Traverse 4 VS Vtwin

[Rickrod3]

Looking at any motor with a critical eye and finding out how they're built and how they fail can give information so you can either get ahead and stay ahead of stuff or deal with the failure in a more efficient way.

I've had a lot of different type of bikes/engines. Treated them all with TLC in a "Why ya running poorly, little feller? Show me where it hurts and I'll make it all better...." way. I'd do the same for any big v-twin. Just one of those character traits which started at a young age....

The whole "pick it apart" and find out every problem it has mentality comes in really useful when a non-running bike arrives at your workshop in the back of a truck. Doesn't make for a good bedside manner though.
__________________

Exactly trying to deal with failure in an efficient way. also love learning about bikes all kinds.
TLC that is probably the most important. You could have the best design but; if the maintenance is not what it should be; your asking for trouble.

[motorhead]

,

I've had a lot of different type of bikes/engines. Treated them all with TLC in a "Why ya running poorly, little feller? Show me where it hurts and I'll make it all better...." way. I'd do the same for any big v-twin. Just one of those character traits which started at a young age....

)

That doesn't really sound like an engineer talking .A motor is a motor .Has no feelings .If I were to talk to mine (and I don't)It would be along the lines of"If you don't stop that I'll kick your arse and leave you out in the next bad storm".
Got a friend that works on import cars.I heard him actually tell a customer that having positive feelings about her car, helped it keep running right.Yeah right.I can troubleshoot mechanical and electrical problems far quicker than most.It has nothing to do with me liking what I'm working on .Usually I don't .
As far as investigating design deficiences.Usually what I'm working on is not the only one made .If it's something I'm not used to working on,I'll investigate .It used to be on paper .Now ,the internet is a wonderfull thing .Ramble ramble

[motorhead]

I don't mean any dis-respect to anyone when I reply to whatever .I'm known as a person that will tell you how I feel ,and I can certainly take the flip side .

[DGXSER]

Motorhead, use the force when your doin your work and you will do it better.

Actually, what I read into Larry's post is basically what you said you do, only he stated it in a more colorful statement. I read Larry's lines to mean he DOES do all the maintenance it needs and he DOES take the time to listen and feel and look at the bike when something is a bit amiss and figure out what is wrong and fix it rather than "hmm, its still running so it can't be that bad, I'll look into it more if it gets worse" approach.

[Larrym]

Sounds Like Teen Spirit

MotorHead,

“That doesn't really sound like an engineer talking”

Thank you for noticing. I take that as a compliment. I don’t have the “attitude” that one would find more often than not when dealing with an engineer. This is because of a very fortunate turn of events in my career. You see although I have the training, education, and degrees that an engineer has, when I first started out looking for employment I found that the engineering positions were already filled. I mean there can only be a handful of engineering positions at any company. I needed to pay the rent and put food on the table so I was willing to take a position as a repair technician.

What happened next was absolutely delightful. The company would tell the engineer to, “Make something that does this.” The engineer would then design, build, and install the machine which did “this.” Afterwards, the guy would go back into his office and close the door. The responsibility for maintaining and repairing the machine(s) was placed on the shoulders of the repair technicians. From the engineer’s standpoint, more often than not, the machine was now “their baby”. The repair technicians “owned” that machine for eight hours a day. Inside his office he would be presumably working on designing something else, something new, something different. He no longer had an interest in the machine itself or the problems that the repair technicians had to deal with in order to keep the machine functioning. If you combine this mentality along with the intellectual arrogance of “I know all that I need to know and don’t need to know anymore because I have an engineering degree” then you have the typical attitude of an engineer which I or anyone would hate to work with.

Fortunately in most cases because I had the engineering background, I was able to interact with the engineers who were not deliberately disinterested in how well their machines performed. I presented them with various problems and possible solutions to those problems. This led to minor and major revisions of the machine itself in an effort to make it perform less “clunky.” The engineer and I worked together as a team to optimize the machine itself and in some cases use what we had learned about the device and the way it works to make an entirely new machine which did the job faster, smoother and better.

This only happened in situations where the engineer didn’t have the prevailing “attitude” most often found in the workplace. More often than not the engineer would design an entirely “new” machine from inside his office. This new machine would have a lot of the same problems the old machine had but would look different from the outside or simply rearrange the order of what it did at what particular time.

Part of my education included analytical troubleshooting and failure analysis. In all too many cases I’ve worked with engineers who either never had that training or were deliberately indifferent to those people who had to diagnose and repair whatever the engineer had built. The result was that they themselves were unable to repair or diagnose the machines which came off their drawing boards.

That’s not the type of “engineer” that I am. I mean uhh..."was". (Retired...)

[crazy steve]

Interesting observation/statement.So the v-twin riders rev their motor to pull the "claps" closer together.....

Actually, there's a reason for some of the Harley guys (and maybe the 'other' V-twin owners) to rev the motor at stops; to prevent 'carb farts' and it possibly dying. Due to the close v-angle, the cylinder timing events are close together and there can be quite a bit of reversion out the carb. At low engine speeds, this can upset the fuel mix and the motor will cough. Giving it some revs clears this out. Another cause is many V-twin owners set their idle a bit low to get that potato-potato sound, and that can make this problem worse. Another contributing factor is the ignition system; HD (and I assume the clones do also) uses a 'wasted spark' ignition, firing both plugs for each cylinder timing event (the same as our XS, just 1/2 of it) and due to low intake velocity at slow speeds, the 'other' cylinder can actually fire the incoming mixture due to valve opening overlap. A simple cure is installing a single-fire ignition (firing each cylinder seperately), but for cost reasons is something the factories generally didn't do on the carbed bikes.

The EFI bikes don't have this problem, so those that are revving their motors are simply making noise.

'78E original owner

[Ivan]

Fred,

Grand dad has long since "slipped the surly bonds of Earth..."

But I do remember him talking about the caster oil to some extent. However I would imagine he was using it on the cat in some fashion close to Tom Sawyer. So, I can't confirm that. It would stand to reason that one would have to ingest sufficient quantities to lube the lower intestine, and one has to really wonder about a pilot that flies with his yap open in the breeze, especially on low altitude maneuvers with birds and ins4ects and such.

I have been part of several rebuilds of Radials. No multi bank setups, as my experiance was limited to Ag planes that used reclaimed radials to power them. I think the massive size and number of blades did a fair job of dampening the imbalance, but I distinctly remember the "C" model Snow (old open cockpit spray plane) shuddering drastically on initial startup and shut down. My dad loved the way it flew and its useful load capabilities, but shunned the "vibrating seat" that made his whole body numb after a 14 hour day 3 feet above the ground.

Sadly, the only experience working directly with my Grand dad was on "Messy Forgotsome" tractors. He did have the stories to tell though. He absolutel hated the B-29, since it was unable to be flown by one person. Meaning that he could not steal away for midnight "test flights" in them. He always said the b-24 was probably the best bomber of the second "pissin' match" and he always talked about it. If I recall correctly, he was civilian maintenence contracted to the Army Air Corps. He didn't have to deal with chain of command issues and being the prankster he was, probably would have ignored them anyway. He landed that job after graduating Lincoln High School in Lincoln NE as validictorian his JUNIOR year, after which he went to Lincoln School of Aviation and learned everything he could about aircraft. Soon after marrying Grandma, he moved to Colorado to work at Lowry, where he supposedly helped preflight the Enola Gay for her voyage. That is the uncles and dads version, and Grand dad would never admit to helping kill that many in a single blow, even if they were "japs"

As you can see, I miss him tremendously.

[MeatTooth]

A problem with radial engines is the hydraulic lock formed in the bottom cylinders when the aircraft is parked for any period of time. A pilot /mechanic should remove the bottom spark plugs and turn the engine through slowly (by hand at the prop or bumping the starter on larger aircraft) to remove any oil that has accumulated in the bottom jugs. That is why there is always an oily mess associated with radials. At least that's what I remember from mechanic school.

[motorhead]

MotorHead,

“That doesn't really sound like an engineer talking”

Thank you for noticing. I take that as a compliment. I don’t have the “attitude” that one would find more often than not when dealing with an engineer. This is because of a very fortunate turn of events in my career. You see although I have the training, education, and degrees that an engineer has, when I first started out looking for employment I found that the engineering positions were already filled. I mean there can only be a handful of engineering positions at any company. I needed to pay the rent and put food on the table so I was willing to take a position as a repair technician.

What happened next was absolutely delightful. The company would tell the engineer to, “Make something that does this.” The engineer would then design, build, and install the machine which did “this.” Afterwards, the guy would go back into his office and close the door. The responsibility for maintaining and repairing the machine(s) was placed on the shoulders of the repair technicians. From the engineer’s standpoint, more often than not, the machine was now “their baby”. The repair technicians “owned” that machine for eight hours a day. Inside his office he would be presumably working on designing something else, something new, something different. He no longer had an interest in the machine itself or the problems that the repair technicians had to deal with in order to keep the machine functioning. If you combine this mentality along with the intellectual arrogance of “I know all that I need to know and don’t need to know anymore because I have an engineering degree” then you have the typical attitude of an engineer which I or anyone would hate to work with.

Fortunately in most cases because I had the engineering background, I was able to interact with the engineers who were not deliberately disinterested in how well their machines performed. I presented them with various problems and possible solutions to those problems. This led to minor and major revisions of the machine itself in an effort to make it perform less “clunky.” The engineer and I worked together as a team to optimize the machine itself and in some cases use what we had learned about the device and the way it works to make an entirely new machine which did the job faster, smoother and better.

This only happened in situations where the engineer didn’t have the prevailing “attitude” most often found in the workplace. More often than not the engineer would design an entirely “new” machine from inside his office. This new machine would have a lot of the same problems the old machine had but would look different from the outside or simply rearrange the order of what it did at what particular time.

Part of my education included analytical troubleshooting and failure analysis. In all too many cases I’ve worked with engineers who either never had that training or were deliberately indifferent to those people who had to diagnose and repair whatever the engineer had built. The result was that they themselves were unable to repair or diagnose the machines which came off their drawing boards.

That’s not the type of “engineer” that I am. I mean uhh..."was". (Retired...)

Larrym , because i was bored tonight i was re -reading this thread.If I might ask ,what type of equipment were the engineers designing and you repairing

[Larrym]

Untouched By Human Hands..

Motorhead,

I'm bored too: The PNW here has had me locked in with cabin fever for the last three weeks..(or more.)

"What kind of machines" I had to work on is a really difficult question to answer. By that I mean that most of the time the equipment/machines were one-of-a-kind prototypes or just more duplicates of a prototype that I had debugged. It isn't like they would look like anything most people had ever seen before so it's hard to give you an example for comparison. Add to this the fact that I ended up working a sh*tload of different jobs for different companies: especially after I had made a rep for myself for doing what I did.

With that being said, they all did something in common: assembled or actually made things that were never touched by human hands. Sometimes because the process was unsafe/hazardous to humans or sometimes because the presence of a human might contaminate the end product. So the machines were designed to do what they did: perform a function. I guess the best way to answer your question is to describe what they made at the first company I had the displeasure of working at.

Remember those 3.5 inch computer disks that were the intermediate step between the large "floppies" and the memory sticks of today? Hard plastic shell that fit in your shirt pocket? Little metal shutter that snapped close when you pulled it out of the computer?

I worked at a place that made those. I mean that literally: if you had one in your pocket then it was made at the plant I worked at. Doesn't matter what the label said: 3M. Kodak, Memorex, Sony, Verbatim, etc. We just printed a different label.

Thing is that little disk comes to you all assembled and tested by machines. Seems to have only a few different parts if you were to destructively take one apart. (The plastic shell is ultrasonically welded together....) One machine that took all the raw components and put them together we called the "aircraft carrier". It was 40 feet long and 12 feet wide with the entire inner workings contained in a plexiglass enclosure to keep particulate matter out of the process. There were clear access doors/panels that were hooked into the software so if you opened a door the machine would stop the "cycle" is was in. The machine itself used computers, electronics, pneumatic cylinders, gears, and actuators to move the parts along in an enclosed "assembly line". That is the concept but in execution the darned thing never ran for more that 6 minutes at a time before something would screw up.

The best example of the engineers work was at the front of the machine. You see, in between the actual magnetic material and the hard plastic of the shell is a liner material. This liner/paper stuff is on both sides to protect the media and is in thickness somewhere in between the cheap toilet paper and the cheap paper towels. Kinda flimsy but needed in the final product.

The first 10 feet of the "carrier" was devoted to the process of taking a large roll of the liner material and cutting itty bitty doughnuts of it to put in the shells. To do this, the engineer used a system like a die-cutter: a rotating flat base with a table that slammed down. Like using a cookie cutter.

But in this case the cookie cutter was 4 feet in diameter and about 5 inches thick. Just to cut something a little thicker than TP??? The cutter would THWUMP and BUMP every machine cycle so much that after they installed it the raised floor started to fracture. (The engineer came out and told us to reinforce the floor....)

After fulfilling the contracts to make these disks the company folded up shop and I went on to something else.....

[motorhead]

Interesting work on the production machine.But i have to ask ,how does the work on production type machinery relate to an internal combustion engine .How long have you been working on motors as a sideline .I mean i do understand that some one that works in a totally unrelated field can get a pretty good following doing what they do on the side if they truly know their stuff.But there are a lot of people that talk the talk.Not looking to stir anything ,it's just an observation

[Larrym]

Look the other Direction...

Interesting work on the production machine.But i have to ask ,how does the work on production type machinery relate to an internal combustion engine .How long have you been working on motors as a sideline .I mean i do understand that some one that works in a totally unrelated field can get a pretty good following doing what they do on the side if they truly know their stuff.But there are a lot of people that talk the talk.Not looking to stir anything ,it's just an observation

You're right on there, Motorhead. I mean working with what you know and have seen thus far. Here's a few missing pieces that might help fill in the puzzle:

I was a trained automotive technician first. Started with small engines in High School and then Graduated from a two-year Vocational Center with the "automotive tech" sheepskin. (The course was not like a high school "shop". It was set up to operate like an automotive dealership...)

After that I did work as a mechanic for years but in the "old school" tradition the employers would assign me to "bust tires" or other low tech stuff even though I knew how to do wheel alignments, transmission diagnosis/repair, etc. That was the whole point of the vocational education: so one didn't have to bust tires for years and pick up how to do the high tech stuff along the way.

With that training I did all my own work on all the vehicles I owned: cars and bikes. That's added up now to an embarrassing amount of years now that I'm about to turn 51.

I got tired of staying on the "ground floor" of the automotive repair industry (with my training and skills atrophying more every day...) and chose to still work the automotive job but get a "higher" education. Better pay and I'd get to see and work on really cool stuff: electronics, computers, robotics.

So after getting additional sheepskins and working in that "exciting" field for a number of years, I realized something about the people I was working alongside. They were hyper-educated in their own specialized fields but when it came down to taking something apart and then putting it back together, most of them just weren't any good at it. Especially with anything that moved or had a motor in it.

As the one who had to either fix what they had broken or had put back together wrongly, I came to wish that the guys I worked alongside had a background like mine: automotive/motorcycle repair. "Please, give me someone who can take a carburetor apart and put it back together correctly."

Anyone else here who knows how to get the air out of a hydraulic system?? Or someone who can replace a cam chain and not have everything out of time....PLEASE!!! But these guys didn't work on their own vehicles: Some with no "game" whatsoever as far as R+R'ing anything that required a socket set.

I'm saying that my experience in that "unrelated field" of working on production machines/robotics was greatly enhanced by my study of and experience on the "internal combustion engine." Not accurate to say that I learned robotics first and am now trying to apply that knowledge in a "learn-as-I-go" way towards understanding and working on my XS1100.

Clear as mud, right??

[crazy steve]

... If you combine this mentality along with the intellectual arrogance of “I know all that I need to know and don’t need to know anymore because I have an engineering degree” then you have the typical attitude of an engineer which I or anyone would hate to work with....

That’s not the type of “engineer” that I am. I mean uhh..."was". (Retired...)

I know exactly what you mean. I worked electrical construction/service for 35 years, and too many of them are like that (and the closer I got to retirement, the worse it seemed to get). If you were lucky, you got benign neglect (no further interest) and you could mod it until it worked. God help you if you got an arrogant 'hands on' type; at that point, I'd just be glad I was paid by the hour. Worst case? When you had multiple disiplines (mechanical, electrical, etc) and they wouldn't talk to each other, leaving it to the crafts to sort out the mess.

At one time, the europeans required that an engineering school candidate had to complete a craft apprenticeship in the related field before they could go to school. If only they did that here....

'78E original owner

[Larrym]

Coulda, Shoulda, and Woulda.

I know exactly what you mean.

Worst case? When you had multiple disiplines (mechanical, electrical, etc) and they wouldn't talk to each other, leaving it to the crafts to sort out the mess.

At one time, the europeans required that an engineering school candidate had to complete a craft apprenticeship in the related field before they could go to school. If only they did that here....

'78E original owner

IBM knew exactly what you mean also. The school I attended worked together with IBM to come up with a curriculum with both theory/hands on experience. (They donated equipment for us to play with too...) The end result was a very expensive and demanding series of additional courses/trainings which required graduates know all we needed to know about the different disciplines. Not in a "Jack-of-all-Trades-but-master-of-none" way but rather a combination degree specially suited to their needs.

The IBM standard was that anytime something broke down, the engineers had to respond. I mean a mechanical engineer, an electrical/computer engineer, a software engineer, and a repair technician. That sounds like overkill but remember that IBM held its ground when all the other american high tech firms were having their heads handed to them on a platter by competition from overseas companies. Even then there were times when the different engineers were pointing at each other saying, "It's your problem."

IBM's solution was to educate, train, and hire one person who could do the work/job instead of the three separate engineers. In fact, while I was working for an IBM Vendor as a Technician, they paid for my Robotics Degree with a tuition reimbursement program.

"If only they did that here...."

As far as importing the method that the Europeans used: "craft apprenticeship in the related field ", I've got mixed feelings about it. I say that I wouldn't have been able to retire early if that were the standard here..

[DGXSER]

As an engineer of 20 years in the building construction industry I have seen this work both ways and cut both ways. The problem that come sup is that like all things in life, there are several ways to cross the same pasture and get to the gate on the other side. When either an engineer or a trade person decide that their way is THE way, and refuse to see or use the others, the project can be doomed.

I worked with an engineer who started off selling for an equipment manufacturer in the late 50s. Then in the early 80s he bought into a mech contracting firm. In the early 90s he hung out his shingle as an engineering firm. Very smart man, knew ALOT about how things will and won't work. I learne dalot form him to.

I have spent nearly half my career out on the site working with contractors to make what is on paper turn into a building for use. The other side of the discussion is that there are MANY contractors out there who only know THE WAY to do something, and no matter how well you show them in the documents, and explain it in the documents to do it another way, they do it THE WAY. And then I spend hours trying to tell them why it won't work that way and they have no idea because they have no concept of physics. So you end up giving them the "mom and dad" reason of "Becasue I said so!"