Read the report, it says the tips are not stellite - correct they never have been. Delcrome C has been the specification at the 22% Cr level found as per your metallurgists report. I have since found drawings back to the 60's stipulating Delcrome to be used.
Two reports, the report from Australia and the report in the UK have both found that the chemical composition of your cam was not iaw with the suppliers specification. The metallurgist made this recommendation based on the Cr & Mo level, typical for a chill cast cam he claims, but does not give a typical specification - though he did not have the suppliers specification it is still a brave call. Metallurgists usually see failed items, so if he basing his comment on his experience it will indicate that is is common for failed chill cast cams, therefore not suitable.
Had the Australian metallurgist concentrated on the cam he would have seen a consistent issue with it, that, as Joe points out, needs further investigation and testing.
Rest assured, myself and Joe are not wasting anyone's time, as above, a lot of stock has been quarantined and thus a hindrance to many frustrated customers, including myself who needs a cam to get to Austria. It has been hard work to get this far, and it is still not over, so my digging will carry on. Joe employed me 3 years ago and part of my job is issues like this, as Joe knows if it is not right or I smell a rat I will tell him, it is not nice for me to do it, but he has to hear it. When I started here some suppliers tried to pull the wool over my eyes, big mistake, as a qualified engineer and an ex Warrant Officer First Class I had 31 years of that crap. If I am not happy I will test, confront and accuse, so far it has paid dividends on several occasions.
Well, I have read the report. Well, the only one available to me. That is, the report by the local to us metallurgist, which, contrary to what you say, does NOT, indeed, say that the camshaft is out of spec, because he does not have access to the manufacturers specifications, but falls within the spec for chilled iron cams, which he has seen quite a few of over his working life. So your reading of this is incorrect. Not only that, but you are quoting from the report that AN commissioned, and despite asking for the test to be made available, Ben has NOT received a copy so he can compare. Neither has anybody else. When is this report forthcoming?
Next, in an e-mail to me, you stated that stellite, as such, did not exist. You said that it was the name of the manufacturer, and when I queried you on this, you denied having said it. Your next statement was that stellite on the followers was "overkill". In a following statement, you said that stellite 6 was unsuitable for the application!! Three widely varying statements that I can prove by presenting e-mails received from you. So, three different answers. Which one is it?
In an earlier post, Worntorn was saying that the answer lay in an early book published by Phil Irving, another Australian genius, who stated that STELLITE 6 was the one to use. So, pray tell, the difference between applications in Vincents and Norton Commandos is.....? You are more qualified than Phil Irving?
I have asked you the question three times and you have failed to answer or even refer to the question and steadfastly refuse to test my followers. The question is, "when did the composition of the material brazed to the lifters change"? The reason given for not testing MY followers was that you'd tested followers twice in the 90's and once this year so mine don't need testing. Are you serious?
Then, unbelievably, you say that one of the followers had a fault, AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FITTED! Well Ashley, who supplied it and where is your quality control? Having said that, Ben, who rebuilt the Norton, said he has seen this many times, and has never seen a follower fail where the material looks like it hasn't bonded. Never. Besides, if this was a genuine fault, surely it would have manifested itself in 26,000 miles. But, it didn't.
You talked about "having the wool pulled over your eyes" and you will "test, confront, and accuse". Not very nice words to be used regarding customers.
Now, let's look at qualifications. My qualifications? None. Just living and breathing Nortons over many years and a lot of miles. The man who was picked out of a local business directory to test my cam and followers? 6o years old and an investigative metallurgist all of his working life. He was an expert witness in a court battle over camshafts and their failure, which he won, against a fairly well known Italian local Ducati person.
Ok. And your qualifications? Being an ex-military man myself, only doing 9 years in the service of my country, your statement that you were an engineer with 31 years of military service behind you, reaching the rank of Warrant Officer Class 1, an excellent achievement I might add, and knowing how closely our armies do things, I thought it odd that, if you were a fully qualified Mechanical Engineer, with a degree, then you would be, at the very least, a Lieutenant. Anybody who enters the armed forces of Australia with a degree, goes in at this rank or above. So, looking into your qualifications further, it seems you do not have a degree, but the equivalent of a Diploma or Certificate in Engineering. Is this how it works in the UK? A person with that level of qualification, in Australia, would be called a "technician". Nothing more. They would certainly be stretching the bounds of truth calling themselves an engineer.
Therefore, you have rejected the findings of a man, fully qualified in his profession, when you are lesser qualified, in a different profession! Really?
All that I say here, I can back up with e-mails, to and from.