Skip to main content
000000 000003 000006 000009 000012 000015 000018 000021 000024 000027 000030 000033 000036 000039 000042 000045 000048 000051 000054 000057 000060 000063 000066 000069 000072 000075 000078 000081 000084 000087 000090 000093 000096 000099 000102 000105 000108 000111 000114 000117 000120 000123 000126 000129 000132 000135 000138 000141 000144 000147 000150 000153 000156 000159 000162 000165 000168 000171 000174 000177 000180 000183 000186 000189 000192 000195 000198 000201 000204 000207 000210 000213 000216 000219 000222 000225 000228 000231 000234 000237 000240 000243 000246 000249 000252 000255 000258 000261 000264 000267 000270 000273 000276 000279 000282 000285 000288 000291 000294 000297 000300 000303 000306 000309 000312 000318 000321 000324 000327 000330 000333 000336 000339 000342 000345 000348 000351 000354 000357 000360 000363 000366 000369 000372 000375 000378 000381 000384 000387 000390 000393 000396 000399 000402 000405 000408 000411 000414 000417 000420 000423 000426 000429 000432 000435 000438 000441 000444 000447 000450 000453 000456 000459 000462 000465 000468 000471 000474 000477 000480 000483 000486 000489 000492 000495 000498 000501 000504 000507 000510 000513 000516 000519 000522 000525 000528 000531 000534 000537 000540 000543 000546 000549 000552 000555 000558 000561 000564 000567 000570 000573 000576 000579 000582 000585 000588 000591 000594 000597 000600 000603 000606 000609 000612 000615 000618 000621 000624 000627 000630 000633 000636 000639 000642 000645 000648 000651 000654 000657 000660 000663 000666 000669 000672 000675 000678 000681 000684 000687 000690 000693 000696 000699 000702 000705 000708 000711 000714 000717 000720 000723 000726 000729 000732 000735 000738 000741 000744 000747 000750 000753 000756 000759 000762 000765 000768 000771 000774 000777 000780 000783 000786 000789 000792 000795 000798 000801 000804 000807 000810 000813 000816 000819 000822 000825 000828 000831 000834 000837 000840 000843 000846 000849 000852 000855 000858 000861 000864 000867 000870 000873 000876 000879 000882
English French German Italian Spanish

Valve Spring Insulators

Forums

Hi all - I am looking for input / advice on whether to add insulating washers  under the inlet side valve springs as originally they were only installed on the exhaust side . I am rebuilding my cylinder head with all new components from Andover with the exception of the rockers and their spindles as those were in fine condition. Subject head is June 1972 manufacture 750 Combat Roadster . SN 209xxx  - head stamped with C under head steady - "M" or "W" ( depends on which way round you read them ) stamped on small flats by exhaust ports. 

I understand these were added to to inlet side on later models -850 perhaps ? - Would it be beneficial to add them , and if added is there potential for inducing coil binding in the springs by adding to the stack ? I really don't want to assemble everything and manually turn the engine over to see if any travel is left in the spring column only to have to take it to bits again to remove the washers if they are problematic . Thanks in advance for any and all comment .

Cheers - Richard

Permalink

Hi Richard

Definitely exhaust side only on Combat. There is a Norton service bulletin on this.

I'll dig out a copy later.

Andy

Permalink

Thanks Andy - I would be interested in reading that bulletin so please do post it if you can 

Richard 

Permalink

Richard

As is often the case not as straightforward as I first thought - that will teach me (again) to rely on my memory!

This is from the 1972 parts list.

Extract from 1972 parts list showing heat insulators on exhaust valves

Ok so far.

Then from the service sheets (it's number 3 in series 2) see www.eurooldtimers.com/functions/get_file_manualy.php?id=3506

Service Note N2/3 'Combat valve springs'

This issue is also covered in the INOA Tech Digest (pages 1-7 & 1-8).

So with your engine being in the 209xxx range and assuming all parts are standard then this service sheet would indicate that insulators can be applied to all valves on later Combat engines.

Adding the insulators to the inlet valves will almost certainly improve spring life.

It's your decision and if you do fit insulators to the inlet valves then I'd definitely do the check suggested in the service sheet for peace of mind.

Andy

 

 

Permalink

Hi Richard,

I tried to fit insulators to the inlet valves on my 850 MKII but was unable to compress the valve springs far enough to fit the collets in.

So left as standard without insulators fitted! 

Permalink

Hi Gordon

Whatever worked for you...but...for an 850 MkII with an RH10 cylinder head and standard valve parts, insulators would have been fitted to inlet and exhaust valve spring seats at the factory.

This from parts list ref 065034 which covers late 750 (after 212278) and 850 up to MkII:

From 065034 parts list showing inlet and exhaust valve insulators

'7' is heat insulator NM23392.  From the earlier post it looks like the insulators were only left off the inlet valve spring seats for a range of 750 Combat engines as 'standard'.

Andy

Permalink

It is still not necessary to fit insulators under the inlet valve spring cup.

The insulators were most probably added to the combat to cheaply and easily increase the spring pressure and thus the spring pressure at full lift to suit the 2S new cam - it failed, as can be seen from the Service Release they went coil bound. 

On the MK3, if you fit insulators under the inlets, then check for coil bound, again, it was a cock up here also. the MK3 originally had the Polydyne cam, but then went back over to the 'standard cam' 06.1084, this was never updated in the parts book. 

Having in the past worked out the tolerance allowance on the MK3 from the crankcase face, barrel and cylinder head if the tolerances are against you it is possible in worst case to erode any spare capacity you think you have from being coil bound, even with standard items. 

The reason it is not required to fit insulators under the inlets is that  this part of the head does not get as hot as the exhaust side, and the standard spring rate I consider myself is way to high. The figures used were designed in preparation for the 650 in 1959 and for some reason stayed in place until the end of Commando production. 

I run a cam with 10.5mm lift on the lobe, modified valve stems and a Full Auto head, it was found the valve pockets were machined deeper than expected so the fitted seat pressure was calculated at 59lbs with the modified valve stems - the doomsters said it would lead to valve seat recession and fail, after 9,000 miles there is no recession and no failure and the valve stem tips are just like the day they were installed. From what I can remember standard is around is around 100-104lbs.seated from the original drg. 

I also removed the insulators from under the exhaust side also, and again have no issues. On the Commando the oil most probably conducts heat past the insulator anyway, as the drain hole is at the side not at the front. 

Permalink

Thank you gents for the comprehensive and prompt replies . Very timely as I plan to reassemble the head this weekend. It seems that prudence would dictate that I leave the insulators out of the Inlet side so that is what I'll do .

In reply to by andrew_heathwood

Permalink

Hi Andy,

yes I agree with your point and that's what made me try and fit inlet valve insulators.

But sorry I've owned my 850 MkII from new and can assure you that Inlet valve insulators were not factory fitted to my machine.

 

Another anomaly to report is that when I first opened the gearbox for overhaul I found the sleeve gear fitted with three bronze bushes rather than two as per UK parts list.

 

My Commando Roadster is a 1974 USA export model, maybe the spec differs from UK models?  

 

 

 

Norton Owners Club Website by White-Hot Design

Privacy Policy