Wet Sump vs Dry Sump
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 1974 Honda CJ350?
Next: Time for a new slogan?
From: Keith Schiffner on 10 Jun 2007 20:29 "Mark Olson" <olsonm(a)tiny.invalid> wrote in message news:136nqq3ch566dc5(a)corp.supernews.com... > 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? They have yet to build a unit motor. The harely badged aerimacchi not withstanding. Harley motors are separate from the transmission. Not sure if they share oil...wait they do by way of the oil tank. -- Keith Schiffner Assistant to the Assistant Undersecretary of the Ministry of Silly Walks. "terrorist organization" is a redundancy
From: Mark Olson on 10 Jun 2007 20:53 Keith Schiffner wrote: > "Mark Olson" <olsonm(a)tiny.invalid> wrote in message > news:136nqq3ch566dc5(a)corp.supernews.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? > > > They have yet to build a unit motor. The harely badged aerimacchi not > withstanding. Harley motors are separate from the transmission. Not sure if they > share oil...wait they do by way of the oil tank. Bzzzzt! The Sportster is a unit engine. -- '01 SV650SK1 '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13 OMF #7
From: Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com on 10 Jun 2007 21:18 Keith Schiffner wrote: >> Am I being thick or have you forgotten Harley-Davidson? > >They have yet to build a unit motor. The harely badged aerimacchi not >withstanding. Harley motors are separate from the transmission. What do you call this, if it's not unit construction? http://www.motorsports-network.com/harley/vrod02/eng22.jpg -- Message posted via MotorcycleKB.com http://www.motorcyclekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/bike/200706/1
From: Steve Paul on 10 Jun 2007 22:25 "Stupendous Man" <spam(a)trap.com> wrote in message news:5d2ppjF32fj4kU1(a)mid.individual.net... > The 69 Lotus formula 2 car I am building at work has a DBA engine > converted to dry sump. The main reason is to keep oil pressure regardless > of the G forces acting on the engine while driving. The "pan" is little > more than a crankshaft cover with a slot at the bottom with baffles and > traps to keep the oil from flowing away from the pickup. > > Bikes have minimal G forces acting on them sideways, as they lean, but > there is still plenty of force fore-aft as well as verticle in jumps, > wheelies, etc. Dry sumps are common in aircraft Full throttle take offs on my KZ900 would cause the oil pressure to drop to zero (on the guage I installed down below), and the idiot light up on the dash would come on. It would take a few more shifts before things would return to normal. I never did get comfortable with that feature. Because of that, I actually prefer the dry sump setup on the Triumphs and Harleys. When the oil pressure drops in a dry sump, you know you've got a problem, and there's no waiting a minute to be sure. Just my nickel... -sp
From: tomorrow on 11 Jun 2007 00:33
On Jun 10, 7:29 pm, "Keith Schiffner" <schis...(a)bresnan.net> wrote: > "Mark Olson" <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote in message > > news:136nqq3ch566dc5(a)corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > The Older Gentleman wrote: > >> Gary Walker <t...(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? > > They have yet to build a unit motor. The harely badged aerimacchi not > withstanding. Harley motors are separate from the transmission. Not sure if they > share oil...wait they do by way of the oil tank. The Sportster has used a unit construction engine, but only since 1957, so that hardly counts. The big twins' engines and transmissions do NOT share lubricant. Other than those minor quibbles, RIGHT ON!!!! |