CCT Advice
Seasoned tech
SuperSport
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 576
From: Issaquah, WA
I know the concept of how the Desmo system works but don't have first hand experience with it to answer that question.
So by what you're saying, if you were to run the motor, then close the throttle quickly somehow take the cam chain off instantaneously (aside from that being something only Tony Stark could figure out how to do), the cams would stop moving faster than the crank?
So by what you're saying, if you were to run the motor, then close the throttle quickly somehow take the cam chain off instantaneously (aside from that being something only Tony Stark could figure out how to do), the cams would stop moving faster than the crank?
Absolutely!!! YES!! Ding ding ding we have a winner!
That's exactly what I've been trying to say! And therefore the crank will always be pulling the cams.
Hawk you're really grasping for straws now. OK technically a “tensioner” the chain adjuster isn't but it serves the same purpose to take up the excess slack of the chain. We can't have actual tension on the drive chain or when the suspension moved it would stretch and break it. This is the same purpose the CCT has in the cam chain being we can’t vary the distance between the cam gears and the crank gear. The cush drive has nothing to do with anything that we’re talking about. And your Dave Moss comment has to do with loading and unloading the tire which will unsettle the bike, again has no bearing at all what so ever on this topic.
The outside force, being the valve springs, IS acting on the cams. What keeps them in time and running at the same speed is the CHAIN. However if the chain were to suddenly break or be removed by Tony Stark (that’s for the great Ironman reference 7, I LOVE that show!) the cams would stop almost instantly where the crank and the rest of the rotating assembly would take much longer to come to a stop.
Seasoned tech
SuperSport
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 576
From: Issaquah, WA
So yes while the valves are opening, under decel conditions there is a load on the drive side of the chain. This is what I’ve been trying to say all along! The load is STILL on the drive side! Even under a hard decel!
Conversely when the valves close, the load is now on the opposite side of the chain (or tensioner side) as it must be to control the speed of the camshaft in relation to the speed of the crank.
So saying the load is always on the drive side of the chain is incorrect.
Hence why I've kept throwing in the caveat with the exception of when the valves are closing pushing the cam forward.
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,109
From: Skurup, Sweden
Tweety I apologize, my comment about general physics wasn’t directed towards you, and you obviously took great offence thinking it was. When you initially said “if I wanted to argue semantics” I thought you were referring to arguing them with Hawk and that is what I was referring to. I find your explanations are actually inconsistent with what hawk had said on a couple of your points and to be accurate.
1) Probably because 95+% of the time the bikes are under light load. So it is most likely to let go when the engine is under light load.
When mine came out I was under constant throttle on the freeway. I know I didn't chop the throttle because the rattle came on slower and I recognized it as cam chain rattle which normally wouldn’t be any big deal other than the tensioner had actually fallen completely out, which I didn’t know at the time, then the knocking started and I pulled over. Then the damage was done, bent valves and broken guides.
2) Could be as simple as you got lucky. Or because you kept from any sudden rpm changes which kept more consistent tension on the pull side of the chain keeping the chain pulling in the teeth of the sprockets.
1) Probably because 95+% of the time the bikes are under light load. So it is most likely to let go when the engine is under light load.
When mine came out I was under constant throttle on the freeway. I know I didn't chop the throttle because the rattle came on slower and I recognized it as cam chain rattle which normally wouldn’t be any big deal other than the tensioner had actually fallen completely out, which I didn’t know at the time, then the knocking started and I pulled over. Then the damage was done, bent valves and broken guides.
2) Could be as simple as you got lucky. Or because you kept from any sudden rpm changes which kept more consistent tension on the pull side of the chain keeping the chain pulling in the teeth of the sprockets.
Again granted, there was a certain amount of luck involved... But again, the point was that unlike most I knew what was happening, I knew it was likely to be the CCT's... So I didn't go with the first instinct, ie chop the throttle and grab the clutch... Which would have jumped the chain... I gently closed the throttle until the RPM's got low enough that I was willing to risk it, and then hit the killswitch and clutch... I couldn't find a single evidence of damage, so I just swapped CCT's and kept riding...
Again, it's not the load on the camchain or where it is that's important, it's when the load shifts, then the chain begins to move, and hits the CCT with a high impact load on a short time... That's when they break or back out...
Seasoned tech
SuperSport
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 576
From: Issaquah, WA
Granted, you are right, most bikes spend more time at a light load... But that wasn't the point... You specifically said that the most likely time for a CCT failure was under accellerationCan you please point out to me where I said that? I'm thinking you were reading into something I said in such a way that it wasn't intended, since then the chain was the most slack on the CCT side... I maintain that it's not more likely for the CCT to fail during acceleration than during decelleration... The loads are actually fairly equalThis is the point I've been trying to make all along... It's not the load in it self that kills the CCT's, it's the transients... Ie chopping the trottle or grabbing the cluthc doesn't matter much to the CCT Again exactly the point I've been trying to make, it's still a change of steady state to dymanic movement, and that's what kills the CCT's...
Again granted, there was a certain amount of luck involved... But again, the point was that unlike most I knew what was happening, I knew it was likely to be the CCT's... So I didn't go with the first instinct, ie chop the throttle and grab the clutch... Which would have jumped the chain... I gently closed the throttle until the RPM's got low enough that I was willing to risk it, and then hit the killswitch and clutch... I couldn't find a single evidence of damage, so I just swapped CCT's and kept riding...
Again, it's not the load on the camchain or where it is that's important, it's when the load shifts, then the chain begins to move, and hits the CCT with a high impact load on a short time... That's when they break or back out...
Again granted, there was a certain amount of luck involved... But again, the point was that unlike most I knew what was happening, I knew it was likely to be the CCT's... So I didn't go with the first instinct, ie chop the throttle and grab the clutch... Which would have jumped the chain... I gently closed the throttle until the RPM's got low enough that I was willing to risk it, and then hit the killswitch and clutch... I couldn't find a single evidence of damage, so I just swapped CCT's and kept riding...
Again, it's not the load on the camchain or where it is that's important, it's when the load shifts, then the chain begins to move, and hits the CCT with a high impact load on a short time... That's when they break or back out...
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
Well lets add a few more things to this.....
I have heard claims that the cams will just stop instantly if not being driven by the cam chain. Are you sure?
Lets say- the cams weight 3 lbs each then add a cam gear which we will say weights 1 lbs you now have 4 lbs for each assembly.
As they are tied together by a chain you now have two assemblies with a total of 8lbs of mass. Because the chain doesn't just disappear they will work together to keep spinning (a body in motion tends to stay in motion)
How much energy does that 8 lbs of mass have @ between 4500-5000 rpm?
Enough to open a valve spring? Also when the valves close they add energy back so how long would it take them to stop?
Now the piston will be travailing twice as fast, so you get a intake\compression stroke and an power\exhaust stoke for every rotation of the cam shaft.
How much energy is required to drive the piston up and down the bore twice in the time it takes the cams to rotate once and if we use a speed of 4500-5000 rpms for the cams you would be at 9000-10,000 rpm at the crank? Also nothing adds energy back to the piston assembly with a closed throttle where as the cams get energy added back when the valve springs open. So which one will truly slow faster? also remember to double the load on the crankshaft because both pistons will be trying to slow it down while each set of cams will be operating independently of each other.... or you could say there is a total of 16lbs of mass trying to keep the valve train turning, whichever you prefer...
All we have is your word, no facts no math, so why should you be believed?
I also find it funny that you now add:
Which was not in any of your statements until I pointed it out to you.....nice.
Then we get to this:
First you make this statement,
To which you were told you are dead wrong, so then as you can't admit you were wrong you reply with this
So now you are trying to say an adjuster and a tensioner are the same thing..... really? They are two different things but if you say so....
then you say that you can't have a tensioner on a drive chain huh.... guess what, you are wrong one again. Every been around dirt bikes or bikes with long travel suspension? Maybe some choppers or ridged framed bikes?
Is this patent for a non-existent product or something you can't have or doesn't exisit? Patent US3834246 - MOTORCYCLE DRIVE CHAIN TENSIONER KIT - Google Patents
or how about this one: Bulletproof motorcycle chopper chain tensioner! | XS650 Chopper
or maybe this one: Bolt On Motorcycle Chain Tensioner for 530 chain -
Should I go on because I haven't even gotten to the dirt bike units yet or are you ready to admit you made an incorrect statement?
Now lets look at this:
So I think I have proved there is a difference between an adjuster and a tensioner. Saying they do the same thing is just kind of silly.
A cush drive does have something to do with this as it proves there is a load that must be accounted for when the load shifts from one side of the chain to the other.
And my comment about Daves comment does also have bearing as it also shows that when a chain drive decelerates the load shifts from one side to the other.
So what I see is you guessing at what the valve spring load is.
Then your claim assuming that the valve train will slow faster than the crankshaft even though you do not have any data on how much energy is required to drive the crankshaft two rotations for every one rotation of the cams. Without this information how do you know how fast the crankshaft will decelerate with a closed throttle?
No data in how much energy is stored in the cams. So how do you know that they slow faster than the crankshaft?
Just that you say so.
Just like you say a chain adjuster and a chain tensioner are the same thing.
Just like you say there is no such thing as a drive chain tensioner.
So maybe you could show some examples or links to back up what you are saying. Not just what you say is right.
I have explained how chain drives work, listed examples and even a link with someone talking about how the load shifts from one side to the other on a chain drive.
So it's your turn, can you post any links to back up your claims?
I have heard claims that the cams will just stop instantly if not being driven by the cam chain. Are you sure?
Lets say- the cams weight 3 lbs each then add a cam gear which we will say weights 1 lbs you now have 4 lbs for each assembly.
As they are tied together by a chain you now have two assemblies with a total of 8lbs of mass. Because the chain doesn't just disappear they will work together to keep spinning (a body in motion tends to stay in motion)
How much energy does that 8 lbs of mass have @ between 4500-5000 rpm?
Enough to open a valve spring? Also when the valves close they add energy back so how long would it take them to stop?
Now the piston will be travailing twice as fast, so you get a intake\compression stroke and an power\exhaust stoke for every rotation of the cam shaft.
How much energy is required to drive the piston up and down the bore twice in the time it takes the cams to rotate once and if we use a speed of 4500-5000 rpms for the cams you would be at 9000-10,000 rpm at the crank? Also nothing adds energy back to the piston assembly with a closed throttle where as the cams get energy added back when the valve springs open. So which one will truly slow faster? also remember to double the load on the crankshaft because both pistons will be trying to slow it down while each set of cams will be operating independently of each other.... or you could say there is a total of 16lbs of mass trying to keep the valve train turning, whichever you prefer...
All we have is your word, no facts no math, so why should you be believed?
I also find it funny that you now add:
Which was not in any of your statements until I pointed it out to you.....nice.
Then we get to this:
First you make this statement,
Hawk you're really grasping for straws now. OK technically a “tensioner” the chain adjuster isn't but it serves the same purpose to take up the excess slack of the chain. We can't have actual tension on the drive chain or when the suspension moved it would stretch and break it.
then you say that you can't have a tensioner on a drive chain huh.... guess what, you are wrong one again. Every been around dirt bikes or bikes with long travel suspension? Maybe some choppers or ridged framed bikes?
Is this patent for a non-existent product or something you can't have or doesn't exisit? Patent US3834246 - MOTORCYCLE DRIVE CHAIN TENSIONER KIT - Google Patents
or how about this one: Bulletproof motorcycle chopper chain tensioner! | XS650 Chopper
or maybe this one: Bolt On Motorcycle Chain Tensioner for 530 chain -
Should I go on because I haven't even gotten to the dirt bike units yet or are you ready to admit you made an incorrect statement?
Now lets look at this:
This is the same purpose the CCT has in the cam chain being we can’t vary the distance between the cam gears and the crank gear. The cush drive has nothing to do with anything that we’re talking about. And your Dave Moss comment has to do with loading and unloading the tire which will unsettle the bike, again has no bearing at all what so ever on this topic.
A cush drive does have something to do with this as it proves there is a load that must be accounted for when the load shifts from one side of the chain to the other.
And my comment about Daves comment does also have bearing as it also shows that when a chain drive decelerates the load shifts from one side to the other.
So what I see is you guessing at what the valve spring load is.
Then your claim assuming that the valve train will slow faster than the crankshaft even though you do not have any data on how much energy is required to drive the crankshaft two rotations for every one rotation of the cams. Without this information how do you know how fast the crankshaft will decelerate with a closed throttle?
No data in how much energy is stored in the cams. So how do you know that they slow faster than the crankshaft?
Just that you say so.
Just like you say a chain adjuster and a chain tensioner are the same thing.
Just like you say there is no such thing as a drive chain tensioner.
So maybe you could show some examples or links to back up what you are saying. Not just what you say is right.
I have explained how chain drives work, listed examples and even a link with someone talking about how the load shifts from one side to the other on a chain drive.
So it's your turn, can you post any links to back up your claims?
Last edited by 8541Hawk; May 10, 2012 at 07:22 PM.
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,871
From: Phoenix, AZ
Dude this is becoming a system overload... I am lovin it.
Ok first, basically we are discussing whether or not the crank or the cams slow down faster?
From what I'm reading:
Momentum of cams spinning at high rpm would be hard to slow down. Valve springs would definitely help slow them down. Something that has crossed my mind... the springs may be putting a lot of pressure on the cams, but the lever arm on those things is pretty dang short. I mean, its almost at the center of the cam, so the force of the spring pressing the cam back has to be as small as they could make it.
I'm sure they would want this when designing the system... the engineer would want the maximum amount of spring pressure closing the valve for the minimum amount of HP lost pressing the cam in the opposite direction.
Ok, I have another question... does the compression in the cylinders slow the pistons down at all? Or is this counter acted by the combustion that is happening?
Ok first, basically we are discussing whether or not the crank or the cams slow down faster?
From what I'm reading:
Momentum of cams spinning at high rpm would be hard to slow down. Valve springs would definitely help slow them down. Something that has crossed my mind... the springs may be putting a lot of pressure on the cams, but the lever arm on those things is pretty dang short. I mean, its almost at the center of the cam, so the force of the spring pressing the cam back has to be as small as they could make it.
I'm sure they would want this when designing the system... the engineer would want the maximum amount of spring pressure closing the valve for the minimum amount of HP lost pressing the cam in the opposite direction.
Ok, I have another question... does the compression in the cylinders slow the pistons down at all? Or is this counter acted by the combustion that is happening?
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,871
From: Phoenix, AZ
Wait... wikipedia answered that one for me. Engine braking is definitely caused by the airflow restriction to the cylinders with a closed throttle.
Engine braking (as in the actual force acted on the wheel) is what causes the vehicle to slow down. So in the end it's the force holding the rear wheel back, which means that the pistons want to slow down with quite a bit of force. Much more than valves/cams (the engine braking is not caused by valve springs). That doesn't quite answer which is faster, but does indicate to me that the pistons do indeed want to slow.
I should probably stop talking aloud and eat some dinner here because I have another slightly off topic question, but why would 4 cylinder engines have less engine braking?
Engine braking (as in the actual force acted on the wheel) is what causes the vehicle to slow down. So in the end it's the force holding the rear wheel back, which means that the pistons want to slow down with quite a bit of force. Much more than valves/cams (the engine braking is not caused by valve springs). That doesn't quite answer which is faster, but does indicate to me that the pistons do indeed want to slow.
I should probably stop talking aloud and eat some dinner here because I have another slightly off topic question, but why would 4 cylinder engines have less engine braking?
Seasoned tech
SuperSport
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 576
From: Issaquah, WA
As they are tied together by a chain you now have two assemblies with a total of 8lbs of mass. Because the chain doesn't just disappear they will work together to keep spinning (a body in motion tends to stay in motion)Yes but remember each has TWO sets of valve springs with a minimum of 100lbs of pressure pushing back.
How much energy does that 8 lbs of mass have @ between 4500-5000 rpm? Enough to overcome 100lbs of force from the springs? Maybe for a couple revolutions tops.
How much energy is required to drive the piston up and down the bore twice in the time it takes the cams to rotate once and if we use a speed of 4500-5000 rpms for the cams you would be at 9000-10,000 rpm at the crank? Considering the mass of the crank, flywheel, clutch has substantial inertia it will rotate it for much longer than the light weight of the cams. Also nothing adds energy back to the piston assembly with a closed throttle where as the cams get energy added back when the valve springs open. This would ONLY be true if you rolled off the throttle AND pulled in the clutch at the same time. Hence why I was asking my question that you can’t seem to answer. Actually what IS happening is the force of the weight of the bike moving forward is driving the rear tire, which drives the transmission and ultimately the crank. So which one will truly slow faster? The cams because there is nothing driving them like the crank (see above). also remember to double the load on the crankshaft because both pistons will be trying to slow it down while each set of cams will be operating independently of each other And has quadruple the load for all 4 sets of valves .... or you could say there is a total of 16lbs of mass trying to keep the valve train turning, whichever you prefer...
I also find it funny that you now add:
Which was not in any of your statements until I pointed it out to you.....nice.
You are again wrong and need to go back and re-read what I’ve said. Post #32” The only time the chain is slowding down the cams is when the valves are closing and trying to push the lobe up and trying to rotate the cam in a forward direction. At all other times the cam chain is pulling on the cam.” #44” The valve spring is pushing back on the cam the same amount regardless of throttle position.” #53 “It is never holding them back with the exception of when the valves are closing and pushing the cam lobe up.” #53 “Also as mentioned when the valve springs are pushing back at the lobe while closing it’s trying to push the cam up and this is the only real time the chain is holding the cams back.” I also went into much more detail on this topic in this post.
To which you were told you are dead wrong, so then as you can't admit you were wrong you reply with this
So now you are trying to say an adjuster and a tensioner are the same thing..... really? They are two different things but if you say so....
Actually I’m not dead wrong, they both serve the same purpose of taking the excess slack out of the chain. Just on the cam chain it actually puts some tension on it he chain and on the drive chain there is no tension because as I said if there were tension when the suspension moves it would bind and break the chain.
then you say that you can't have a tensioner on a drive chain huh....
Should I go on because I haven't even gotten to the dirt bike units yet or are you ready to admit you made an incorrect statement? You don’t need to go on because you are yet AGAIN wrong. What you should do is go back and actually read what I say rather than be in such a hurry to try to find something that I said that is wrong. I said the drive chain can’t have TENSION! I did NOT say tensionER. You would be correct in saying some bikes have tensioners. Multi speed bicycles do to take up the slack for the different gears. Some smaller ATV’s do. However nothing that I know of with substantial size or power does.
Now lets look at this:
So I think I have proved there is a difference between an adjuster and a tensioner. Saying they do the same thing is just kind of silly. They both take up the slack in the chain. Simple as that.
A cush drive does have something to do with this as it proves there is a load that must be accounted for when the load shifts from one side of the chain to the other.This is true on a drive chain. NOT on a cam chain. As I said the forces on the cam are completely different. You don’t have anything that is driving the cams other than the chain. On the drive chain on decel you have the weight and speed of the bike driving the rear tire in the opposite direction which loads the other side of the chain. Now before you think you’ve got me by saying “opposite direction, yes they are both spinning the in the same way but the tire is trying to speed the engine up and the engine is trying to slow down.
So what I see is you guessing at what the valve spring load is. Yes I made an educated guess from being familiar with valve trains and tried to err on the low side. I suspect the actual pressures are much greater. I have an e-mail in to a company that offers cams and valve springs for our bikes in hopes of getting a more concrete answer for you.
I find it hilarious that you keep grasping at straws trying to compare similar but unrelated systems that operate with different forces being applied and trying to find fault in something I’ve said and in turn you’re just making yourself look foolish because you keep miss-reading what I’m saying. Rather than being so closed minded and hell bent on proving I’m wrong, why don’t you open your mind for a second and actually READ what I’ve said. It’ll at the very least keep you from looking foolish from misquoting me and telling me how wrong I am about something I never even said.
Seasoned tech
SuperSport
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 576
From: Issaquah, WA
Dude this is becoming a system overload... I am lovin it.
Ok first, basically we are discussing whether or not the crank or the cams slow down faster? Essentially yes.
From what I'm reading:
Momentum of cams spinning at high rpm would be hard to slow down. Valve springs would definitely help slow them down. Something that has crossed my mind... the springs may be putting a lot of pressure on the cams, but the lever arm on those things is pretty dang short. I mean, its almost at the center of the cam, so the force of the spring pressing the cam back has to be as small as they could make it.
I'm sure they would want this when designing the system... the engineer would want the maximum amount of spring pressure closing the valve for the minimum amount of HP lost pressing the cam in the opposite direction.This is true. However there is still a lot of pressure on those springs pushing back at the cam X2 for each cam. And they have to lift the valve nearly a half an inch open which increases the load on the springs as they compress.
Ok, I have another question... does the compression in the cylinders slow the pistons down at all? Or is this counter acted by the combustion that is happening?
Ok first, basically we are discussing whether or not the crank or the cams slow down faster? Essentially yes.
From what I'm reading:
Momentum of cams spinning at high rpm would be hard to slow down. Valve springs would definitely help slow them down. Something that has crossed my mind... the springs may be putting a lot of pressure on the cams, but the lever arm on those things is pretty dang short. I mean, its almost at the center of the cam, so the force of the spring pressing the cam back has to be as small as they could make it.
I'm sure they would want this when designing the system... the engineer would want the maximum amount of spring pressure closing the valve for the minimum amount of HP lost pressing the cam in the opposite direction.This is true. However there is still a lot of pressure on those springs pushing back at the cam X2 for each cam. And they have to lift the valve nearly a half an inch open which increases the load on the springs as they compress.
Ok, I have another question... does the compression in the cylinders slow the pistons down at all? Or is this counter acted by the combustion that is happening?
Wait... wikipedia answered that one for me. Engine braking is definitely caused by the airflow restriction to the cylinders with a closed throttle.
Engine braking (as in the actual force acted on the wheel) is what causes the vehicle to slow down. So in the end it's the force holding the rear wheel back, which means that the pistons want to slow down with quite a bit of force. Much more than valves/cams (the engine braking is not caused by valve springs). That doesn't quite answer which is faster, but does indicate to me that the pistons do indeed want to slow.
I should probably stop talking aloud and eat some dinner here because I have another slightly off topic question, but why would 4 cylinder engines have less engine braking?
Engine braking (as in the actual force acted on the wheel) is what causes the vehicle to slow down. So in the end it's the force holding the rear wheel back, which means that the pistons want to slow down with quite a bit of force. Much more than valves/cams (the engine braking is not caused by valve springs). That doesn't quite answer which is faster, but does indicate to me that the pistons do indeed want to slow.
I should probably stop talking aloud and eat some dinner here because I have another slightly off topic question, but why would 4 cylinder engines have less engine braking?
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
Oh I am completely done because it has gotten to to the point of being silly....
You can have a tensoiner but not have tension..... Ok if you say so....
an adjuster and a tensioner are they same thing even though one adjust the amount of slack and the other provides constant tension.... but again if you say so.....
You can not have tension on a final drive chain, yet final drive chain tensioners have been around for years.... but if you say so....
So as these simple things can't be accepted, then how is it possible to actually discuss a topic like this one.
What happens when you get to the more complicated questions like how much farther are the pistons (because both pistons are attached to the crank) traveling than each cam? How much more power is required to drive the crankshaft at twice the speed of the cams?
Conversely how much more drag does the crank and both pistons have on them when the power is removed (as in when you close the throttle) than a camshaft? Then is it possible that the pumping pressure (both above and below the piston) side wall friction and a few other things that I just won't both to list just might be much greater than the force of a spring?
So I'll just leave this person in there own little world where they are the only one that can possibly be right.
If they with to actually supply some proof, then maybe I might comment. Otherwise IMHO it is just them saying so and making guesses.
Neither can I have a discussion with someone that when it is pointed out that they have miss spoken, to the point of proof given that a part that can't exist actually does, but they still insist they have to be right, then what is the point.
You can have a tensoiner but not have tension..... Ok if you say so....
an adjuster and a tensioner are they same thing even though one adjust the amount of slack and the other provides constant tension.... but again if you say so.....
You can not have tension on a final drive chain, yet final drive chain tensioners have been around for years.... but if you say so....
So as these simple things can't be accepted, then how is it possible to actually discuss a topic like this one.
What happens when you get to the more complicated questions like how much farther are the pistons (because both pistons are attached to the crank) traveling than each cam? How much more power is required to drive the crankshaft at twice the speed of the cams?
Conversely how much more drag does the crank and both pistons have on them when the power is removed (as in when you close the throttle) than a camshaft? Then is it possible that the pumping pressure (both above and below the piston) side wall friction and a few other things that I just won't both to list just might be much greater than the force of a spring?
So I'll just leave this person in there own little world where they are the only one that can possibly be right.
If they with to actually supply some proof, then maybe I might comment. Otherwise IMHO it is just them saying so and making guesses.
Neither can I have a discussion with someone that when it is pointed out that they have miss spoken, to the point of proof given that a part that can't exist actually does, but they still insist they have to be right, then what is the point.
Seasoned tech
SuperSport
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 576
From: Issaquah, WA
I appologize I'll have to dumb down my answers a bit more for you to understand. Or more likely just to be specific enough so that you don't just try to pick apart my answers with rediculousness just because you're upset that I called you out and proved you wrong.
You might want to take a look in the mirror before you start making such comments.
Oh I am completely done because it has gotten to to the point of being silly....Thanks to you.
You can have a tensoiner but not have tension..... Ok if you say so....Never said that.
an adjuster and a tensioner are they same thing even though one adjust the amount of slack and the other provides constant tension.... but again if you say so.....Yes they both serve the same purpose of taking up the slack in the chain. One does it by putting a slight tension on the chain and the other does it by simply adjusting the distance between the two sprockets. They serve the same purpose but do it in a little different way. Saything they do not do the same thing is like saying Ducati's Desmo valve system and a conventional valve spring set up don't do the same thing. Yes they both open and close the valves. Just they do it in a different way.
You can not have tension on a final drive chain, yet final drive chain tensioners have been around for years.... but if you say so....Go out and adjust your drive chain on your SUPERHAWK and put some tension on it and see what happens. Last I checked this forum was about SUPERHAWKS and not about the very few other bikes that have some sort of drive chain tensioner, and therefore I was NOT talking about those. I was talking about the SUPERHAWK specifically though 99% of all other motorcycles, ATV's or anything else with a drive chain out there which do NOT use a drive chain tensioner but rather have you adjust the excess slack out of the chain.
Conversely how much more drag does the crank and both pistons have on them when the power is removed (as in when you close the throttle) than a camshaft? Then is it possible that the pumping pressure (both above and below the piston) side wall friction and a few other things that I just won't both to list just might be much greater than the force of a spring?The part you seem to forget is when you close the throttle the power from the combustion process may be reduced to next to nothing, HOWEVER the rear wheel is still driving the crank so you have NOT removed all the power from the crank. Simply rolling off the throttle changes very little as far as the cams are concerned. Especially if you don't pull in the clutch. When you are using the engine for braking the crank actually slows down very slowly. This is again why I asked you what you thought was worse, just rolling off the throttle or rolling off the throttle and pulling in the clutch at the same time. However you can't seem to figure out the answer to that simple question.
So I'll just leave this person in there own little world where they are the only one that can possibly be right.
If they with to actually supply some proof, then maybe I might comment. Otherwise IMHO it is just them saying so and making guesses.It's interesting that you say that being you have provided no "proof" yourself. Just made speculations based on the picture in your head. The sad thing is I can totally see where you're coming from, just it doesn't quite work that way but you're to closed minded to listen to what someone else is trying to explain to you.
Neither can I have a discussion with someone that when it is pointed out that they have miss spoken,More like you have missread to the point of proof given that a part that can't exist actually does, but they still insist they have to be right, then what is the point.
You can have a tensoiner but not have tension..... Ok if you say so....Never said that.
an adjuster and a tensioner are they same thing even though one adjust the amount of slack and the other provides constant tension.... but again if you say so.....Yes they both serve the same purpose of taking up the slack in the chain. One does it by putting a slight tension on the chain and the other does it by simply adjusting the distance between the two sprockets. They serve the same purpose but do it in a little different way. Saything they do not do the same thing is like saying Ducati's Desmo valve system and a conventional valve spring set up don't do the same thing. Yes they both open and close the valves. Just they do it in a different way.
You can not have tension on a final drive chain, yet final drive chain tensioners have been around for years.... but if you say so....Go out and adjust your drive chain on your SUPERHAWK and put some tension on it and see what happens. Last I checked this forum was about SUPERHAWKS and not about the very few other bikes that have some sort of drive chain tensioner, and therefore I was NOT talking about those. I was talking about the SUPERHAWK specifically though 99% of all other motorcycles, ATV's or anything else with a drive chain out there which do NOT use a drive chain tensioner but rather have you adjust the excess slack out of the chain.
Conversely how much more drag does the crank and both pistons have on them when the power is removed (as in when you close the throttle) than a camshaft? Then is it possible that the pumping pressure (both above and below the piston) side wall friction and a few other things that I just won't both to list just might be much greater than the force of a spring?The part you seem to forget is when you close the throttle the power from the combustion process may be reduced to next to nothing, HOWEVER the rear wheel is still driving the crank so you have NOT removed all the power from the crank. Simply rolling off the throttle changes very little as far as the cams are concerned. Especially if you don't pull in the clutch. When you are using the engine for braking the crank actually slows down very slowly. This is again why I asked you what you thought was worse, just rolling off the throttle or rolling off the throttle and pulling in the clutch at the same time. However you can't seem to figure out the answer to that simple question.
So I'll just leave this person in there own little world where they are the only one that can possibly be right.
If they with to actually supply some proof, then maybe I might comment. Otherwise IMHO it is just them saying so and making guesses.It's interesting that you say that being you have provided no "proof" yourself. Just made speculations based on the picture in your head. The sad thing is I can totally see where you're coming from, just it doesn't quite work that way but you're to closed minded to listen to what someone else is trying to explain to you.
Neither can I have a discussion with someone that when it is pointed out that they have miss spoken,More like you have missread to the point of proof given that a part that can't exist actually does, but they still insist they have to be right, then what is the point.
Junior Member
Squid
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6
From: Santa Barbara, CA
BLUF: What I need to know is: What all parts should I be replacing for a CCT replacement?
Here's a noob question for anyone willing to answer: I'm in the military and in Turkey presently. I speak Turkish so I get along with the locals. So much so that I take my bike to the local Honda shop and work on it myself with their tools
My mechanic doesn't speak very much English and I can almost guarantee he has never worked on another Superhawk. As I was finishing the final piece of my RC-51 front end swap, he took my bike for a spin around the block. He came back saying everything is fine, but I need to change my CCT's asap. I'm the 3rd owner and I know I'm due for a CCT change based on mileage (~43,000). After reading a bunch I've pretty much decided on replacing the CCT's with the stock Honda part. What I need to know is: What all parts should I be replacing? My mechanic said I need to buy: 2 CCT's, 2 timing chains, and all 4 chain guides. In all the threads I have read through, no one talks about replacing anything but the CCT's. Many thanks in advance if anyone with some experience on the subject can weigh in!
Here's a noob question for anyone willing to answer: I'm in the military and in Turkey presently. I speak Turkish so I get along with the locals. So much so that I take my bike to the local Honda shop and work on it myself with their tools
My mechanic doesn't speak very much English and I can almost guarantee he has never worked on another Superhawk. As I was finishing the final piece of my RC-51 front end swap, he took my bike for a spin around the block. He came back saying everything is fine, but I need to change my CCT's asap. I'm the 3rd owner and I know I'm due for a CCT change based on mileage (~43,000). After reading a bunch I've pretty much decided on replacing the CCT's with the stock Honda part. What I need to know is: What all parts should I be replacing? My mechanic said I need to buy: 2 CCT's, 2 timing chains, and all 4 chain guides. In all the threads I have read through, no one talks about replacing anything but the CCT's. Many thanks in advance if anyone with some experience on the subject can weigh in!
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,871
From: Phoenix, AZ
Just the CCT's. The chains and chain guides are going to last until 100k miles on this bike easy, so if they need replaced you likely have done some internal damage or need a complete rebuild. I'd be confident in just replacing the CCT's.
On another note, it's hard to tell if the CCT's are bad until they are completely broken, so if he thinks you need them he is likely completely guessing or they have already gone and likely done taken their toll on the motor. You would know if this happened because of crunching noises and loss of power. On an i4 bike if they break, they make a lot of rattling but the 4 cylinders pulling on the chain keep enough tension to not skip timing and do internal damage. In this case, they give a sort of warning that they are broken without a huge danger to the motor. On a V-twin, once they brake, there is only one cylinder per chain which allows it to skip easily (so it does damage without warning).
Anyway, your mechanic may be thinking he's hearing the i4 warning noises, but in the case of this bike that doesn't happen.
Buy the two OEM units and matching gaskets and do the job yourself. It's quite easy if you don't have to set the tension like on a manual unit.
On another note, it's hard to tell if the CCT's are bad until they are completely broken, so if he thinks you need them he is likely completely guessing or they have already gone and likely done taken their toll on the motor. You would know if this happened because of crunching noises and loss of power. On an i4 bike if they break, they make a lot of rattling but the 4 cylinders pulling on the chain keep enough tension to not skip timing and do internal damage. In this case, they give a sort of warning that they are broken without a huge danger to the motor. On a V-twin, once they brake, there is only one cylinder per chain which allows it to skip easily (so it does damage without warning).
Anyway, your mechanic may be thinking he's hearing the i4 warning noises, but in the case of this bike that doesn't happen.
Buy the two OEM units and matching gaskets and do the job yourself. It's quite easy if you don't have to set the tension like on a manual unit.
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,510
Set engine at the FT timing mark (on the flywheel). Remove front CCT. Disassemble it completely. Drill it out to accept an M8 x 1.25 tap. Tap it for M8 x 1.25. Install M8 x 140mm bolt with 2 nuts on it, (I also smeared the threads with hi-temp RTV so there are no leaks) then weld an acorn nut on the threaded end. (I used all stainless hardware). Install new manual CCT, set tension by hand (then do final tension after bike is hot, listening to the noise until you make it the quietest without over-tightening).
Do the same for the rear cylinder (except set the timing mark at RT).
Feel free to correct me if I missed anything.
Do the same for the rear cylinder (except set the timing mark at RT).
Feel free to correct me if I missed anything.
Senior Member
Superstock
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 397
From: UK
Just the CCT's. The chains and chain guides are going to last until 100k miles on this bike easy, so if they need replaced you likely have done some internal damage or need a complete rebuild. I'd be confident in just replacing the CCT's.
Feel free to correct me if I missed anything.
As for the Drill it out to accept an M8 x 1.25 tap etc you are referring to converting the auto tensioners to manuals. Pingels is looking at swapping old auto's for new, no mention of manuals.
Pingels if you want more info on fitting manuals and how to set the timing whether fitting replacement autos or fitting manuals then you may want to refer to the following. www.vtr1000.org • View topic - Manual Cam Chain Tensioner Installation Guide (MCCT's)
If you are going to be replacing with Honda Auto's then you may want to consider what we call a stop mod. www.vtr1000.org • View topic - CCT (Cam Chain Tensioner) Fail Safe Mod. (aka Stopper Mod)
This is juts a safety device for if or when they eventually fail there is no damage caused from the chain jumping teeth and you juts get the rattle like the IL4's as 7moore explained. If it fails then it also allows you to get home, order parts and replace with new tensioners.
(:-})
Last edited by cybercarl; Sep 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Crashrat
Classifieds
40
Oct 11, 2012 08:25 PM
