Joined Jun 2001
1K Posts | 3+
Berkshire, England
You want them to have max axial play of .15mm
To adjust, loosen the two rocker cover bolts on the right hand side of the cover and that go through the black end caps of the rocker shafts. Then tap the black caps with a hammer until you get the right play. Re-tighten the bolts.
Job done.
Simon
To adjust, loosen the two rocker cover bolts on the right hand side of the cover and that go through the black end caps of the rocker shafts. Then tap the black caps with a hammer until you get the right play. Re-tighten the bolts.
Job done.
Simon
Joined Nov 2001
17K Posts | 774+
Ely, England
cheers simon. it was the assembly eric. i think i may hjave to drill down through the cap to get this right. as you can tell i have a LOT of slack!
i'm also going to check how nicely each tappet pad sits in the middle of the valves.
regards
Taffy
i'm also going to check how nicely each tappet pad sits in the middle of the valves.
regards
Taffy
Joined Feb 2003
3K Posts | 384+
Escondido, Ca. USA
Will you be replacing with 03 rocker assemblies or have you done that previously? How about the balancer?
Consider starting just one thread about striping your motor so that we will have all the information in one handy place. Take lots of photos
Thanks,
Eric
Consider starting just one thread about striping your motor so that we will have all the information in one handy place. Take lots of photos
Thanks,
Eric
Joined Nov 2001
17K Posts | 774+
Ely, England
i bought a new digi camera today and now i have to go back into ely to get a blinkin memory card!!!! why didn't they say that at the shop!
will be rebuilding nearly all day and evening tomorrow. i have to check squish and compression ratio as well.
as far as tuning goes i have taken the balancer out (weighs 200g), raised the compression and am putting in the larger exhaust valve head.
i'm guessing that i can tell the balancer removal change from the other two but telling raised compression from larger exhaust valves will be fun.
regards
Taffy
will be rebuilding nearly all day and evening tomorrow. i have to check squish and compression ratio as well.
as far as tuning goes i have taken the balancer out (weighs 200g), raised the compression and am putting in the larger exhaust valve head.
i'm guessing that i can tell the balancer removal change from the other two but telling raised compression from larger exhaust valves will be fun.
regards
Taffy
Joined Jun 2001
1K Posts | 0+
Pasadena Ca.
Cheers Taffy,
You indicated you have removed the balancer, are you planning on leaving it out of the bike and on rebalancing the crank, rod, piston assembly?
My 550 you rode in Utah had that done to it. IMHO its one of the best improvements that can be made to the post 2000 Berg.
Joe
You indicated you have removed the balancer, are you planning on leaving it out of the bike and on rebalancing the crank, rod, piston assembly?
My 550 you rode in Utah had that done to it. IMHO its one of the best improvements that can be made to the post 2000 Berg.
Joe
Joined Nov 2001
17K Posts | 774+
Ely, England
JoeUSA said:
leaving it out-yes.
re-balancing. no. the reason? well i'm stripping it again this winter i hope for the 97mm or if i'm a cheapskate 100mm piston fitment and THEN as a 450/470 i'll re-balance it. that and the fact that my dealer said that the bike in it's 400cc guise is 'happy enough w/o the balancer in'.
BTW-an out of balance engine robs you of power.
i thought i rode your 450 that day joe? and what's the best thing please?; is it to take out the balancer or to have it balanced having taken out the balancer?
Husabutt
you want a certain type of mass. you want a mass that is out at the edge of a flywheel so that the weight is effective. lots of weight near the mains is no good.
a heavy con rod for instance is bad as well. you need it in the flywheel.
and flywheel weight is in the eye of the beholder.
if my rekluse thought i was about to stall going up that 1-in-2 slope it would be very upset and slip (i trust) therefore stalling as they say "isn't an option"!
regards
Taffy
Joined Mar 2003
582 Posts | 2+
Waterbury, Connecticut, USA
Husabutt,
Yes, I certainly agree. But, in the end it is a matter of rider preference. As an option, it will add power from the lack of rotating mass. And, with Taffy in mind, since he is racing, this may be a good option for him. On the trails, it might be a better idea to keep it installed. Personally, if I were doing the same thing, I would remove it. Less parts, less breaking. Plus, there are a few stories here of these going bad. Granted, that might be a small percentage, they still seem to have some issues.
Taff, I think you are doing the right thing. Plus, if you are going to tear it apart again soon, then you could likely get away without the balancing.
Keep us posted.
-parsko
Yes, I certainly agree. But, in the end it is a matter of rider preference. As an option, it will add power from the lack of rotating mass. And, with Taffy in mind, since he is racing, this may be a good option for him. On the trails, it might be a better idea to keep it installed. Personally, if I were doing the same thing, I would remove it. Less parts, less breaking. Plus, there are a few stories here of these going bad. Granted, that might be a small percentage, they still seem to have some issues.
Taff, I think you are doing the right thing. Plus, if you are going to tear it apart again soon, then you could likely get away without the balancing.
Keep us posted.
-parsko
Joined Feb 2003
3K Posts | 384+
Escondido, Ca. USA
Taffy said:
Taff:
To clarify will you be removing the counterbalancer drive shaft and the crankshaft balance weight or will you put the balance weight back on the crankshaft?
Inquiring minds need to know
P.S. what does the little counterbalancer shaft do anyway? From the manuals it appears to just spin in the opposite direction of the crankshaft. It doesn't seem to be large or heavy enough to have a significant impact as the crankshaft balance weight appears to have. :?
Just one more thing. Why does the crankshaft balance weight which has the infamous double or single row bearings have a bearing anyway. Does it just spin semi freely on the crankshaft? Wouldn't it be better to just press it on the crankshaft with no bearing(s)?
husabutt said:
Eric,
and how should the counter weight be able to spin in the opposite direction of the crankshaft?
I would leave the counter weight in the engine.
You can reduce the weight do decrease the dynamic loading of the bearing(s).
A supermoto engine tuner here in germany told me, he even tested a totally round counter weight. I mean a counter weight without any imbalance.
The engine runs smoother than with totally removed counter weight,
but the bearing damage is nearly impossible.
I´m not sure if this is really neccessary. But reducing the counter weight mass a bit is a thing you could think about.
In my last engine (the 470) I just left the weight OEM. Just a new bearing and that´s all. Everything is good.
greetings
hribman
Joined Nov 2001
17K Posts | 774+
Ely, England
husabutt
the countershaft has the sprocket for the camchain on it. dale has a picture of it in his gallery, it's nearly the last one. it shows a 'domed' short shaft. that dome used to be a gear.
it goes like this;
crank spins with gear on endd in outer cover
this spins the clutch hub
this in turn spins the balancer shaft
on the other end of the balancer shaft, inside the walls of the cases is a gear. that gear spins directly a gear that is on a bearing and mounted on the crank.
therefpre it spins next to and in the opposite direction to the crank.
it is most definately needed. now the bearing will have the non-stop pressure of a camchain pulling at one end and nothing to rest on at the other. i wonder how eeasy it is to convert to double row?
regards
Taffy
the countershaft has the sprocket for the camchain on it. dale has a picture of it in his gallery, it's nearly the last one. it shows a 'domed' short shaft. that dome used to be a gear.
it goes like this;
crank spins with gear on endd in outer cover
this spins the clutch hub
this in turn spins the balancer shaft
on the other end of the balancer shaft, inside the walls of the cases is a gear. that gear spins directly a gear that is on a bearing and mounted on the crank.
therefpre it spins next to and in the opposite direction to the crank.
it is most definately needed. now the bearing will have the non-stop pressure of a camchain pulling at one end and nothing to rest on at the other. i wonder how eeasy it is to convert to double row?
regards
Taffy
Taffy said:
Taffy: I’ve alway's enjoyed and appreciated your views and opinions, especially when it comes to retrofitting and the maintenance of these fines Berg’s. If I’m correct on what you’re saying, the bearing you’re talking about is counter balancer driver shaft bearing (SKF 61905-2RS1) and you’d like to retrofit it to a double row bearing? Why, do you feel that there’s too large of a load on the bearing? I have had this bearing fail on my 02 FX470E. I’m unsure why it failed? Some times I feel that the cam chain auto tensioner puts too much load on this bearing do to it design? Very heavy spring tension & constant pressure. I’ve seen after market cam chain tensioner that are manual adjusted (like rocker arms) This way you could lower the load on your cam bearings, cam chain and counter shaft drive bearing. I like to hear everyone’s feeling’s this?
Joined Nov 2001
17K Posts | 774+
Ely, England
marlin
just phoned my dealer and he says that for me to fit a double bearing i need the cases bored out and completely through. apparently this is how the double bearings can be made to fit.
anyone else confirm this?
anyway, i agree, the tensioner is too strong based on nothing more than the fact that the factory appears to have exactly the same set up as me even today, BUT, WITHOUT THAT 15MM LUMP OF ALLOY ON THE END!
so clearly it must be over tensionedand by some.
that causes stress and really i think it's only that. on the other end, the gear is carrying no off centre load at all.
anyway, i know i'm sounding like an old record but i've had to find this out for myself even though many, many, many other riders have talked of riding w/o the balancer in.
i would need to change the tensioner stirrup on the backrun of the chain and pull the blob off. THEN i think single row will be good.
my old dealer still has it on order three months later. NOW YOU KNOW WHY HE'S MY "OLD" DEALER!!!!!!!
BUT, boy do i get fed up with this. it's like going camping and taking everyones gear as well as your own...
regards
Taffy
just phoned my dealer and he says that for me to fit a double bearing i need the cases bored out and completely through. apparently this is how the double bearings can be made to fit.
anyone else confirm this?
anyway, i agree, the tensioner is too strong based on nothing more than the fact that the factory appears to have exactly the same set up as me even today, BUT, WITHOUT THAT 15MM LUMP OF ALLOY ON THE END!
so clearly it must be over tensionedand by some.
that causes stress and really i think it's only that. on the other end, the gear is carrying no off centre load at all.
anyway, i know i'm sounding like an old record but i've had to find this out for myself even though many, many, many other riders have talked of riding w/o the balancer in.
i would need to change the tensioner stirrup on the backrun of the chain and pull the blob off. THEN i think single row will be good.
my old dealer still has it on order three months later. NOW YOU KNOW WHY HE'S MY "OLD" DEALER!!!!!!!
BUT, boy do i get fed up with this. it's like going camping and taking everyones gear as well as your own...
regards
Taffy
Joined Feb 2003
3K Posts | 384+
Escondido, Ca. USA
Taffy said:
O.K. I think I understand now
Only had it slightly backwards,It says in the 01-03 service manual " Following gears are not interchangeable between 2001 and 2002/2003. Counterbalancer, balance drive shaft, drive gears on balancer drive shaft and crank shaft, and also the outer clutch basket. ALSO
Counterbalancers has also been subject to changes. Part from tooth profile the bearings has changed during the model year 2002. The left balancer is fitted with a single bearing and the right (picture in manual)
balancer has two bearings next to each other.
I thought that fitting the double row balancer was easy. Easy being a relative term. Isn't there a complete kit to preform the update? But how could it be easy if you have to bore the cases to fit the balance drive shaft? Nobody has ever mentioned that :x
Taff-
I may be wrong on this but to my recollection the case does not "have to" be bored out but may be as an alternative. I bought my '02 FC550 new in 2003 and as part of the deal the double bearings were put in as an '03 upgrade kit but instead of boring they use use two smaller width bearings in its place. Like I said, Im not positive if this is what was done but I do remember something like this being said. I have not disassembled my bike to verify this so cannot be positive. Also as part of the upgrade was the upgraded rocker arms and bearings.
Regards,
I may be wrong on this but to my recollection the case does not "have to" be bored out but may be as an alternative. I bought my '02 FC550 new in 2003 and as part of the deal the double bearings were put in as an '03 upgrade kit but instead of boring they use use two smaller width bearings in its place. Like I said, Im not positive if this is what was done but I do remember something like this being said. I have not disassembled my bike to verify this so cannot be positive. Also as part of the upgrade was the upgraded rocker arms and bearings.
Regards,
Register CTA
Register on Husaberg Forum! This sidebar will go away, and you will see fewer ads.
Sign Up
