Chief 3rd compression ring

[Inchief]

I have heard that some leave out the 3rd compression ring when assembling Chief pistons. Anyone got any feelings on this? Reasons for? Thanks Jim

[gww]

are you building a total loss?

[fillibuster]

are you building a total loss?

Or are you using "Total Seal" rings. Last time I did those I was advised to leave the third groove "absent" the ring.
Good topic, I'm interested.

[Inchief]

No not Total Seal type rings. Cast from Stark.

[fillibuster]

No not Total Seal type rings. Cast from Stark.

Are your baffles intact?
I understood that with the total seals that the 3rd ring was left absent because it over-compensated on its job of keeping oil clear of the upper compression rings, and that both cylinder wall and rings were better off without it. Some of our mentors advocated removing baffles for a while too. I'm interested in sensible discussion on this, but feel that some little details are not worth the hype if you ride enough to require frequent top end jobs anyway. So with a bad back, I like to get details right, to reduce the wrench time. I used to re-ring (at the least) every 24 months minimum depending on how hard I rode it. But last top end lasted 10 years when another otherwise-related detail took it out of service.
Should search virtual indian, maybe.

[Inchief]

Well the baffles are gone, I guess that could have something to do with the discussion. I have done some searching on the internet. On Jim Moshers Performance Indian site he recommends leaving off the 3rd compression ring. He did not mention baffles but he maybe figures that they are there as that's the way it came from the factory. It seems like he knows what he is talking about and a lot of the stuff he goes into on cam timing and stuff is way over my head but he didn't get into why leave off the 3rd compression ring. To much drag? Wear the cylinder faster? 2 are good enough?

[fillibuster]

Well the baffles are gone, I guess that could have something to do with the discussion. I have done some searching on the internet. On Jim Moshers Performance Indian site he recommends leaving off the 3rd compression ring. He did not mention baffles but he maybe figures that they are there as that's the way it came from the factory. It seems like he knows what he is talking about and a lot of the stuff he goes into on cam timing and stuff is way over my head but he didn't get into why leave off the 3rd compression ring. To much drag? Wear the cylinder faster? 2 are good enough?

In an older (2003 or so) Stark catalog, new cases are shown without baffles with a brief comment on them. I'd always thought they were intended to enhance the mist/vapor for the cam gallery more so than the cylinder walls. Other discussions in the factory books have noted lack of lubrication at 45-50 mph. Indian's "breathing" science seems to be based on trial and error more than calculated towards results prior.
I don't think you would notice much diff either way on that 3rd ring.

[tfburke3]

In an older (2003 or so) Stark catalog, new cases are shown without baffles with a brief comment on them. I'd always thought they were intended to enhance the mist/vapor for the cam gallery more so than the cylinder walls. Other discussions in the factory books have noted lack of lubrication at 45-50 mph. Indian's "breathing" science seems to be based on trial and error more than calculated towards results prior.
I don't think you would notice much diff either way on that 3rd ring.

I think you have to ask yourself if the materials are all the same,cast rings, alum.pistons,and application is the same,not racing, normal riding,and the factory took the trouble and expense to machine and install 3 compression rings(1934-53that I know of),with virtually no change in piston design,was the factory that inept not to realize that leaving out a ring would be an improvement?

Tom