| Author | Message | ||
     Maru |
Hi Blake. Could you explain to me the theory behind the Stenzel bar and provide an opinion on using something like that as a solution to front isolator issues? Steve | ||
| Blake |
Huh? Question for a different Blake? | ||
| Doughnut |
Oh Oh ! I have a question! Blake. . . what is your favorite tea? | ||
| Maru |
From reading your posts, it seems that you have an engineering background. i was hoping I could get some input from a theory point of view on what a device of this sort would do, both in a positive and negative way The concept seems to make sense to me, but I have to wonder why Buell did not utilize this as a possible cure for front iso failures. | ||
| Scott_in_nh |
If it helps I think he is referring to this  | ||
| Maru |
Yes Scott is correct. I am revering to a brace that ties the bolt that runs through the front iso to the top rear motor mount. (Where the top rear tie bar mounts.) The theory as i understand it, is it eliminates or reduces a rocking force that is hard on the front iso. As i understand it, this rocking energy is now shared with the rear mount instead of 100 percent of this energy going into the front iso. | ||
| Maru |
My understanding of such a brace, is that it would allow the iso to control vibration in a vertical plane as intended. In theory the device should reduce the center bolts ability to rock back and forth, which I am told is hard on iso's. It would seem additional forces would be added to the rear mount, but it is not clear if this is a valid concern. | ||
| Maru |
I had hoped that someone with a M.E. background might have some input. I know there are threads already dealing with a device like this and have read all that I could find. I have yet to see much discussion on the theory of such a device, from someone that really understands the science behind the Buell engine mounting system. | ||
| Sloppy |
My front isolator issue was a failure due to the manufacturing of the isolator. The design of itself is sound - but only if the isolator is properly manufactured. The faulty isolator sleeve was not properly bonded to the rubber. I don't know if the poor manufacturing of the replacement isolators has been resolved or not, but the replacement HD isolator (-79D version) is a superior design (especially in terms of manufacturing) in that it combines both sheer and compressive forces whereas the old version was a shear force. Note that the -79D version does require a minor modification of reaming the bolt hole to a larger size to accomodate the mounting bolt. Other than that it is a direct replacement. | ||
| Dave_02_1200 |
I am also interested in knowing more about how the "Stenzel Brace" functions and if it increases the useful life of front isolators. Maru's explanation makes sense but I am not an engineer so I would be interested in hearing what others have to say about this. I seem to remember this being discussed in the past but I don't recall if we ever really discussed why it works (if it does work). | ||
| Rickie_d |
Oh, Oh, I know….Pick me! pick meeeeee! Please!!!!!! I know it has something to do with a “band-aid”, but I will not spoil the tread until all options are exhausted. Please do not turn this into a header thread because (i) used the word exhaust. That would be just wrong! | ||
| Guell |
^^ It will fit on the later tubers.... LOL | ||
| Rickie_d |
Damn staight Dude...I love ya!!!! | ||
| Guell |
 | ||
| Bobpaul |
I have one on my bike. The idea is that it triangulates the cylinder head mounting bracket to avoid all of the broken bolts we hear so much about. Take a look at the mounting bracket bolted to the front of the front head. Look from the side and you'll notice that both bolts are in line horizontally. If it were off the bike you could grap the mount and push-pull it back and forth as if it were "rocking" on the bolts. That's what breaks the bolts becasue that's the same force that the isolator puts on the brackets. With the brace mounted up a triangular structure is formed that resists the deflection. The isolator may end up lasting longer but the main purpose is to keep from breaking the bolts going into the front head. | ||
| Rickie_d |
When there is an occasion, the beer is on me and I will readily admit that I am with  Don't take that literally….We all have a little butter to bring to the toast (or roast)!! Have fun!!! | ||
| Blake |
Ah, didn't recall the "Stenzel" name. I do remember seeing that discussed here on BadWeB before. I recall thinking that there is a non-obvious structural issue with the scheme, but I cannot recall off the top of my head. I wouldn't use it, but I've never had a front isolator failure. | ||
| Gowindward |
I still had front isolator failure with the above strut in place. I scrapped the idea after that and gave the strut away. | ||
| Jayvee |
Seems like its a European thing. According to one of our foreign correspondents, this piece is de rigeur 'over there'. From what I understand it doesn't prevent iso failure, but broken head studs. | ||
| Buellistic |
Proper assembly is the answer !!! | ||
| Blake |
I agree with LaFayette. | ||
| Blackm2 |
A fix is in the works for the isolator problem on tube frames. Expected to be out in March or April. http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/476 23/522695.html?1264545967 | ||
| Court |
One of the major tasks that Buell undertook in the last couple months was getting all the research, testing and analysis on various issues brought to either completion or to a form in which it could be effectively turned over. There were, as an example, several cases where Buell was using protocols and software different from what Harley-Davidson uses and great amounts of data had to be converted and then the entire effort packaged in a way that another engineering team could take over. The folks at Buell did a stellar job in doing this. Nothing got "lost in the cracks". | ||
| Dave_02_1200 |
I am looking forward to hearing when the revision kits are ready for release. |
