Indian engine balance, an opinion

[cdf6333]

A final note on Indian engine balance. We just delivered the 1953 Chief ( the one I questioned the Forum about) to the customer. To refresh, it was “souped up” in the 60’s or 70’s with lightened (80) flywheels, polished rods, cams, HD 1 ½” carb and manifold, etc. I mentioned and asked this group for balance opinions as I never did a lightened set in 40 years of doing Indian engines. These flywheels had the counterweight holes welded full and as many holes as possible drilled in the opposite (piston)sides. I always balance Chief flywheels AFTER truing to 1 piston, rings, pin and clips PLUS 3 oz ( counterweight 3 oz heavier)for 74’s and as is (even) for 80’s. (Using just a set of parallels) S&S recommends this as every time you install and remove the pins, the tapers are damaged. BTW, a quick note on assembly. Most of the flywheels we work on now are very old. When assembling them, right before the final tightening of each nut, (at around 100 lbs) remove the nut and make sure that the pin taper isn’t bottoming against the nut. I’m getting this a lot now, I usually throw away the flywheels, but sometimes, like this time , we undercut the end of the taper so it would go further into the nut. (wasn't easy) If the pin end touches the nut, they probably won’t true, and they definitely won’t be tight taper to taper.
These flywheels went on my parallels and the piston side was 4 ozs heavier than the counterweight side, completely opposite all published info. None-the-less after questioning this group and hearing from Cotton, I took off all the metal I could, 1 more oz, from the piston side, and put it together. Still the only motor I've ever done with the piston side heavier than the counterweight side, by 3 ozs.
This bike is smooth as any, no vibration, and again, opposite of all published material. My final thought on balancing an Indian motor is this: 1 small step above don’t even bother! 2,3, 4 and maybe more ozs don’t seem to make a bit of difference for a street bike. There are about 10 things much more important in the crankcase to spend time on than balance. My opinion, after 40 years of doing this stuff.

[T. Cotten]

CDF6333!

I hope when you were citing me, you really meant the group discussion at http://virtualindian.org/1techflywheel.htm.

Hanging a single piston by the military manual method should certainly give you something in the 64% range, and if all things are in order, the motor should survive fine.
Adding the extra arbitrary weight, per S&S, sounds like another one of their excursions into fantasy, like carving the female rod top down to a toothpick to supposedly equal the male.

Please note that 3z (85g) is somewhere in the range of 5½ factor points all by itself.
So that would take most Indians down into the milwaukie range of factors. (What would you expect from S&S?)

Graciously, if the assembly was 'true', the rider won't feel what the motor does, and explains your immediate success.
Motor balancing is about internal shakes, not external, and its ultimate longevity.

On to the taper issue, you might want to review http://virtualindian.org/10techfly.htm
After lapping, the assembly is far easier to true, reproduceable (critical with dynamic methods), and sturdier of course.

It might make you wish you hadn't tossed wheels into the dumpster.

....Cotten

[fillibuster]

Fellas, I ran a set of T&O wheels in my Chief, built in 2002. The darned tapers were so poorly fitting to the drive and pinion shafts as to allow a serious wobble before torquing. If I had lapped them until the entire length of the tapers made contact I would have had no room left to torque them without relieving the ends of the tapers as cdf had done. ...
What I did to rectify things is as follows: The pinion shaft's wobble wasn't as serious as the drive, so I hammered it in, with care of course. I started out by torquing it to 100#, then true'd it with light strikes of the club on a hard block of wood, then checked torque which then read 70#. Re-torque'd again to 100#, checked and corrected true again with club and wood, torque then read 80#. Re-torqued and true'd same club-n-wood method, checked torque which then read 90#. Next effort read 95# (same procedure), and after that the wheel remained true with the shaft and the torque remained at 100#.
The drive shaft in my new parts order was finally rejected after a new "Jim's" shaft came in which had about half as much wobble as the first drive shaft, and I used the same method for bringing it into true as I used on the pinion shaft. Further assembly and truing fell into place quite reasonably, and I should mention that the crankshaft tapers had no misfits like the pinion and drive. .... I rode that engine for 10 years without issues (until a top-end seizure due to loss of oil).
However, I'm reluctant to use those wheels again, until I'm confident of a correction method on the tapers. I'm afraid they would require longer shafts, or shafts with more properly matching tapers (please remember that the "Jim;s" taper was absolutely different than the first drive shaft. The shafts are tapered to a sharper degree than the wheels, or the wheels are tapered to a lesser degree than the shafts. Lapping them to fit would probably extend the driveshaft to far. Cutting (if possible) the flywheels to the same angle as the shaft would also extend the shaft too far, past it's preferred position relative to the nut side.
I am theorizing that the wheels and their true survived fairly well, appearing to be only a little out of book tolerance upon teardown, considering that they did not likely have the benefit of contact though out the length of the tapered bore. I'll credit my manipulation to their survival. Still, I'm maybe re-living my original disappointment in manufacture of suspicious quality or consistency of such critical parts. For comparison, I have a set of S&S stroker wheels that fit the shafts with absolutely NO WOBBLE. ..... might have to build a stroker now. I think they will balance sufficiently despite their total weight of about 1.25 # less (each) then stock wheels.

comments?

[T. Cotten]

A couple of comments, Filibuster,..

I never assembled any T&O Indian wheels (that I can remember... well maybe...!), but the sets of milwaukie wheels were so fine that it would have been hard to get a pin in them crooked if you tried.

So if the pins were "quality", I would have sent them with the wheels back to T&O) for inspection. They would have appreciated it, if indeed something was amiss, made good upon it without hesitation.

In other words, your shafts were suspect as well, and frankly, I encountered JIMS shafts off on other parameters, particularly length. (Been years ago, Folks. Even worse grief with milwaukie shafts!)

And I know forcing things works sometimes,... but... .. .
What the heck, milwaukie's method of hardening tapers was to force the pin in another .060"!
(As per Palmer's.)

....Cotten

[cdf6333]

Cotten,
With all due respect, I'm going with S&S. I can't think of anyone who has done more with V-twins than them, and gone fast and far. And I've tossed, and I know your "dumpster Dive", everything that I wouldn't ride on my bike, flywheels. primary covers, etc.
and again, in my 40 year, well over 50,000 mile on a 46 Chief experience, balance is virtually irrelevant for our currant day Indian usage.
Bob, Beard Machine

[T. Cotten]

You're not disrespecting me, Bob...

Your are disrespecting the Wigwam, and ultimately the motor.

The fossil record shows they had a factor of 64-65%. Please review http://virtualindian.org/1techflywheel.htm, where this factor was determined by others.

Indians have a different cylinder angle (and a different rod to stroke ratio), which affects the proper factor, as was discussed by others in the Theory section of the above link.

S&S has gone off the tracks in other ways too!
(Shaving the female rod is ludicrous.)
In the '80s, all the speed shops swore by 52%, and now they all swear by 60%. What changed?

As long as your assembly is true, only the motor will know the difference.
Go for it.

....Cotten

[cdf6333]

Again Cotten, I've gotten some great info from you, but if you're comparing your knowledge of V-Twins to S&S, I gotta see some proof. Articles will not do. I have a trophy, only one I kept, of high Horsepower at an Indian Rally, which was done on a dyno, I've been doing this a while.
I gave my opinion, as a long time engine builder, including the 1936 Sport Scout Dottie Mattern will be riding it this years Cannonball.I think that rod end weight,blah-blah-blah, that didn't even exist until way after Indian set speed records, is almost useless considering how we use our Indians today. Period.

[T. Cotten]

Its not about me, Bob.

Its about Indians.
S&S is all about Harleys.

And once again: The discussion in the VirtualIndian link isn't all mine!
(I was corrected more than once.)

So I trust it more than S&S.
Because its all about Indians.

....Cotten
PS: I will agree that we don't use them like they used to... (attached)

[njchief]

Bob i put about 50 miles on the chief so far and man it runs good you and den did a good job on it. I changed the foot shifter to a jocky shift for now much easier to ride.no vibrations it's a cool old bike Larry

[cdf6333]

Smart move with the shifter. I couldn't squeeze that clutch for ****! You are riding a real piece of NJ motorcycle History. Did Den tell you that I talked to Jules who built the bike? He remembers it well and he still talks to the orig owner on occasion.
Happy motoring Larry!

[njchief]

indian engine balance

Smart move with the shifter. I couldn't squeeze that clutch for ****! You are riding a real piece of NJ motorcycle History. Did Den tell you that I talked to Jules who built the bike? He remembers it well and he still talks to the orig owner on occasion.
Happy motoring Larry!

yes den told me. The original owner milt is my friends uncle so i see him. I'am taking it down the shore to show him it lives again it will last an hour and a six pack worth of storiesLarry