in would scope the bores and valves amomngst other things before fire or even crank revolution with a wrong fitting spanner
unless i knew recent history
unless i knew recent history
So that's a thing you see on a lot of older race bikes - 1950's (early 60's) and earlier. I think this is before oil coolers and one way to cool the oil in a racing environment was to put it next to fuel. being vaporous, fuel is actually a pretty good coolant despite being flammable, and it really doesn't get hot enough to instantly vaporize and the line to the carb is out in open air so it isn't a hot as you think. Plus you kinda want warm fuel because it atomizes easier and vaporizes faster which increases it's thermal efficiency, so long as it isn't boiling.3. The tank. WTF was someone thinking with hot oil and fuel in the same tank. The tank has a number of bad paint jobs and the inside has a bunch of resin in it, I think the original paint is under there but first I'm going to try to dissolve the resin with low heat and ethanol trying to save the outside of the tank.
Because that bike was built around 1981 by Denver Choppers. It was in Easy Rider magazine, it is completely original as Mondo built it, It doesn't get out that often but then again if people don't like the sound fuck em! I like it!!! Yes it's loud, the motor is "built" and for a Panhead it moves. It's a fun bike to ride. Oh wait let me give you the "loud pipes save lives" BS linethat would be excellent with usable rear suspension and something to .well .straight pipes are just completely obnoxious
why do you want to ride around pissing off the public \?
Thanks XB the plan is to use everything that's not falling apart. I have no intention to restore the bike, just preserve what's there, battle scars and all. But if I do get stuck for something I'll reach out.By the way you want cool fuel not heated. Cool fuel make more power around 2-4% depending on the engine.
Pressurised induction on a 60's Brit!!!!HOT FUEL i have never read or heard about that being a good thing
except when the carburetor was a wick in a copper tube LOL
I THINK THE BRITS SCOFFED AT THE IDEA OF IT BEING A TERRIBLE THING
my XB33"goldstar"has the tank underside sculpted to clear ther rocker boxes
my buddies matchless singles it's even more extreme
heck the heat will help keep the water out of the gass wont it ? back to your twin
i sure love the look of the swept back pipes !! that design is a real shining example of taking a functioning part and for whatever reason settling on a design that pleases the eyes
these video game apple app device lobotomised, poisoned in the head kids, doing "builds" these days have an alarming penchant for sickeningly . butt ugly, motorcycles.... it is like they are from the planet hideous,
i liked the swept back so much so i put one on my xb and hung the large full radius unit in the rafters
All valid points - but the original jist of what I was saying is that a little "hot fuel" from a shared fuel/oil tank isn't harming anything.some engines crave and love raw fuel droplets while others want it finely atomized
smokey yunick's engine using very heated fuel and only vapors had internal geometry that didn't like big droplets
read smokey yunick and david vizard's stuff
that norton has no more problem with big chunks of fuel than many flathead engines as long as the ports haven't been opened up the size of a fist
the 'good for power bad for efficiency' mantra simply isn't a valid catch all
an engine that likes big chunks will never be efficient if fed vapors
When it comes to old Brit stuff you can theorise all you like. Hemi's like it low down and dirty with wet combustion chambers. And who said flag to flag racing was about efficiency, its about bigger bangs and getting ahead! And if you want to atomise fuel better you don't use Amal carbs.cool fuel = more dense fuel = more overall power because you are packing a lot of energy potential into a smaller package. Good for power bad for efficiency. However, if you read up on fuel efficiency technology a lot of the experiments focus on heating and pressurizing the fuel because it atomizes better and requires less fuel overall to cause the same amount of combustion force with less emissions byproduct. So heated fuel = better atomized fuel = more efficiency per charge. But it won't make more power - it just makes same power with less material.
Spot on kiddo!some engines crave and love raw fuel droplets while others want it finely atomized
smokey yunick's engine using very heated fuel and only vapors had internal geometry that didn't like big droplets
read smokey yunick and david vizard's stuff
that norton has no more problem with big chunks of fuel than many flathead engines as long as the ports haven't been opened up the size of a fist
the 'good for power bad for efficiency' mantra simply isn't a valid catch all
an engine that likes big chunks will never be efficient if fed vapors