Topic: Setting timing on CB550-Static or Advance/dynamic timing?

[Mooshie]

I have seen conflicting ideas about setting the timing.  I set the gap and have the timing set for static (dead on).  Should I just leave it there and be done (the bike runs fine) or should I also check the advance timing using a timing light?
I have read that if you set the dynamic the static will be a bit off off and vice versa.  So some just set static and be done with it and others set it using a timing light.  Does the decision come down to how you ride (trolling about town or twisties or freeway WOT?). 
Any help will be appreciated. 

[Gordon]

If done correctly you should get the same results from static and dynamic.  The benefit of timing dynamically with a strobe is you can typically do it faster (depends on the individual) and you can check to see that the advance mechanism is working properly. 

[TwoTired]

I used to always dynamic time my engines.  I think this is required for "race tuning".  But, I can't tell the difference with normal street riding and have gone back to static timing.

Dynamic timing can be a real (insert curse word here), in order to get the proper timing along with ideal dwell time for the coils.  (Speaking about points set ups)  The gap sets the dwell time (Coil charge up period), and the points pair rotation around the point cam sets the timing.  But, they can be interactive, particularly when the engine is running.  This is because the point springs exert pressure between the large plate and point cam  And while it is loosened to adjust time, the plate can shift in its mounts not only about the cam circumference (desired), but side to side and up and down as well (not desired).  This often causes the dwell/gap to change while hunting for correct spark time.  It can be done, but it takes some thinking, anticipation, or coercion to get it all perfect.  And in the end, static time works as well as dynamic for 95% of engine operation, (unless, of course, you are spending 90% of your engine run time up near red line).

With a bit of practice and diligence, your static time will equal dynamic time in nearly all attempts.  But, I will mention is that it is very important to have the 1,4 set align with timing mark identical to the 2,3 timing mark.  A timing mismatch here will show up as uneven idle.

Cheers,

[bryanj]

In all the years i spent in dealerships i only ever used a strobe twice to confirm the auto advance was working, always timed with a bulb as shown in the Honda manual.

Once used a dwell meter but found it took longer than doing it with feelers

[Bootlegger56]

I like static timing these old bikes.  It takes me back to my old VW bug days.  I do agree with the posts.....you can spend a lot of time tinkering to get it "just right"....but then that's the fun of it.  Like the others; I will hook up a strobe to check the advance but I don't mess with the timing based on the light.  I don't ride these old bikes for performance.  I like the nostalgia and the act of keeping something running that the majority of people have given up on.  Peace!

[Bailgang]

I generally do it both ways. I start with static timing then dbl check with my strobe timing light to confirm it. Redundant I know but it's just my way of making sure and so far I've never had to readjust after static timing it.

All in all I think it's all personal preference, there's a guy in town here that 20 years ago he built some absolutely wicked Suzuki drag bikes and he mentioned to me recently that he never used a strobe on his bikes, static timing only.

[bryanj]

I disagree, Static is the way Honda intended it and of course the F won't line up with the engine running as teh advance starts almost immediately,

Strobe and dwell box take all the fun and skill out of doing the job right

[Duanob]

I've never static timed anything, I like checking to make the advance is working properly. It seems like an old fashion way of doing things. Kind like using points ignition. You won't find a points ignition on anything in the motor vehicle category for the past 20 years. Even in the boating world which resists change like crazy mostly went to EI in the early 90s.

OK flame on.............................
 

[TwoTired]

Damn funny, people arguing about the "necessity" of modern devices/tools on a 40 year old machine they ostensibly favor.  Perhaps there are trolls about...
One has to wonder how these machines ever ran properly when new?  ( ...apparently well enough to sell millions.)
Perhaps we are witnessing internet hubris incarnate?

Discard the old ... employ the new!  Wait...what are we riding?

For the OP.  Remember that "opinions" have no requirement to be "factual".
You may have to prove the issue for yourself.  Drive test after the static method.  Then strobe time it and drive test again.  If your experience is like mine, you won't notice any difference in the way the bike drives about.

My opinion, of course. 

Cheers,

[Mooshie]

Thank you everyone for your feedback and for the article. I know the advance works (i checked it with a strobe but did not try and adjust it to the advance marks. I was just making certain it did advance is all).  I am going to go out this weekend and double check the gap and timing at static (just took my bike on a 500+ mile ride to Monterey and as I said it performed well).  Going to re-hook up Hondamans transistorized ignition too as I was letting the new points settle in. 

I will double check Two Tired as you suggested:  I will mention is that it is very important to have the 1,4 set align with timing mark identical to the 2,3 timing mark.  A timing mismatch here will show up as uneven idle.

As you said Bailgang I will see how close I got but overall will probably stay with static: I generally do it both ways. I start with static timing then dbl check with my strobe timing light to confirm it. Redundant I know but it's just my way of making sure and so far I've never had to readjust after static timing it.

[Bailgang]

Damn funny, people arguing about the "necessity" of modern devices/tools on a 40 year old machine they ostensibly favor.  Perhaps there are trolls about...
One has to wonder how these machines ever ran properly when new?  ( ...apparently well enough to sell millions.)
Perhaps we are witnessing internet hubris incarnate?

Discard the old ... employ the new!  Wait...what are we riding?

For the OP.  Remember that "opinions" have no requirement to be "factual".
You may have to prove the issue for yourself.  Drive test after the static method.  Then strobe time it and drive test again.  If your experience is like mine, you won't notice any difference in the way the bike drives about.

My opinion, of course. 

Cheers,

+1

[bollingball]

Thank you everyone for your feedback and for the article. I know the advance works (i checked it with a strobe but did not try and adjust it to the advance marks. I was just making certain it did advance is all).  I am going to go out this weekend and double check the gap and timing at static (just took my bike on a 500+ mile ride to Monterey and as I said it performed well).  Going to re-hook up Hondamans transistorized ignition too as I was letting the new points settle in. 

I will double check Two Tired as you suggested:  I will mention is that it is very important to have the 1,4 set align with timing mark identical to the 2,3 timing mark.  A timing mismatch here will show up as uneven idle.

As you said Bailgang I will see how close I got but overall will probably stay with static: I generally do it both ways. I start with static timing then dbl check with my strobe timing light to confirm it. Redundant I know but it's just my way of making sure and so far I've never had to readjust after static timing it.

Odd that you mention that. Before I installed mine I wrote HondaMan and he told me to do the same thing with my new set of points. He also said to take a file to them because they have a difficult coding to remove. It was odd to me to file a new set of points. I did it any way Mark knows a lot more than I do.
Ken

[Mooshie]

Yes I contacted Mark and he told me to wait at least 200 miles. I put the points back on the ignition too soon and boy was that an interesting ride.  So decided I would wait until I went 500+ miles and will give it another try. 
How did yours work out after filing them? 

[bollingball]

Yes I contacted Mark and he told me to wait at least 200 miles. I put the points back on the ignition too soon and boy was that an interesting ride.  So decided I would wait until I went 500+ miles and will give it another try. 
How did yours work out after filing them?

Perfect

[scottly]

Damn funny, people arguing about the "necessity" of modern devices/tools on a 40 year old machine they ostensibly favor.  Perhaps there are trolls about...
One has to wonder how these machines ever ran properly when new?  ( ...apparently well enough to sell millions.)
Perhaps we are witnessing internet hubris incarnate?

Discard the old ... employ the new!  Wait...what are we riding?

Hubris indeed. Since when is a timing strobe a modern device?? Mine is almost 40 years old, and was "modern" at the time, due to the inductive pick-up. Is dynamic timing absolutely necessary for the bike to run properly? No, but it is more accurate; that can't be denied. Also, since the advance is full-in by 3000 RPM or less, 95% of riding takes place at full advance, so it only makes sense to insure the full advance setting. IMHO

[TwoTired]

Hubris indeed. Since when is a timing strobe a modern device??

I guess you completely missed the attempted thread jack about dumping point style ignitions entirely, in favor of "modern".

Mine is almost 40 years old, and was "modern" at the time, due to the inductive pick-up. Is dynamic timing absolutely necessary for the bike to run properly? No, but it is more accurate; that can't be denied.

It may well be more accurate, or it can be.  But, the point is, how accurate is necessary?  1 degree?  1/4 degree?  1/16 of a degree?  I guess some of the superhumans here can feel the difference in how it runs to the grocery store with those differences.  In reality, the timing can never be perfect.  It can only be close (for some value of close).

Also, since the advance is full-in by 3000 RPM or less, 95% of riding takes place at full advance, so it only makes sense to insure the full advance setting.

So, idling at stop signs and stop lights, has no importance?  Or, it doesn't make sense to ever operate the engine below 3000 RPM?
Interesting viewpoint.

[camelman]

I don't agree with the hubris statement about improving electronics (controls).  Is it internet hubris to talk about running better tires than stock?  I think most of us would answer no to that question. I feel the same towards 40 year old tires as i do to engine, ignition and lighting controls. To say it is "internet hubris" to talk about improving ignition controls, while being a proponent of modern tires, seems like a double standard. Yeah, tires are wear items and controls aren't viewed as wear items by all, but i sure view controls as wear items on these old bikes and will replace them when they wear out with whatever option is on the market that is better and reasonably priced. I think that's the position people typically take on these stock ignition systems.

Camelman

[TwoTired]

I don't agree with the hubris statement about improving electronics (controls).  Is it internet hubris to talk about running better tires than stock?  I think most of us would answer no to that question. I feel the same towards 40 year old tires as i do to engine, ignition and lighting controls. To say it is "internet hubris" to talk about improving ignition controls, while being a proponent of modern tires, seems like a double standard. Yeah, tires are wear items and controls aren't viewed as wear items by all, but i sure view controls as wear items on these old bikes and will replace them when they wear out with whatever option is on the market that is better and reasonably priced. I think that's the position people typically take on these stock ignition systems.

Camelman

Yet another thread jack.  The thread is (was) not about modern ignition (or tires, or other strawmen).  It is about the preferred timing method for point style ignition.  In fact, the OP has already tried an electronic ignition and it FAILED.  Thus, the return to point contacts.  The presumption that a modern ignition unit is a better conversion has already been disproven from a reliability (or quality control) standpoint, for many.  Further, she is intent on using the Hondaman unit to minimize point wear, and thus longevity.
So, do you really want to argue with her on the approach she has taken?  She took advice from the populous vote before about modern ignition, it let her down and stranded by the side of the road.  Though possible, I've never had a point system fail me completely by the side of the road.   

hu·bris  n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance:

[Mooshie]

Wow this really has taken a turn...   First let me say I love Hondamans transistorized ignition system.  I was riding in crazy heat, crazy miles (over 2500) and harder than I ever had (riding with some pretty amazing motorcyclists-Walt Fulton one of them) in all the years I owned my sweet Dash (2009).  A wire came loose and shut the darned bike down in the Nevada heat.  If I had known then what I know now I would have been back on the road running in about 5 minutes (just unhook HMs system and back to points you go-which is why I prefer it over other systems--also Mark was great and sent me a new unit immediately at no charge).  So you are right TT the points did not in anyway fail me and if I had remembered how to change the wires (which I can now do in my sleep) I would not have been towed those 70+ miles to get it done.  Now I am determined to learn more about the mechanics of the bike so for my next adventure I can be as prepared as possible (and all of your posts have helped me tremendously to learn).
As far as the timing and dialing that in thank you everyone for answering the questions and I will check the dynamic timing and see what it yields and go from there.

[camelman]

Yes, lloyd, we know what hubris means. What's more... you embody it.

[TwoTired]

Yes, lloyd, we know what hubris means. What's more... you embody it.

The pot calls the kettle black.

Anything to say that is on topic?

...Didn't think so.

[DJ_AX]

I just set statically with a bulb,
and then check it with a timing light.
It's always checked out good.
... works well for me.

[camelman]

I typically set points with a voltmeter or by eye and then check with a timing light. You'd be surprised how accurate you can be just using eyesight to tell when points start to open. My visual method starts by bumping the engine with the kickstarter until the appropriate timing mark lines up. Then rotate the points until they just open and tighten them down.  Static timing has always proved accurate for me. The timing gun is nice to use to verify the advance is operational, which you won't be able to verify just by statically timing the points.

TT, look up "Luddite" and report back.

Regards,
Camelman

[TwoTired]

TT, look up "Luddite" and report back.

Ha!  Being an electronic circuit designer for 30 years, and having 5 patents for invention, and 30-ish products to see production, hardly qualifies me as a Luddite.

But, speaking of luddites, what year antique do you operate?  Why hasn't your enlightened self moved on to the latest offering in the motorcycle marketplace and just throw that old crap away?

CM, look up "ignorant" and perhaps "obtuse" then report back.

[camelman]

Oh, TT. Can't see the forest for the trees can you? However, I apologize. I have apparently peed on your only social outlet. Please forgive me.