***Billet Cam Chain Guide***

[Gixx1300R]

Well guys,I had to wait for the patent to come back before I posted this. No more of this copying my stuff. A couple of years ago my top cam chain guide failed (see pics). Lots of bent Titanuim valves,broken guides and damaged custom pistons was not a good thing.

This is my solution. I will begin the testing phase next week. I will measure the chain guide material,run it up to 1000 miles and see what the wear pattern is. I will first do this at 10,50 100 250 500 750 and 1000 miles. The White material is made specifically for chain guide material. It fits underneath the stock valve cover. I'll keep you guys informed.

View attachment 1134990

View attachment 1134991
View attachment 1134992
View attachment 1134993
View attachment 1134994

 

[JINKSTER]

1. Why would you seek patent before test verification?

2. I hope you took some real close measurements cause to me?...it doesn't look like your valve cover is going to fit back on...things are pretty tight under there and your chunck of billet stock looks about twice as tall as the original...which barely squeezes in under there.

and finally?...

3. Are you the only one who has had a cam chain damper fail?...cause this is the first i've ever heard/seen this happening....anybody else?...cause i'm figuring this was an isolated case of "defective material".

L8R, Bill.

 

[Gixx1300R]

(JINKSTER @ Jul. 07 2007,14:45) 1. Why would you seek patent before test verification?

2. I hope you took some real close measurements cause to me?...it doesn't look like your valve cover is going to fit back on...things are pretty tight under there and your chunck of billet stock looks about twice as tall as the original...which barely squeezes in under there.

and finally?...

3. Are you the only one who has had a cam chain damper fail?...cause this is the first i've ever heard/seen this happening....anybody else?...cause i'm figuring this was an isolated case of "defective material".

L8R, Bill.

1. Because I'm 100% sure it will work

2. It fits

3. There have been numerous failures. Check with Richard Albans of TTS Engineering in the U.K

 

[05BusaLe]

Isn't that a Honda Civic strut tower brace

j/k lol looks good let us know how it works out!
Do you think you could make that part of maybe the top head bolts or camshaft bearing caps? Never took a busa engine apart so I don't know how they are built!

 

[proud dad]

nothing like making something stronger

 

[Gixx1300R]

(05BusaLe @ Jul. 07 2007,15:22) Isn't that a Honda Civic strut tower brace

j/k lol looks good let us know how it works out!
Do you think you could make that part of maybe the top head bolts or camshaft bearing caps? Never took a busa engine apart so I don't know how they are built!

Sorry no,I must be a seperate part

 

[JINKSTER]

(Gixx1300R @ Jul. 07 2007,11:49)

(JINKSTER @ Jul. 07 2007,14:45) 1. Why would you seek patent before test verification?

2. I hope you took some real close measurements cause to me?...it doesn't look like your valve cover is going to fit back on...things are pretty tight under there and your chunck of billet stock looks about twice as tall as the original...which barely squeezes in under there.

and finally?...

3. Are you the only one who has had a cam chain damper fail?...cause this is the first i've ever heard/seen this happening....anybody else?...cause i'm figuring this was an isolated case of "defective material".

L8R, Bill.

1. Because I'm 100% sure it will work

2. It fits

3. There have been numerous failures. Check with Richard Albans of TTS Engineering in the U.K

"1. Because I'm 100% sure it will work"

then why are you testing as stated in your...

"I will begin the testing phase next week. I will measure the chain guide material,run it up to 1000 miles and see what the wear pattern is. I will first do this at 10,50 100 250 500 750 and 1000 miles. The White material is..."

comment?

To be honest with you?...I have serious doubts and even more serious "concerns" as by thickening the billet stock as much as you have....which mandated use of longer bolts?...you've just greatly increased the leverage load on the cam caps which it is mounted to...which is already under engineered torque spec guidlines...and by raising the clamping point as high as you have?...you just increased the leverage and stress on those cam cap mounting points expotentially so?...

Speaking as a life long R&D Prototype machinist/fabricator?...i wish you the best but have serious concerns that you just may crack your cam caps when you hit sustained high rpms where that cam chain damper is working it's hardest at taming the wiley high rev cam chain dynamics.

L8R, Bill.

 

[Gixx1300R]

(JINKSTER @ Jul. 07 2007,15:40) To be honest with you?...I have serious doubts and even more serious "concerns" as by thickening the billet stock as much as you have....which mandated use of longer bolts?...you've just greatly increased the leverage load on the cam caps which it is mounted to...which is already under engineered torque spec guidlines...and by raising the clamping point as high as you have?...you just increased the leverage and stress on those cam cap mounting points expotentially so?...

Speaking as a life long R&D Prototype machinist/fabricator?...i wish you the best but have serious concerns that you just may crack your cam caps when you hit sustained high rpms where that cam chain damper is working it's hardest at taming the wiley high rev cam chain dynamics.

L8R, Bill.

Jinkster you have always had serious concerns with no matter what I post. As a long time fabricater and engine builder I see a need to have over engineered parts. I have a keen understanding as to why the parts failed. I test not only harmonics but as sheer factors,heat expansion,torque factors as well as many other factors. The cam chain guide did not fail from high pressure factors. It failed from harmonics at it weakest point. Dont get the 2 confused.

 

[GIXERHP]

Looks cool!

 

[JINKSTER]

(Gixx1300R @ Jul. 07 2007,14:08)

(JINKSTER @ Jul. 07 2007,15:40) To be honest with you?...I have serious doubts and even more serious "concerns" as by thickening the billet stock as much as you have....which mandated use of longer bolts?...you've just greatly increased the leverage load on the cam caps which it is mounted to...which is already under engineered torque spec guidlines...and by raising the clamping point as high as you have?...you just increased the leverage and stress on those cam cap mounting points expotentially so?...

Speaking as a life long R&D Prototype machinist/fabricator?...i wish you the best but have serious concerns that you just may crack your cam caps when you hit sustained high rpms where that cam chain damper is working it's hardest at taming the wiley high rev cam chain dynamics.

L8R, Bill.

Jinkster you have always had serious concerns with no matter what I post. As a long time fabricater and engine builder I see a need to have over engineered parts. I have a keen understanding as to why the parts failed. I test not only harmonics but as sheer factors,heat expansion,torque factors as well as many other factors. The cam chain guide did not fail from high pressure factors. It failed from harmonics at it weakest point. Dont get the 2 confused.

actually?..i never claimed to "know exactly why" your oem damper failed...but i do know this...there's 10's possibly 100's of thousands of stock oem dampers that haven't failed...i would suspect any of several possibles from my viewpoint...some being...

1. The hole punched in the formed sheet stock damper propogated a crack...possibly due to micro-fractures about the hole..possibly from dull or inproperly administered tooling.

2. Defective Material...possibly due to...

a. poor alloying practices in a heat code batch of material supplied and/or..

b. Improper forming that resulted in work hardened/stress of the material and/or?....

c. Improper heat treat related issues and or?

a slight combo of allll of the above which resulted in a failed part...but i do know these three things...

1. Suzi went the distance in the weight saving department to go as far as to hydraulically suspend a magnesium valve cover in oil filled rubber grommet grooves using shoulder bolts...i find it ludicris to arbitrarily slam a huge hunk of aluminum in there in an attempt too..

2. Repair what seems to be an extremely small percentage of failed cam chain dampers...especially when a more logocal fix would be to simply weld a doubler plate on the existing part to strengthen it without slamming a huge hunk of aluminum under your magnesium valve cover and finally?...but most importantly?..

3. Dude...you have no idea how much extra load and leverage you are appling directly to the cam caps by using such long bolts...you've elevated the stress moment considerably on what are not just "cast aluminum parts"....but...cast aluminum parts that were designed to be as light and minimalistic as possible...i already have a good idea what the result is going to be in the end...sooner or later is anybodys guess.

and btw...your part is definantly overbuilt but it is in no way "over-engineered"...he11..you haven't even tested it yet.

and back on the farm?...i wish you no ill bud...matter fact?..i'm try'in ta save ya some possible future grief...for a 2nd time...

L8R, Bill.

 

[over200]

(JINKSTER @ Jul. 07 2007,15:40)

(Gixx1300R @ Jul. 07 2007,11:49)

(JINKSTER @ Jul. 07 2007,14:45) 1. Why would you seek patent before test verification?

2. I hope you took some real close measurements cause to me?...it doesn't look like your valve cover is going to fit back on...things are pretty tight under there and your chunck of billet stock looks about twice as tall as the original...which barely squeezes in under there.

and finally?...

3. Are you the only one who has had a cam chain damper fail?...cause this is the first i've ever heard/seen this happening....anybody else?...cause i'm figuring this was an isolated case of "defective material".

L8R, Bill.

1. Because I'm 100% sure it will work

2. It fits

3. There have been numerous failures. Check with Richard Albans of TTS Engineering in the U.K

"1. Because I'm 100% sure it will work"

then why are you testing as stated in your...

"I will begin the testing phase next week. I will measure the chain guide material,run it up to 1000 miles and see what the wear pattern is. I will first do this at 10,50 100 250 500 750 and 1000 miles. The White material is..."

comment?

To be honest with you?...I have serious doubts and even more serious "concerns" as by thickening the billet stock as much as you have....which mandated use of longer bolts?...you've just greatly increased the leverage load on the cam caps which it is mounted to...which is already under engineered torque spec guidlines...and by raising the clamping point as high as you have?...you just increased the leverage and stress on those cam cap mounting points expotentially so?...

Speaking as a life long R&D Prototype machinist/fabricator?...i wish you the best but have serious concerns that you just may crack your cam caps when you hit sustained high rpms where that cam chain damper is working it's hardest at taming the wiley high rev cam chain dynamics.

L8R, Bill.

Hey Jinkster I would have to Strongly disagree with you on this...It sounds like your almost attacking the guy about this....Well let me put my 2 bits in this.....Maybe I don't know what Im talking about....But I can tell you Im personally a very detailed oriented person and my intuitions are right on 95% of the time........

I have had the Exact same problem with this cam chain guide.....with Two of them to be exact...The first one snapped off on just one of the little ears bolt was still torqued in with the remainder of the ear....It was a clean break luckily.could have caused so serious and Very Expensive damage!!!.....So a buddy of mine had an extra put it on torqued it down with lock tight and on I went not too painful....But I remeber a little voice inside my head saying...There sure isn't a whole lot of meat where those bolts make contact....Pretty Cheesy!!!.....That was about 2 months ago...Bout 3 weeks ago out with a couple friends riding did a couple High Boost roll ons and whataya know there's that sound again...Im like another one...This is rediculous!!....Got home take it All apart... Which BTW is allot of work to access one little part...and what do we have here both bolts had backed up and almost ready to fall out...so this time the rattling wasn't from a break but because the whole piece was rattleing....Lucky again...Avoided Catastrophy.....But upon Very Close Inspection of the guide there was a hairline stress crack at one of the ears again I could literally take it in my fingers and try to bend the ear and I could see movement....That is just not cutting it....It is a cheap flimsy piece of metal.....which Obviously was engineered for the Vigors of a stock motor....Which is fine for guy that is perfectly content with a stocker.Hey No Problem ....But for the guy that has Huge Bank... Countless Time and Effort into their machines and R running Big HP Bikes.....Which you probably don't realize just how many there are!!..The oem guide is Less than Satisfactory.....It's not a performance part....But a Safety Part.....and if there is an upgrade that will protect MY Investment from Catastrophy...Im all about it...Sign me up!!!...This is a Great Idea and I remeber thinking after the first one...I wonder if there is a billet upgrade??....and sure enough my intuition has come true...I am more than willing to put my bike up for Testing!!!...With my experience with oem I'll take my chances with the Billet upgrade....and if it will save other owners..( not the Stock guy's mind you)..the pain of failure....again Im All for It!!

 

[bradsbusa]

wow who won that round and when is the bell gonna ring for the next one

 

[over200]

Not looking to go back and forth...Just looking at the Glass Half Full instead of empty.....and I feel at the very least if your running High Hp this is an upgrade that is inexpensive and could possibly save someone from a painful experience....No different that the safety of a Billet Sprocket cover....which is triple the cost of this part!

 

[JINKSTER]

(over200 @ Jul. 08 2007,02:48) Not looking to go back and forth...Just looking at the Glass Half Full instead of empty.....and I feel at the very least if your running High Hp this is an upgrade that is inexpensive and could possibly save someone from a painful experience....No different that the safety of a Billet Sprocket cover....which is triple the cost of this part!

i'm not looking to go back and forth either and to all the popcorn eaters out there?..this is NOT a boxing match...this is me trying to "HELP" avert what i'm seeing as a new product (and apparently needed for turboed busa) that has the potential to induce a catastrophic event for all parties...points as follows...

1. The 2 threaded holes in the cast aluminum cam caps to which this part mounts are tapped directly into cast aluminum and only rated to withstand 7ftlbs of torque or you'll strip them out.

2. These holes are tapped into two relatively small raised pylons of cast aluminum.

3. The stock oem damper baseplate is very thin...with short mounting bolts...which reduces the LEVERAGE against those cast alum. mounting points.

Bottom line?..imnsho?..the new bolts can NOT be that long...they will apply excessive leverage and increased harmonics to the diminutive threaded mounting pylons which will result in either bolts that keep loosening up (no matter how much you loctite them) and/or?...stripped threads and/or cracked mounting pylons in you cam cap covers.

Some helpful suggestions?...sure...The proper way to "redesign this part" would be to replicate the exact oem configs but upgrade the baseplate by using a high end alloy/material such as S7 shock resistant tool steel...if you didn't have the means to deal with that?...you could make a beefier baseplate out of a lesser grade material and increase thickness by maybe 2-4 x's max and then use pocket machining methods to create gusseted webbing at all the stress point areas and wind up with a far stronger baseplate with a minimal leverage increase at the mounting points....but just slamming a huge chunck of barstock aluminum with real long countersunk mounting bolts on those two poor 'lil threaded cast aluminum pylons?

and you'll either destroy the cast aluminum threads or crack your cam cap covers.

I'm done here folks...some folks gotta learn the hard way....and they will.

L8R, Bill.

 

[over200]

I can understand and appreciate that viewpoint....I know in any case there has to be one that is " redesigned" to fix the problem...I know I have Zero Confidence in the oem one from my experience alone...As far as the longer bolts...why should that matter if the same length of bolt is seated in the threads and the extra length is compensated in the thickness of the part?...Sure that part could be trimmed down some im sure but even as is sits now is sure appears to be a stronger piece that the oem....actually there shouldn't be a major amount of pressure on that plate anyhow??..You agree??....So for the oem to even develop a stress crack...which was in the same spot on both of mine just tells me that it is a weak link in that spot.....and again I get what your saying about the two pilliars..I agree...but I just think there should be enough pressure on it to snap a pilliar...just my thought...and hey I could be wrong.....Only thing Im 100% sure on is my thoughts personally on the oem one!!

 

[JINKSTER]

(over200 @ Jul. 08 2007,05:43) I can understand and appreciate that viewpoint....I know in any case there has to be one that is " redesigned" to fix the problem...I know I have Zero Confidence in the oem one from my experience alone...As far as the longer bolts...why should that matter if the same length of bolt is seated in the threads and the extra length is compensated in the thickness of the part?...Sure that part could be trimmed down some im sure but even as is sits now is sure appears to be a stronger piece that the oem....actually there shouldn't be a major amount of pressure on that plate anyhow??..You agree??....So for the oem to even develop a stress crack...which was in the same spot on both of mine just tells me that it is a weak link in that spot.....and again I get what your saying about the two pilliars..I agree...but I just think there should be enough pressure on it to snap a pilliar...just my thought...and hey I could be wrong.....Only thing Im 100% sure on is my thoughts personally on the oem one!!

My observations and answers to your ?'s...

"As far as the longer bolts...why should that matter if the same length of bolt is seated in the threads and the extra length is compensated in the thickness of the part?..."

Because you've ELEVATED the bolt heads clamping point...which in turn has moved the stress point higher and further away from the actual mounting points...which in turn expotentially increases the leverage applied too those two mounting points...which isn't a continued flat clamping surface as the damper baseplate BRIDGES ACROSS the intake/exhaust side cam cap covers...from one small mounting point to the other.

And because it bridges across two mounting points instead of being clamped to a solid flat surface?...The basic oem design permits the oem damper baseplate to flex...and it appears to me that the baseplate material did not slowly crack..but..."shattered"...like a piece of glass...and the example above shattered right where i would expect it to with increased cam chain inertia...at the "LEAD-IN SIDE"..right where the damper is taking the brunt of the increased cam chain harmonics/dynamics...which over-flexed/worked and fatigued and work hardened the oem alloy.

"sure appears to be a stronger piece that the oem.."

absolutely...and to my way of thinking and experience...it's quite possible that's it's TOO STRONG...and completely non-flexing...which in turn will transfer and exert the entire cam chain forces into those two aluminum thread mounting points..with vastly increased leverage.

L8R, Bill.

 

[05BusaLe]

What if the part was reshaped to fit around the caps and bolt to the two inner cap bolts that it now goes over? As well as the 2 stock mounting tabs!

 

[over200]

Understood.....But I would think that plate should Not flex as in over time the weak spot will break as it did...isn't that what the softer material on the bottom side that rides on top of the chain for...."The Flexing"??..I mean if your chain is tightened to the proper tension there really shouldn't be ALLOT of pressure on it....I would think the whole purpose of the part is to Dampen the Vibration that would be associated with the chain?

I think the problem with the oem one is in that spot on the ear where there is such a SMALL amount of material...I mean there practically nothing there.....Im sure if that piece was suppose to have ALLOT of tension on it they would have engineered it to withstand that.....again in most cases oof stock application Im sure the oem is probably adequate!

H

 

[JINKSTER]

(05BusaLe @ Jul. 08 2007,06:19) What if the part was reshaped to fit around the caps and bolt to the two inner cap bolts that it now goes over? As well as the 2 stock mounting tabs!

that would definantly firm things up a bit and reduce the stresses applied to the threaded cast aluminum holes but imho?...that's not the problem with this design..the problem is the material is too weak and thin to deal with turbo'ed punch yet...the cam cap cover mounting points weren't designed to handle as much leverage as WILL BE APPLIED with those long bolts raising the leveraged stress point that high up...now i didn't measure the thickness of the stock oem baseplate because as of a day or two ago?..this is the first i've ever heard of such damper failures (which seems to only affect boosted busa's) however...the stock oem damper baseplate appeared to me to be about 1 1/2-2mm's thick...(roughly .060-.080 inches)...i would think it would be just fine to increase that thickness 2-3 fold without inducing an enormouse and undue amount of increased leverage stress on the mounting points such as the example i see here will..which appears to have raised the leveraged stress point by severly over-built margin.

Oh...he could simply countersink the holes deeper and use shorter bolts thereby decreasing the stress/leverage...and get away with it...going to 1/4" thick at most...but then?...that would defeat having the need to use such a honkingly huge chunck of alum. bar stock...then?...he could mill away the excess using gussted webbing to retain 80-90% of the same strength increase values...but that would require more thought and machining time.

L8R, Bill.

 

[JINKSTER]

(over200 @ Jul. 08 2007,06:24) Understood.....But I would think that plate should Not flex as in over time the weak spot will break as it did...isn't that what the softer material on the bottom side that rides on top of the chain for...."The Flexing"??..I mean if your chain is tightened to the proper tension there really shouldn't be  ALLOT of pressure on it....I would think the whole purpose of the part is to Dampen the Vibration that would be associated with the chain?

I think the problem with the oem one is in that spot on the ear where there is such a SMALL amount of material...I mean there practically nothing there.....Im sure if that piece was suppose to have ALLOT of tension on it they would have engineered it to withstand that.....again in most cases oof stock application Im sure the oem is probably adequate!

H

no.....that shid is black delrin...hard as a rock...it's made to guide metal moving parts without wearing the metal..and it sacrifices (wears) itself instead of the cam chain links but...just barely..and lasts a reeeeeal long time...so no...the black delrin is very hard...if it were any softer?...it would wear away in a heartbeat...and on that note?...it appears that the new and improved version is using white nylon...possibly with a percentage of teflon additive....that will wear very quickly as compared to black delrin...which is why i suspect he will be doing "wear checks" throughout the testing of his already patented part.

L8R, Bill.