Oil Pressure Experiments - 2009 KLR650 - Page 2 - Kawasaki KLR 650 Forum
2008+ KLR650 Wrenching & Mod Questions For repair, maintaining or modifying discussions related to the newly updated 2008 and beyond, Generation 2 KLR650 Motorcycle.

 33Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 471 Old 08-20-2014, 11:55 PM
Pretty in Pink, dunno why
 
Tom Schmitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 7,445
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by justjeff View Post
And as you're on line you likely saw all my idiot edits right TOM?? You're supposed to be sleeping!
jj
Nope, late dinner here tonight.

House pressure is 100psi. In honor of our drought, I think I won't hook the valve up to the garden hose.

Once all is said and done, I may take a leaky one and make a lawn sprinkler out of it...

Tom

Tom [email protected]

“Neither of the two people in the room paid any attention to the way I came in, although only one of them was dead.” -Philip Marlowe

“'Why' and 'How' are words so important they cannot be too often used.” -Napoleon Bonaparte


Sting like a butterfly.
Tom Schmitz is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 12:16 AM
5th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lac La Biche Alberta Canada
Posts: 3,205
I have found it is easier to control the pressure by closing a bypass(outlet) valve to increase the pressure rather than to open an inlet(supply). You can set it up either way.
Regards....Jeff

It's not a Tractor....It's a LOCOMOTIVE!! Chugga Chugga
Woooo WOOOOO!!!!!
justjeff is offline  
post #13 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 12:30 PM
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,481
Nice job, Tom however it was a disappointment not to see the first director's cut showing the oil spray. ;-)

I included that in an ABS modulator thread on another group at several points as: "Clean glasses as in step X".

I haven't gotten to lapping my relief valve as yet but seems like a no brainer if one is willing to spend the time.

Justjeff, given your professional exerience in this field, can you see any downside to lapping (improving the seal) of the relief valve?

It seems to me that It's unlikely that a small relief valve leakage will affect the operation under any but the most remote possibility so not likely likely to make any significant improvement. That said, no down side to if one feels like doing so....

Do you agree that this is an accurate view?

Tom, you commented regarding the bottom end being essentially like a two stroke and it certainly resembles those systems excepting for two factors which have been at the root of my concern from the outset:

1) The wrist pin does not have a bearing and runs directly in the steel of the connecting rod which means it requires both much more lubrication and cooling than a typical two stroke.

2) Piston cooling is highly dependent on oil spray from below onto the underside of the piston crown. None of us has been able to offer any means of evaluating the effects of reduced spray on piston cooling in this engine. IME, pistons reach a critical temperature after which they fail in a rapid progression.

Two cycles depend on the inlet charge for piston cooling which must be considered in design.

This has been a very interesting project and Paul has shown great courage in taking the risk of long distance trial.

There are many not qualified/not measured factors involved such as oil flow, for example. No one has been able to offer data or calculations indicating the effects of cross drilling the banjo bolts, for example. It is not unlikely that the cross drilling had no material increase in oil flow because the size of the cross hole may not be a materially affecting factor. That the cross hole is at 90 degrees to the axial bore will cause significant restriction, for example.

We don't have any indication as to the relative restriction offered by the long axial passage in the banjo bolt. It is quite possible that the longer axial passage has so much more resistance to flow that the cross hole size is immaterial. Someone pointed this out a while ago, again.

We have no indication as to whether the banjo bolt is a restriction factor at all, given the length of the oil pipe, so it may be that our drilling of the cross holes in the banjo bolt has no real effect on oil flow.

One would need to set up a test jig in order to attempt to duplicate the pressure drop across the various parts of the system as a means to evaluate these effects. If one has an oil temperature, same oil, and pressure at both ends, one should be able to calculate the oil flow rate, Correct, someone? Anyone?

Regardless of calculations, if one knows the pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of the oil pipe (for example) one could use the same oil at the same temperature with an adjustable oil flow to duplicate that pressure difference. Say, for example one had 5 PSI difference between the two ends, applying 5 PSI at the inlet should allow one to measure the oil flow rate. Knowing the oil flow rate/volume would allow one to experiment with changing the banjo hole size and so on to determine changes in oil flow.

I never did find a donor valve cover into which to glue windows to study oil throw-off from the cams and am into other interests but some time.

Too many unknowns and far to many assumptions here, IMO. We just don't know many of the things which are claimed.

What we do know is that Paul performed these several modifications, reported the data. We really don't know the import of the data other than we do know that Paul's bike made a long journey successfully, he reports improvement in oil consumption and fuel consumption which may not actually be due to the factors which we believe.

I'm convinced that the results and conclusions he reports are correct because they seem to be well documented and there is no doubt in my mind that he has reported accurately. When I state "accurately" I mean that he has professional competence to evaluate that the information reported is correct as reported. In other words, he has not made errors in terms of what he has done during the work. Very professionally done!

The apparent reduction in excessive oil throw-off, as I stated when first commented on this project, would be expected to have the results reported because we used to see these effects as common place in automotive engines when worn main bearings were encountered. We also saw oil consumption increase in engines which were fitted with a high pressure oil pump rather than a high volume pump. Both worn mains and higher pressure will/must increase throw off of oil onto the cylinder walls.

I am not convinced that the case has been made that cross drilling of the banjo bolts does increase (materially) the oil flow volume to either cams or transmission. As said, it seems like a no-down side as it may increase this flow which would seem not to be a bad thing. Paul's work is, I think, conclusive in showing that were flow to cams and transmission to be somewhat increased, this increase will not be likely to reduce the crankshaft oil flow to a problem degree.

Great stuff and much to think about however we do need to be careful in what conclusions we are willing to accept as proven.

Perhaps Justjeff may be willing to comment on flows and restriction effects?

Good on you, Paul. You do have a large set of coconuts for trying that long distance ride. I don't think I'd like to play chicken with you. :-) I'm certain that others also are very appreciative of the risk which you took in order to offer the outcome.
Normk is offline  
 
post #14 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 01:31 PM
Pretty in Pink, dunno why
 
Tom Schmitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 7,445
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Normk View Post
It seems to me that It's unlikely that a small relief valve leakage will affect the operation under any but the most remote possibility so not likely likely to make any significant improvement. That said, no down side to if one feels like doing so....
As I have reviewed Paul's theory, work, and results my conclusion is that they, at the very least, do no harm. The leak rate on any given valve may be great or small, but it would seem that the small amount of work involved in stopping the leakage is time well spent. There's not much sense in having the pump merrily spinning away only to have some of the oil dumped straight back to the sump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normk View Post
Tom, you commented regarding the bottom end being essentially like a two stroke and it certainly resembles those systems excepting for two factors which have been at the root of my concern from the outset:

1) The wrist pin does not have a bearing and runs directly in the steel of the connecting rod which means it requires both much more lubrication and cooling than a typical two stroke.

2) Piston cooling is highly dependent on oil spray from below onto the underside of the piston crown. None of us has been able to offer any means of evaluating the effects of reduced spray on piston cooling in this engine. IME, pistons reach a critical temperature after which they fail in a rapid progression.
Yet there is one notable condition that doesn't exist in a two-smoke and one notable observation.

The KLR has a sump and the environment in the crankcase is extremely oil-rich. In the event of a piston ring failure one can expect a tremendous amount of oil to be blown into the air box, as Trundlebike saw with his double land failure. The wrist pin has concerned me, too, but I honestly believe that there is a whole bunch of oil floating about in the crankcase that should be sufficient.

The underside of a typical KLR piston is typically very clean with no varnish. To me that indicates that there is no cooling problem in there. Paul hinted that he thinks that his improvement in fuel consumption might come from the piston being just a tad hotter and therefore contributing to more efficient combustion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normk View Post
There are many not qualified/not measured factors involved such as oil flow, for example. No one has been able to offer data or calculations indicating the effects of cross drilling the banjo bolts, for example. It is not unlikely that the cross drilling had no material increase in oil flow because the size of the cross hole may not be a materially affecting factor. That the cross hole is at 90 degrees to the axial bore will cause significant restriction, for example.

We don't have any indication as to the relative restriction offered by the long axial passage in the banjo bolt. It is quite possible that the longer axial passage has so much more resistance to flow that the cross hole size is immaterial. Someone pointed this out a while ago, again.

We have no indication as to whether the banjo bolt is a restriction factor at all, given the length of the oil pipe, so it may be that our drilling of the cross holes in the banjo bolt has no real effect on oil flow.

One would need to set up a test jig in order to attempt to duplicate the pressure drop across the various parts of the system as a means to evaluate these effects. If one has an oil temperature, same oil, and pressure at both ends, one should be able to calculate the oil flow rate, Correct, someone? Anyone?
Unfortunately, what you request is too hard to accomplish. If all of this is Bachelor's thesis, your suggestions would be at the level of a PhD dissertation. One would need a decent flow meter or be willing to measure how far a stream of hot oil squirts, as well as some machined fixtures to set the oil tube in and some sort of pump to circulate the oil. Might want a heater, too. Were one to go to all that trouble, why not measure flow instead of calculating it?

All that I have to go on is empirical evidence from Paul's data, coupled with some marginally educated intuition.

When the oil hits the banjo it runs smack into the bolt, has to go around it, swirls around for a bit, and finally decides the path of least resistance is to gown the 1/16" diameter rabbit hole.

Stranger things have happened, but it would seem that increasing the hole to either a single .125" hole or double .125" hole would not reduce flow.

As to the axial hole being restrictive, once the oil gets in there it would seem that it would be no more restrictive than the oil tube itself. They have the same inside diameter.

Sometimes all we have to go on, without going to unreasonable efforts, is "try it and see". Modify, test, observe, and report. Draw conclusions and see what they suggest you do next.

Tom

Tom [email protected]

“Neither of the two people in the room paid any attention to the way I came in, although only one of them was dead.” -Philip Marlowe

“'Why' and 'How' are words so important they cannot be too often used.” -Napoleon Bonaparte


Sting like a butterfly.

Last edited by Tom Schmitz; 08-21-2014 at 01:34 PM.
Tom Schmitz is online now  
post #15 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 02:22 PM
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,481
Very interesting, and as you stated, so many factors we simply cannot quantify. Even if we did know the amount of oil flow, for example, I'm not competent to evaluate the flow required so the final fall-back for we technicians is to do what Paul has done, which is to go to empiricism. It seems to work so it seems to work. One must be very careful, however in concluding that systems which do work, work for the reasons we explain.

I'd hugely like to have some of the factors nailed down but as you noted with your bachelor/doctorate comparison, there isn't much prospect of doing that. I'm hoping that we can push the conclusions to the degree possible because that might bring out some data which can be used to tie to explanation.

It would be fantastic to try placing an infrared camera into the crankcase, for example, in order to monitor piston underside temperature but the piston movement and oil fog would mean that this would be a huge engineering problem in itself. I'll bet one could by a fleet of new KLR's for the cost of just that research. Add to that, that I don't know what is a safe piston temperature....or maybe ideal piston temperature would be more correct.

Of the 35 or more used KLR pistons which I've inspected, only a few have any sign of color to the underside which seems to agree with Tom's experience. Good to know.

I'd asked Paul whether he might try to see the crown color to gauge whether the piston might be running hotter but haven't heard as to whether he has been able to make any assessment. I think that he & I discussed the question of whether the crown deposit color accurately would reflect the piston temperature because there could be other factors which we fail to include.

I think that I will ask again regarding Thermo-Bob equipped piston color as don't recall anything conclusive there either.

I've been experimenting with a by-pass and 195 F thermostat regarding oil consumption and fuel mileage as that approach also is indicated in automotive and other liquid cooled applications. Reports from T-bob users are that the higher and more uniform engine temperature reduces oil consumption and increases fuel mileage but that's standard outcome from other fields so not a new thing either.

Paul's work is the first I can recall in which someone has tried reducing oil throw-off below that of the intended design which makes it both very interesting, and more of a worry.

If forced to put money on the table, I'd have to go with the efficacy of Paul's solution despite that I'm not prepared to do so without more data.

Paint my back yellow. ;-)

Back to the two CBR400RR's in the garage.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Schmitz View Post
As I have reviewed Paul's theory, work, and results my conclusion is that they, at the very least, do no harm. The leak rate on any given valve may be great or small, but it would seem that the small amount of work involved in stopping the leakage is time well spent. There's not much sense in having the pump merrily spinning away only to have some of the oil dumped straight back to the sump.



Yet there is one notable condition that doesn't exist in a two-smoke and one notable observation.

The KLR has a sump and the environment in the crankcase is extremely oil-rich. In the event of a piston ring failure one can expect a tremendous amount of oil to be blown into the air box, as Trundlebike saw with his double land failure. The wrist pin has concerned me, too, but I honestly believe that there is a whole bunch of oil floating about in the crankcase that should be sufficient.

The underside of a typical KLR piston is typically very clean with no varnish. To me that indicates that there is no cooling problem in there. Paul hinted that he thinks that his improvement in fuel consumption might come from the piston being just a tad hotter and therefore contributing to more efficient combustion.



Unfortunately, what you request is too hard to accomplish. If all of this is Bachelor's thesis, your suggestions would be at the level of a PhD dissertation. One would need a decent flow meter or be willing to measure how far a stream of hot oil squirts, as well as some machined fixtures to set the oil tube in and some sort of pump to circulate the oil. Might want a heater, too. Were one to go to all that trouble, why not measure flow instead of calculating it?

All that I have to go on is empirical evidence from Paul's data, coupled with some marginally educated intuition.

When the oil hits the banjo it runs smack into the bolt, has to go around it, swirls around for a bit, and finally decides the path of least resistance is to gown the 1/16" diameter rabbit hole.

Stranger things have happened, but it would seem that increasing the hole to either a single .125" hole or double .125" hole would not reduce flow.

As to the axial hole being restrictive, once the oil gets in there it would seem that it would be no more restrictive than the oil tube itself. They have the same inside diameter.

Sometimes all we have to go on, without going to unreasonable efforts, is "try it and see". Modify, test, observe, and report. Draw conclusions and see what they suggest you do next.

Tom
Normk is offline  
post #16 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 03:47 PM
Pretty in Pink, dunno why
 
Tom Schmitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 7,445
Garage
Norm -

Pepper The Laser Weiner Dog and I just returned from driving about town on a series of errands.

All the while I was mulling this flow thing over. Mind you, if I thought I had the required stuff in the Shop of Horrors, and really knew what I was on about, I'd have done this.

First we have to define a question to be answered and then design an experiment to answer the question.

If the question (and please feel free to restate the question) is "Does installing a different set of banjo bolts improve the flow to the transmission and the cam?", then how about these possibilities for an experiment?

Get a pump like this one which is supposed to provide 70 psi and 23 gal/hour (.5mpa and 90l/hr).

Rig up an oil line and plumb the pump to the center banjo, feeding the pump from a gallon jug. Install banjo bolts at the cam and transmission banjos. Position large beakers under the banjo bolts. Turn the pump on and record the time to fill the first beaker, then calculate flow rates for both banjo bolts. Repeat with the banjo bolts with the larger orifices.

Would that answer the question?

Or should a pair of orifices be attached to the banjo bolts that simulate the bearing clearances? That is, if the bearing has a diameter of 25mm with and a clearance of .038mm we can calculate the area of the clearance, multiply by the number of bearings feed, and build an orifice of that diameter. Again, catching the flow in a pair of beakers and recording the time to fill.

Would that be necessary to answer the question?

Either one of these experiments could be economically done and I'm dumb enough to try it.

Is recording the pressures important (it complicates things quite a bit - fittings and all that)? If so, where? I have a minimal collection of gauges - 0-30, 0-60, 0-300. Measuring pressure, then, is like peeing into a cash register - it runs into money, because I'd probably have to come up with a couple more low-pressure gauges.

What do you think? Not quite doctoral candidate stuff; more like a special project for the fluid dynamics professor.

Tom

Tom [email protected]

“Neither of the two people in the room paid any attention to the way I came in, although only one of them was dead.” -Philip Marlowe

“'Why' and 'How' are words so important they cannot be too often used.” -Napoleon Bonaparte


Sting like a butterfly.
Tom Schmitz is online now  
post #17 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 04:47 PM
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,481
It would be really interesting to learn whether there is actually more oil flow to the cams and transmission due to increasing the banjo bolt size.

The obvious question on the table, however is: "Does increasing the oil flow to the cams and/or the transmission produce a benefit?"

There were some assertions posted to the effect that increased oil flow to the transmission would be likely to increase the life of the rear counter balancer bearing but I am unable to accept this conclusion without hearing the case in support. To conclude that the bearings which do fail are doing so because of insufficient lubrication is, IMO, unsupported. Bearings have a service life but taking the variations within a large bearing sample, that life varies to an amazing degree. SKF and other bearing manufacturers used to publish mean service life in hours for a given bearing, operated under a given load, at a given speed. Anyone who has studied bearing engineering to any degree will be aware of this information.

I think the case is at least equally strong in support of the posit that these failed balancer bearings may be mainly due to individual bearings at the lower end of the service life. One can see this on paper by simply consulting the bearing manuals while the posit of bearing failure due to lower oil supply does not explain why the other thousands of KLR's manufactured and operated in a similar way show these bearing failures as extremely unusual.

We may be chasing a tail-less dog by intending to improve operation by increasing oil flow when there seems not to be a problem.

I'm always interested in investigation, especially when someone offers to do all the work. ;-)

As Michael Caine said in the movie Zulu: "No trouble old chap! I wasn't offering to do it myself."

As to modelling, the problem I see with calculating the orifice size to simulate the cam bearings, is that this adds more assumptions to the mix. I'm of the opinion that it would be better to measure the pressure at the head banjo and at the engine case banjo. If one has these two numbers and your suggested adjustable pump, one could heat the oil to average operating temperature and use a small valve at the cylinder head banjo.

Pump the oil from the pump through the engine banjo at a pressure matching the engine operating pressure and adjust the valve off the head banjo to obtain the same banjo pressure as when the engine is operating.

Same oil, same temperature, same inlet pressure, adjusting to same outlet pressure should produce the same flow volume as in engine operation. This will also allow the inlet pressure to be adjusted if required to maintain the fixed pressure which will reduce the variations.

Once one has the pressures and volume, one could drill the banjo axial hole and cross drilling to test. The results should be obvious as same pressure at inlet which results in reduced pressure at outlet banjo must indicate lower restriction in the banjo. Each banjo could be tested separately as one might expect that the drilling of the inlet one will better support increased flow since the inlet banjo supplies both outlets.

I think my initial set up would be to couple the adjustable pump to the oil pipe right on the engine in order to produce a valve setting for the transmission outlet also. A problem which needs be accommodated is that there are two outlets and one inlet, making a modification to one outlet likely to affect the other.

I will have to think about this a bit more but think one should be able to use the transmission banjo as the pressure sample point as Pascal's Law should be close enough given that there will be not flow in the transmission branch if testing in this way.

We used to have an electric motor powered oil pump in most machine shops to prime engines prior to first start up. It was really interesting but very messy to run something up to full oil pressure with the oil pan off.

I'm thinking that regulating your pump's oil pressure should be simple enough with a shunt valve back to the oil supply container?









Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Schmitz View Post
Norm -

Pepper The Laser Weiner Dog and I just returned from driving about town on a series of errands.

All the while I was mulling this flow thing over. Mind you, if I thought I had the required stuff in the Shop of Horrors, and really knew what I was on about, I'd have done this.

First we have to define a question to be answered and then design an experiment to answer the question.

If the question (and please feel free to restate the question) is "Does installing a different set of banjo bolts improve the flow to the transmission and the cam?", then how about these possibilities for an experiment?

Get a pump like this one which is supposed to provide 70 psi and 23 gal/hour (.5mpa and 90l/hr).

Rig up an oil line and plumb the pump to the center banjo, feeding the pump from a gallon jug. Install banjo bolts at the cam and transmission banjos. Position large beakers under the banjo bolts. Turn the pump on and record the time to fill the first beaker, then calculate flow rates for both banjo bolts. Repeat with the banjo bolts with the larger orifices.

Would that answer the question?

Or should a pair of orifices be attached to the banjo bolts that simulate the bearing clearances? That is, if the bearing has a diameter of 25mm with and a clearance of .038mm we can calculate the area of the clearance, multiply by the number of bearings feed, and build an orifice of that diameter. Again, catching the flow in a pair of beakers and recording the time to fill.

Would that be necessary to answer the question?

Either one of these experiments could be economically done and I'm dumb enough to try it.

Is recording the pressures important (it complicates things quite a bit - fittings and all that)? If so, where? I have a minimal collection of gauges - 0-30, 0-60, 0-300. Measuring pressure, then, is like peeing into a cash register - it runs into money, because I'd probably have to come up with a couple more low-pressure gauges.

What do you think? Not quite doctoral candidate stuff; more like a special project for the fluid dynamics professor.

Tom
Normk is offline  
post #18 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 05:48 PM
Pretty in Pink, dunno why
 
Tom Schmitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 7,445
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Normk View Post
...The obvious question on the table, however is: "Does increasing the oil flow to the cams and/or the transmission produce a benefit?"...
I know I invited a restatement of the question, but that is not, to my belief, the intent of the whole set of modifications. The intent is to reduce the amount of oil to the bottom end, and thus from under the piston, to reduce oil consumption. That is done by stealing the oil by reducing the obstructions to oil flow to the transmission and cams. Any benefit of more oil to the cam/transmission is a side benefit.

That's also an impossible question to answer as the benefit, if any, would be seen in engine life. Since it is not unheard of for a KLR to last 100K miles the test would take an incredibly long time to complete. Testing one KLR wouldn't be enough; you'd likely have to test three with a control group of three. Intuitively, since Paul's engine survived 60 some odd thousand miles with almost no flow to the head due to a chip in the banjo bolt, I'd have to guess that in a testing environment the test would end only because the world had run out of gas.

Since the intent is to steal oil the issue, in my mind, is whether or not flow through the bearings is increased. If it is not, oil isn't being diverted.

The valve idea, rather than simulating bearing clearance, is interesting. A small needle valve attached to the end of the banjo bolt would work and could be installed at both the transmission and the head banjos. I would only have to drill and solder one more banjo bolt to get baseline pressure. That's something I will ponder. It's adding pressure readings to the mix, though, and that adds dollars and complexity. I may need to go down to Earl's Supply and see if they have any cheap surplus gauges...

But then, I'm back to thinking that simulating the valve clearances would be valid. Though an assumption, it is a constant in the test, and flow is flow.

Heating the oil is straight out, too. It does add complexity, but moreover having a reservoir of 200 degree oil and having that 200 degree oil being moved about in the Shop of Horrors is just to dangerous. I think a light oil to simulate hot viscosity would be good enough.

Would NASA buy off on this sort of test and the data? No, but would it prove the point? I think so.

Why am I talking myself into doing this?

Tom

edit: On the issue of the balancer bearing: I'm only hopeful that more oil being flung from the transmission would increase the amount of oil that bearing sees. I tend to agree with you on the service life issue, though. Mine failed at 30K miles. Though the bike was an oil burner I was quite diligent about keeping oil in it. I've always thought that if failed because it was a bum bearing. Stuff happens.

Tom [email protected]

“Neither of the two people in the room paid any attention to the way I came in, although only one of them was dead.” -Philip Marlowe

“'Why' and 'How' are words so important they cannot be too often used.” -Napoleon Bonaparte


Sting like a butterfly.

Last edited by Tom Schmitz; 08-21-2014 at 05:53 PM.
Tom Schmitz is online now  
post #19 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 06:14 PM
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,481
Tom posted, "I'd have to guess that in a testing environment the test would end only because the world had run out of gas." Laughing my head off! Good assessment.

Reminds me of Christopher Hitchens response, "Im willing to try anything once, except incest and Scottish dancing."

I'd think that a 10 weight oil or even ATF would be close enough if you aren't into heating the oil. I don't think heating the oil would be that much trouble but reference back to my Michael Caine quote. ;-)

If you can cut some corners to keep the scope of the project manageable, the outcomes would be interesting and may prove useful with regards to some other facet of operation or diagnosis.

The chip in Paul's banjo bolt was indeed a classic and serves to show how far we run with preconceptions. If one had posted the intent to restrict a banjo to that degree, most of use would, I think, have expected cam bearing failure or at least signs of wear.

That simply points to my contention that we are running almost completely blind in many instances.

I hope this does stay within the manageable range as would like to hear the results. I'm finishing one research project and working on some other modifications so the oiling one is not on my clip board for now.

Best,
Normk is offline  
post #20 of 471 Old 08-21-2014, 06:23 PM
Pretty in Pink, dunno why
 
Tom Schmitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 7,445
Garage
Yes, I am trying to keep it within my means and bounds.

Really should get my own thread and quit mucking up Paul's.

I also realize I mis-spoke regarding calculating the orifice to simulate the bearings. It is not the annular area of the bearing, edit: it's twice that (one for each bearing edge), times the number of oil feeds.

This is going to be interesting. I think.

Tom

Tom [email protected]

“Neither of the two people in the room paid any attention to the way I came in, although only one of them was dead.” -Philip Marlowe

“'Why' and 'How' are words so important they cannot be too often used.” -Napoleon Bonaparte


Sting like a butterfly.

Last edited by Tom Schmitz; 08-21-2014 at 11:38 PM.
Tom Schmitz is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Kawasaki KLR 650 Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OIL Pressure, How much Ya got? pdwestman 1987 to 2007 Wrenching & Mods 526 01-04-2018 02:07 PM
Low Oil Pressure light installation T748 How To's & Tech Guides 28 01-08-2016 12:40 PM
Oil Pressure Light Stingray 2008+ KLR650 Wrenching & Mod Questions 4 08-28-2015 09:17 PM
Cam Bearings and Oil Pressure Johnnieplasma 1987 to 2007 Wrenching & Mods 2 08-25-2015 08:43 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome