The Spares Company
Club Shop/Regalia
Parent Website
Contact Officials
Machine Registrar
Club Secretary
Membership Secretaries
MPH Editor and Forum Administrator.
Section Newsletters
Technical Databases
Photos
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Information
Bike Modifications
Machine Data Services
Manufacturers Manuals
Spare Parts Listings
Technical Diagrams
Whitakerpedia (Vincent Wiki)
The Club
MPH Material Archive
Flogger's Corner
Obituaries
VOC Sections
Local Sections
Local Section Newsletters
Miscellaneous
Club Assets
Club History
Club Rules
Machine Data Services
Meeting Documents
Miscellaneous
Essential Reading
Magazine/Newspaper Articles/Letters
Adverts and Sales Brochures
The Mighty Garage Videos
Bikes For Sale (Spares Company)
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
Tech. Advice: Series 'B' / 'C' 500cc/1000cc Bikes
Cams
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="passenger0_0" data-source="post: 27751" data-attributes="member: 208"><p>Hi John,</p><p></p><p>Good idea to have a jig made but as Timetravellers stated, it really should mimic the original configuration. I can understand your perspective that although the jig is consistent for all cams tested, in reality, the line of contact between the cam surface and follower moves a considerable distance along the follower (as witnessed by the wear marks) in a very short angular rotation of the cam. Having a test configuation that is different to that used in the engine may infact disproportionately amplify a small and perhaps trivial difference that exists between each cam profile. I too have made a cam jig as well as a computational simulation and can only say that flat followers give rise to rapidly changing contact positions (read higher rubbing velocities and wear) which require asymmetric cam profiles to correct. I've found many different cam profiles in Vincents, including symmetrical ones, but I've not really detected much difference in the seat of the pants response in all but propper race engines. Good luck with your investigations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="passenger0_0, post: 27751, member: 208"] Hi John, Good idea to have a jig made but as Timetravellers stated, it really should mimic the original configuration. I can understand your perspective that although the jig is consistent for all cams tested, in reality, the line of contact between the cam surface and follower moves a considerable distance along the follower (as witnessed by the wear marks) in a very short angular rotation of the cam. Having a test configuation that is different to that used in the engine may infact disproportionately amplify a small and perhaps trivial difference that exists between each cam profile. I too have made a cam jig as well as a computational simulation and can only say that flat followers give rise to rapidly changing contact positions (read higher rubbing velocities and wear) which require asymmetric cam profiles to correct. I've found many different cam profiles in Vincents, including symmetrical ones, but I've not really detected much difference in the seat of the pants response in all but propper race engines. Good luck with your investigations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What was Mr Irving's Christian Name?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
Tech. Advice: Series 'B' / 'C' 500cc/1000cc Bikes
Cams
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top