Wet Sump vs Dry Sump
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 1974 Honda CJ350?
Next: Time for a new slogan?
From: tomorrow on 10 Jun 2007 13:39 On Jun 10, 1:33 pm, chateau.murray.takethis...(a)dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > > I can't think of a single dry-sump engine produced in the last 30 years > > > > that has a separate transmission. In fact, I can't actually think of any > > > > non-unit engines produced in the same time frame, though there may be > > > > some. > > > > Am I being thick or have you forgotten Harley-Davidson? > > > Besides the Harley big twins (Sportsters have a unit engine) there is, > > of course the Indian Enfield Bullet which has a non-unit engine/trans, > > dry sump, and oil tank. > > Well, yeah, but that's not exactly a modern post-1970 design :-) True, but we were talking about engine production, not design. And the Harley's design is certainly post-1970, even if its basic architecture is not.
From: The Older Gentleman on 10 Jun 2007 13:48 tomorrow(a)erols.com <tomorrow(a)erols.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 1:33 pm, chateau.murray.takethis...(a)dsl.pipex.com (The lder > OGentleman) wrote: > > > > > > I can't think of a single dry-sump engine produced in the last 30 > > > > > years that has a separate transmission. In fact, I can't actually > > > > > think of any non-unit engines produced in the same time frame, > > > > > though there may be some. > > > > > > Am I being thick or have you forgotten Harley-Davidson? > > > > > Besides the Harley big twins (Sportsters have a unit engine) there is, > > > of course the Indian Enfield Bullet which has a non-unit engine/trans, > > > dry sump, and oil tank. > > > > Well, yeah, but that's not exactly a modern post-1970 design :-) > > True, but we were talking about engine production, not design. And > the Harley's design is certainly post-1970, even if its basic > architecture is not. Oh yes. I was silly to forget the HD. But, HDs apart, I still can't think of a modern bike design (specials and oddities aside) that use a dry sump engine and a separate gearbox. -- BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3 BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
From: Jeff Mayner on 10 Jun 2007 14:58 <Blazing Laser> wrote in message news:ckan63drjpf8c39mg5o5fl9lm0g0jssgep(a)4ax.com... >I have a question for you technical experts. What is the purpose of > dry-sump lubrication? > > I had a BSA back in the 60s/70s. We had a stormy love/hate > relationship. It was the most wonderful bike in the world, when it > ran, which was about half the time. > > The BSA had dry sump. There was an oil tank on the right side, and a > complicated plumbing setup, tubes and fittings and stuff, that > delivered oil to various points on the engine. Every one of those > tubes and fittings oozed dirty oil, and the engine always looked like > it had been dragged through a mud puddle. You could almost track this > bike by following the trail of drops of oil. I wondered at the time > what the advantage of was. Well, I had a '66 BSA so, I feel your pain. ;-) > > I notice Harleys have an oil tank on the side, am I correct in > assuming they have dry sump too? True. > > Someone told me that the idea was that you could put the engine lower > in the bike because there was no oil pan on the bottom. Could that be > it? I have my doubts. True. Other reasons as well but that's certainly one of them. Lower center of gravity does wonders for handling in bikes and cars.
From: Jeff Mayner on 10 Jun 2007 15:00 "The Older Gentleman" <chateau.murray.takethisout(a)dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:1hzi6ew.1qg0gyz62joiN%chateau.murray.takethisout(a)dsl.pipex.com... > Mark Olson <olsonm(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > >> The Older Gentleman wrote: >> > Gary Walker <twf(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Typically, I think, many of the dry-sump bikes also have >> >> a separate transmission. Not that this has anything relat- >> >> ed to dry/wet sump choice. >> >> >> >> Notice, I said many. So, don't shotgun 100's of respon- >> >> ses with exceptions. I know, I had one. My '73 Honda >> >> K3 was dry sump with no external transmission. I'm sure >> >> there are many others. >> > >> > No, there aren't. Not post about 1970, anyway. Think Yamaha >> > single-cylinder dirt bikes, the SR500 single, Honda XBR500 singles, BMW >> > 650 singles: all dry sump, all with unit engines. >> > >> > I can't think of a single dry-sump engine produced in the last 30 years >> > that has a separate transmission. In fact, I can't actually think of >> > any >> > non-unit engines produced in the same time frame, though there may be >> > some. >> >> Am I being thick or have you forgotten Harley-Davidson? > > Indeed I have. Mea maxima culpa. But they're not real bikes anyway. Kapow! ;-) > > > -- > BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125 > GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3 > BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
From: Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com on 10 Jun 2007 16:08
Jeff Mayner wrote: >Lower center of gravity does wonders for handling in bikes and cars. That's what Irimajiri thought when he designed the NR500, anyway... -- Message posted via MotorcycleKB.com http://www.motorcyclekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/bike/200706/1 |