Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: 1941 ulh heads

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 41craig View Post
    I believe Flathead Power makes the correct 1940-1948 style heads and I think that they sell heads with higher compression than stock. They are made in Sweden.
    Craig
    thanks craig.....will look up.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    93

    Default

    You may be confusing oe bars with am repos. The bars are not a reliable indicator of the chamber volume unless they are nos heads, and even then you will want to measure them.

    As for am heads, there are many floating around.

    V-twin had at least two different runs. First run was eh machining and you will hear reports from time to time about poor fitment of bolt holes. Second bunch seems nicer from what you understand.

    Another set are cast in Poland and appear identical to me at last to the latest v twin repos. I have these heads on my 46 UL.

    S&S still has blanks from when they own d the flathead power brand. You can customize the chamber volume, but it is a special order part.

    Flathead power is supposed to be releasing new heads. I don't know if anders is actually selling them yet.

    VT Cycle in Finland also makes a performance alloy head. I have not seen one in person, but first hand accounts say they are very good heads.

    Don't fret the cr too much. These motors are more torquey than peaky. They kick over rather easily for their size.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    93

    Default

    I forgot, yes, at one time the iron heads were used as patterns for making alloy heads. These heads have marginal finning and limited deck thickness at the gasket surface. This makes it far easier to distort the head and have leaks.

    Alloy heads aren't better just cause they are alloy :-)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scooter57 View Post
    i,m building a 41ulh 80" engine. being a ulh, i would like to go with high compression (squish-"wr" heads). doe's anyone have an opinion about the re-pop aluminum heads, that look like cast iron heads. they are marked with 4-lines. or any sugestions.
    are the high-compression heads a lot harder to kick over than the 1 or 2-bar heads.
    got a chance on some original flywheels, a dozen or more 1/2" holes drilled in one. im guessing to lighten not balance. is this a problem?
    any help is appreciated, this is my first big flatty. scooter
    Actually, those holes likely were for balancing. Many people forget the early u motors used an open female rod, which is substantially lighter than a later closed set.

    When I balanced my wheels at 54 percent, a fair amount had to come out.

    All that said, don't freak in the balancing. These motors are pretty happy anywhere between 50-60 percent, which is a massive spread. Just back calculate and determine if you can live with it.

    Used wheels also often develop lips in the taper(S). Check them carefully and torque smoothly.

  5. #15

    Default

    Early V-Twin heads are easy to identify.
    Examine the gasket surface - is it flat, smooth, with no imperfections? That's not his.
    His look like the gasket surface was prepared by dragging it across a cheese grater. Like, you can break a fingernail on it.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Central Illinois, USA
    Posts
    4,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckthebeatertruck View Post
    Actually, those holes likely were for balancing. Many people forget the early u motors used an open female rod, which is substantially lighter than a later closed set..
    But the bottom of the rods, Chuck,..

    Is designated rotating weight;
    You balance to a percentage of the reciprocating mass.

    The tops of male and female rods are essentially the same.

    ....Cotten
    AMCA #776
    Dumpster Diver's Motto: Seek,... and Ye Shall Find!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. Cotten View Post
    But the bottom of the rods, Chuck,..

    Is designated rotating weight;
    You balance to a percentage of the reciprocating mass.

    The tops of male and female rods are essentially the same.

    ....Cotten

    This reply has me confused as it implies there is no reason to weigh the rotating weight.


    Every balance sheet I've used has one weighing the rotating mass and adding that weight to a percentage of the reciprocating weight to figure the bob weight.

    This implies that a change in rotating mass does affect the overall balance.

    I like to work with theoretical models vs. words for something like this to make sure we are saying and meaning the same thing(s).

    So, here's my crusty attempt:

    If the reciprocating is steady at a generic 1600 grams then 55% of that would be 880 grams [1600 X .55]

    If the rotating mass were (for the sake of this example) 1500 grams with an open rod and 1600 grams with a closed rod (yes, I know the spread is not this extreme) then we'd have total weights of 2380 for the open rod [1500 +880] and 2480 [1600 + 880] for the closed rod. Divided by two means we have a 50 gram spread on each wheel between the weights calculated for the open and closed rod.

    Whilst the motor may never care about that 50 gram per wheel difference . . . the balancing job does.

    Put simply; a lighter bob weight = more mass taken out of the far side of the wheels to "balance" it. Conversely, a heavier bob weight may not need any mass removed from the wheel.

    I'm open to learning -- so, what am I missing?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Central Illinois, USA
    Posts
    4,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckthebeatertruck View Post
    This reply has me confused as it implies there is no reason to weigh the rotating weight...
    Exactly, Chuck!

    The rotating weight only becomes necessary when dealing with multiple-throw motors.
    (Because ya gotta fake it with bob weights..)

    If you know your reciprocating weight on a v-twin, even though the flywheels are assembled, you can still static balance it to any percentage you dream up.

    People make more out of it than it is.

    ....Cotten
    Last edited by T. Cotten; 09-18-2019 at 11:01 AM.
    AMCA #776
    Dumpster Diver's Motto: Seek,... and Ye Shall Find!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Ah, now it becomes clear.

    I get where you are coming from Cotten and I don't disagree.

    However, I think we are talking past one another instead of with one another.

    I was and still am responding to the original poster's question, which stated in sum: why are there all these holes in my flywheel?

    I am not responding to "what balance factor should I use" . . . nor entering into a balancing discussion.


    I gave a plausible explanation to the OP for why his wheels "may" have more holes than expected.

    This explanation is rooted in the understanding of how many people balance wheels . . .and how a change in the rotating mass affects the bob weight calculation, which can and does directly affect how many holes are drilled.

    In this regard, I think we can both agree there are many motor builders over the generations who have not yet evolved to your level of understanding regarding balancing. As a result, they have spent quite a bit of time balancing their v-twins searching for something. Put simply, we do not know who last worked on the OPs wheels nor where they stood on balancing. We are only left with context and guesses from that context.

    When I thought this through; the general contexts I applied were as follows:
    how common is balancing -- pretty common.

    How common are holes drilled to affect balance -- pretty common.

    How does a lighter rod affect balance -- generally more weight comes out of the wheel. Put all that together . . .

    And, I stand by my statement that the most likely reason for all the holes in the OPs wheels are for balancing and that it is entirely possible the wheels were balanced for lighter, open female rods which could result in more holes in the wheels than the OP is used to seeing in other v-twin motors.

    May we please respond to this guess ^^^^

    Otherwise, we aren't talking with one another -- we are talking AT one another; which is little help to the OP or us.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Central Illinois, USA
    Posts
    4,282

    Default

    I didn't say they weren't balancing holes, Chuck!

    That's usually their intention, whether right or wrong.

    I just picked at your open female rod thing.
    The top of an open female rod only "weighs" less than the top of a closed rod.
    (Because its "half" of a lighter rod.)

    If you whacked them off with a chop saw, they would be the same mass.

    Really don't need no bobweights, really: Balance the real assembly.

    And you don't need to drill the wheels at all, if you can lighten the reciprocating hardware.
    Pistons are temporary, not the wheels... Or plug existing holes.

    ....Cotten
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by T. Cotten; 09-18-2019 at 01:57 PM.
    AMCA #776
    Dumpster Diver's Motto: Seek,... and Ye Shall Find!

Posting Permissions

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