Title says it all. Thought I'd walk myself through this bike in a somewhat 'Joe Average Generic' kind of explanation about a few fundamental theories. I cannot find that thread I read, but someone did not correct a concept one had about throttle sync. Their theory started to make me wonder if I had my theory wrong?
As they were discussing the stagger-syn or the +/- setting of 50 mmHg to the other cylinder, the valve lash came up. The poster made a good point that sort of made sense. It could kind of trick you into that abstract written, or his concept to the [why] the sync does not need to be moved.
I am going to try to understand this concept as he walked how the valve change will change how the air flows. So far, I followed that abstract written. I have to agree if the valve can flow with a wider valve lash as opposed to a tighter valve, I could see the one valve closing took more time staying open.
So his concept was that to remove that pop on the idle or bottom, was to set the valves to their proper lash and the pop will go away... In theory... So says the abstract written. So for a Joe-G-Neric bike as far as a computer bike goes and or a carb bike, if we set the valves, the pop goes away we set the proper gap, the clutch bang dies too. That is why you do not touch the low speed air screws. Those are preset from the factory, you do not need to move those... In theory was his.
:dunno I had a T handed to me with zero miles on it. I start her up, she is popping and sniffing hot or cold. I had to turn the bike around. Just those few hundred feet and could not ride this bike, literally! I proceeded to check valve lash [in theory] because someone said the pop will go away with a valve lash, it changes the flow.
As I came to find the valve lash was spot on [in theory] I had no need to set the throttle sync... As [his] theory goes. Does that make sense to you? His theory, or 'that concept' to that theory, was how much 'absolute' validity is that = If I checked the valves? OK, here is another theory...
Say I have a broken piston ring, a hole in the piston. Was that not low to no compression, respectively? I set the valve lash to spec. Should not the sync dial in now? :lol
:dunno I took that concept, walked the valve lash to its conclusion. It is all about 'COMPRESSION' not valve lash. Would you agree? If the linkage slowly wears out, would not a throttle plate lag? If the design has a screw to set the parts all equal to begin with all brand new, how else do you assemble and old multi-carb bank? Don't you have to initially build the carb assembly so as all the linkages are lined up first? Are you not chasing that new, lined up throttle plate next to each other to; Equally rise at the same time; no part wears equally in theory, right? One part stays cleaned and lubed. The other part caught dirt and rubbed it to dust. Show me slight slop in the linkage now, as time goes by.
Show me how a valve lash will correct that throttle sync linkage slop. I rest my case. Show me how if you pull the clutch in, some of you have heard the noise go away. Say a multi-cylinder engine would be out of phase, pulse the clutch basket at a different time where it would rattle the floating plates back and forth in the bellow of that crankcase.
You pull said lever, you removed the frictions from steels so the whipping continues at the larger basket. That is chained to the crank. Eliminate that whipping noise but the disconnect inside that crankcase is now more quiet in a less bellowing sound.
There is only one answer if no one there is correcting that gentlemen. Therefore, it is hard to get an answer to my computer question, if I read theory after theory and it does not walk as it does in my world.
I haven't yet begun to explain how well mine runs without a pop from that engine. Yes, it has a hez at 3-4K, but that [in theory to me] is a spot on throttle-to-air screw-sync. Don't give me that valve lashack theory. I brought clutch noise, not lash my throttle sync. Big difference.
Someone needs to explain themselves... Yeah, valve lash it, leave the t-body alone, shes sunk back in likea dis. :lol
As they were discussing the stagger-syn or the +/- setting of 50 mmHg to the other cylinder, the valve lash came up. The poster made a good point that sort of made sense. It could kind of trick you into that abstract written, or his concept to the [why] the sync does not need to be moved.
I am going to try to understand this concept as he walked how the valve change will change how the air flows. So far, I followed that abstract written. I have to agree if the valve can flow with a wider valve lash as opposed to a tighter valve, I could see the one valve closing took more time staying open.
So his concept was that to remove that pop on the idle or bottom, was to set the valves to their proper lash and the pop will go away... In theory... So says the abstract written. So for a Joe-G-Neric bike as far as a computer bike goes and or a carb bike, if we set the valves, the pop goes away we set the proper gap, the clutch bang dies too. That is why you do not touch the low speed air screws. Those are preset from the factory, you do not need to move those... In theory was his.
:dunno I had a T handed to me with zero miles on it. I start her up, she is popping and sniffing hot or cold. I had to turn the bike around. Just those few hundred feet and could not ride this bike, literally! I proceeded to check valve lash [in theory] because someone said the pop will go away with a valve lash, it changes the flow.
As I came to find the valve lash was spot on [in theory] I had no need to set the throttle sync... As [his] theory goes. Does that make sense to you? His theory, or 'that concept' to that theory, was how much 'absolute' validity is that = If I checked the valves? OK, here is another theory...
Say I have a broken piston ring, a hole in the piston. Was that not low to no compression, respectively? I set the valve lash to spec. Should not the sync dial in now? :lol
:dunno I took that concept, walked the valve lash to its conclusion. It is all about 'COMPRESSION' not valve lash. Would you agree? If the linkage slowly wears out, would not a throttle plate lag? If the design has a screw to set the parts all equal to begin with all brand new, how else do you assemble and old multi-carb bank? Don't you have to initially build the carb assembly so as all the linkages are lined up first? Are you not chasing that new, lined up throttle plate next to each other to; Equally rise at the same time; no part wears equally in theory, right? One part stays cleaned and lubed. The other part caught dirt and rubbed it to dust. Show me slight slop in the linkage now, as time goes by.
Show me how a valve lash will correct that throttle sync linkage slop. I rest my case. Show me how if you pull the clutch in, some of you have heard the noise go away. Say a multi-cylinder engine would be out of phase, pulse the clutch basket at a different time where it would rattle the floating plates back and forth in the bellow of that crankcase.
You pull said lever, you removed the frictions from steels so the whipping continues at the larger basket. That is chained to the crank. Eliminate that whipping noise but the disconnect inside that crankcase is now more quiet in a less bellowing sound.
There is only one answer if no one there is correcting that gentlemen. Therefore, it is hard to get an answer to my computer question, if I read theory after theory and it does not walk as it does in my world.
I haven't yet begun to explain how well mine runs without a pop from that engine. Yes, it has a hez at 3-4K, but that [in theory to me] is a spot on throttle-to-air screw-sync. Don't give me that valve lashack theory. I brought clutch noise, not lash my throttle sync. Big difference.
Someone needs to explain themselves... Yeah, valve lash it, leave the t-body alone, shes sunk back in likea dis. :lol