Re: old design was oilheads-digest V1 #47

[rennsport@xxxxxxxxx]

On Monday, Jan 5, 2004, at 05:08 US/Eastern, Clive Liddell wrote:

> Robert,
> For simplicity and reliability the oilhead engine fits my requirements
> perfectly.  There is a reason that "bucket and shim" are only checked
> infrequently, if at all and that IMO is the hassel factor.

It does not have to be that way. Aprilla's V twin engines allow eaasy 
access for valve adjustments

>
> I know the word "pushrod" conjures up at least a 10" long thin, hollow 
> weak
> looking component of yesteryear...

Yes they are shorter, but, they are still pushrods with all their 
limitations. They are just not needed. The only feature they offer is 
"ease of adjusment". Overhead cam is simply superior.


> The bucket and shim and similar designs end up putting side thrust on 
> the
> valve stem itself, with obvious ill effect.


What ill effect is that? I do not hear horror stories of motorcycles 
with bucket and shim grenading with regularity.


>
> The only thing I've had to change on my present water cooled car is the
> water pump (not a low cost item on Mercedes) and since you have a K 
> you are
> well aware of the water/oil problems in the pump area there...

Actually my K bike is still on its original water pump. And it is cheap 
to replace if needed.

>
> If BMW are eventually obliged to drop air cooling then so be it but I 
> do not
> intend to ever change from my present oilheads (never and ever are not 
> too
> remote since I'm well on the way to three score and ten years :)
>
>

I am not in favor of dropping oil cooling (air cooling is just about 
gone, save for HD and even they are looking to the future), but, let 
BMW move on to a more up-to-date valve design, not something that will 
keep the BMW purists happy.



Robert

95 R11RS
88 KRS Special

------------------------------