1940 ULH BAFFLE

All flathead topics
Holtvintage
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:52 pm
Bikes: 1951 servi, 82 FLH, 2011 FLHR,

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#16

Post by Holtvintage » Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:07 pm

I agree with you on the right side bearing cage/bearings. Paul at Truett said he bought some from Europe that he hopes will work out. I've been looking for a OEM set for a while. I should have my shop dope bulletins ordered today. Information is the tool available. They will make great bathroom reading material :) Basically I have a set of clean , titled cases and both oil pumps. I was looking at a NOS pinion gear . My manual only calls out one type of gear/part number. I think Shovelheads have different sizes with a paint code to identify. I feel comfortable with OEM parts if they are available. I have a number of bikes so I doubt I put 20k miles on the ULH. But I still don't want to half-ass anything. I like to think I try to built to last in just about everything I do.



chuckthebeatertruck
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:12 pm
Bikes: 46 UL
59 XLH
69 SS350
Location: Chicago
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#17

Post by chuckthebeatertruck » Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:46 pm

Right side cages are only half the battle -- and they are the easy ones.

The sprocket side cages available right now are TERRIBLE on a good day. The castings are bad and the machine work is worse. Just dry fitting them you can feel the hang up. Guys running them in hubs don't seem to care . . .but in a motor you better care especially if you do decide to beat on it or stroke it. That is the bearing you need to truly worry about. It's a double row and intolerant of heavy crank flex or oil getting trapped in the bearing. If your cages suck, skid and/or non parallel running are very real possibilities. The carnage can be impressive.

No, the pinions do not have different sizes. Keep in mind that OEM = NOS harley in this case. You will pay an extraordinary amount for any NOS pinion gear, bevel drive gear, idler gear, or bearing cages. Next, because you're going all new; if you buy your stuff from T&O they will fit JIMs shafts. Jims machines the pinions as a shrink fit . . . so don't just go bashing the gears on. Heat them and slip them on. Just don't be slow about it.

Blind Melon
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:32 pm
Bikes: 1935 Harley VD
Location: So Cal

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#18

Post by Blind Melon » Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:17 pm

Why the baffles??? Back in the JD days, using iron pistons, the baffles helped with oil control... You see these engines were designed to consume oil by allowing some of it to push past the rings and into the combustion chamber... There is no oil return on these engines and keeping just the right amount, not too little or too much, was essential to keeping the pistons from sticking, the flywheels from dragging in a lake of oil, ect. Having too
much oil in the bottom end will cause the engine to overheat... Too little and your front cylinder will gaul and sieze.

When eliminating the baffles and then using modern pistons/rings the oil level in the crankcase tends to raise...This results in a power loss and lots
of leaks... Too compensate, all you can safely do is adjust the oiler (VERY small decrease) and make double dang sure your breather pipe is absolutely unrestricted.. The bigger the stroke, the more important breather flow becomes.........

In a UL, you have a scavenger pump.. So, oil level in the crankcase is automatically maintained.. Make sure your scraper has the proper flywheel clearance and your feed and scavenger pumps are in good order and you're good to go.

Remember too much bottom end oil is NOT good... Power loss and overheating result..........Just the proper amount please.

kitabel
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:10 pm
Bikes: 2008 96" Fat Boy TC
Location: Lynbrook, New York
Been thanked: 88 times
Contact:

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#19

Post by kitabel » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:58 pm

Analyzing a pair of "no cracks, no rust, looks OK, don't know where they're from" cages can start with meshing the opens ends together. If they slide smoothly to full depth with no drag or tight spots, probably both are good enough to re-use.
Yes, you can use any cage with 12 × .250" slots and .453" OD regardless of roller length, 45 & VL crankpin pin cages can test big twin sprocket & pinion shaft cages.

Baffles? Read the service manual.

Holtvintage
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:52 pm
Bikes: 1951 servi, 82 FLH, 2011 FLHR,

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#20

Post by Holtvintage » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:49 am

Buddhahoodvatoloco wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:36 pm
Yikes, I'd start bawling I seen that.
But addressing a previous post, the baffles are to keep the slosh on the bottom.
I'm confused. Bawling? Like a sad bawling or a laughing bawling?

Buddhahoodvatoloco
Site sponsor
Site sponsor
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:13 pm
Bikes: 1969 FLF
1937 EL Sold
1949 rat bike Sold
1946 FL Sold
Location: san diego
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#21

Post by Buddhahoodvatoloco » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:38 am

SAD

Frankenstein
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:14 pm
Bikes: 37ULH,46UL,47EL(80"),65FL,61KH-WL-BSA hybrid,56square4,several 50's BSA 500 singles
Location: Interlaken, NY
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#22

Post by Frankenstein » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:55 am

The last BTSV motor I built was in 2015. At that time, the right side cages from Ted's were good. Prior to that, they went through a period when they were junk, just wouldn't fit on the shafts when loaded with rollers.
Don't know what phase they are in today, but will find out soon, planning another BTSV build next year.
Prior to that, I had always used genuine HD, scrounging at the AMCA meets. Kitabel brings up an interesting point, to whit, using cages that don't completely enclose the rollers If I understand him correctly. I've wondered about the possibility of that myself.
As for top end mileage, 10 to 15K is abysmal. OHV's can do 3 or more times that, no reason BTSV's can too. Well, there are reasons, but they can be overcome.
There is a hot spot in the combustion chamber in the BTSV that is centered over the edge of the cylinder towards the valves.This as evidenced by obvious signs of increased temps from appearances of piston, cylinder block, and head. This results in increased piston temperatures, and eventual piston failure in that area.
Two approaches to the problem.
First, increase cooling to the piston by the addition of something like a piston squirter aiming cooling oil at the bottom of the piston in this area. This approach works, having run several BTSV's with squirters and observing pistons/bores with no observable wear at 10k miles. I haven't truthfully hit 50k yet, just because I keep tearing things down and experimenting with new builds.
Piston squirters require increased oil flow and all that entails. Larger capacity pumps, etc.
A second approach to resolving the hot spot damage looks to be the use of the "ULR" type heads from Finland which have the shelf style combustion chamber design. This appears to move or eliminate the "hot spot" in combustion and may well be another solution.
I've been running a set of these heads for 3 or 4 years now, (bought the first set to come to the States).
I can't say for certain that the heads alone will resolve the problem, as I didn't want to revert to a stock oiling system and risk an engine just to see. But they look promising. http://www.vt-cycle.fi/url-cylinder-heads/
My current test bike is 88" with T&O wheels and Ted's ULH pistons and cams from Paul F. At 4 3/4" stroke, there is considerable "pop up" from these pistons, and the resultant compression ratio is approx 7.9:1. With an electronic ignition with VOES switch, no pinging, lots of power.
End of rant.
DD

Holtvintage
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:52 pm
Bikes: 1951 servi, 82 FLH, 2011 FLHR,

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#23

Post by Holtvintage » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:08 am

Buddhahoodvatoloco wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:38 am
SAD
Turn that frown upside down :D

Holtvintage
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:52 pm
Bikes: 1951 servi, 82 FLH, 2011 FLHR,

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#24

Post by Holtvintage » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:17 am

I'm interested in the VT heads. The common consensus is heat is the destroyer. Thanks for the link. I've seen pictures of the VT heads, I think they are my logical choice. I'll get the bottom end buttoned up and move on up.

Holtvintage
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:52 pm
Bikes: 1951 servi, 82 FLH, 2011 FLHR,

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#25

Post by Holtvintage » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:34 am

I went to the VT website. It says" Pure Bullshit" on its logo. Makes you wonder a little. Just saying

Buddhahoodvatoloco
Site sponsor
Site sponsor
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:13 pm
Bikes: 1969 FLF
1937 EL Sold
1949 rat bike Sold
1946 FL Sold
Location: san diego
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#26

Post by Buddhahoodvatoloco » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:00 am

relieved
Attachments
Flattie pics (3).jpg
Flattie pics (3).jpg (411.66 KiB) Viewed 86 times
Flattie pics (2).jpg
Flattie pics (2).jpg (557.27 KiB) Viewed 86 times

RUBONE
Moderator
Posts: 5157
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:09 am
Bikes: Multiple H-D, Ducati, BMW, Triumph, BSA,...
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 508 times

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#27

Post by RUBONE » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:25 am

I must say that is the worst looking relief job I have ever seen. Looks like it was done with a rock, and not configured well either!!

kitabel
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:10 pm
Bikes: 2008 96" Fat Boy TC
Location: Lynbrook, New York
Been thanked: 88 times
Contact:

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#28

Post by kitabel » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:32 pm

W/r/t "using cages that don't completely enclose the rollers If I understand him correctly"

Sorry, my bad, I meant for purposes of alignment & condition only, can't edit the original post.
There must always be end play when the roller is inserted: the actual roller length must be substantially less than the cage depth (which is obviously less than the cage width).
The pinion side SV cages are .370" each thick, .321" deep, open ends facing each other to use 12 X .600" roller (9261) between them. Both cages are .740" wide.
The obvious swap is 2 45 crankpin/pinion cages @ .341" wide X 2 = .682" total, with depth of .282" to accept 24 X .270" roller (facing the same way) or 12 X .550" roller between the cages (facing each other). This leaves .058" of slack in the assembly; use a 45 rod thrust washer or? This provides over 90% of the OEM roller area.

kitabel
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:10 pm
Bikes: 2008 96" Fat Boy TC
Location: Lynbrook, New York
Been thanked: 88 times
Contact:

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#29

Post by kitabel » Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:56 pm

Still waiting for someone to quote the Service Manual w/r/t baffles?

Larry
Site sponsor
Site sponsor
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:14 pm
Bikes: -
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: 1940 ULH BAFFLE

#30

Post by Larry » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:52 am

I've used a 1/4" stone and a die grinder to save aftermarket cages. It doesn't take much, mostly deburr and polish.


[IMG]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x ... MUqFYg.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Post Reply

Return to “Flathead and Servicar”