Author Topic: Building an endurance engine  (Read 28647 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline livefast_dieold

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2010, 09:42:52 AM »
Inspired by Howell's piston swapping I made some research to find out if there are some japan bikes with pistons of 62 mm dia. (so i will stay in the 750 class).
The kawasaki KZ650 have pistons of that size, with a very nice dome on the top and valve pockets. Now I'm tring to discover another important size: the wrist pin diameter! Anyone knows that? Because I remeber that some kawasaki have a 14mm dia wrist pin, maybe I can bore that size to the 15mm that honda uses.

It seems that the pins are 15mm dia... ;D

Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2010, 01:16:05 PM »
Howell,
Looking at the photos of your head, I'm a little confused/concerned...
I thought it was best to have a very smooth finish on the combustion chamber to prevent carbon buildup.  Your's look a little rough.  Ditto for the exhaust port.

For the intake, I agree that we want swirl.  I've also read elsewhere that we don't want to polish the intake ports, but I'm not sure I fully agree with that.  Here's why: Swirl and turbulence are not the same thing.  Swirl is a tornado-like effect, mixing the fuel and air (the original poster, having tutored math and physics, might recognize this as curl).  Turbulence, on the other hand, is more of a chaotic process that comes from small eddies in the flow, in this case, eddies caused by the rough surface.  This turbulence also mixes the fuel and air, but the cost is a reduced flow.  A rough surface on the intake would cause a small turbulence near the intake walls, but not swirl.  If it is possible to increase swirl without increasing turbulence, I think that would be ideal.  I believe the way to do this is to create a mild helical geometry in the intake ports with a very fine finish.  I know the general rule when porting the intake is to just remove the steps and leave a rough finish, but I guess I'm saying that I think there's a lot more potential we could exploit.

Just thinking...


Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? 
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1971 CL 350 Scrambler
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline mlinder

  • "Kitten Puncher"
  • Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,013
  • Stop Global Tilting now!
    • Moto Northwest
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2010, 02:20:21 PM »
Polished intake can cause fuel condensation on the intake ports, from what I understand, Soichiro.

The 'sheath' of slower moving air along the intake track caused by a rough surface supposedly helps the AF charge move more readily into the combustion chamber, as well.
No.


Offline voxonda

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,231
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2010, 02:33:34 PM »
Always been a controversie between smooth surfaces and leave it rough(er). Looking at Pop's stuff I'd say polish, but not all the way to the valve.
Just my 2 cents,

Rob
Better sorry for failing then for the lack of trying.

Offline HB-1fan

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 194
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2010, 02:48:26 PM »
I have always thought that all you need is a few bumps near the end of the intake tract, right before combustion. That you could keep it dense and fast up until that point. As far as chamber and exhaust side is concerned, I was told that smoothing is good enough for street and polishing only helps if you are running an ultra clean fuel that makes very little carbon. Because the almost instant carbon buildup make the "all out" polishing sort of a moot point. I am no engineer, just an anal millwright.
 My (low mileage)street 550f had stock bore and stroke, elect. ign., stock cam(degreed) polished intakes with little bumps as mentioned, smoothed but not polished chambers and exhaust, and a 4-2-1 modified kerker and 750 carbs. It was a huge improvement over stock.

 That's my wooden nickel's worth!!!!!!!

HB
"If you always expect the worst, you can never be dissappointed, only surprised"

Offline HB-1fan

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 194
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2010, 02:51:18 PM »
Rob, on the POPS parts that I have the intakes are all out polished and the combustion chambers are not. Sort of confirming what you said.

HB
"If you always expect the worst, you can never be dissappointed, only surprised"

Offline voxonda

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,231
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2010, 01:29:31 AM »
To my, limited, knowledge you polish to keep your mixture up to speed and before entering the combustion chamber it needs to swirl.

Cheers, Rob
Better sorry for failing then for the lack of trying.

Offline livefast_dieold

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2010, 02:45:34 AM »
It's a little bit confusing, indeed, the whole question between polish vs rough intake.
For the little I have read and study about: polishing will be a right procedure if the intakes are straight, but it's not our case. Having a rough surface increase friction, in this way the air flow will not lift from the surface, and not self-reduce the passage area.
About turbulence vs swirl: the passage between a laminar flow to a turbulent flow it's determinated by the Reynold's number (I hope it's correct, these are things I have studied like three years ago  ;D) which depends on surface finishing and mainly on flow speed. This mean that at the speed that every engine sucks air, the flow is always turbulent, regardless the intake surface.
Swirl or tumbling effects are not always good. They indeed mix better air and fuel, but they have some bad side effects: they can drastically reduce volume filling and avoid a complete discharge of the burnt gases (and mix them with the fresh ones). That's why stock motors are build to have these effects: they reduce emissions and improve MPG.

The only way to have all this issues solve it's to flux the head or use a very complex finite elements software to accomplish some flow analisys. Looking on what the motorcompanies are actually doing on their sport engines: swirl and tumbling effects are more common on engine with two cylinder (see Ducati superbike engine), because the volume per cylinder it's huge, and it's possible to sacrifice some CC of volume filling for better mixing (which also means more flame front speed). While on four cylinder engines the intakes are straight to maximize volume per cylinder filling and sacrifice a bit of air-fuel mix (you don't need a very fast flame front speed because cylinder's size are small).
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:47:26 AM by livefast_dieold »

Offline Howell

  • Honda the power of dreams
  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 573
    • CB500 classic racing
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2010, 03:23:38 AM »
Read the article below and that is the reason why I will a rough surface , my ports are a little bit sandblasted :

Polishing is, if possible, a myth within a myth. It is one of those traditional yet ineffective techniques which has somehow survived in the dank swamp of motorcycle mythology. However, the industry is more to blame than the unwitting public. The truth is, port polishing in a practical sense serves merely to "sell" expensive porting jobs. It's "eye candy." The customer has been conditioned to be more easily impressed by the unreality of what he sees than the reality of what he can't see. Sort of like the detail work done on your car during its 10,000 mile inspection. As just explained, most of the magic in port work is almost invisible -- fully 90% of effective porting takes place within an inch of the valve seat. The parts of the port that are usually polished are far from this area. The polish gives the customer something to look at.

Furthermore, polish is not only unnecessary, it's actually harmful, in two ways. The first concerns the airflow itself. The experience of countless engine builders, plus research by Superflow, Boeing, and various members of the Society of Automotive Engineers, indicate that a smooth surface is not necessarily the slipperiest where air is concerned. Ever notice that an airplane's wings are not shiny smooth, but rough? The rough surface reduces air drag, and the wing glides through the air easier. Olympic bobsled teams stick sandpaper-like skateboard grip tape to the sides of the sled and the tops of their helmets for the same reason. Air tends to get lazy on a smooth surface. It's called the "boundary layer effect," and it refers to the fact that an ultra-smooth surface accumulates air pressure next to it. This pressure is really stagnant air, and it effectively obstructs airflow. A slightly roughened surface eliminates this boundary layer and increases airflow. The second way polish is bad concerns combustion. Intake tracts don't just flow air, remember. They flow an air/fuel mixture, whose behaviour is quite different from plain air. The same lazy air boundaries that constrict a polished port's airflow also make fuel "drop out" of suspension in that air. The mixture then enters the cylinder less thoroughly mixed, and poor combustion and reduced power result. For this reason, most builders glass-bead the port walls instead of polishing them. The slight roughness creates tiny eddy currects which keep fuel droplets suspended in the port airstream. Good combustion is thus ensured.
You meet the nicest people on a Honda

Offline voxonda

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,231
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2010, 05:00:42 AM »
A bit strange since most, real fast engines, I 've seen where polished to some extend. But I feel that anyone should do where he/she believes in, the truth lies somewhere in between.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 05:17:35 AM by voxonda »
Better sorry for failing then for the lack of trying.

Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2010, 09:23:08 AM »
Read the article below and that is the reason why I will a rough surface , my ports are a little bit sandblasted :

Polishing is, if possible, a myth within a myth. It is one of those traditional yet ineffective techniques which has somehow survived in the dank swamp of motorcycle mythology. However, the industry is more to blame than the unwitting public. The truth is, port polishing in a practical sense serves merely to "sell" expensive porting jobs. It's "eye candy." The customer has been conditioned to be more easily impressed by the unreality of what he sees than the reality of what he can't see. Sort of like the detail work done on your car during its 10,000 mile inspection. As just explained, most of the magic in port work is almost invisible -- fully 90% of effective porting takes place within an inch of the valve seat. The parts of the port that are usually polished are far from this area. The polish gives the customer something to look at.

Furthermore, polish is not only unnecessary, it's actually harmful, in two ways. The first concerns the airflow itself. The experience of countless engine builders, plus research by Superflow, Boeing, and various members of the Society of Automotive Engineers, indicate that a smooth surface is not necessarily the slipperiest where air is concerned. Ever notice that an airplane's wings are not shiny smooth, but rough? The rough surface reduces air drag, and the wing glides through the air easier. Olympic bobsled teams stick sandpaper-like skateboard grip tape to the sides of the sled and the tops of their helmets for the same reason. Air tends to get lazy on a smooth surface. It's called the "boundary layer effect," and it refers to the fact that an ultra-smooth surface accumulates air pressure next to it. This pressure is really stagnant air, and it effectively obstructs airflow. A slightly roughened surface eliminates this boundary layer and increases airflow. The second way polish is bad concerns combustion. Intake tracts don't just flow air, remember. They flow an air/fuel mixture, whose behaviour is quite different from plain air. The same lazy air boundaries that constrict a polished port's airflow also make fuel "drop out" of suspension in that air. The mixture then enters the cylinder less thoroughly mixed, and poor combustion and reduced power result. For this reason, most builders glass-bead the port walls instead of polishing them. The slight roughness creates tiny eddy currects which keep fuel droplets suspended in the port airstream. Good combustion is thus ensured.



If I understand this correctly (especially the last sentence), then it's preferable to have the turbulence associated with the eddies caused by the rough surface texture (along with the overall bulk swirl of the fuel mixture).  Or in other words, it is better to sacrifice a little flow in order to better mix the fuel/air mixture.  This makes sense I suppose, after all, what good is getting the fuel to the combustion chamber if it doesn't ignite? 

I still wonder... there must be an optimum way to mix the fuel and air while maximizing flow... and I wonder how exactly we could go about doing that....


Do any of you have access to a dyno and are willing to make a run with a rough intake, then polish the intake and run again?   ;D  But then again, I couldn't imagine there would be much of a difference in results... and the difficulty in actually measuring that difference would probably be impossible (taking into account all the errors in measurement that could crop up).  I suspect that the minor (and probably undetectable) difference in performance is why there's no consensus on this issue.

Fun to think about though!



Riccardo, yes, you remembered correctly about the Reynold's number.  It is the ratio of a "fluid's" inertial forces to its viscous forces, and is thus gives us an idea of the relative importance of each for the configuration we're trying to analyze.  In practice though, it's rarely simple, and as you mentioned, it almost always requires a computer and a fluid dynamics code.   By the way... where did you do your schooling?  I'm pretty good friends with a physicist at the University of Pisa.  Did you go there by any chance?
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1971 CL 350 Scrambler
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline MRieck

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,590
  • Big ideas....
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2010, 09:36:34 AM »
Read the article below and that is the reason why I will a rough surface , my ports are a little bit sandblasted :

Polishing is, if possible, a myth within a myth. It is one of those traditional yet ineffective techniques which has somehow survived in the dank swamp of motorcycle mythology. However, the industry is more to blame than the unwitting public. The truth is, port polishing in a practical sense serves merely to "sell" expensive porting jobs. It's "eye candy." The customer has been conditioned to be more easily impressed by the unreality of what he sees than the reality of what he can't see. Sort of like the detail work done on your car during its 10,000 mile inspection. As just explained, most of the magic in port work is almost invisible -- fully 90% of effective porting takes place within an inch of the valve seat. The parts of the port that are usually polished are far from this area. The polish gives the customer something to look at.

Furthermore, polish is not only unnecessary, it's actually harmful, in two ways. The first concerns the airflow itself. The experience of countless engine builders, plus research by Superflow, Boeing, and various members of the Society of Automotive Engineers, indicate that a smooth surface is not necessarily the slipperiest where air is concerned. Ever notice that an airplane's wings are not shiny smooth, but rough? The rough surface reduces air drag, and the wing glides through the air easier. Olympic bobsled teams stick sandpaper-like skateboard grip tape to the sides of the sled and the tops of their helmets for the same reason. Air tends to get lazy on a smooth surface. It's called the "boundary layer effect," and it refers to the fact that an ultra-smooth surface accumulates air pressure next to it. This pressure is really stagnant air, and it effectively obstructs airflow. A slightly roughened surface eliminates this boundary layer and increases airflow. The second way polish is bad concerns combustion. Intake tracts don't just flow air, remember. They flow an air/fuel mixture, whose behaviour is quite different from plain air. The same lazy air boundaries that constrict a polished port's airflow also make fuel "drop out" of suspension in that air. The mixture then enters the cylinder less thoroughly mixed, and poor combustion and reduced power result. For this reason, most builders glass-bead the port walls instead of polishing them. The slight roughness creates tiny eddy currects which keep fuel droplets suspended in the port airstream. Good combustion is thus ensured.



If I understand this correctly (especially the last sentence), then it's preferable to have the turbulence associated with the eddies caused by the rough surface texture (along with the overall bulk swirl of the fuel mixture).  Or in other words, it is better to sacrifice a little flow in order to better mix the fuel/air mixture.  This makes sense I suppose, after all, what good is getting the fuel to the combustion chamber if it doesn't ignite?  

I still wonder... there must be an optimum way to mix the fuel and air while maximizing flow... and I wonder how exactly we could go about doing that....


Do any of you have access to a dyno and are willing to make a run with a rough intake, then polish the intake and run again?   ;D  But then again, I couldn't imagine there would be much of a difference in results... and the difficulty in actually measuring that difference would probably be impossible (taking into account all the errors in measurement that could crop up).  I suspect that the minor (and probably undetectable) difference in performance is why there's no consensus on this issue.
Fun to think about though!



Riccardo, yes, you remembered correctly about the Reynold's number.  It is the ratio of a "fluid's" inertial forces to its viscous forces, and is thus gives us an idea of the relative importance of each for the configuration we're trying to analyze.  In practice though, it's rarely simple, and as you mentioned, it almost always requires a computer and a fluid dynamics code.   By the way... where did you do your schooling?  I'm pretty good friends with a physicist at the University of Pisa.  Did you go there by any chance?
Exactly. I'd be more concerned with port shape, especially the floor, and valve size
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 09:40:29 AM by MRieck »
Owner of the "Million Dollar CB"

Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2010, 09:45:22 AM »
I was anxiously awaiting your input Mike.   ;D


But out of curiosity, ( ;) ;) ;)) how do you finish your intakes?
[Edit:] I see that you pretty much answered my question in your edited reply above.  Thanks!   ;D


Like I said, it's fun to think about, even if it is just an academic exercise.  
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 09:47:34 AM by soichiro »
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1971 CL 350 Scrambler
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline MRieck

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,590
  • Big ideas....
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2010, 09:59:37 AM »
I was anxiously awaiting your input Mike.   ;D


But out of curiosity, ( ;) ;) ;)) how do you finish your intakes?
[Edit:] I see that you pretty much answered my question in your edited reply above.  Thanks!   ;D


Like I said, it's fun to think about, even if it is just an academic exercise.  
I usually finish the intakes with 80 grit flaps. I'll go to 120 grit flaps on the exhaust and finish with green Scotchbrite flaps followed by gray Scotchbrite. Prior to using flaps I use coarse sanding cartridges. In general I finish the chambers with medium and fine crossbuffs to remove sharp edges.
  I've tried bead blasting, sand blasting, rough carbide cut surface, mirror polished etc on the intake side.
Owner of the "Million Dollar CB"

Offline livefast_dieold

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2010, 11:08:31 AM »
By the way... where did you do your schooling?  I'm pretty good friends with a physicist at the University of Pisa.  Did you go there by any chance?

Nope, University of Padova  ;)

Well, he must be a very very good physicist if he's at the University of Pisa.

Offline lordmoonpie

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,053
  • Feal the Fear and do it anyway...
    • Moonpie
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2010, 11:39:16 AM »
As usual these things are somewhere in the middle. You need enough turbulence to keep the fuel air suspension in place and enough mix to generate the suspension and the filling of the charge. You don't want turbulence for the sake of it or those helpful swirls will turn into more vigorous recirculation zones and that creates dead spots in the flow. The best solution for the SOHC4 will therefore be a compromise between surface roughness, intake port shape, valve guide action and valve size. This optimisation is why we need guys like Mike who can work the physical magic to get the balance factor to the best it can be.

I used to sell a leading computational fluid dynamics software package called "Fluent" and modelled lots of things in the past including stuff like the entry exit tunnels for the channel tunnel, light buld filaments and so on. I believe University of Pisa was one of our academic customers!
1994 Ducati 888 SP5
1951 Ducati 50cc Cucciolo
1981 Yamaha XV750 SE

Offline livefast_dieold

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2010, 11:13:03 AM »
Polished valves  ;D




Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2010, 12:53:56 PM »
Riccardo,

here's a pic of the piston you can get from Mark at M3 (kos) for you to compare - looks like apples and oranges to me  :D




Simon,
Those pistons look great!  

Questions:
1. Are those for the stock bore (i.e., no boring required)?
2. What is the compression ratio on those?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 12:55:47 PM by soichiro »
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1971 CL 350 Scrambler
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline turboguzzi

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,089
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2010, 06:50:29 AM »
just  a few comments:

reynolds numbers in intact tracts are deep inside turbulent zone, so dont worry, you will never get laminar flow there.

that kind of concern is something I remember from fitting turbulators behind the the wing's leading edge to supposedly solve flow detachment at high angles of attack in gliders. 

putting a head on the flow bench will get you data on steady state flow which is nice but only partial info. Taking with an aprilia motor engineer, he told me that after having the basic data from the 2D and 3D computer simulations, they still build a few dozen of rapid proto tracts and at the end, the final inlet geometry is quite empirical.

Then there's the matter of for what cam are you porting for? long duration / mild lift? shorter but with higher peak? In theory at last the ports should not be the same.....

bottom line that i got from him was: compared to port 3D geometry, surface finish plays a very small role. most if not all high performance porting work is done nowadays with 5 axis CNC.

TG


Offline livefast_dieold

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2010, 08:15:09 AM »

that kind of concern is something I remember from fitting turbulators behind the the wing's leading edge to supposedly solve flow detachment at high angles of attack in gliders.  



TG are you also a glider pilot? My brother is an enthusiast glider pilot (I remeber I bought for him the turbulators on a german site)...maybe do you know the Brigliadori's? My brother is a good friend of them.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 10:13:06 AM by livefast_dieold »

Offline turboguzzi

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,089
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2010, 10:25:01 AM »
i was a technical instructor in an aeroclub and then worked in aeronautic R&D many many years ago. not enough $$$ and time to do that as well as racing vintage motos..... but guess what's more exciting :)


Offline livefast_dieold

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2010, 10:40:42 AM »
Updates!!! Yippie!!!

(ok, maybe you are not as excited as me...)

So, here's the crankshaft:





blasted rods:




and rockers (previously lightened, now -12 g each):



Although I had protect with some tape the zones where the rockers touch the camshaft, the blaster took them off. Consequently now it looks rough. Were them chromed? Or just heat treated? Do I have to worry?

The pistons from a Kawasaki KZ650 arrived some days ago, and as I hope the main sizes match perfectly (and they are 10 g each lighter!):




Offline lordmoonpie

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,053
  • Feal the Fear and do it anyway...
    • Moonpie
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #47 on: January 31, 2010, 02:05:11 AM »
Riccardo,

here's a pic of the piston you can get from Mark at M3 (kos) for you to compare - looks like apples and oranges to me  :D




Simon,
Those pistons look great!  

Questions:
1. Are those for the stock bore (i.e., no boring required)?
2. What is the compression ratio on those?
Hey Soichiro - the pistons are 62mm so need a slight overbore. Becasue I used the DOHC crank which has less stroke, the overbore combined with shorter stroke gives me about 750cc still. Compression ratio is I think 11.5 if I remember right?
1994 Ducati 888 SP5
1951 Ducati 50cc Cucciolo
1981 Yamaha XV750 SE

Offline lordmoonpie

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,053
  • Feal the Fear and do it anyway...
    • Moonpie
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2010, 02:09:06 AM »
Nice crank work Livefast.....you could take the lightening a bit further and still get benefit if you wanted to?
1994 Ducati 888 SP5
1951 Ducati 50cc Cucciolo
1981 Yamaha XV750 SE

Offline Rod

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 155
Re: Building an endurance engine
« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2010, 02:53:33 AM »
Nice crank work Livefast.....you could take the lightening a bit further and still get benefit if you wanted to?

Very very nice LMP, did you get that work done in the UK?