Which break-in style works best? Easy or Hard?
- Thread starter schaubster
- Start date
AlphaDogChoppers
Science is true whether you believe in it or not.
What results? A picture that he posted to support his premise? Do you honestly believe that the piston on the right wasn't cleaned before the picture was taken?
What other differences between the two? One run on synthetic, and the other on dyno oil? I'm sorry, but a single example is way too small of a sample to draw any conclusions. The photo is too small, and one piston is further away. How can you compare with such totally different pictures. The piston on the left looks less worn to me, but I can't tell because the one on the right is out of focus. And seriously, there is no carbon on the head of the piston. That piston had to be cleaned.
I find this guy's arguments technically weak, and his evidence dubious.
What other differences between the two? One run on synthetic, and the other on dyno oil? I'm sorry, but a single example is way too small of a sample to draw any conclusions. The photo is too small, and one piston is further away. How can you compare with such totally different pictures. The piston on the left looks less worn to me, but I can't tell because the one on the right is out of focus. And seriously, there is no carbon on the head of the piston. That piston had to be cleaned.
I find this guy's arguments technically weak, and his evidence dubious.
Here's another:
I'm skeptical, yes, but I wonder why someone would go through all that trouble without anything to gain from it. For what it's worth, I'm planning a hard break-in for my own bike simply to verify the results he's seeing. I'm not too big on the status quo but I'm also not so naive as to believe everything I read/see. I wanna know for myself and so I'm going to try it for myself.
I'm skeptical, yes, but I wonder why someone would go through all that trouble without anything to gain from it. For what it's worth, I'm planning a hard break-in for my own bike simply to verify the results he's seeing. I'm not too big on the status quo but I'm also not so naive as to believe everything I read/see. I wanna know for myself and so I'm going to try it for myself.
Honestly, I don't think it ultimately matters much in the grand scheme of things, especially if you're doing a full rebuild with fresh bore, new pistons/rings, valve job.
I mean really, 1/2 or more of the 30-40 year old bikes we buy for a few $100 don't end up getting rebuilt and run just fine. That's after 4 DECADES of who knows what kind of break-in and subsequent abuse, neglect, redlining...
I think the difference between one break-in method and another, or not being concerned about it at all (i.e. riding the bike 'normally' from day 1) might mean the difference between needing to rebuild again 20 or 30 years down the road. If you're concerned about that far into the future, I'd suggest stopping and smelling the roses today instead and enjoy your bike
I rebuilt my XS engine with 0.5mm over new pistons/rings, fresh bore (obviously) and a head job (love those head jobs) and it's pumping out 150+ PSI 2000 miles later and I don't think I was particularly nice to it from the get-go. I rebuilt it and didn't even start the thing for 2+ years, and I didn't keep dripping oil into the cylinders or keep it in my house. It sat in my cold/damp/hot/dry garage for 2 full Canadian years, covered in junk, getting dusty....
Bike runs like a champ and I'm enjoying the crap out of it.
I mean really, 1/2 or more of the 30-40 year old bikes we buy for a few $100 don't end up getting rebuilt and run just fine. That's after 4 DECADES of who knows what kind of break-in and subsequent abuse, neglect, redlining...
I think the difference between one break-in method and another, or not being concerned about it at all (i.e. riding the bike 'normally' from day 1) might mean the difference between needing to rebuild again 20 or 30 years down the road. If you're concerned about that far into the future, I'd suggest stopping and smelling the roses today instead and enjoy your bike
I rebuilt my XS engine with 0.5mm over new pistons/rings, fresh bore (obviously) and a head job (love those head jobs) and it's pumping out 150+ PSI 2000 miles later and I don't think I was particularly nice to it from the get-go. I rebuilt it and didn't even start the thing for 2+ years, and I didn't keep dripping oil into the cylinders or keep it in my house. It sat in my cold/damp/hot/dry garage for 2 full Canadian years, covered in junk, getting dusty....
Bike runs like a champ and I'm enjoying the crap out of it.
HerrDeacon
Over 1,000 Posts
I went with the hard (or at least semi-hard) break-in on my new 2009 Gladius. I didn't redline it or anything, but would vary the revs and never remained constant for any amount of time. I would go up to around 2000 shy of redline though. I changed the oil at around 90 kms and again at 500 kms. I've never had the engine opened up so I can't comment on internals but the power in the engine is great and I don't use a drop of oil.
It's the old internet being taken as gospel. That guy is blowing his own horn and there is enough truth there to confuse anyone. There is no way that F3 piston has run for a year/season and has no carbon on the crown. That's just BS. Alfa is correct. If you read his comments, he says get it up to temperature and then run it at 1/4 throttle for a while and then at half and then at full. He is actually progressively loading the engine in the same way that I describe and S&S say.
The difference is how long he thinks it should take. All FORD engine used to be hot tested and they were run at certain revs for ten minutes or so with zero load to test for leaks. It is just a basic fast idle run.
He is correct that if you don't progressively raise the load it will glaze and will never run as hard as one that has had the load applied one step at a time. Do not go out and thrash it. That would not be smart. Don't baby it either. If you run it for thousands of miles it will never bed in. It woun't do the things he claims happen, but performance will be less than it should/could be.
It's about balance. It doesn't take thousands of miles of tiny throttle and it doesn't work if you thrash it.
So let's put away the Hard or soft bed discussion. It's about progressive load application.
The difference is how long he thinks it should take. All FORD engine used to be hot tested and they were run at certain revs for ten minutes or so with zero load to test for leaks. It is just a basic fast idle run.
He is correct that if you don't progressively raise the load it will glaze and will never run as hard as one that has had the load applied one step at a time. Do not go out and thrash it. That would not be smart. Don't baby it either. If you run it for thousands of miles it will never bed in. It woun't do the things he claims happen, but performance will be less than it should/could be.
It's about balance. It doesn't take thousands of miles of tiny throttle and it doesn't work if you thrash it.
So let's put away the Hard or soft bed discussion. It's about progressive load application.
Sonreir - not only Goldwings - check out any of the "Twist the Throttle" marque series. Every manufacturer runs through that process at the end of the production line.
However, I stated that as a matter of facts - not what I advocate.
Only a fool would start a rebuilt engine stone bollock cold and rev the nuts off it - any engine come to that. Also check out various clowns on the "Cafe Racer" series.
I guess you'd spend at least 10-15 minutes alternately ticking over / slight revs. on a freshly rebuilt engine just to check for oil tightness, leaks etc. before swinging a leg over and going for that first run. That's also assuming you set the carbs up perfectly on a non- running engine !!
As variously stated, race engines [ pre-dyno "back in the day" ] didn't have the luxury of static running and were put to use after the most cursorary "running-in". For that reason [ as Tim states ] a "race" clearance was added - mainly to piston bores.
Just as an asside - I've never fully understood "bedding in".
Assuming the journals and bearings are round, the bore is round and the piston rings are round - what are you trying to achieve? Bedding in somehow infers that you'll make the two relevant surfaces "fit" better. The only way that can happen is if material is worn off one or both of the contacting surfaces .............
However, I stated that as a matter of facts - not what I advocate.
Only a fool would start a rebuilt engine stone bollock cold and rev the nuts off it - any engine come to that. Also check out various clowns on the "Cafe Racer" series.
I guess you'd spend at least 10-15 minutes alternately ticking over / slight revs. on a freshly rebuilt engine just to check for oil tightness, leaks etc. before swinging a leg over and going for that first run. That's also assuming you set the carbs up perfectly on a non- running engine !!
As variously stated, race engines [ pre-dyno "back in the day" ] didn't have the luxury of static running and were put to use after the most cursorary "running-in". For that reason [ as Tim states ] a "race" clearance was added - mainly to piston bores.
Just as an asside - I've never fully understood "bedding in".
Assuming the journals and bearings are round, the bore is round and the piston rings are round - what are you trying to achieve? Bedding in somehow infers that you'll make the two relevant surfaces "fit" better. The only way that can happen is if material is worn off one or both of the contacting surfaces .............
overdraft
Coast to Coast
I had a first gen CBR600RR and I was very kind to it because it was my baby... it ended up smoking like a chimney... I traded it on a next gen one (2005) and broke it in with a simple philosophy, avoid full throttle, but use all the revs... No smoke! so during break in it's spinning enough that it doesn't cause parts to 'seat' in a way that will interfere with high speed operation later in life, but at the same time you're not overloading stuff with full throttle before it's had a chance to mate with the other parts...
that's only my opinion, but I can back it up with hearsay!
that's only my opinion, but I can back it up with hearsay!
sallgoodguy
Been Around the Block
Hey kids, lets not forget that todays engine components are made a HELL of alot better than those of even 30 years ago. Engines dont really break in for hundreds of miles. You wont seat those ultra hard, high mileage rings in a ride or two. When it's first born, you treat it with love... after that, you ride it like you stole it.
I think everyone is also forgetting that race engines get broken down and checked post race always.
I think everyone is also forgetting that race engines get broken down and checked post race always.
my-79-750-k
Therapy is expensive. Riding is cheap. You decide.
On a side note, my step-dads 01 Cummins powered Dodge 2500 had a "break-in" period of 60,000 miles, and a first major scheduled tune up at 150,000 miles. The engines now-a-days are built like brick shit-houses compared to our old beloved machines of yesteryear. Much better quality control, better metal, better casting/heat treating processes, etc. With that being said, I agree with the consensus that hard or soft break ins are not always applicable, but I wouldn't redline then clutch dump a brand new 0 miles engine on the first day either. I'll +1 on the using the rpm's but staying away from the redline for a while thought.
AlphaDogChoppers
Science is true whether you believe in it or not.
It's interesting to note some of the significant differences in how diesel engines are built and why they take so long to break in.
I mentioned thick, stiff, cast iron rings in an earlier post. Well, diesels are still built that way. Those engines are intended to run a million miles before tear down. It can take tens of thousands of miles to fully seat those rings. During that period, they will burn a bit of oil. Eventually they get fully worn in, and are good to go for a million miles. They should not be run on synthetic oil until ring seating is complete. It won't hurt it, it will just take that much longer to break in. Just like any engine, they should not be abused for the first thousand miles or so. Pulling a heavy load through the mountains after the initial run-in helps to get the rings seated. Mountains have intervals built in... Up hill...Down hill. <G>
I mentioned thick, stiff, cast iron rings in an earlier post. Well, diesels are still built that way. Those engines are intended to run a million miles before tear down. It can take tens of thousands of miles to fully seat those rings. During that period, they will burn a bit of oil. Eventually they get fully worn in, and are good to go for a million miles. They should not be run on synthetic oil until ring seating is complete. It won't hurt it, it will just take that much longer to break in. Just like any engine, they should not be abused for the first thousand miles or so. Pulling a heavy load through the mountains after the initial run-in helps to get the rings seated. Mountains have intervals built in... Up hill...Down hill. <G>
dean owens
Pittsboro, NC
OP, thanks for asking this question. I've wondered about this. There have been some very educational answers here. Thanks all for sharing.
revheadgl said:
Exactly the way I was brought up Rev, but I think the fact that machining tolerances and general engineering advances make that process less critical.
I was always more concerned about allowing the engine to "chug" in high gears than revs.
I saw a programme recently about the BMW factory and their manufacturing methods. The tolerances achieved by some of their machines is unbelievable. And I'm sure the same goes for the Japanese manufacturers.
