Victoria! Zeke's CB175 Build
- Thread starter Texasstar
- Start date
crazypj
Split personality, I fake being smart
Yep, 'Standard Parts' spec for various bolts if specific torque isn't give.
Often it's on a different page so easily overlooked
I bought nut drivers as even with 'screwdriver handle' it's possible to get over 10ft/lbs on a 6mm bolt
6~9 ft/lbs is standard torque no matter which manufacturer is using them.
Specific torques are for higher or lower grade bolts, you have to figure out what they screw into (plastic, alloy, cast iron, steel, etc)
Often it's on a different page so easily overlooked
I bought nut drivers as even with 'screwdriver handle' it's possible to get over 10ft/lbs on a 6mm bolt
6~9 ft/lbs is standard torque no matter which manufacturer is using them.
Specific torques are for higher or lower grade bolts, you have to figure out what they screw into (plastic, alloy, cast iron, steel, etc)
1sttimer
Over 1,000 Posts
Texasstar said:thanks worth the 35 bucks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm learning just like you, I'm just wayyy behind
you mind telling me what that's for? That a new plate so you can get rid of the left case cover? You're eliminating the stator/alternator right? I may be way off - actually it's probable.
Texasstar
Can't is a four letter dirty word
that is an oil block off plate that goes inside your cover when you go total loss so you can remove the stator (1!kilogram) and so then you can install either a magneto or put your electronic ignition on the crank instead of on the cam where it is subject to higher temps.1sttimer said:I'm learning just like you, I'm just wayyy behind
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Texasstar
Can't is a four letter dirty word
crazypj said:
XB is correct. The end of the crank may whip a little and change the gap, but that's not as bad as all the harmonics in a cam chain which make the timing wander up and down.
Tex, you know that's the long turn radius right? ;-) focus on that because that's where the action is. The smaller (short) turn radius is a mess with that low intake port so just clean the floor up as it goes around the corner as best you can.
You can make the boss around the guide much thinner than that BTW.
Texasstar
Can't is a four letter dirty word
are youteazer said:
Teasing me again? because we raised the roof in this one even more than Lucky...I have been so intimate with the long turn radius I decide to stick my finger in and feel the short turn radius and there is a ridge on the short turn radius deflecting the flow like the mystery in the 160...or creating turbulence???
when the valve opens I guess it doesn't matter because all the exhaust was slamming into the boss on the short turn radius. Another reason to drop the boss more? I am using simple green to use as a guide on flow. To seen how smooth it flows and how evenly it disperses around the bosson the long turn radius. Here are side by side picks before and after but the light is misleading because I sanded with 500 grit and then hit it with 120 some more. We cut the guide even with the base of the bowl and the boss has been dropped even with that...but if we can go more I am game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Texasstar
Can't is a four letter dirty word
http://mototuneusa.com/homework.htm
Ok any thoughts on Motoman's claim of most intake ports being oversize as we know is the case in this 200 head. So by reducing the intake port
size by 30% ish we increase velocity during the duration where a flow bench can't tell you what you need to know during this phase of the cycle. I guess the game would be see if you can keep the intake port numbers the same on cfm but raise the port velocity.
What makes sense is not being able to test the overlap duration velocity numbers and that if you increase port size for over all you decrease the velocity that the charge is pulled in to increase volumetric efficiency? What I like about his logic is that it is counterintuitive like riding a motorcycle and it places more emphasis on the last (duration) not total emphasis on the first part...will reducing the intake port diameter help increase the velocity at which the charge is pulled into the combustion chamber on overlap? Thus increasing volumetric efficiency?
Here is a link to all of his papers.
http://mototuneusa.com/thanx.htm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok any thoughts on Motoman's claim of most intake ports being oversize as we know is the case in this 200 head. So by reducing the intake port
size by 30% ish we increase velocity during the duration where a flow bench can't tell you what you need to know during this phase of the cycle. I guess the game would be see if you can keep the intake port numbers the same on cfm but raise the port velocity.
What makes sense is not being able to test the overlap duration velocity numbers and that if you increase port size for over all you decrease the velocity that the charge is pulled in to increase volumetric efficiency? What I like about his logic is that it is counterintuitive like riding a motorcycle and it places more emphasis on the last (duration) not total emphasis on the first part...will reducing the intake port diameter help increase the velocity at which the charge is pulled into the combustion chamber on overlap? Thus increasing volumetric efficiency?
Here is a link to all of his papers.
http://mototuneusa.com/thanx.htm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
