Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Flywheel Balance Factor for VL Motor

  1. #11

    Default Model U ballance factor

    Quote Originally Posted by T. Cotten View Post
    Harleytoprock!

    The reason for the lower factor for Vs is the different mounting within the frame.

    Kozy!

    Factor is totally independent of total mass.
    Heavy wheels and light wheels can have the same factor.

    The real shame Folks,..

    ..is that nobody takes the time to back-calculate unmolested motors before they molest them. Thus choice of factor is nearly always based upon hearsay or blind conjuring.

    Fortunately, V-twins are enormously forgiving!

    ....Cotten
    Cotton,
    I'm not a machinist or a engine builder so I don't know all the things that effect selection of balance factor. All I know is what I've heard and the low factor for the VL surprised me. I read your compilation of posts at the VI site and now realize a factor for a particular VL motor would not necessarily work for a particular U motor even though the motors are similar. That being said, can you give me an idea of acceptable range of balance factor for a U in a stock chassis? Have you ever had the opportunity to back calculate a U to determine OEM factor?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Seaford, NY
    Posts
    374

    Default

    "And most factory-mated wheels are already "equalized" satisfactorily. Balancing them separately is often an exercise in feeling good. You hope they are moving as one mass anyway!"
    I repectfully disagree with you on that one. First there is no guarantee the wheel are equalized to begin with. Next material removal could throw off equalization even if it was right from the start..
    Only time I would balance as an assembly would be if dynamicaly balanced. One wheel could be out and the other wheel also out to compensate, yet when staticly balancing the assembly, it could show correct balance.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Central Illinois, USA
    Posts
    4,283

    Default

    Harleytoprock!

    Which part do you disagree with?

    "Most"?
    (..or "satisfactorily"? I'm getting uncomfortable with the spelling myself.)

    And what keeps you from drilling the two wheels equally?

    For that matter, what keeps you from adjusting the reciprocating weight, and not touching the wheels at all?

    ....Cotten
    Last edited by T. Cotten; 02-15-2014 at 01:12 PM.
    AMCA #776
    Dumpster Diver's Motto: Seek,... and Ye Shall Find!

  4. #14

    Default

    Hey Cotton, do you static balance harley flywheels as an assembly or balance them seperately? Uncle Frank's Q&A says to balance harley flywheels sperately. If this is true why are Indian flywheels balanced as an assembly and harley flywheels balanced individually. I appreciate everybody's comments.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Central Illinois, USA
    Posts
    4,283

    Default

    Kozy asked: "...can you give me an idea of acceptable range of balance factor for a U in a stock chassis? Have you ever had the opportunity to back calculate a U to determine OEM factor?"

    I've never been trusted with a U that hadn't been molested, so it is up to others to save what History comes by them.
    As far as an 'acceptible' range, I can only guess the range is so wide that it would be hard to pick a bad one.

    V-twins are incredibly forgiving, unlike opposed or inline designs.
    The motor doesn't even care if its pistons match.
    And an ideal factor for one application may not be ideal for another, such as solo vs. hack, but both will run fine with the other's factor.
    My belief, based upon personal experience alone, is that choice of factor is a tuning tool, that can give identical motors of differing factor different characters of performance.

    And Buster asked: "...do you static balance harley flywheels as an assembly or balance them seperately? "

    I don't accept motorwork any more.
    But when I did, every motor was different, be it miss-matched swapmeet refugees, fresh T&O's, or somebody's previous excursion into fantasy balancing. My own Chief came with one cast wheel, and one Z.
    My experience upon a Stewart-Warner machine tells me that dynamic balancing has its time and place too, but predominately in the later third of the Century!

    Basic balancing technique does not distinquish between marques.

    As far as re-balancing mated wheels, I never hesitated to do them assembled.

    Let us ponder, Folks,..
    Just how flywheels were treated at the factory. Raw wheels probably came from the foundry in batches. Undoubtedly they were machined in batches as well. My best suspicion is that sample wheels were balanced and averaged, and then the "floor" was told to where to drill just so many holes, just so deep, for that batch. Voila: "balanced".

    As I posted, one must 'stew' over one's choice of factor, and knowing what it is to begin with often makes decisions easier.

    ...Cotten
    Last edited by T. Cotten; 02-15-2014 at 02:39 PM.
    AMCA #776
    Dumpster Diver's Motto: Seek,... and Ye Shall Find!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    452

    Default

    I have only balanced 1 set of flywheels so have no experience with how it affects the feel of the bike. What would we feel if we took the same engine and it was at 50% and we moved it to 60%? Or 40%? I rebuilt my 26 JD and had almost no ride time on the bike. When I took the engine apart it already had some kind of I believe UL piston in it. I used some new aluminum "high compression" pistons from a distributor in the hobby. We balanced each wheel using 58%. We needed to add lead to the holes that were already drilled, and even drilled more to I believe (7) deep, 1/2" dia holes in each wheel, pounded in lead, then threaded in a bolt to secure it, and cut it off flush with the wheel.

    In a search of posts I found one person who did back engineer his 45 wheels and found a set at 44%, and most at around 50%.

    For my bike, if I rev the engine on the rear stand it will "dance" on a smooth floor. Not at dead idle, you need to rev it noticeably (not a normal practice). The 64 panhead does not do anything like this. Riding, there is a pronounced vibe at low speed, which will make the front fork "bounce", (some improvement by retarding the timing) say in first as you move from a stop, or at a walking speed, but in riding speed, say 20 and up I don't feel any noticeable vibration. I've had it to 65 mph. So, any vibration I am thinking to be worried about is down low.

    It is my understanding the balance factor can affect the range the vibration will occur- meaning one factor could move it to an upper rpm range, and another to a lower range? I suspect its better to have a vibe at a low speed low rpm, rather than upper range where riding occurs mostly?

    Thanks to everyone for this discussion.
    Last edited by DanM; 02-15-2014 at 09:58 PM.
    Dan Margolien
    Yankee Chapter National Meet August 3/4 2018 NEW LOCATION at the TERRYVILLE FAIRGROUNDS, Terryville CT http://www.bing.com/local?lid=YN873x...ir&FORM=SNAPST
    Yankeechapter.org
    pocketvalve@gmail.com
    JD enthusiasts: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/harleyjd/

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    rural eastern South Dakota
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Dan, thx for your discussion.

    24 years ago I brought my Chief engine to an exceptional builder, and we did the engine together. He had a small handbook on balancing, wish I had a copy.
    I elected to NOT change any balance factors, but wanted to analyze and find out what my present factor was. All the weighing on the balance beam and hanging from a string and bob weights and static balance of each individual wheel, all these practices were exercised. My factor was 62%. I loved it, and I might have loved it at 60 or 55 also as this was my first Chief, my first Indian. I did a lot of heavy work with side car, and a lot of 70 mph (74", btw). I thought it was at its smoothest at 65-70 mph, and I often ran the 27 tooth sprocket solo, 23 with sidecar.
    I rebuilt the engine with T/O wheels that were balanced at 60%. I still love the bike, but somehow it's not the same, (or I'm not the same). I think the sweet spot is slower. I know the books (and experts on commentary) have said it would be so, but from experience I have to say that I tend to agree.
    breakfast is served, goodbye

  8. #18

    Default

    Please excuse my stupidity, but I have one more question. I want to understand how to back calculate the original balance factor on an unmolested set of flywheels (not that I have any). I have the reciprocal weight, the rotating weight, and can calcuate what the bobweight weight would be to balance the full flywheel, rod, piston assembly. What is the specific formula for back calculating the original percentage of balance. I know this is simple, but I am very mathmatically challenged.
    Last edited by Buster; 02-19-2014 at 11:49 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Central Illinois, USA
    Posts
    4,283

    Default

    Buster!

    Let's keep it simple...

    You don't need to even know the rotating weight.
    (That's often only a check on the accuracy of the rest of the weighing procedure.)

    To "know" the reciprocating mass or weight, you must not only weigh the piston assemblies complete, but you must know the weight of the rod tops.
    This means the top "half" of their mass.
    So just like if you put the front wheel of a level bike on one scale, and a scale under the rear as well, adding the two scale weights will give you the total of the bike. In reality, some of the front presses upon the rear scale, and some of the rear upon the front. You can't cut the bike in half, but you still know which half weighs what.

    "Hanging" rods level to weigh each end achieves this. My previous photo shows a direct method using the crank to "hang" them.
    Thus adding the two rod tops to the two piston assemblies gives you the reciprocating weight.
    When you place the assembled wheels on edges, and add weight to the the rods until the assembly balances, then the added weight plus the rod tops is your trial "bob" weight.
    Dividing the the "bob" by the total reciprocating weight results in a percentage, and that is your existing factor.

    ....Cotten
    PS: If the wheels have been split, a truly exact measurement of the original factor has been lost. Even on a dynamic balancer with bobs conjured to simulate the assembly, each "truing" of the wheels will produce a slightly different result.
    PPS: The wide edit window of this site is greatly appreciated! Shoveling slush to keep water out of the basement has me distracted...
    Last edited by T. Cotten; 02-19-2014 at 05:38 PM.
    AMCA #776
    Dumpster Diver's Motto: Seek,... and Ye Shall Find!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vancouver Island B.C.
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    Please excuse my stupidity, but I have one more question. I want to understand how to back calculate the original balance factor on an unmolested set of flywheels (not that I have any). I have the reciprocal weight, the rotating weight, and can calcuate what the bobweight weight would be to balance the full flywheel, rod, piston assembly. What is the specific formula for back calculating the original percentage of balance. I know this is simple, but I am very mathmatically challenged.
    Try this link....

    http://www.shovelhead.us/forum/showthread.php?t=80666

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •