Troy

Toots Thielemans has passed. The Real Group - For My Lady Count Basie Band - For My Lady Ivor Thomas says it in his comment. Quincy Jones & Toots Thielemans - Eyes of Love (My favorite, more wicked bass) Smile with Kenny Werner The Getaway

I should have clarified that the drawing was presented in the forum some time ago. I expected someone might recognize it. Not my work. I'm presently trying to disassemble mine and hopefully learn how they work. I'm trying to understand the pictures and procedures in the shop manual so as to minimize dumb questions to the forum.

Is this helpful? MARZOCCHI COMP CARTRIDGE REWORK.PDF

I'm late to the party here. I haven't plugged in hardware nor loaded drivers yet, but My blue vag 409.1 cable and Fiat adapter couldn't have worked as delivered due to an incomplete ground path. It appears that only the "K" and "L" line functions apply here, with IAW15 pins 9 and 10 passing through Fiat cable pins 3 and 1 to the OBDII connector pins 7 and 15 respectively. Additionally the blue cable needs 12Volts and ground via the red and the black alligator clips respectively, to OBDII pin 16 and pins 4/5. My problem was that the Fiat cable ground only goes to OBDII connector pin 5, while the blue adaptor cable ground circuit only went to OBDII connector pin 4. So the board in the blue cable couldn't be powered up and the K and L signal levels had no reference. My fix was to move the black wire inside the blue housing from pin 4, which went nowhere, to pin 5, which gets to IAW15 ground and battery return. So if if you have a problem with the blue cable, this might be worth checking. Thanks for the good work you guys have done here.

Mike, I just talked with Mike Rich and confirmed that my new gaskets are the thick ones. He didn't have an immediate source for the thin ones. However, he's restocking his thin ones, to be available in January. So I'll wait for them. Thanks, Troy

In a phone conversation with Mike Rich, he advised that head gaskets are available with nominal thickness of .060" and .045" and he recommends the .045" version to take advantage of the higher compression allowable with the new pistons. I just received ones from Moto International with part number TL300220600000 that measure about .062" thick, marked with the number 1.5, which I suspect means 1.5 mm thick. Does anyone have a source and part number for the .045" gasket? Thanks - Troy

I'm curious as to how this spring gets enough abuse to cause it to break, even with adequate boss clearance to prevent binding. Early Mazda rotary engines had a problem with cross bolts failing due to fatigue caused by mechanical resonance. The solution was to coat the bolts, or to enlarge the bolts to take away the space around the bolts to damp or prevent lateral movement. Is it possible the pawl spring could be vibrating to the point of metal fatigue. If so, would it be worth while to set the spring and pawl up on a fixture and excite the fixture with a variable speed electric motor with an eccentric weight, to see what happens. Maybe just thumping the fixture with a rubber mallet could show if the spring is prone to resonate. I'm not presently able to pursue this but maybe someone here is equipped to look into it. If we got really lucky maybe the problem could be fixed with something like a teflon bushing between the boss and the spring coils. What do you think? Troy

Placed my order with Mike Rich today. Thanks, Troy

Mike, I'm in for a set. Troy

Mike, My '03 Sport has about 170 miles on the engine. Following advice on this forum, I've accelerated hard a few times to try to seat the rings. I assume I'm still early in the break in process. What, if any, preparation of the cylinder walls would be needed for me to install the new Mike Rich pistons? Thanks, Troy

Maybe the injector is stuck open?

Iron Pony has replacement visors for the Caberg 104 Solo on ebay for $28.00 shipped. It's item 370048405660.

I see what you two are saying in that once you are into a turn, the oil surface stays flat with the sump. But If you countersteer hard to initiate a left turn won't the oil momentarily try to stay on the left side of the sump? I think Pete has a point.

Ratchet, your orifice equation exhibits the same characteristic as a fuel injector. The last term in the flow equation you referenced is the square root of the water column height. Water column height is proportional to pressure. So the flow rate is proportional to the square root of pressure. In an earlier post which I can't locate, John quoted this same relationship for our fuel injectors. (Flow rate 2 / Flow rate 1) = Root(2) of (P2 / P1) Go here and plug in values to prove it to yourself. If you double the pressure, the flow increases by 41%. http://www.csgnetwork.com/fiflowcalc.html

Might this do it? I have no experience with the stuff myself. http://www.303products.com/tech/index.cfm?...;Product_ID=428

John, I was surprised on going through these numbers that the rear tire exhibited a coefficient of friction near one. But your iteration gets a coefficient of friction of 1.5, with a 600lb weight and a 900lb shear force at the tire patch. Is that one sticky tire, or what?

So, 60 foot pounds would be multiplied by 11.7589 to give us 705.534. I know my bike with roughly 60 foot pounds of torque can't lift the front wheel without a bit of coercion. How much more torque can we get by popping the clutch? We know it is enough to bring the front wheel up, and I know that my bike won't wheelie from simply giving it 705 foot pounds of torque at the rear axle. It does seem unlikely that we would have to escalate the force from 705 to 1250 just to make the front wheel come off the ground. Assuming my 1250 number is correct, that would correspond to 106 foot pound of engine torque following the owner's manual's 11.7589 ratio. That does seem a bit high. The true force to lift the front wheel is probably somewhere between 1250 and 705 foot pounds. Dave, I think you should consider that a. The force at the rear wheel contact patch is generating a moment around the CG of bike and rider and b. Rear wheel torque then needs to equal this force at the contact patch times wheel radius. Assume the height of the CG is 2ft, (wild guess). The force at the patch would be (1250ft-lb)/(2ft) for 625lb. The rear tire has a radius about 13", so torque at the wheel would need to be 625lbX((13/12)ft or 677ft-lb. Your 705ft-lb then puts you in wheelie land. (But this is too easy. Maybe the front wheel gets more than 250lb and/or maybe the CG is lower than 2ft.)

Wouldn't it be neat to have a meter on the dash to indicate current to or from the battery. The meter could read zero at the center for no current, (-)Amperes to the left and (+)Amperes to the right. You'd know if you're using more current than the alternator produces. You'd also know if the alternator is working harder to replenish excessive battery drain resulting from a long cranking episode. Do you guys think I could patent this idea?

Gary, that's a fine looking machine. But shouldn't the picture maybe go in the "Hooters" thread?

This guy has interesting poop on bar-end weights http://www.manicsalamander.com/bar_end_faq.htm#bar9 He makes a point that added weight is most effective at the end, diminishing to zero benefit at the clamping area. But if one has a choice, it seems that the ideal weight might not be exactly 12.75 ounces. Nor might the weight you end up with if you fill the whole tube with lead. Rather than fill all with lead, why not add weight at the end, (duct tape?), until you reach a point at which resonance of the bar is moved below the offensive frequency, probably at cruising rpm? Then seal this weight at the end of the bar. Of course the added weight would have to be fixed at the same distance from the clamp as the test weight. Just an idea I haven't tried myself. Sue me if it doesn't work. Cheers

about .008inch,(.15mm) .008in is .2mm, not .15mm that I quoted in my earlier post. You'd think I would have caught this with the valve clearances, .006in (.15mm) and .008in (.2mm), having been listed so often. Sorry. Troy

Incidentally it seems that the price of stainless has recently gone up for some reason so the plates *may* be more expensive, I haven't yet got the quote. If I do them in mild steel, (and this is an application where it would be fine, it's esentially invisible from the outside of the motor and runs immersed in oil!) they will be cheaper but I'll get the quotes and work out a price first and ask before I decide. Pete Pete, Does it matter that thermal expansion rates match between the oil pan and the slosh plate? Typical aluminum changes about .000012*length/(degree C.) more than typical carbon steel, which would smear the gasket by about .008inch,(.15mm), over a 100 degree C. range, at the corners of a 10inch square gasket. Could this make the gaskets leak? 304 stainless would smear about .004inch. Here are some numbers: aluminum: (23*10^-6)l/(degree C) stainless: (17.3*10^-6)l/(degree C) mild steel: (10.8*10^-6)l/(degree C) from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_o...ermal_expansion Here's how I got the .008inch: [(coeff Al)-(coeff Fe)]*(100C)*(14inch diagonal across 10 inch square)/2 = total smear of .016inch diagonal, or .008inch/corner. Troy

If I remove the cover, I assume I need to clean the mating surfaces and apply new sealant. Is Permatex Hylomar HPF OK or is there a better choice when reinstalling the cover? I just made it to 100 miles and feel the urge to check for the correct 15mm boss and to change to Redline. Thanks, Troy

I'd like to put in a good word for HMB-Guzzi. http://www.hmb-guzzi.de/ Michael Behrendt delt directly with me via email to deliver a timing chest cover. It arrived with a new oil seal already installed as well, to my surprise.