Roper Plates and Oil Level

[Guest ratchethack]

My other doubt is with it finding its own level.

That is all fine, as long as that level is not to the point that Greg was experiencing oil pressure loss. I seem to recall that was at about the mid-point on the dip stick, which according to Ratchet's measurements, would be about 28mm below the sheet.

At that level, oil starvation may occur before the sheet stops the sloppage.

If Ratchet sets his to 21mm he should be fine, because his bike will not go significantly lower. But it seems that others should keep it topped up to at least the high mark.

Heck my reasoning could be flawed.

Dave, it looks like y'er missing a significant point or 2 here. Lemme take another whack at this:

 

After thinking about this extensively both before and during plate installation , I expect that with the plate installed (and as discussed at length) maintaining oil level at the mid-point on the dipstick would essentially eliminate any possibility of exposing the oil pickup. Not that I'm advocating maintaining this level. I'll be running it between new max and min levels to be determined on the road in the coming weeks. My new max level will be somewhere ABOVE the stock dipstick high mark, maybe 10 mm below the plate. I don't know where the min level will be yet either, but I may wind up considering the stock min mark fine for emergency purposes, with the stock mid-point being a safer low limit.

 

Consider that without the plate installed, and with oil level at the stock mid-point, Greg has proven that hard acceleration results in a huge percentage of oil volume climbing the rear wall of the crankcase, and a huge percentage of air volume displacing the oil that had previously occupied the space at the front of the sump - including the oil pickup.

 

With the plate in there, regardless of stock max or min, or even considerably higher levels of oil in there, the oil is effectively dammed up regardless - largely contained if you will - and a now more consistent, relatively calm, relatively de-aerated mass of oil CANNOT ESCAPE the vicinity of the pickup, even under hard acceleration.

 

Yes, yes, by now we all understand and agree with this imagery.

 

My point here WRT your comment above is that the main reason I've added the plate is that I expect that oil starvation is for all practical purposes NOT going to happen before the plate stops the sloppage - regardless of any oil level maintained above the stock min on the dipstick. I can't speak for all the others who've made the choice to add these plates, but believe that this is as safe a bet as can be made. Without confidence in this expectation, I wouldn't have installed it.

Personally I would prefer the sheet about 20mm lower than your design.

I'd also like to add with as much sincerity as possible that after much measurement and deliberation on this, even though the spacer/plate interface is a remarkably convenient place to add the plate, I believe that (though this was obviously NOT the original intent of the Guzzi engineers) planets have evidently mystically aligned , so that the block/spacer interface is NOT an unfortunately "forced compromise", arbitrary choice for locating the plate! To my way of thinking, in fact, it's the IDEAL - the PERFECT - the sine qua non !!! IMHO you wouldn't want it a mm either higher or lower!!! I believe we may all consider this a windfall - a gift of unintentionally beneficial consequences that we're all - Lord knows - undeservedly blessed to be able to capitalize on!

 

If you had the plate located 20 mm lower as you've suggested, which would have it more or less at the high level on the dipstick , this would mean that in operation at high RPM, for example, a great deal of the oil draining out and spilling down out of the pushrod tunnels from the heads, off the cam, off the mains, and off the crank webs from the internal crank galleries to the big-end journals would join the spin cycles in the crank maelstrom and tend to stay there, rather than having any opportunity of running under the plate - since the under-plate space would already be completely full of oil, and in fact oil would be forced to surge up out of every available opening and "served up on a plate", then be sucked up into the vacuum, drawn into Pete's great streamers of oil trailing off the crank webs. To my way of thinking, at a 10 mm space or more under the plate makes sense as a functionally separated sump - a cavity the oil can drop into and be "protected" from windage. With a 20 mm lower plate at the full mark there would be no escape cavity at all. Would you be willing to run the oil level in a tiny min/max margin below the midpoint or even lower to prevent windage??

 

In other words, what I'm suggesting is that with a 20 mm lower plate, at least with oil at the high mark, I'd expect you'd be substantially defeating the purpose of the plate WRT controlling windage, and diminishing the running oil capacity.

 

Now if the plate in the block/spacer location where I've installed mine solves the oil starvation problem, why run a higher oil level than the stock max mark on the dipstick? As Pete explained (again), for starters, you ideally want as much oil as you can get in there without experiencing unnecessary oil loss through the breather and condenser via windage. The more oil in there (up to the point where any addition suddenly begins to accumulate above the plate at high RPM and create loss through windage again!), not only is oil starvation probability reduced to an infinitessimally small liklihood, but (as I've tried to point out above) the need to check the level over time on the road is greatly reduced, as the "safe" operating range of oil level for those with motors that consume any amount of oil (as well as for all others) has been extended. In addition, it's likely that those with motors that're using oil due to excessive blow-by will automatically use less oil with the plate in there due to reduced windage. More oil (v. less oil) also assists the engine considerably in drawing heat away from critical areas and dumping it through the sump fins and oil cooler.

 

ACK! Now I think I've substantially passed my ability to add anything and I'm probably mostly repeating both meself and Pete. Gotta go.

[dlaing]

 

With the plate in there, regardless of stock max or min, or even considerably higher levels of oil in there, the oil is effectively dammed up regardless - largely contained if you will - and now more consistent, relatively calm, relatively de-aerated mass of oil CANNOT ESCAPE the vicinity of the pickup, even under hard acceleration.

 

Yes, yes, by now we all understand and agree with this imagery.

 

My point here WRT your comment above is that oil starvation is for all practical purposes NOT going to happen before the plate stops the sloppage - regardless of any oil level maintained above the stock min on the dipstick.

 

Thanks Ratchet.

This is where I disagree, because I don't think it has been proven that it is safe to run at the minimum mark.

Greg was generous enough to risk his engine testing, but I don't think he tested enough times to determine the low point of critical failure.

I was hoping someone would pull the pan and sump spacer and attach just the two of them together, along with the sheet, and do a tilt test.

The theoretical minimum would be determined by tilting it back, simulating accelleration, and finding a level maximum where the oil is just about to lose pickup and just about lose sloppage stoppage.

Once that amount of fluid is determined, tilt it level and measure how far below the sheet that point is, and then add atleast 10mm for safety and the assumption that oil will be leaving the pump and also assuming the slosh will not be level, but rather tempestuous. (in which case the excercise of measuring the inclination may have been futile.)

 

I also understand that the windage properties of the sheet (by the way, it is technically sheet metal and not plate metal) will help keep more oil in the sump, especially over the period of an oil change.

But I don't think it is enough to effect the oil level by more than 5mm on any given ride.

Greg's testing showed that the mid point on the stick was critically vulnerable without the sheet, so I would not trust that the windage properties alone made the mid point safe. Although his test did show it was fine at that point. I just don't know how his test would have faired on a hotter day with thinner oil, on a steeper hill, with a soft sprung tail with too much sag.

 

Also for the Helicopter Jims of the world, it seems like the no brainer is to fill it to the bottom of the sheet, so when they ride wheelies their engine does not seize.

But that oil level may not last. Further testing will tell.

 

The methodology of filling the oil to the bottom of the sheet and running the engine till it blows the oil down to a stable level is fine for determining the high mark, but not the low mark.

 

Don't get me wrong, this is a great product, and it will expand the safe high and low levels, it is just that the factory low was way too low and the safe low is higher than the low mark and possibly higher than the mid mark.

I don't believe we can advocate that the low mark is safe.

The safe high and low levels without the sheet are probably something narrow like between 7.9mm and 8.0mm above the high mark, atleast according to my darkest guzzichondriacal nightmares.

If Greg will set his to the low mark and go for a some full throttle runs up some steep bumpy hills to test it, I'll eat my words.

EDIT

Here are some nice photos taken presumably the same day Ratchet measured:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98476523@N00/...9179611/detail/

[Ryland3210]

My pressure gauge project is finished. It's located on the speedo/tach mounting plate so I can keep an eye on it. My measurement of oil level versus dipstick markings versus how far the level was below the block gasket versus oil volume specified in the manual resulted in a good reference oil level to test the pump starvation issue.

 

With oil level at my modified dipstick marker (the original markings were about 11/16" low), I accelerated at full throttle from 2000 rpm to redline in first and second gear. It was a hot day, 91 degrees, with the engine thoroughly warmed up.

 

As I accelerated in first gear from a rolling start at 2,000 RPM, oil pressure stayed at a constant 56 psi until about 5,000 RPM, at which point it dropped suddenly to 48 and drooped lower until it reached redline. The instant the throttle was backed off, pressure rose to 56 again.

 

The same acceleration then was done in second and third gear. In both cases, there was no dip in pressure. To verify the test, the first gear test was done once more, with the same dip in prssure as before.

 

I'm thoroughly convinced of the need for the Roper plate. Until I install one, no more full throttle accelerations for me in first gear, let alone wheelies.

 

Pete, if you're watching this, please let me know how to purchase one!

 

Cheers, John

[dlaing]

(the original markings were about 11/16" low)

Your measurements against the dipstick differed from Ratchet's by only about 3mm.

He got 23mm and you got 18.23mm, using different technique, dry vs. oil.

Was that with modified dipstick or before modification?

 

Ratchet got

The high level mark = 21 mm below the block (18 mm below the Roper plate).

The low level mark = 41 mm below the block (38 mm below the Roper plate).

[Ryland3210]

Your measurements against the dipstick differed from Ratchet's by only about 3mm.

He got 23mm and you got 18.23mm, using different technique, dry vs. oil.

Was that with modified dipstick or before modification?

 

Ratchet got

 

Here's the quote from my post on the thread:

 

"My dipstick length from the flange to the tip is 7-9/16".

With a filter change, thorough draining of the sump, then adding 3.5 liters per the manual and running the engine long enough to fill the filter, the oil level reached 2.09" from the end of the dipstick with it fully screwed in, or 5.475 from the flange

. That's 0.69 higher than its full mark, but still 0.33 lower than the gasket along the dipstick, or 0.23" vertically. This corresponds with the full mark being 18.23mm from the block surface, and when the wetting of the oil during extraction of the dipstick which causes an artificially high reading is taken into account, this agrees almost exactly with Ratchethack's visual measurement of 21 mm."

 

The marks refered to are the original marks.

[BrianG]

So, at the end of the day...... how much oil are you putting in with a new filter and the Roper plate in place Ratchet ?

[Guest ratchethack]

So, at the end of the day...... how much oil are you putting in with a new filter and the Roper plate in place Ratchet ?

Brian, this response is not directed at you. I've seen LOTS of posts with lots of focus and concern over oil refill volume. Frankly, I can't understand this wotsoever.

 

Now this is just my OPINION, but I do believe it's based on credible experience, accurate observation, and wot appears to be that increasingly rare commodity lately, COMMON SENSE:

 

I don't know and I really couldn't care less exactly how much goes in. I try to get as much of the old oil out as possible, and I make sure I have more than enough new oil on hand before a change (around a gallon with the Roper plate) but as long as I've got at least 4 quarts and whatever is left open from the last oil fill on hand, I don't pay any attention wotsoever.

 

Here's why I consider engine oil replacement volume irrelevant here (relatively speaking, you understand!), the same as I consider replacement volume of fork oil relatively irrelevant, final LEVEL being fairly critical in both cases (moreso in forks):

• Unless it's possible to drain ALL of the old oil out with consistency, filling by volume can easily result in OVER-FILLING!
   
  
• With the bike on the stand, a slight variation in fore-aft chassis "pitch angle" makes a considerable difference as to how much oil comes out of the sump plug hole. Ditto with the "manhole cover" off.
   
  
• The timing chaincase contains approx. a pint of oil that recirculates, but CANNOT be drained without cracking the timing chest.
   
  
• The oil cooler likewise contains possibly another pint of oil that likewise recirculates, but CANNOT be drained without removing the cooler and turning it upside-down.
   
  
• Oil filters likewise contain possibly another pint or so of oil. When not replaced, this oil CANNOT be drained.
   
  
• The rocker boxes pool up a smaller but unknown volume of oil that CANNOT be drained.
   
  
• The oil galleries may well contain an unknown volume of oil that CANNOT be drained.
  

Now of course, if one drains out the oil under PRECISELY IDENTICAL circumstances every time, AND either ALWAYS replaces the filter, NEVER replaces the filter, or MEASURES AND CALCULATES the filter volume and fills according to the corrected volume at every oil change -- well, I reckon this is an unnecessary bother, a nuisance, it's innacurate, error-prone, makes a whalloping big mess to clean up, and it's about as silly as doing wot another poster has suggested doing with forks -- that being topping off the OLD oil to the exact level desired BEFORE draining it all out again (!!!), measuring the volume of old oil as it comes out exactly, and then refilling with the exact volume removed -- and apparently ignoring the critical AIR GAP final check altogether!

 

Now I've seen some great heaps of convoluted-to-the-point-of-tortured thinking and ridiculous behavior in my time. Correction, please. Let's throw in BIZARRE BEHAVIOR -- to the extent that very little surprises me with this kinda thing. But doesn't it make A LOT more sense -- just in consideration of one's own TIME, f'er cryin' out loud! -- to just add as much oil as it takes to get the exact level desired (regardless of volume) -- especially since you've got to check the final level after running ANYWAY?!?!

 

Just asking.

 

BAA, TJM, but I very seriously doubt that anyone's M is EVER gonna V

[dlaing]

Here's the quote from my post on the thread:

 

"My dipstick length from the flange to the tip is 7-9/16".

With a filter change, thorough draining of the sump, then adding 3.5 liters per the manual and running the engine long enough to fill the filter, the oil level reached 2.09" from the end of the dipstick with it fully screwed in, or 5.475 from the flange

. That's 0.69 higher than its full mark, but still 0.33 lower than the gasket along the dipstick, or 0.23" vertically. This corresponds with the full mark being 18.23mm from the block surface, and when the wetting of the oil during extraction of the dipstick which causes an artificially high reading is taken into account, this agrees almost exactly with Ratchethack's visual measurement of 21 mm."

 

The marks refered to are the original marks.

Thanks, it makes more sense now.

Previously I thought you had the right dipstick, but it wasn't really relevant anyway as you must have been doing math to figure out the vertical oil level.

FWIW the "normal" dipstick is marked from the face of the dipstick head

High 157 mm

Low 186 mm

 

I'll be running it between new max and min levels to be determined on the road in the coming weeks. My new max level will be somewhere ABOVE the stock dipstick high mark, maybe 10 mm below the plate. I don't know where the min level will be yet either, but I may wind up considering the stock min mark fine for emergency purposes, with the stock mid-point being a safer low limit.

I think Brian is looking for an update on what level you settled on.

[Guest ratchethack]

I think Brian is looking for an update on what level you settled on.

Now this is just me, Dave, but if Brian had been interested in the level I'd settled on, I reckon he'd have asked, instead of "how much" with a new filter.

[BrianG]

Now this is just me, Dave, but if Brian had been interested in the level I'd settled on, I reckon he'd have asked, instead of "how much" with a new filter.

Ya, that.

 

Now ratcher, 0l' buddy.... you know that I'm not one to futz about with inappropriate determinations and arbitrary numbers. What I was doing in this instance was actually paying you an uncommon compliment.

 

Rather than re-do all this measurement and determination for myself, I was acknowledging the time and effort you have put into this determination so that I would not have to waste my time in replicating your meticulous work. If you actually knew the "volume" of oil that you have settled on, I could use that information to replicate your determination of "level" and adopt it, as soon as I button up the donk from the Roper-plate installation.

[Guest ratchethack]

Ya, that.

 

Now ratcher, 0l' buddy.... you know that I'm not one to futz about with inappropriate determinations and arbitrary numbers. What I was doing in this instance was actually paying you an uncommon compliment.

 

Rather than re-do all this measurement and determination for myself, I was acknowledging the time and effort you have put into this determination so that I would not have to waste my time in replicating your meticulous work. If you actually knew the "volume" of oil that you have settled on, I could use that information to replicate your determination of "level" and adopt it, as soon as I button up the donk from the Roper-plate installation.

Brian, sorry if I seemed, well, more crotchety than usual. Yes, I know you're a straight-ahead, no nonsense kinda guy. THAT, my friend, is greatly appreciated!

 

As far as compliments go, yeah I reckon they're appreciated on my end, my friend, but I'm by no means hanging out here fishing for 'em (as if that weren't pretty obvious!).

 

Fact is I've got a whalloping big chest cold that's hammered me pretty hard since late yesterday. Got the timing chest opened up (per your "Part Throttle Hiccup" thread) only to find that my 32 mm combination wrench wouldn't fit the recess in the crank sprocket, and I had to bodge up an ultra-deep socket (it needs 4" to clear the crank nose) out of a length of 1 1/2" pipe that I anvil-hammered around a 1 1/4" nut I used as a mandrel. Works like a Champ, BTW. The crank nut came off pretty as a new set o' snow tires in Edmonton in October. The alternative seems to've been ordering wot I understand is a high quality machine-tool-grade, purpose-built Guzzi socket from Rolf in Norway. . .

 

So I'm torqued-off not to have the new tensioner installed by now. The wrench bodge and friggin' cold has scotched the Max Uptime Prime Directive. . .

 

More on the chain tensioner fiasco (with photo's) in the other thread when I get that all-important ROUND TUIT back again. . .

 

As far as the Roper Plate "ideal level", I'm too wheezy right now to look it up, but I thought I posted wot I figured would be a good starter level in there -- that is, halfway between the top mark on the dipstick and the plate itself, which puts the level 10 mm below the plate. It's wot I ran with no oil light flicker at all, despite hard launches in testing, and I had no detectable amount of oil loss at that level since I put the plate in. When she goes back together, I'll go a little higher. Wot I'm looking for (per prev. posts) is a new max level above which it will start to blow excess out the condenser.

 

Will advise.

[Ryland3210]

Thanks, it makes more sense now.

Previously I thought you had the right dipstick, but it wasn't really relevant anyway as you must have been doing math to figure out the vertical oil level.

FWIW the "normal" dipstick is marked from the face of the dipstick head

High 157 mm

Low 186 mm

I think Brian is looking for an update on what level you settled on.

 

My OEM plastic dipstick measures High 156mm to the middle of the mark, and 184 to the middle of the low. Pretty close to the "normal" one you mention. To review my measurement procedure, the bike was drained thoroughly and filter replaced. Careful measurements of the dipstick location, screwed in, relative to the block gasket were made with a vernier caliper. 3.5 liters (3.7 quarts) were added, the engine was run long enough to fill the filter and build pressure. With the bike held vertical with a chain hoist, dipstick oil levels was measured.

 

Given the margin below the gasket level 3.7 quarts provides, Ratchethack's 4 quart practice probably provides sufficient margin. I gather he has installed a Roper plate. That being the case, there should be no problem with the additional 0.3 quarts. In fact, I think I'll start doing the same. I feel comfortable with a thorough sump drain, change the filter, dump in 4 quarts, and off I go! I still want a Roper plate so I can blast off in first gear with reckless abandon!

[dlaing]

My OEM plastic dipstick measures High 156mm to the middle of the mark, and 184 to the middle of the low. Pretty close to the "normal" one you mention.

Oh, now I get it.

Your dipstick is to within a millimeter the same as Ratchets and mine.

3.5Liters brings it 0.69" above our high mark, and this corresponds to the high mark that Ratchet measured. With your measurement being a wet 0.23" below the upper gasket, in metric that is 5.8mm, not the 18.23mm that I mistakenly thought you were implying.

The 18.23mm is a result of 5.8mm plus how far off vertically the mark was from the fill level.

Thanks for the clarification!

I might have to double check the numbers, but it sure looks like Greg was correct when he said to measure with dipstick un-threaded. as there is a difference of about 13mm (vertically) or 11/16" (17-18mm) (along the dipstick) What is the depth of the threads? Probably about 17-18mm.

Now the 4 quart method makes more sense.

I wonder 4 liters will fit under the sloppage sheet????...and not blow oil???

[Ryland3210]

Oh, now I get it.

Your dipstick is to within a millimeter the same as Ratchets and mine.

3.5Liters brings it 0.69" above our high mark, and this corresponds to the high mark that Ratchet measured. With your measurement being a wet 0.23" below the upper gasket, in metric that is 5.8mm, not the 18.23mm that I mistakenly thought you were implying.

The 18.23mm is a result of 5.8mm plus how far off vertically the mark was from the fill level.

Thanks for the clarification!

I might have to double check the numbers, but it sure looks like Greg was correct when he said to measure with dipstick un-threaded. as there is a difference of about 13mm (vertically) or 11/16" (17-18mm) (along the dipstick) What is the depth of the threads? Probably about 17-18mm.

Now the 4 quart method makes more sense.

I wonder 4 liters will fit under the sloppage sheet????...and not blow oil???

 

Hi Dave,

 

Your welcome!

 

Yes, 4 U.S. quarts will fit under the sloppage sheet, (or below the gasket for those who do not have one) provided you include changing the filter and use part of the 4 quarts to fill the new filter.

 

The problem I have with using the un-threaded dipstick is that it is all too easy to misjudge the 45 degree angle and get a high or low reading. It's annoying that there is no guide tube for the dipstick. Then it would be easy to establish a reliable fill mark without having to screw it in. Maybe I'll make it a project. What do you think? Is it worthwhile?

[Guest ratchethack]

The problem I have with using the un-threaded dipstick is that it is all too easy to misjudge the 45 degree angle and get a high or low reading. It's annoying that there is no guide tube for the dipstick. Then it would be easy to establish a reliable fill mark without having to screw it in. Maybe I'll make it a project. What do you think? Is it worthwhile?

John, I can't conceive of any self-respecting Guzzista needing a dipstick guide -- at any level of effort and investment of time!!

 

Would you tell your Significant Other you need a dipstick guide?!

 

However, there's good news for you as a prospective Roper plate installer. The plate has a hole in it that acts exactly as what you note above -- a guide for the dipstick!

 

For those who don't have a Roper plate installed, you can simply screw the dipstick home and add oil to imaginary marks above the ones on the dipstick -- or even put your own marks on it wherever you want.