FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

exxon valdez

Moderators: Curt!, Pa

<<

Plumber

Posts: 1536

Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:01 am

Location: S.Calif.

Post Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:57 am

Re: exxon valdez

Any pics of that jet and and another pic of the jet installed ? mail me a jpg. image off a camera or a film pic that has been scanned and I'll post it..
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: exxon valdez

Plumber
It will be this weekend before I can get it back out and a pic taken. While I am at it I will include pics of the fitting in the gear case cover with the screen installed.
F
<<

knucknutz

Posts: 35

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:37 pm

Location: clear creek,id

Post Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: exxon valdez

flsmith1, hope this fixs your problem. you say your runnin vavle seals,could you let me in on which ones you are using? i went througth search an found a few people who use them an have up to 20,000 miles on them,on problems .jke says he s runnin shovel ones,if i remember right,and im thinkin you have to make some guides up yourself, havnt seen any in catalogs,but that dont mean nothin.any body out there makin these up for sale? local shop can turn some guides down for me,but asked what seals people where using,with out problems.i know most people are only usin them on intakes.thanx for any info,an thanx for puttin up with me.
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: exxon valdez

knucknutz
I am to try and send some pics to Plumber this weekend. He is going to post them here. I will try and get some pics of a valve guide I have already cut down and some of the valve seals. May even include a couple of the flathead project still on the jack. The seals are automotive and list for a Chevy big block. They are a hard plastic type substance that push down on the guide with some resistance and have a spring around them to keep them tight on the stem and guide. I do still have the part #.
F
<<

Plumber

Posts: 1536

Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:01 am

Location: S.Calif.

Post Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: exxon valdez

It will be this weekend before I can get it back out and a pic taken. While I am at it I will include pics of the fitting in the gear case cover with the screen installed.

Put a few words with each one. Number the pics. Number the captions. Show as much as you can in one pic. Saves screen real estate.
<<

ncmc47

Posts: 18

Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:50 pm

Location: Valentine, NE 69201

Post Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:26 pm

Re: exxon valdez

You are treating the the symptoms and not the disease. I think you are right about the grooved rocker arms causing your head oiling problems. However I think you will eventually damage your top end. I would never go below the .060" that S&S recommend. You have something else going on as well.
Oil pumps, pump volume, not pressure. The internal clearences built into you engine determine the oil pressure. I put an S&S pump on a fairly fresh knuckle motor that ran almost 50lbs on start up and about 30-35 lbs warm and only had to restrict oil to the rear exhaust. I later found that rocker arm had more clearance. But my oil pressure varied, you have a restiction some where that is above the ability of the relief valve in the oil pump to deal with. If you run it long enough it will fail and you will find out what was wrong. Or get down on yor knees and beg and maybe Cotton or Carl will help you. LOL. I too have found Al at S&S very helpful. He knows the older motors, and will bend over backwards to help. The younger guys just don't realize the differences between the old stuff and the soul less Evo stuff. One of them even told me they didn't make cases for knuckle heads. Please let us know what you find, we're in this together.
Steve
Last edited by ncmc47 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's a hard life if you don"t weaken.
<<

Cotten

User avatar

Posts: 2674

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 1999 12:01 am

Location: Central Illinois, USA

Post Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: exxon valdez

Carl's the Man!

....Cotten
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: exxon valdez

ncmc47
I put about 150 mi. on it today. Much of it 55 - 65 mph. No leaks. Tailpipes are dry. No diffrence in rocker noise. The oil pressure is steady at 20 psi. I am tempted to even try and wash some of the oil off the bike. Naaa.
I may have treated the symptom and not the disease but the symptoms seem to be no longer problematic. I am going to leave it like it is for a while. Will keep all posted.
F
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:53 pm

Re: exxon valdez

All
Just a follow up on the rocker oiling modifications. I have about 1500 miles now since doing the mods. There seems to be no ill effects from the oil restriction. The rocker arm noise is the same as before the mods. The oil leaks from the rockers is very minimal.
I will post again after the hot Georgia summer.
F
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: exxon valdez

All
Well it's late September. The Exxon Valdez has been about 5000 mi. this summer. Mostly back roads here in middle Georgia but every once in a while a short trip on Xway. There seems to be no down side to the very small orfices in the rocker box fittings. It runs fine. No more oil leaks than can be expected for the bike. Oil consumption is very minimal. The only problem is a fouled back plug about every 500 miles. I will continue to ride like it is untill something else prompts me to go into it.

Still have not washed it.

F
<<

45Brit

Posts: 1414

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:29 am

Post Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:47 am

Re: exxon valdez

I once owned a Royal Enfield Constellation ( the 700cc vertical twin, for US readers who aren't familiar with UK model names ). It was known as the Torrey Canyon, a 1960s version of the Exxon Valdez, indeed Enfields were often known as Royal Oilfields, being notoriously leaky even by the standards of the day. I cured it, more or less, by cutting out the rocker box oil feeds and replacing them with a smaller diameter bundy tube. This was a fairly common bodge and it did work. They depended on the fit between the rockers and shafts to control the oil flow to the top end, and once this fit became worn then the flow just increased.

Enfields were also notorious for bottom-end failures caused by excessive oil loss via the top end, diverting lower-end oil supply. It was generally known that you could substantially reduce top-end oil supply and the only real penalty would be increased noise and slightly accelerated wear of the shafts, which didn't make any real difference for a bike doing a relatively low mileage.
Shoot, a man could have a good weekend in Dallas with all that stuff...
<<

MOLDTHREAD

Posts: 121

Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:46 am

Location: BRANFORD, CT

Post Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:38 am

Re: exxon valdez

I just wanted to set the record straight on the enfield oiling system.
There are too many urban legends out there.
It's been virtually the same on all the singles and twins (except the series II intercepters), since the 40's.

There are 2 oil pumps each driven by the same shaft. The oil is drawn from the tank, thru 1 pump, into the filter then directly into the crank and big end. The oil is then scavenged fron the crankcase thru the 2nd pump which is larger capacity than the feed pump, and up to the rockers, then drains down the pushrod tunnels to the timing case and back into the tank.
The english singles also had a pressure relief in the line to the rockers which fed directly back into the tank.
There is no way you could change the flow to the big end other than by the speed of the engine! (you could use larger oil pumps)

Bruce
http://www.enfieldracing.com
Bruce Argetsinger
AHRMA Dirt Track # 67J
www.enfieldracing.com
<<

45Brit

Posts: 1414

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:29 am

Post Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:05 pm

Re: exxon valdez

interesting stuff, from someone who knows his Enfields.

I have to confess that the only time I saw the internals of my Constellation, was through the hole in the crankcase after it met its proverbial end. Possibly, constricting the oil flow to the top end had the effect of retaining more oil in the crankcase, quietening the engine to some degree. Certainly it produced a partial cure for the notorious top-end leaks.

given the well-known bottom-end weaknesses - mine threw a rod with disastrous effect, and I saw no less than three similar failures in a row at one breaker's - the conclusion would seem to be that the lubrication was irretrievably flawed, possibly in part because the integral tank shielded from any airflow, contained an insufficient volume, with inadequate filtering, and allowed the oil to reach unacceptable temperatures.

looking back over the perspective of time, it's clear that Royal Enfield suffered from the common Brit-bike failings; overstressing of ancient and obsolete designs, poor quality control exacerbated by over-large manufacturing tolerances to permit assembly-line manufacture without sufficient control of component dimensions, and at times excessive attempts to develop new ideas within existing constraints - for example, the 5-speed 250cc engine unit.

They certainly CAN be made to go very well - I haven't seen the dirt-track ones referred to, but I have seen Steve Lindsell's vintage road-racers here in UK. However the 250cc BSA always had the beating of them in grasstrack and motocross applications, and highly developed examples can be seen in some numbers in vintage competition, to this day. I can't recall when I last saw an Enfield apart from the Lindsell ones, in any kind of competition apart from trials.


nothing to do with leaky panheads, but what cycle parts do you use? The Enfield all-welded swing-arm frame was very popular in the 1950s for grass-track racing, often fitted with a 500cc JAP engine and Norton or AMC gearbox. It was a very light and robust frame by the standards of the day, its open construction allowed the accomodation of the very tall JAP engine, the swingarm would accept the popular 22" wheel, and its single top tube construction allowed easy modification of the steering geometry, if required. It was ousted almost overnight by the development of the dedicated grasstrack frame by Alf Hagon and others, but it was quite the thing for a while.
Shoot, a man could have a good weekend in Dallas with all that stuff...
<<

krazy loop

Posts: 646

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:01 am

Location: Detroit

Post Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:55 am

Re: exxon valdez

" . . . but why don't you try and fill the (cam cover) adapter fitting with solder and drilling only a 0.030" hole in the solder. Then your restricting the flow by half of the 0.060" orifice you have in there now."

I am not addressing the idea of a smaller hole as a fix. However, the above math for flow through a tube is wrong. Doubling the size of the hole will increase the flow by greater than four (4) times. If you think not, try this test. Draw a three inch diamter circle with crosshairs in it. Now see how many circles you can draw in each quadrant that are half the diameter of the original circle. Answer: one circle (1) per quadrant for a total of four (4) half diameter circles. Then you have to include the additional space between those four circles. Conversely, dropping the diameter of the hole from .060 to .030 will restrict the flow by MORE THAN 4 TIMES, ---actually divide the flow you had with .060 by four (actually somewhat more than four) and that will be the flow you get with .030, i.e., less than 25% of the flow with a .030 hole than you had with a .060 hole.
New Knuckleheads? Thank, you, Jesus!!
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:55 am

Re: exxon valdez

Krazy loop
The recommendation from S&S was for a singe .060” orifice in the gear case cover fitting. If there is a .060” orifice in each rocker box fitting, it stands to reason it would flow double the amount of oil as a single one. The configuration for an orifice in each rocker box fitting would require the orifice to be smaller to flow the same as the single .060” one.
I am no hydraulics expert be a long shot so bear with me. If the same formula is used as to figure cubic inches (.7854) then 2 orifices at between .042” and .043” would equal about the same as a single .060”.
My using a .0225” orifice in each fitting will probably damage the rocker bushings and shafts eventually all though it has been several thousand miles with no problems.
With that in mind I will replace the spiral grooved Vtwin rocker bushings with solid ones. I will also go up to .042” orifices in the fittings.
I will report the condition of the bushings when I get them out.
Does anyone have a recommendation for the position of the oil supply hole in the rocker shaft? It can be rotated 360 degrees. The position may not make much difference but if I am going through all this again I would like to know.
F
<<

s eagle

Posts: 24

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:06 pm

Location: My-am-mah, Flor-a-duh

Post Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: exxon valdez

Did someone say hydraulics expert? For me that’s like shouting, “Is there a doctor in the house”. So here we go:

The flow through an orifice is governed by the orifice equation:

Q=CA sqrt h;

Q=flow rate
A= area of orifice (for a circular orifice = pi (r^2) )
h=the differential head pressure (pump pressure – backpressure from head oil passage)
C=a constant associated with the shape of the orifice.

As can be seen from the Orifice equation, with all things being equal, i.e., orifice shape and differential pressure, flow is directly proportional to the area of the orifice. However, the area equation is non-linear (power function with exponent of 2), thus if the diameter of the orifice is doubled, the area of the orifice is increase by 4 and therefore the flow is increased four fold (or in this case the orifice diameter is cut by half, the area is reduced by 4):

A(0.03) = 3.14(0.03/2)^2 = 0.0007 sqin
A(0.06) = 3.14(0.06/2)^2 = 0.0028 sqin

So to answer the question concerning two orifices at the head fitting as opposed to one at the timing gear cover:

A 0.06 orifice discharging at Q would be equivalent to two orifices discharging at ½ Q each, therefore:

½ (0.0028) = ½ Q = 3.14 ((d/2)^2); d = 0.042
Last edited by s eagle on Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Steven

1946 knucklehead
1976 shovelhead
2006 road king

Youth and enthusiasm is no match for age and treachery.
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Re: exxon valdez

WOW
I feel like I am back in high school in an Agabra class or something!

Is the end result that 2 orifices of .042" would equal to 1 at .060" ?
F
<<

s eagle

Posts: 24

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:06 pm

Location: My-am-mah, Flor-a-duh

Post Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:21 am

Re: exxon valdez

YES; the flow through an orifice of .06in diameter is equivalent to two orifices of .042in diameter each.
Steven

1946 knucklehead
1976 shovelhead
2006 road king

Youth and enthusiasm is no match for age and treachery.
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:52 pm

Re: exxon valdez

s eagle
Thanks for the clarification. That is about what I had figured with the other formula of .7854
F
<<

fhsmith1

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Location: Georgia

Post Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: exxon valdez

I got my rockers off today for the spiral cut bushing replacement. I suspected I might find some oil starvation damage from the .0225" orfices I have been running in each rocker box fitting. They have been there about 5000 miles. The suspected damage is not there. Whatever wear is in the shaft and bushing can not be measured with a conventional micrometer. I will go ahead and do the bushing replacement because I suspect they are the cause of the spark plug fouling.
I have Vtwin rocker shafts also. While inspecting them I find there is a fairly small orfice in them where oil enters the shaft. The orfice measures about .040". With these orfices in place, should there be any need for more orfices ?
I will report more later.
F
PreviousNext

Return to Knuckles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2012 phpBB Group.