most interesting threads on the forum, and a great education in the intricacies of getting a Commando head to flow better.
Ken
This head is very interesting for me too Ken, having once owned a similar head, which I always understood was ported by John Baker, but it was from Thruxton whatever.
The thing for me has always been that the ports measured 34mm, which according to conventional wisdom doesn't work.....but I know that one did, when working with the combination of parts....cam. valves, hemisphered head and Omega 10.25s and 36mm carbs.....with mid range and top end...
Its good to see something similar that also 'works'.
Steve
SteveA said:This head is very interesting for me too Ken, having once owned a similar head, which I always understood was ported by John Baker, but it was from Thruxton whatever.
The thing for me has always been that the ports measured 34mm, which according to conventional wisdom doesn't work.....but I know that one did, when working with the combination of parts....cam. valves, hemisphered head and Omega 10.25s and 36mm carbs.....with mid range and top end...
Steve
comnoz said:Big ports are not the best for a smaller bore longstroke motor. They will never "come on"
I am not all that familiar with the factory literature, especially the factory tuning sheets referred to above. I've seen some literature titled Stage I and Stage II sheets that are prints of suggested mods for heads, pistons, exhausts, etc. Are these the sheets referred to above or are we talking totally different literature? If different, where can a person see such literature and is it viewable/available on-line? Thank you.Rohan said:That hot-rodded 850 factory NV bike that John Baker developed Dave Rawlins rode to a 143 mph 2 way average had big ports, and the 4S cam, as detailed in the 2 factory tuning sheets that NV put out, on how to build your own Combat 850 version. Also had the big bore exhaust, big carbs, etc.
WZ507 said:I've seen some literature titled Stage I and Stage II sheets that are prints of suggested mods for heads, pistons, exhausts, etc.
WZ507 said:Jim/Ken,
Could you please compare the RH7 head casting to the std heads for 850s - RH10 and RH4. Per your earlier description the RH7 head tested here is fit with 44 mm IN valves. We know that the IN valve size of std Norton 850 heads (RH10 & RH4) can be increased from the stock size of 38 mm to the common OS of ~ 41 mm, but can stock heads be further modified to receive a 44 mm IN, or is this unique to the RH7 head casting? Anything else worth relaying about the head casting - does the sphere size, sphere location, and or quench area differ from stock, are the guide angles different, are the guide diameters different, etc? Thank you.
Rohan said:SteveA said:This head is very interesting for me too Ken, having once owned a similar head, which I always understood was ported by John Baker, but it was from Thruxton whatever.
The thing for me has always been that the ports measured 34mm, which according to conventional wisdom doesn't work.....but I know that one did, when working with the combination of parts....cam. valves, hemisphered head and Omega 10.25s and 36mm carbs.....with mid range and top end...
Stevecomnoz said:Big ports are not the best for a smaller bore longstroke motor. They will never "come on"
Are we taking a too blinkered view here ?
That hot-rodded 850 factory NV bike that John Baker developed Dave Rawlins rode to a 143 mph 2 way average had big ports, and the 4S cam, as detailed in the 2 factory tuning sheets that NV put out, on how to build your own Combat 850 version. Also had the big bore exhaust, big carbs, etc.
For a stock looking 850 to do those speeds, that ain't hanging around.
And reportedly it was quite tractible on the street, if a little tall-geared - it was ridden to those speed meets..
SteveA said:I take Jim's point, and reflect on John Hudson's own tuning notes which was my build bible at the time. He said he personally prefered standard size valves but made sure to get the best flow around them. I think that relates to what Jim is saying...with a 73mm bore you won't get enough 'demand' and 'flow' to make it all work, but with a bigger bore and a port matched to valve size it can work. My view is that I know that from my experience and ended up with a bike that both fast and rideable on 34mm prts and 36mm carbs...... but that does not mean I advocate a big port or want one now. I am starting out with standard FullAuto...we will see where we need to go when next we know how rideable that is....
But I think I agree with you too, dogma is not the way forward...'only this works' or 'only that works'....various things 'can' work, it depends on the sum of the parts....what else is in there....port size related to port shape and valve size, piston shape/compression/squish, carb and manifolds, cam and bore/stroke....etc...
Looks to me like Jim and Ken have had various things work over the years
comnoz said:It was not until I filled the bottom 1/3rd of the port with epoxy that the motor made good power. Jim
comnoz said:It looks like Dan Gurney has had luck with port design similar to my findings.
http://www.gizmag.com/dan-gurney-moment ... ult-widget
Using the above Google Link to access the patent I could view the text and placeholders for the images, but could not figure out how to actually view the images. If anyone encounters this same issue they may want to try this link from the USPTO where the images are visible.Dances with Shrapnel said:comnoz said:It looks like Dan Gurney has had luck with port design similar to my findings.
http://www.gizmag.com/dan-gurney-moment ... ult-widget
Interesting stuff. More details here for those willing to trudge through patent language.
https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US9103277
This is apparently an over square motor. It looks like they use variable cam timing.