| Author | Message | ||
     Ara |
Aaron: Timing plug breathers? I never heard of that, who makes it? If you think about it, a breather capable of handling the full volume of gas volume exchanges in the crankcase, capable of separating the gas from the liquids, and able to do both reliably would obviate the convolutions of the factory breather system (pushrod towers, umbrella valves, breather fittings, hoses, etc.). IF! And that's the big question. Seems to me that a device small enough to fit on a bike and capable of doing those things reliably would be a very difficult design and engineering challenge. Kevin: Blake has thrown down the gauntlet! Is it a possibility to do your balloon test on the road? I think you're going to see a net outflow, but there's no substitute for a good experiment! Russ | ||
| Aaron |
Russ: people do it all the time, with fittings from the hardware store, and what I'm saying is that I don't understand the benefit. Seems like we're better off with a check valve and just letting it release the blowby, which is relatively low volume, rather than to pump all that air back and forth. That said, the LSR bike is setup to inhale & exhale. But it's got a BIG honkin breather hose and air/oil separator. I personally doubt it would make any difference on the dyno if it had a small volume system with a check valve. But I could be wrong. AW | ||
| Kevinhern |
Finished my breather project today. I'm going to try to attach some pics. I went for a test ride and rode about 150 miles on the interstate between 4000 and 5000 RPM and didn't get any puking. So far, so good.    | ||
| Kevinhern |
| ||
| Kevinhern |
| ||
| Kevinhern |
Oh well, I had a couple of other pics but I can't seem to get them uploaded. | ||
| Kevinhern |
| ||
| Blake |
Kevin: Your pics are probably too big. Compress them a little and they will load fine. For example, I ran the second pic through xat.com's jpeg optimizer program. Compressed the filesize from 51,823 KB to only 19,742 KB. Not a significant difference in quality is there?  The http://www.xat.com compression software is great, and reasonable too. Blake | ||
| Blake |
BTW: Your rear shock preload looks AWFULLY low. How much do you weigh? | ||
| Ara |
Kevin: What's holding the filters and hoses snug up against your engine cases? I see the hoses are zip-tied together, but what holds them up? And what kind of intake/air cleaner are you running? I couldn't do what you did withoug cutting a hole in my stock breadbox and sealing another. Russ | ||
| Kevinhern |
Blake. Yeah I know....I'm a whimp for a softer ride. I live in Denver and I can't ride in the canyons until spring. So, all of my riding this winter is in town, freeways, etc. I have it set a little soft until summer. I never ride two-up so I can get away with it. I weigh 185 with gear. This is my first sport bike (M2L). I found the ride to be incredibly STIFF around town. BTW, thanks for the advise on the pics. | ||
| Kevinhern |
Ara. The hoses are simply zip-tied to the oil lines and they seem to fit very snug and secure. Even after a nice hard ride they still seem happy there. I'm running the pro-series ham can. I'll try to shrink some pics and get them to upload. | ||
| Kevinhern |
Here goes another try with small pics.    | ||
| Kevinhern |
The hell with all this computer stuff. I'm going riding! 50 degrees in Denver today! C-ya | ||
| Kevinhern |
Blake. I forgot to mention that the factory preload was set for a regular M2, not an M2L. The setting you see in the pic is per the owners manual. The manual says 15.63 - 15.91 inches for the M2L. It is set at 15.75 inches with me and my gear positioned on the bike. It used to pogo over bumps with the factory setting. Now, it handles really well. But, I have to admit, I don't have the balls to push it to its limits either. I may increase the preload as I gain the confidence to push it a little harder. | ||
| Ara |
That's a very pretty machine, Kev. | ||
| Blake |
Kev: Preload shouldn't affect the harshness of the ride too much , that would be more a function of the compression damping. As long as you are within tolerance you are good to go!  | ||
| Tommyboy |
Does anyone have the torque specs for breather bolts? I'm changing my X1's breather bolts to 90 degree banjo style and I need the correct torque specs.... thanks in advance. tommyboy | ||
| Blake |
Tommyboy: Break the existing ones loose, then retighten with torque wrench taking note of the final torque. Use that torque for the banjo bolts. | ||
| Djkaplan |
I just addressed my M2's breather situation quite easily. I was not satisfied with the Forcewinders little K&N breather with no catch can. I had it plumbed above the cylinders under the tank and it started dripping oil eventually. Not a lot, but enough to notice. It caused a general mess under the tank too. I simply got a plastic fuel filter with a 5/16" inlet and outlet running parallel at the top. I zip tied it to the left side frame rail above the battery and plumbed the tube into the outlet of the filter. I can easily see the bottom of the filter, it looks like a factory installation. After 150 miles, it has a few drops of oil in it. I may drill a hole on the bottom of the filter and install some form of petcock. It cost me a total of $4 for the filter and an extra 3 ft of 3/8" tubing. I thought there might be a problem running the hoses up right after they leave the cylinder heads; but when I inspected the tubing, the interiors were not full of oil. It seems to be working well. I will post pictures as soon as a get a camera. | ||
| Djkaplan |
Another thing; it seems odd that the transmission breather tube is not filtered. I'm going to install the same filter at the end of this tube also. If anything, it will help keep water from at least entering the tube outright. | ||
| Ara |
Djkaplan: After running your new system for a while, I suggest that you pull a breather hose off the breather fitting at the rocker box and stick a length of small diameter hose into the fitting as far as it will go. Suck on the opposite end, and you will almost certainly find that there is liquid pooled in the fitting and in the rocker cover behind the fitting. Any liquids that do not make it to your filter will flow back down to the fitting and pool there. Some will be driven by air flow back up the tube on your next ride, but due to the inescapable effects of gravity I think that you will always have some liquid in the hose. Essentially what you'll have is a liquid plug in your breather system, and your breather system will be working to force gas through that liquid. This has been discussed extensively here. My first attempt at a better breather system had hoses running up from the vent fittings, back along the upper frame rails, and terminating in a two-barb filter under the rear body work. Eventually I found that the fittings acquired and retained a quantity of liquid. Jose Q is the expert on this, and convinced me that the fitings must be turned downward and that the hoses must run down from the fittings. Gravity prevails. What you may consider is to mount your plastic fuel filter below the breather fittings in order to actually take advantage of the effects of gravity. I would also suggest that you do install the drain you mentioned. Due to the nature of the fuel filter, the more liquid it retains the less filter surface there will be available to flow the gasses in the breather system. In any case, brouse back through the entries of this part of the Knowledge Vault and you'll surely benefit from reviewing the discussion. | ||
| Blake |
Ara: Any liquid pooling in the hose will get forcefully blown right out. Not a problem as long as a catching/filter device is employed. | ||
| Ara |
Blake: Unlikely, I think. The thing is, the breather system should BREATHE not be plumbed so that it must operate like a percolator. With the breather fittings and lines pointed upward, I think that there will always be liquid present in the lines due to at least two factors: - Liquids suspended in the gas will tend to condense on the walls of the breather lines and will be resistant to being expelled by force of air. It's pretty sticky stuff. - The breather system was not specifically designed to move liquids against the force of gravity, and it must consequently do so at something less than 100 percent efficiency. Surely a superior design is to allow gravity to clear the breather lines rather than plug them with liquid. Several designs that take advantage of the force of gravity are possible. Jose Q has one, I have another, and there ae several others as well. | ||
| José_Quiñones |
I'm no expert, I just believe in the law of gravity! I fooled around with my system a little bit. I'll take pictures and post them later. Basically I added a second separate line and filter and tied this one to the single drain line by the shock. | ||
| Ara |
Jose: I'm eager to see your photos! I'm a big believer in letting the breather system breathe, and I think that running separate lines rather than teeing them together provides the best volumetric efficiency. | ||
| Kevinhern |
I agree with Ara and Jose. Once the pukage gets past the unbrella valves it can't get back into the engine. The fluid will puddle until enough crank pressure builds up to move it up and out. I have my breather hoses running straight down and out underneath the engine UNFILTERED. There is very little evidence of pukage under the bike and ZERO pukage on the tire. I first put filters on the hoses because everyone else does. However, I think they will just get dirty and restrict my engines ability to breath. The system is designed to blow not suck. Now, it breathes like an olympic athlete. I want it to run clean, free, and strong as an ox. My $.02. | ||
| Kevinhern |
I also agree with Ara on the TWO SEPARATE line setup. The two into one breather might be sufficient on Harleys but not on fast and high reving Buells. Take this analogy. A normal person could walk around every day with one nostril plugged up with little to no affact on breathing. But, a track runner probably needs both nostrils open and free to run and perform with the best. Just my opinion. | ||
| Aaron |
How much extra crankcase pressure is created by a pool of oil in a hose? Seems like it would just be the force required to remove it, and that would only be momentary anyway. How much extra crankcase pressure does a single 3/8 hose add over a pair of 3/8 hoses? Take a look at how much flow you've got, assuming rings in reasonable shape and umbrella valves working. It ain't much. The factory clearly thinks a single hose is plenty. I've pretty much proven to myself that relatively large variations in crankcase pressure aren't affecting how the motor runs. I can't find a difference on the dyno going from a blocked system to a vacuum pump. Seems like as long as the pressure level isn't putting undue stress on the gaskets, it's a non-issue. I dunno guys, I see twin hoses and careful downward routings as a solution looking for a problem. IMO, people worry way too much about this whole issue. Just my .02. AW | ||
| Kevinhern |
That is a good point Aaron. If Dyno results show no difference then I can't argue with that. |
