New electric start conversion

lrutt said:

bummer reading that the original air box has to be removed. Do not like KN's and do not want to remove original air box.

That is a disapointment, sorry and don't mean to be negative. Just like that ugly original lump for some reason.

Click to expand...

The original air box is extremely restrictive and going to some free flowing K&N's is a nice improvement. I would guess the 90% of those original boxes have been removed at some point. I understand that you like the original look but in order for us to fit the starter, that part was just creating to much interference and we could not work with it in place. We looked at it as a minor concession to make in order to get all the benefits and estart will give you.

Matt / Colorado Norton Works

www.coloradonortonworks.com

Jeandr said:

Using a sprag :!: where are all the naysayers who said a sprag was a no-no :?:

Jean

Click to expand...

Jean,

I certainly was one of those against using a sprag as well. Just came to the conclusion that after doing to research that this was in fact the best way to move forward. I would never ultimately compromise the quality of a cNw part if I find a better way to make it....regardless of what I had intended to do when the development started. So a very high quality sprag was sourced and it will do the job

One of the benefits of this sprag is that it is sandwiched between two, high quality deep groove sealed bearings, essentially completely shielding it. In other words, it's not an open sprag like we are used to seeing in the MkIII. It is also using almost triple the engagement pins that the original used, giving us a torque level of 542 ft/lbs.

We are now cutting gears, finishing up on the final design and getting close to installing this in some machines that will also be used very hard for the next couple of months in order to ensure that the system operates as intended

Matt / Colorado Norton Works

www.coloradonortonworks.com

Jeandr said:

swooshdave said:

Jeandr said:

Using a sprag, where are all the naysayers who said a sprag was a no-no?

Jean

Click to expand...

Aren't sprays used on most modern bikes? Pick the right quality part and it shouldn't be a problem. Engineer it a wee bit better than they did for the MkIII and it shouldn't be a problem.

Click to expand...

THAT is what *I* said at the beginning of the thread, but some were saying a desing WITHOUT a sprag was a desired design criteria, now that cNw said a sprag was being used, it suddenly becomes OK :?: :?: :?: and the talk shifts to batteries and airboxes. The old saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat" may hold true in some situations, but not ALL of them. The QPD design driving a ring gear on the clutch basket requires too many modifications to be cost effective and it is irreversible, once done, new parts are needed to go back (who would want that except a museum?) The sprag solution IS the cost effective solution.

Jean

Click to expand...

I was one of the sprag naysayers. I still don't like the idea of a continuously running sprag like the MK3, the Alton, or now this CNW starter.
If I understand correctly, modern pre engagement starter sprags are only in use during the start mode to prevent overunning once the engine catches. During normal running this type of sprag is not turning, am I correct?

A club member recently showed me his electric starter for his 1272 Vincent. It is from a Honda Civic auto and drives thru the clutch basket and belt drive.
There is no kickstart on the bike. This arrangement has worked perfectly for 33,000 miles to date. So cranking over a much smaller 850cc (or even 1007cc) Commando engine thru the clutch basket and belt drive should not be any problem whatsoever. But I understand that this CNW starter is already designed , is being built and likely will not change dramatically.

One question on the sprag- when the sprag fails will it be necessary to replace the inner and outer hubs as it is with the MK3 sprag, and if so, approximately how expensive will these items be ?
With the MK3 this anywhere from $500 CDN(Norvil) to $800 CDN (oldbritts) each time it occurs, parts only. Parts and labour would probably be close to $1500 if one were to take the bike to a shop and say "make the estart work again!"
So it is no small thing.

Glen

Glen,

I am sure there are many great starter systems working in all kinds of applications out there but just because something it works in a Vincent, or a Honda or a Ural that doesn't mean it will work in our Commandos as well and vice versa

I can appreciate that you have a different opinion on what will work and what wont but the fact is that I am the one that will ultimately be standing behind the product 100% as cNw have always been known to do. There is a whole lot of research, time and money being spent to develop this system so you have to believe that its very important to me that this delivers what we promise

IF the sprag in the cNw starter system would happen to fail for any reason at all, then you contact me at the shop and I will take care of it and whatever other parts that were affected by the failure. That's why many decide to buy from cNw since it gives them service and support after the sale.

Who does your friend contact when his system fails ? Vincent, Honda, the belt drive manufacturer or ?

Rest assured that we will do our due diligence so we can offer a system that will perform trouble free and as intended

Matt / Colorado Norton Works

www.coloradonortonworks.com

Matt, my point about the belt drive being well capable of turning over 850ccs was in response to this-

"We are well past the point of deciding how the drive system will work. No question we want to drive it on the crank. If you use the clutch basket as your drive, then you are essentially using the belt to turn the engine over. This we wanted to avoidMatt / Colorado Norton Works"

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I took this to mean that starting the engine thru the belt drive was not a good thing.

Though a 1272 ten to one Vincent is different than a Norton, I think we can agree that if the belt can successfully be used to crank a beast like that, it could also be used to crank up a Norton without much ado.

I like the fact that you will stand behind the unit should there be any problems. Your past record on this sort of thing is excellent.

As far as who my friend will go to should his unit give trouble, I imagine he'll just fix it himself since he designed and built the system in his shop.

Glen

Glen, I'm sure you can see the advantage to an electric starter that can be installed on the bike without any modifications. Vincents are now in collector's hands, many just put them in the living room as you would with a sculpture. Any modification will reduce the value, so for the ones fortunate to have a few hundred thousands of loose change AND wanting to ride the thing, a starter is almost necessary. Our Nortons are at the foot of the up-curve, a starter is a STRONG selling point, one that can be taken off without a trace, just the thing for a sculpture 8)

Jean

Jean,

The CNW starter is certainly not one that could be fitted to a commando without any modification.

My view is that using a Solenoid operated starter turning a modified clutch basket is possibly a cheaper cleaner solution, but then I'm not the guy cutting chips!

It's probably not an issue but by making the starter motor turn the crankshaft by engaging onto a modified clutch drum will be effectively increasing the torque needed due to the 'gearing-up' ratio of the clutch drum-to-crankshaft diameters, this, in effect will be over-riding a considerable amount of any designed-in 'gearing-down' performed by intermediate gears, chains etc. i.e. rather self-defeating ... . Most car starters (and old BMW/Guzzis etc.) deploy the starter pinion (small size) engaging with the engine flywheel or clutch casing (large diameter) which is directly connected to the crankshaft and thus achieves the desired 'gearing reduction' without any penalty.
I hope this makes sense!

mwoo said:

It's probably not an issue but by making the starter motor turn the crankshaft by engaging onto a modified clutch drum will be effectively increasing the torque needed due to the 'gearing-up' ratio of the clutch drum-to-crankshaft diameters, this, in effect will be over-riding a considerable amount of any designed-in 'gearing-down' performed by intermediate gears, chains etc. i.e. rather self-defeating ... . Most car starters (and old BMW/Guzzis etc.) deploy the starter pinion (small size) engaging with the engine flywheel or clutch casing (large diameter) which is directly connected to the crankshaft and thus achieves the desired 'gearing reduction' without any penalty.
I hope this makes sense!

Click to expand...

The gearing on BMWs is around 11:1 on earlier models and 12:1 on later models, with modern starter motors I would judge that you could run a low ratio must come down to the size of the ring gear on the clutch and the gear on the starter motor (Norton Clutch is a smaller diameter than a BMW flywheel) so that you can achieve a workable ratio, together with gears that are big enough to take the loads for the long term.

The Norton Rotaries use a sprag clutch and wheel behind the clutch. the primary chain drive features a tensioner just like the Mk3 Commando. it works very well. As a matter of interest the clutch has 18 plates.

Hi all,

Quick update as we are moving forward

Pictures of the complete gear sets that make it all come together. As you can see, we will be using splined shafts as opposed to keyed for a stronger enagement. These are the intial fitments to ensure everything works as intended. Once confirmed, the gears will get the final finish





Stock Lucas style alternator installed on the outrigger plate. In the last image you can see how the starter gear at the top is withdrawn from the first idler gear. In other words, the starter is completely disconnected while the engine is running





Matt / Colorado Norton Works

http://www.coloradonortonworks.com

Few more images showing the splined shafts that run between the gears. There is a hole through the center of the shaft. This to ensure that the piece gets hardened all the way through. It will be reduced in size from what you see on the test shaft in the image

On the inside (inner primary) and outside (outrigger plate) of that shaft there will be a sealed bearing that it will run in





First look at the clutch basket



Matt / Colorado Norton Works

http://www.coloradonortonworks.com

chasbmw said:

Jean,

The CNW starter is certainly not one that could be fitted to a commando without any modification.

My view is that using a Solenoid operated starter turning a modified clutch basket is possibly a cheaper cleaner solution, but then I'm not the guy cutting chips!

Click to expand...

Charles

Actually this kit is completely reversible. All the parts you remove during install can be saved. You can unbolt everything included in the kit and reinstall your original parts.

I have done this already with the kit to verify

John

mwoo said:

It's probably not an issue but by making the starter motor turn the crankshaft by engaging onto a modified clutch drum will be effectively increasing the torque needed due to the 'gearing-up' ratio of the clutch drum-to-crankshaft diameters, this, in effect will be over-riding a considerable amount of any designed-in 'gearing-down' performed by intermediate gears, chains etc. i.e. rather self-defeating ... . Most car starters (and old BMW/Guzzis etc.) deploy the starter pinion (small size) engaging with the engine flywheel or clutch casing (large diameter) which is directly connected to the crankshaft and thus achieves the desired 'gearing reduction' without any penalty.
I hope this makes sense!

Click to expand...

We looked at driving the clutch basket, but could not find a good way to do it without modifications that could not be reversed and returned to stock

Matt,

Very nice work.
The entire assembly with splined shafts looks quite robust.

Pretty neat gears, do they make much noise?
nice work!

Fascinating to see this coming together.
Not sure if i understand all correctly, is there any idler arrangement other than the starter motor gear disengaging?
Seems interesting if the gear train runs continuously in a dry belt setup?

ntst8 said:

Fascinating to see this coming together.
Not sure if i understand all correctly, is there any idler arrangement other than the starter motor gear disengaging?
Seems interesting if the gear train runs continuously in a dry belt setup?

Click to expand...

I could be mistaken but I believe Matt is also using a sprag to disconnect the drive gears while the engine is running.

Pete

Pete, you are correct. Inside the large gear that is on the crank shaft there is a sprag. This sprag has a sealed bearing on each side of it so its completely shielded from the elements

So the gear assembly will only rotate while the starter is being engaged. Even though it will make some gear noise while engaged, it will be a 'good' mechanical sound as opposed to something that sounds like it is coming apart (a sound that most of those that run their e-starts on the MkIII are somewhat familiar with)

Considering the great knowledge and experience that STS has with making extremely high quality gears, the gear sizes, pitch, engagement, lash, material used and finish it is all being designed so that this will overall mesh perfectly.

Check in on the site to see more details about the kit

http://coloradonortonworks.com/part-cat ... #post-1214

Matt / Colorado Norton Works

http://www.coloradonortonworks.com

Very fascinating stuff.

I have asked a few questions on John's facebook posts, he's got a good grip.