| Author | Message | ||
     Vonsliek |
can any reputable engine shop lighten the flywheel on the xb12r?? that is to say, if i can find a local shop, i can save a few bucks & headaches on shipping my flywheel to USA (i am in canada & LOVE USA, but some things have to be local) .. its no big deal to machines it right (assuming they know their game)?! i am persuing the lightening approach to making the local racing rules 3.8:1 weight:hp ratio. as $$$ too tight & this cld help on our local track when racing. any thoughts? thanks, paul. | ||
| Trojan |
Hi Paul, As the crank is a pressed together item it is very unlikely that you will find a local shop to do it for you. Easiest way is to contact Hal's H-D (www.hals-pa.com) or Innovative Motorcycles (www.racingmotorcycles.com) and they will do you a complete lightweight crank assembly ready to fit and race. These cranks will only save you 3lbs over the stock item though, as their main advantage is about saving reciprocating mass rather than just dead weight. The motor will spin up faster. Cost is around US$950. A slightly cheaper way to reduce weight would be to remove the starter motor and use rollers/bump start the bike, and to remove the alternator and associated gear. This would mean running the bike purely off the battery, OK for short races but you do run the risk of running the battery flat in a longer race and have to charge well between races. Alternatively, remove every piece of unecessary plastic and accessory on the bike including switchgear etc and you'll soon make the 3lbs difference. Alternatively still, eat less pies  | ||
| Hobanbrothers |
Thanks Matt, I thought we were buddies?  | ||
| Trojan |
Sorry, you can also get them from HoBan brothers at http://www.hobanbrothers.com/, who are extremely good and very nice chaps too | ||
| S1_lightning_nl |
Matt, the following link does not work: www.hals-pa.com | ||
| Halsracing |
www.halspa.com | ||
| Fusa21 |
I love working with Both Hoban's and Hal's, you can't go wrong with either one. Hey Terry and John...would you two arm wrestle for this one?  | ||
| Jimidan |
Might I suggest that you also look into having the flywheel dynamically balanced by Balance Masters while you have it apart. I have an 88" engine in which this system has been installed and I can tell you it is one smooth mo'fo'. Check it out at: http://www.balancemasters.com/motorcycles.html "Balance Masters have introduced the first product available that utilizes active engine balancing technology designed exclusively for Harley Davidson engines. This state-of-the-art system eliminates dynamic balancing completely, replacing it with a system that is permanently mounted on the engine! Performance Without Vibrations! BALANCE MASTERS has introduced the first product available that utilizes active engine balancing technology and is designed exclusively for Harley Davidson engines. The product mounts in sprocket and belt drive positions while additional balancers are available for clutch assemblies. The unique system was designed to improve the inherent balance of an already assembled and functional engine or to be incorporated into one that is being rebuilt. When an engine is being re-built the balancer can be machined into the flywheel to provide what is to be the ultimate in motorcycle engine balancing. This state-of-the-art system eliminates dynamic balancing completely, replacing it with a system that is permanently mounted on the engine and one that adjust as it runs to maintain the engine in as near perfect balance as possible. The balancer adjusts for piston ring wear, engine oil and other factors such as state of tune. A well balanced engine will experience less internal wear, run more smoothly and of course see a gain in horsepower." I don't know why this system has not been more widely used in the Buell racing community, as it really works well in reducing vibes across the rev range. It will compensate for 16 lbs. of reciprocating weight, so you don't have to worry if you are changing out pistons or rods. I would have your flywheels lightened first then send half to BM to have the system installed permanently. I don't work for, or even know the BM folks, so I have nothing to gain from telling you this. I just thought you might like to know. This system has had some very positive write-ups in the V-twin press: http://www.balancemasters.com/magazineintro.html jimidan (Message edited by jimidan on September 13, 2006) | ||
| Court |
I had my last one done by Truett and Osborn in Wichita, KS. It was smooth as glass. | ||
| Hobanbrothers |
Paul Osborn is a very smart man and I enjoy speaking with him, but at last count I do not believe they are building 1 piece flywheels. We lighten and then balance for given piston/rod and RPM range your intended configuration will be in. So if Terry and I are arm wrestling, I would wager that we would get the job. Now if Danny weighs in, I guess they get the job (even though he cheated at the Texas test!) | ||
| M1combat |
Adding mass is not the right way to balance. Especially if it's a Fluid Damper. From what I've read they don't "exactly" dampen the vibration... They change the vibration's position and reduce it's magnitude by a little under half each time. A proper static balance is the right way to go in a race engine from what I know. Also... any site that states... "Balance Masters works on the basic principles of physics." Well... yeah... Anyway... I'm not a fan of fluid dampers. | ||
| Blake |
"active engine balancing technology" What is "active" about a fluid filled cavity? That concept may be effective at damping vibration but there is nothing "active" nor "balancing" about it. The idea that a fluid will automatically/magically position itself in order to oppose a mechanical imbalance is ludicrous. If anything the Balance Masters product is a vibration damper, not a balancer. Those are two entirely different things. It may well be effective at reducing vibration, but in so doing it will also consume power. The claims made on that site are beyond credible. "This unique method of balancing has proven itself to be the best type of balancer ever engineered." If they just called it a vibration damper and left it at that, I'd have no problem. Alas, they don't.  That in and of itself, like the Amsoil marketing pseudo-science, turns me off the product. Don (M1), I think you meant "dynamic" balance? | ||
| M1combat |
Maybe so... By "static" I meant balancing w/o using any moving parts that would dynamically change the balance on the fly. Basically I meant balancing by removing material. I'm sure you're right . | ||
| Vonsliek |
ack .. silicon snake oil .. i just wanna bike that will spin up quickly - low down - as it spins righteously from 5-6800. i wanna lift revs a 1000rpm if poss. i wanna thrash the living shit out of bike, as most of my local circuit is turns where buell is - as geared for road - completely over-geared - i can be in 3rd for all of a few seconds. the next local circuit is smaller still .. basically all turns. good chance of kicking ass there. i was after lightening flywheel to start w/ .. balancing is expensive & at my level, not so essential. (ok, i say that in jest, but wallet is only *so* thin!!) i don't care abt vibes .. just want SNAP!  | ||
| M1combat |
Go with 11:1 compression pistons if you can... | ||
| Vonsliek |
11:1 .. why? what impact on other parts?? recommend who?? what abt rods?? | ||
| M1combat |
11:1 will give more power. It'll make the engine less reliable. If you're going to run pump gas maybe stick with 10.5:1 or 10.75:1. If you're running race gas do some research and you can go higher. The rods won't really be affected. Call any of the performance shop sponsors and they can hook you up. Cams too... You'll need a direct link and some dyno time. Heads are nice too... | ||
| Vonsliek |
et more $$$ .. hay .. horses eat hay .. why not get a gsxr1000??!! thanks. | ||
| Trojan |
We use Wiseco 12:1 compression pistons with Sunoco GT PLus 109 octane unleaded race fuel. Cylinders are stock (in fact they are rebored XL items!) bored to + 0.020" oversize giving a capacity of 1214cc. The Wiseco pistons are cheap but the fuel ain't  If you use Wiseco pistons make sure you allow around 0.005" piston/wall clearance. There should be no impact on rods etc with this setup and we have had no issues. We run with Torco fully synthetic 5/40 oil which is changed every meeting. Apart from some gas flowing we are using stock size valves in stock heads and using stock XB12X cams. This setup gives us around 103bhp at the rear wheel but over 100 ft lbs of torque, plus good engine reliability. The only reliability issues we have suffered have been non engine related, so for a club setup we would definitely recommend it. | ||
| Jimidan |
I guess I will have to resort to the old, "Don't knock it if ye' ain't tried it"...call it snake oil if you want to. I don't have a financial dog in the fight. However, I can tell you from experience that my 88 with the Balance Masters system installed on the flywheel works very well throughout the rev range. I have two engines that are very similar except for the Balance Masters in one (big and heavy JE pistons, S&S rods). The BM engine received only the flywheel balancer. The other was static balanced for the added weight at I think 60% @ 3500 rpms. There is no comparison of the vibration in the two...except at around 3500 rpms, where they are both very smooth. With the BM engine, it is smooth everywhere, with less vibration than even a little XB9 engine at idle. I don't really understand how it works...but I can tell you it does. I cannot imagine that a damper could counter all of the added weight to my 88" engine, but maybe it could. Whatever it is it works. If you read the many article that have been written in the V-twin press, you can see that I am not the only one with this results. | ||
| Blake |
Jimi, Please read my post again. I do not disagree that the BM quells vibrations, the magazine reports prove that and the method they use is perfectly valid science and sound technology. I just don't like the inaccurate portrayal of the BM as a "balancer" on account of it ain't. It is a vibration damper. It apparently works very well. I did struggle through the tiny type and read the first article's conclusions in American Iron. It reported that the hot-rod Sportster on which they later installed the BM originally exhibited a terrible vibration at 55 mph in top gear. The BM smoothed that out wonderfully, moving the onset of bad vibes up to 75 mph. I don't know what a static balancing on a flywheel would do. Engine balancing needs to take into account the top end components (pistons and rods) as well and a static balancing certainly wouldn't remove the imbalance in herent in a 45 degree common crank-pin V-twin. In fact, on the 45 deg common crank-pin V-twin engine, short of reverse rotating counterbalancers, there is no way to achieve a balanced engine. My complaint is with the disingenuous marketing pseudo-techobabble. It ain't honest. They don't need it, just like Amsoil. The product works, so why mislead folks? I'd sure like to take your BM equipped bike for a ride sometime. To have the engine vibes damped out throughout the rev range would be something to behold. Then again, my Cyclone is silky smooth except for low speeds under 2200 rpm or so. | ||
| Jimidan |
Blake, I understand what you are saying and agree that their ad sounds cheesy. Like I said, I don't understand how it works. I will gladly let you ride it at Daytona if you will come again this year...not to try and prove anything to you, but just because I know you will get a kick out of it! The engine I had in the S2 when I met you this past Daytona isn't the engine with the BM installed. The BM engine is on the bench getting modifications. I will be switching the BM engine into the S2 this winter though. I am looking forward to seeing how the BM engine runs with new Stage 3 Thunderstorm heads that Aaron Wilson did for me to match a set of Woods Performance cams. I am topping it off with a Mikuni 45. The engine currently in the S2 is going into my S1 project bike. It started life with me as a Lightning Series S1 racebike, but it is being transformed into an "S1RR", or at least that is what I am calling it  . I am modifying the frame to mount a 2000 Yammy Haul R1 tail and seat. The flat sides of the Manta Ray S3 tank I am using on it looks like it was designed for the R1 tailpiece. On the front is an S3 quarter fairing which works well with the overall lines. Suspension wise, it has a set of Moriwaki racing forks w/Kosman eccentric triple clamps that came off of an earlier model AMA Suzuki 750 Supersport that was raced for a season by Ben Spies (claiming race bike). I am using a Suzuki front wheel with Tokico 6 piston brakes. Finishing it out is a polished Buell aluminum swingarm with the latest iteration of the Showa shock with Racetech internals. jimi | ||
| Hobanbrothers |
Wait one minute, I am sorry, this just in... Dan Bilanski did not cheat at the Texas test, but then again, who was there to witness? Sorry for an confusion... carry on! | ||
| Blake |
Jimi, I'll be THERE next Spring!  Dan took John in an arm wrestling match? Is that supposed to be surprising? Way to go Dan! Blake Going to see about signing up for the track day at Daytona next March. You think Jimi will get suspicious when I show up at Cracker Barrel in full race gear? | ||
| Rocketman |
and a static balancing certainly wouldn't remove the imbalance in herent in a 45 degree common crank-pin V-twin. In fact, on the 45 deg common crank-pin V-twin engine, short of reverse rotating counterbalancers, there is no way to achieve a balanced engine Perhaps now is a good time to mention this. Am I right in saying that 45 deg was the angle between the cylinders on Harleys way back when? Later models have a narrower angle. That is to say not 45 deg, and that is still what we have now. So why are we referring to Harleys, but more especially the thoroughly modern Buell as having a 45 deg V twin engine when they don't? What am I missing? Rocket | ||
| M1combat |
Just the fact that the current HD engine (and maybe they have been forever) is a 45 degree V2. That goes for the Buells too... | ||
| M1combat |
Just to clarify... It's 45 degrees from each other as opposed to each being 45 degrees from the crankshaft's TDC. It would only be 22.5 degrees each way from the crank's TDC, or if it was 45, then we'd have a 90 degree engine... Anyway... The cylinders protrude at an angle of 45 degrees apart from each other. | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
IIRC, and I very well could be incorrect, the 45 Degree angle is being measured with the pistons at equal height in the cylinders with the center of the crankpin being the vertex. I can't think of how to explain the technical side of it, but the cylinders themselves are now angled so as to aid in the positioning of the piston top as the most force of cumbustion is pushing on it with the least amount of actual resistance from the rotating assembly. | ||
| M1combat |
So... You remove the cylinders and place a protractor next to the two decks... Is it 45 degrees or not? I think it is, but I've never done that . | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Jeez, do I feel stooopid...duh, its 45 degrees of timing between TDC for the two pistons. |
