Powerplus or Bust, Eh?

[TechNoir]

Great updates Kevin.

John

[Shaky Jake]

Rear pipe

I got these pre-bent pieces of 1-1/4 inch exhaust tubing from Columbia River Mandrel Bending:








The rear pipe was the easy one. One of the short bends only required a little work to fit as the bottom half:






Then I tacked a short straight piece and the flange to it:










And finished welding it out:






Kevin


.

[painterdale]

Thanks Dale, I might take you up on that when I make my next set.
Did you peek ahead at my SmugMug account?




Kevin


.

I don't know what a SmugMug is!
Dale

[Shaky Jake]

I don't know what a SmugMug is!
Dale

Just teasing Dale. I thought maybe you'd peeked ahead at pictures of my pipes.


Kevin

.

[Shaky Jake]

Front pipe

I made the front pipe in the same way, but it had a few more pieces because it has to bend out around the timing cover then back in between the footboard and the engine before lining up with the muffler:






Here is the breakdown:














After that I finished out the welds, grit blasted, and painted them black. Good enough.




Kevin


.

[Shaky Jake]

Just thought I'd share this link. It'll be on the new motorcycle Cannonball website, coming soon.

https://youtu.be/3LE6ujvPHuU

Have a good weekend, friends,

Kevin

[Shaky Jake]

Back in the saddle

It's been almost a year since I've worked on Patience. I think I was a little bit burnt out on it. Today I commenced the post-Cannonball tear-down. Here are todays before pictures:








And here are todays after pictures:








I know, it doesn't look like I accomplished much, but I had fun doing it. Details to follow.


Kevin


.

[Jim]

Why is it always so much FUN to take things apart? At least is is for me!

[frichie68]

Why is it always so much FUN to take things apart? At least is is for me!

Even more fun when it's back together enough to look like it will run again!

[Tom Lovejoy]

Great stuff Kevin, keep em coming please

[Shaky Jake]

I was studying some old Indian sales brochures, and it occurred to me what may have been causing my transmission problems. I'm using 1917 or later style transmission & clutch linkage with a 1916 shifter. It doesn't work right. Here's why. This is a picture of the transmission in my Cannonball bike. The fan shaped piece with the notches in its circumference is called the "outside operating lever." The shifter linkage connects to it and moves it to change gears in the transmission:








The piece that I'm lifting in this next picture is called the "operating lever safety lock." When installed, it has a spring pushing against it that pushes it back and causes it to engage the notches in the circumference of the outside operating lever, preventing the transmission from changing gears. There is a dog on the clutch linkage (not shown in this picture) that moves the safety lock, much like my finger in the picture, so that you can change gears whenever you stomp on the clutch pedal. The spring pushes the safety lock back when you release the clutch pedal, preventing you from changing gears with the clutch engaged:








Here's the problem with using that arrangement with a 1916 (or 1915) three speed shifter; the shifter also has notches in it, and you can't adjust the linkages so that all three of the shifter notches line up with all three of the outside operating lever notches. As a result, the transmission doesn't always end up all the way in gear, and sometimes it binds up. Here's a picture from the 1916 Indian sales brochure that shows a 1916 shifter like mine. You can see the notches:








Here is another picture from the 1916 Indian sales brochure, of a motorcycle like mine:








Here's where it starts to get interesting; when you zoom in on that picture, there is no fan shaped outside operating lever, safety lock, nor dog on the clutch linkage:








In comparison, here is a similar picture, but from the 1917 sales brochure:








When you zoom in on the 1917 picture you can clearly see the fan shaped outside operating lever, the safety latch, and the dog on the clutch linkage:








This is a picture of the 1917 shifter arrangement (the horizontal lever). It does not have tight notches like the 1916 shifter:








Based on this information, it is possible that the fan shaped outside operating lever and safety lock didn't come out until 1917 and in 1915 and 1916 Indian depended exclusively on the shifter to properly locate the gears. The 1915 shifter had a little thumb button to hold it in the notch. If this is the case, I can see two possibilities for improving my shifter action; I could either remove the safety lock, or turn the shifter lever around so it doesn't engage the notches.

Here's the fly in the ointment; the parts book lists the same operating lever and safety latch part numbers for 1916 to 1922. It is possible that the intent was for those parts to be retrofit to 1916 models. Who knows. If anyone has any experience with this, please chime in. In any case, when I get the opportunity I plan to make the changes and see if it improves the operation of my transmission.

That's all for now.






Kevin


.

[Spacke2speed]

Kevin
Yes, the ’16 PP transmission do not have the interlocking on the outside of the transmission as the locking is on the shift gate. That is how you can easily tell a ’16 transmission from the later transmissions. You will also notice that in the ’16 literature, they show a cross section of the ’16 transmission. While the main shaft has two thrust washers on ’17 and up transmissions, the ’16 transmissions uses a ball bearing arrangement for the thrust.
While similar, it is not the same problem. I had an issue with the non-interlocking ’15 transmission that use a locking lever on the shift ball, which locks into notches on the shifting quadrant. I had to “adjust” the notches on the shifting quadrant to match the proper alignment of the gears inside the transmission. At that time I had both types, I could have used an interlocking ’15 transmission, which uses a shifter with just slotted quadrant, but I thought the locking setup on the shift ball was more “mechanical” looking and different, so I use it.
While some people may not like this idea, I would “adjust” the notches on the shifting quadrant to match the notches on the transmission interlock.
Burgie

[Shaky Jake]

Thanks for the confirmation on that, Burgie. Here's a picture of the 1915 shifter with the locking lever on the shift ball that you described:








And, as you indicated, it doesn't have the notched linkage and safety lock on the transmission:










I've tried to adjust the shifter quadrant to match the interlock on the transmission as you suggested, but they don't match up. I've tried two different shift quadrants and two different interlocks. If I adjust it so that first and second match up, third does not, and if I adjust it so that second and third match up, first won't. The best I've been able to get is so that first, neutral and second match up, and third almost matches up. I'm thinking I could file the third gear notch on the shifter quadrant wider and make it work though. I'll give that some thought.

Thanks for the response Burgiie.




Kevin


.

[Spacke2speed]

Kevin
Sorry I did not mean to confuse you with my use of “adjust”. I should have been more blunt in my response. My “adjustment” was to weld up the notch and make a new notch in the location where needed. As having only the one interlock, the notch location had to be exact, without a lot of slop. Depending on the condition of your shift quadrant, be careful not to damage the little lettering at the front and back when “moving” the notches.
Burgie

[Shaky Jake]

Kevin
Sorry I did not mean to confuse you with my use of “adjust”. I should have been more blunt in my response. My “adjustment” was to weld up the notch and make a new notch in the location where needed. As having only the one interlock, the notch location had to be exact, without a lot of slop. Depending on the condition of your shift quadrant, be careful not to damage the little lettering at the front and back when “moving” the notches.
Burgie

No need to apologize Burgie. As always, I value your input. I think we are thinking the same way.




Kevin


.