Ryland3210

Thanks for helping to bring this thread back on track. dlaing's post #44 just now is, in my opinion, a good and accurate summary of all that's transpired on this issue in the past several months. The Purolator cross is their L10241. There may be others as good, but I analyzed only the UFI, SuperTech and Purolator. The technical data behind my research and tightening suggestions may be found in the FAQ section.

I believe it still is, but passionate egos will clash from time to time. I have learned it's better to interpret the viewpoint of another one finds disagreeable as coming from ignorance rather than malice. That makes it easier to take an attitude of compassion (without arrogance), rather than to lash out with anger and add fuel to the fire.

Good News! I checked in on the casting operation today. The three week schedule looks good, with castings due in two weeks, then heat treatment and machining in one more. I already have all the stainless hardware on hand. Expect to ship out the first 5 sets around April 23rd. After that, the delivery time should be about 4 weeks, depending on batch size. Meantime, I'll create the instructions to make it quick and easy. If anyone else is interested in being included in this production run, I need to hear from you this week. Some email messages I've sent via the Forum have not gone through. I suggest you send me a personal email with your direct email address, which I promise not to abuse, so I can respond with ordering information.

Hi John, I've sent you an email with order placement details. The consensus is for the lower cost casting method. However, for the initial parties which have expressed interest, an additional secondary finishing step will be done at no additional cost. I'm confident you'll be pleased. I expect to ship in about 3 weeks, but will have a more accurate idea after I visit the casting shop tomorrow. A full set of instructions will be sent along. There is no need to remove anything from the bike other than the existing footpegs and levers. All the necessary fasteners, in stainless steel wherever practical, are included. No special tools are needed. Cheers, John I've sent you an email with the details. Thanks for the support. I'm a long way from paying off the tooling.

First, let's recognize that measured AFR on the basis of an exhaust gas sensor is different from the physical AFR delivered by the intake system. It seems to me the influence of timing on apparent (measured) AFR is due to how complete the combustion is. I'm assuming by "reducing" you mean retarding. I'm interpreting your result as an indication by the sensor of more complete combustion, i.e., less unburnt fuel. But that implies that timing was too far advanced to begin with. If the timing was optimum, I would expect measured AFR to indicate richer on either the advanced or retarded direction. Does that make sense to you in your experience?

Check the FAQ on this subject. There's been much research on this subject in recent months. The consensus of several authorities and the conclusion of objective, quantifyable, analysis is that tightening by the turns method is more reliable than by torque.

My 1300 cc 850 pound Yamaha Venture with 4 carburettors, full fairings, saddlebags and luggage compartment gets about 48 mpg cruising at 63 mph and 43 at 75 mph. I think compression ratios are about the same. If fuel/air ratios and timing were the same, that leaves at the least, valve timing and engine temperature as other causes for the lower economy. In answer to the 26 versus 31 degrees advance question, when I used to experiment, I found that the more advance the better in terms of economy, although the engine ran a little rougher when very advanced. I think this was due to missfiring. There are limits. At extreme advances, say beyond 45 degrees, there can be missfiring if the mixture isn't compressed enough, and the potential for preignition. The Yamaha is water cooled, so temperature is more consistent than air cooled. You didn't mention temperature. The MG mapping might have to be more conservative to prevent preignition if there is no input into the map for engine temperature. In other words, to prevent preignition crossing a desert in the summer at high speeds, versus reasonable economy at 20 C in the rain.

I haven't seen vacuum advance on boats or motorcycles. I know a little about them as applied to automobiles having studied and tuned them for many years. Here's a simple description to get you started. Vacuum advance on automobiles is used to improve economy when the engine is under light loads. When the throttle is wide open, it is eliminated to prevent preignition. Since boats get relatively low miles per gallon, I wondered why my V8 powered 18 footer (5 mpg) has no vacuum advance. The main difference is that at cruising speed, a boat motor is producing such a high percentage of maximum, that the vacuum advance would be defeated anyway. At idle speeds, more fuel is consumed without vacuum advance, but the idle is smoother and more controllable at low RPM, and the difference in consumption is small relative to 5 mpg at cruise. In the 34 footer I once owned, even more so, since 1.1 mpg was typical. For example, back in the 60's, before environmental issues were a factor, some automotive distributors connected the vacuum advance to a port just above the carburettor throttle plate to defeat it at idle to make it smoother. I found that by connecting it to the intake manifold directly, idle speed rose significantly and I was able to save fuel by adjusting the idle screw back down. Decades ago, motorcycles did not have nearly the power they do today, so they were in the same situation as boat motors. In addition, most single or dual cylinder engines had no distributor with a breaker plate to make it easy to implement vacuum advance. Finally, of course, is the added cost and complexity of adding vacuum advance. Bottom line is that for engines under partial load, such as 90 hp motorcycles at cruising speed, I have no doubt that vacuum advance or its equivalent would reduce fuel consumption considerably. I haven't looked into it, but with today's computer controlled motorcycle engines equipped with numerous sensors, it is certainly possible for the mapping of ignition timing to include the equivalent of vacuum advance. It may be that yours already has the equivalent. I'm sure others will weigh in with specific answers, and I'm looking forward to that.

It's just as well. Edison's descendants might claim prior art to your ingenious solution. Do you have the disc type grammaphone or the orginal cylinder type? How about hooking the oil pressure light circuit to a relay which diverts the spark coil to the handlebar grips to get the rider's attention and kill the engine at the same time? That would prevent those foolish enough to run with insufficient oil from accelerating too hard as well.

I'm ready to take orders, but need to decide which process to use, because the tooling costs are so high, I don't want to incur both. I'll see if there is a way to survey all those interested make a decision this week. What's your preference?

My feelings haven't been hurt. When you wrote: 'It is theorized to be less prone based only on conjecture", you can see how I would take that to mean my theories. Using "Your conclusions" instead of "It is theorized" would have been clearer. I used "might" here exactly because one variable is how the filter is tightened. On the other hand, I have made recommendations in complete reports for the use of certain filters which make loosening highly improbable. The use of written communications in the absence of verbal instant feedback, request for clarification, etc. easily leads to misunderstandings, even between two people on the same wavelength. I can be accused of being just as anal in wordsmithing as engineering. Sorry if that's annoying, but I think you'll agree it's entertaining as well.

A few clarifications: The reports I supplied were not merely conjecture, they consisted of measurement, and objective comparisons, concluding with plausible reasons why some filters might loosen more readily than others and/or might be easier to tighten properly than others. That is not the same as saying filter A is definitely going to loosen or B is never going to loosen. Only the UFI old and newer versions, Purolator, and Supertech were compared. I stand by the work I did. No measurements were made of other brands, so I have no comment on them one way or the other.

A lot of misinterpretations can happen when communications are only in writing, including mistaken identity! It seems I have sometimes read the implications the wrong way. Yes, I have a long memory and appreciate the clarifications and your kind words in the past and present. As far as hearsay is concerned, I think it's semantics that divides us. As I understand it, hearsay is when someone is quoting someone else without them being present. The classic example is when someone testifies in court, "I heard him say ... ". That is inadmissable as evidence. (No, I'm not a lawyer.) Expressing a personal opinion is not hearsay. Opinions are acceptable as evidence if they are expressed by a qualified expert. I have been in that role. BTW, I often enjoy a good laugh at my own expense, but tend to stick to the dry science when discussing technical issues on this Forum, precisely because of the written format. I think we would have a blast over a few beers. java script:emoticon('', 'smid_12')

Right, my response was to Gary Cheek.

Slow down, Greg. I'm not the guy with the guy with the plastic calipers, so I'm not taking your .001" quote personally. I do admit a certain amount of skepticism of arguments from "authority". I'll continue to resort to reliance on the laws of physics when authority figures disagree with each other, or appear biased. Finally, published backup is not hearsay when it is objective and quantified and can be confirmed. It isn't even hearsay when someone is stating his own opinions, data or conclusions.

Here's a real brief description: Sand casting: The simplest method of casting, dates back thousands of years. A model, called a "pattern" is made of the part, normally out of hardwood, usually by hand. It's made slightly larger than the final product to allow for shrinkage of the metal during cooling. In the simplest explanation, the pattern is pushed part way into a box of special sand. A thin layer of some material which does not stick to the sand is placed over the sand. Then, another box is placed on top and filled with sand. The sand is then compacted, and usually baked to harden it. The two boxes, called "cope" and "drag" are then separated, the pattern removed, leaving a cavity with the shape of the part and put back together. In addition to the part pattern, channels are created to admit the molten metal, and allow gases to escape. Molten metal is poured into the assembled mold and allowed to freeze. The part will have the metal which froze in the feed channels attached to it. These are usually removed with a band saw. The part is then sanded, filed, or ground to remove any flash or exceptionally rough surfaces. The pattern will also have it's sides angled between 1.5 and 3 degrees, called "draft angles", so it can easily be removed from the sand. The surface finish mirrors the sand, so it depends on the type of sand used and other factors. The sand is recycled. There are more complex sand casting methods, but this gives you the idea. Investment Casting: More complex, and also dates back thousands of years. Tooling, usually aluminum, is machined to form cavities which are the negative of the shape of the part. In other words, the air in the cavity of this aluminum mold is in the shape of the part, plus it is provided with channels for the metal. In many cases, draft angles can be eliminated. A special wax is poured into the aluminum mold and allowed to freeze. The wax copy of the part is then positioned in a box and plaster is poured around it and allowed to harden. In some cases, the plaster can be sprayed onto the outside of the wax to form a shell instead of using a box. It is then baked to melt the wax out, leaving a cavity in the shape of the part and feed channels. Molten metal is poured into the plaster mold. Once it is frozen, the plaster is broken off the metal part. The wax is recycled. In investment casting the single aluminum mold is used to make numerous wax patterns. Making the aluminum mold is much more expensive than the sand cast pattern, and the parts are also more expensive because of the multi step wax pattern making-plaster mold-casting process. It has the advantage of being able to cast almost any shape, and better surface finish because the grain structure of plaster is finer than the sand used in sand casting. Dimensional tolerances are tighter than with sand casting, which often reduces machining cost. The aluminum mold is able to make numerous wax patterns with little wear, as compared to the wood pattern which is used over and over on every part.

In the "bad old days" my '64 Harley's breather exited into the primary chain housing. Never had to worry about the primary chain running dry!

It's taken a while to figure out costs on this project. Sorry for the delay. I will absorb the thousands I've spent to make a set of strong, functional, and good looking parts. I'm very happy with the results. This control relocation kit moves the footpeg positions 140 mm forward and slightly downward, to the standard height of the Centauro model. It substantially reduces the amount of knee flexing without any significant difference in cornering angle. Rider comfort is increased. The original stroke and pressure required for braking and shifting are preserved. Shift and brake lever positions are adjustable for rider preference in the same manner as the original. All parts are designed for high strength to weight ratio and long term life. All necessary installation parts and fasteners are provided, including: Right Footpeg Bracket Two M10 mounting screws, one M10 elastic stop nut, one 20 X 6.5mm spacer Brake Lever One special pivot screw, pivot bushing, two spacers, two M6 screws. Left Footpeg Bracket Two M10 mounting screws, two aluminum bracket spacers, one M10 elastic stop nut Shift Lever Bell Crank Transmission connecting rod Fasteners and connecting rod are stainless steel. Aluminum parts are machined billet, except for the Shift Lever, which is a high strength machined aluminum casting. No special tools are required. The two footpeg brackets, brake lever, and bell crank are machined billet aluminum. (6061-T6 high strength) There are two practical ways to make the rather complex shift lever. If we go with investment casting, the surface finish will be like the footpegs and like the picture of the shift lever I've supplied. If we go with sand casting, the finish will be like the cylinder barrels. In either case, there will be machined surfaces with a polished surface finish where necessary. I need feedback at this point. What it comes down to is $402 for the complete set with the sand cast shift lever and $511 for the complete set with the investment cast finish. There's a big difference in tooling cost. Let's make it: $398 sand cast, $495 investment cast for the complete sets. I've priced it tight and paid some pretty big bills to get this far, so I don't expect to reduce prices in the future. If someone wants to buy 10 or more sets, I might be able to shave something off. Guys, please let me know what you prefer. I need enough orders to return the investment in tooling expense, and have to decide which way to go. If there is enough demand, it might be possible to go both ways.

One thing that got my attention when I first delved into this issue, was how easy the UFI came off my bike when brand new, as installed by the factory. The object is not necessarily to tighten the filter to the point of bottoming the can to the block. If the gasket and groove design permits that AND the gasket is squeezed to 70% of its original thickness, AND if takes at least 3/4 turn from first contact (better if its one turn), then yes. Some filters do not permit that, including the Supertech 3614. Others permit that, but can be tightened properly without bottoming out. If interested, you'll find data on Purolator, UFI, and Supertech filters I've measured and analyzed, and methods of determining yourself on whatever filter you consider. If you're finding your SuperTech filters a bugger to get off, whatever you're doing is working, and keep it up. My numbers say that the first .45 turns don't do much to compress the gasket, but then the compression force (and torque required to tighten) will increase rapidly as you approach 3/4 turn, far more rapidly, than, for example a Purolator L10241. I can tighten the Purolator 1-1/8 turns at reasonable torques, and feel confident it won't come off because the torque is proportional. There are other filters which are no doubt good for this application. I just stopped looking around once I found one I have confidence in at a reasonable price. Anyone who cares to can use the methods I reported to find out for themselves.

75 psi is a number I've seen quoted when starting when the oil is cold. Filter diameters intended for the V11 of different brands have slightly different diameters. Basically, take the projected area of the filter's cross section and muliply it by the pressure. I used the approximate inside diameter of the gasket, 2.5 inches. That calculates out to 368 pounds. The force on the top of the filter can is actually more, if the diameter of the can is used. That comes out to 509 pounds in the case of the 2.98 inch diameter filters. I quoted the lower number because if the can were supported by something, the side of the can would be expected to absorb some of the force. The numbers I quote are approximate, because there are other variables involved here, namely the deflection of filter and sump under forces this high. They are high enough to discourage me from trying any such scheme. That was my point.

I admire your self confidence in the power of your recommendation alone. Why are Mobil's filter so privileged as to leave little to analyze? What is special about them? I haven't been around the forum as long as you have, so I feel some published objective backup is necessary in my case. It seems to be welcomed by many, even when it is anal.

I haven't checked other forums, I've been entertained and learned enough from this one to have concentrated on it. I've been wondering all along why someone hasn't questioned the measurements I have given to three decimals before, of neoprene and steel stampings and turns in this application. Perhaps these measurements have been criticized on other forae. It was just easier for me to report the results of measurements and calculations, rather than bother with an error analysis to put tolerances on each, when in the end the conclusions based on the measurements have to do with permitting a wide variation in acceptable turns anyway. In defense of the measurements, the variation around the circumference of the gasket and groove of all the filters I measured were remarkably consistent, typically + - 0.001, so reporting to three decimals was valid. Moreover, a few thousandths in groove and gasket dimensions IS significant. Precise measurements and calculations showed that not all filters meet your "good" requirement, nor mine. I started out this adventure trying to understand how to prevent filter loosening problems. I sure wasn't going to make claims or recommendations without solid, objective analysis, and have no regrets about being meticulous about that. Once again, I concur with you, as I've said before, in using good filters tightened properly. I hope my reports have provided useful, objective information as to which are the good filters, and how to tighten them. Along the way, I've take the time to describe my method of analysis to subject it to challenge, and to educate so others can do their own analysis and determine whether a filter is "good" and how to tighten them.

Just reacting to Gary Cheek's including my "bulging filters" among comments by those whom he thought were advocating supporting the filter with the cover, as I interpreted his comment. I wanted to make it clear where I stood. If it was already clear, that's fine.

By pointing out the 370 pound force and bulging filter issues, I was trying to show how problematic attempting to support the filter can is in this manner. I guess I was too subtle. I am serious about safety wiring the sump cover to prevent it unloosening, however. There's no locking device, and using Loctite, even the "removable" grade on such a large diameter thread would present a real challenge in getting it loose for the next oil change. I'd rather find a simple way to safety wire it, than deal with removing the sump to change the filter.

Love it, Gary! Bottom line to me and you, if I read you right, is that it's all about proper tightening. I've found that some filter designs make this easy by the turns method, some make it difficult, some make it problematic. In the latter case, hose clamps may be necessay insurance. For me, I'll stick to the former category of filter and use the turns method with confidence as I always have. It's been interesting doing the detailed analysis of the various filter designs and surprising to find so many variations in design concepts in such a mature technology. With Al putting some guidance in the FAQ's, I think it's time to move on and look for another problem to find solutions to.