Knackered isolastic rubbers…
- Log in to post comments
Thanks, yes to the AN…
- Log in to post comments
Yes, the Mk3 type that you…
Balance factor for a Commando is 52%.
- Log in to post comments
Ok Bennie, but I have some…
- Pre-Mk3 the workshop manual specifies 52% dry (and the OP has an 850 Mk2A). Is there something about the Mk3 that's different?
- Why is the balance factor dry greater than wet? Surely the oil in the crank is adding to weight at the big end so there's a greater percentage of the rods and pistons to be balanced out.
- Does the modest quantity of oil in the crank really amount to 20% of the weight of rods and pistons?
On the occasions I have had cranks balanced they have been done to 52% dry and I've had no complaints. But I will happily stand corrected if someone can enlighten me here (Grant Tiller maybe).
The Isolastic system calls for a lower balance factor than a rigidly mounted engine. The idea being that the engine moves up and down in the plane of the cylinders, constrained by the relatively soft front mounting and only rotating around the rear mounting. And, since Domis are supposedly done to 65% - 70%, 52% on a Commando seems consistent.
[edit] Ok scratch #2. I've thought about it some more and it's a 100% minus b.f. relationship.
- Log in to post comments
Calculation to explain
- Log in to post comments
But which manual has the …
- Log in to post comments
Also, it would be worth…
- Log in to post comments
Andover cranks?
- Log in to post comments
Background on BF value
- Log in to post comments
I suppose we should…
I suppose we should apologise to the OP for hijacking his thread - sorry.
Anyway, Bennie: Yes, I understand what crank balancing is for and how it works. And I'd refer you to my earlier comments about favouring vertical motion at the front mount with rotation at the rear mount. I agree that there is enough oil in a Commando crank to make a significant difference between 'wet', i.e. running, and 'dry', or bench, balance factor. And, making a quick extrapolation from your calculation, 52% dry would approximate to 40% wet.
The question is - what's the best value to use? Conventional wisdom has been that it says 52% dry in the Norton workshop manual and, since they designed and built the bike, that must be right. Then, for an as yet unexplained reason, the MK3 850 manual says something different.
Now, in 1977, I rode a new MK3 straight after it's 500 mile service and it was the nicest, smoothest Commando I've ever ridden. I put this down to it being new and the sprung head-steady. That and my reference being my 105k mile, ex-police Mk2A Interpol. I've never been able to get a Commando that smooth since, although my references have changed and recollections can be rose-tinted.
It would, as you say, be interesting to know what Andover Norton are balancing their one-piece cranks to; these will not have the large void in the centre to fill with oil so the wet and dry balance factors will be very similar. And also whether anyone has published experiments with balance factor to determine the optimum value for an Isolastic frame.
- Log in to post comments
The above is about right,…
- Log in to post comments
BF factor on drawing
- Log in to post comments
What did you have the crank balanced to?