blowit

I agree that Solidworks is VERY capable and since it and Catia are made my the same co, you can bet they operate similar. Catia basically advances in the analysis area. Composites, simulation, wireframe, 3D point cloud configuration, HVAC design, wireharness design, CNC machining, etc. You can certainly get a lot of ad ons in Solidworks though. I am not real sure where the line is drawn where you are better to go to Catia. I think there are some really badass workbenches in Catia though. We really would like to have an all-in-one solution for CAD/CAM BUT, IMO, Catia is hugely lacking in modern machining paths and methods. They also are not even close to easy to use...I just hope someday, Catia will close the gap and we can get rid of MCX for good.

Basically my dad toasted his ATT flip phone. Curious which might be interchangable? It uses a SIM. He needs NOTHING fancy at all, just a phone.. I have a few Tmobiles but when I pop his SIM into my phone I get a password question. He does not have anything like that enabled... Are sprints, etc compatible? Is there an easy way to enable my Tmobile phones for him?

We have some jokes going around about bobcam. Once you call them, you will never get rid of them. Price starts in the thousands and ends in the hundreds. Personally, they could not pay me to use it. We use Gibbs and Mastercam. I am familiar with Pro-E but trust me, if you are to invest in a Solids program, you will not thank yourself enough for Catia. Program is the best, period.. I am just waiting for their CAM side to catch up. Gibbs and Mastercam have solids benches but to be honest, it is like owning an Audi, them someone puts you in a Ugo.. Solids no worky so good. You also do not get analysis, assembly, sheetmetal, etc. Cat can do it all...

We are in need of some junk shocks here. Not wanting to invest much, if anything. Bent up, broke, leaking, etc. Really prefer piggybacks but will consider anything. MUST be aftermarket performance shocks, not OEM and not walmart specials. Elka, PEP, Works, etc. I realize some can be repaired. We are looking for the ones that cannot be repaired or would cost too much to repair..

Agreed that comp delta is something to be concerned about. However, the vid seems to show more problems wtih jetting and carb balance. Check sync on carbs and clean pilot jets. Just sounds like pilots have issues. Brandon

What Corel are you using? I was just searching around to see what they could do. I was not able to find much on a 3D program and nothing yet on any CAM capable systems. Just curious. I like to know what is out there. We used to get all kinds of spam for something called "corel draw" or something. Catia is the only one I know of with effective CAD and CAM platforms but will admit that the CAM system is not so user friendly. Solid works seems to be the new "in" for solid models and works very similar to Catia. Probably because it is also made by Dassault. They just do not include a lot of the analysis functions such as FEA with solid works. Great program though...

You need Catia.. I would not waste the time with modeling unless you have other analysis or simulation workbenches. The flat pattern is most important so really, just using a 2D system would be easier. Also, I believe there are some stock Banshee cylinder models floating around somewhere. I am not familiar with Coral to know what file types it can deal with. I think your time will be better spent working the 2D layout and studying the port time effects. What you would be able to do I guess is if you proceed with the 3D, you can do a surface etch or flat pattern of your port layout and apply it. Remember your bore size though. That changes things. Brandon

Ah, I think it was mentioned as a zero deck motor somewhere in the posts. My bad. That certainly makes more sense now.. B

Your numbers as well seem a bit high. are you using a 110 rod and 54 stroke from zero deck? I was just trying to figure out how you arrived at your figures or what engine criteria was used. I seem to always seem to find some level of discrepancy between calculated and degree wheel. I don't think we have but that one to bed to determine why.. Brandon

It is important to remember that though the actual "porting" process of cylinders is not rocket science, the knowledge required to truly understand it enough to know how to improve them really is. Most builders have learned from other builders work but if no one would ever get to see other's work, this would truly be a interesting platform.... After all, if all those books were NOT available, how many people would begin to understand porting at all?? I don't consider port timings to be a secret by any means because if they are not executed properly and other geometries done wrong, it won't much matter. There just is not a magic set of numbers that work for every customer. Rider weight, altitude, fuel, pipes, use, etc , etc all play in to what timings might be optimal. I will add from an engineer's perspective, if you are going to use someone else's calculator system as gospel, you are already at a disadvantage because you are not sure if that is actually right. It is important to prove the data to yourself. IE, calculate, find "your" value, cross check with the internet calcs, check with a timing wheel, etc to ensure accuracy.

What were you using for stock port heights? Some of those numbers are good, some are not. The last one is a bit off. Just not sure how you are calculating this. I dialed in on your stock timings and them applied those to the other setups. Some were on, some were not. Can you post your formula? Brandon

The design is they give the effect of a smaller carb at smaller throttle openings. They have some positive affect on throttle response at part throttle but by physics laws, they cannot do anything but reduce airflow through the carb at full throttle. There is always a static boundary layer of air surrounding stationary objects in an air stream. Just means that if I throw them on the flow bench and compare to an open bore carb, they will undoubtedly flow less air. In summary, improved throttle response but possible reduction in over all HP.

Yeah, I probably misread the thread here and had "cub" on my mind.

I probably mislead somewhere in my posts. Stock heads modded for Cheetah cubs are what we have been doing. 4mil-14mil. We are now working on a super cub head at 72mm bore. Other castings will require a different head design. We also do many mods for stock cylinder configurations like the ever popular 4mil LR.

No, we are still doing testing on a 72mm but that is as far as I would feel comfortable doing. Just not leaving enough sealing surface after that. We have done plenty of the 68mm without issue. A lot of guys running the 4mil, 7mil, and 10mil with 68mm bore and we have plenty of those setup right now.

D, we are testing a 72mm but that gets the sealing surface pretty thin. No thinner than an oring I guess but I like to maintain our design minimums of 5% of bore for mating surface area. I suspect the 72mm will work if everything is assembled to perfection but the testing will have to prove that to us. I guess if the demand was there, we could design a fire ring system into the 72mm to ensure proper seal but that will drive price up a bit. 72mm would be absolute max for that head though. 68mm has been proven very reliable for us running the 573 series pistons.

Yeah mike, that is in line with with our data for those cylinders and how we cut your head. If you have any questions after you get it setup, give me a call or email. We don't get demand for those RZ heads much at all.

Yep. We just did 4 of them for some guys in TX. 68mm bore is no biggy but we are still testing 72mm. That of course requires special gaskets but sure is a "sneaky" way to go. We also do 7mil and 10mil configurations for the cub and up to a 7mil for stock cylinder bikes but there are certain things we cannot do with the stock head due to the amount of material we have to work with. We are considering doing some quick epoxy work on a couple of R&D pieces so we can push even further with them.

To throw another option out, we have been modding stock banshee heads for the Cheetah for some time now. We set them up in many different flavors from a basic 350, pump fuel motor, up to 4 and 7 mil stock cylinder and 68bore 4mil, 7mil, 10mil, cubs. 513, 795, 573 series pistons. Most of our customers are preferring the gasket for reliability. Just a thought. Mull Engineering

Again, what tester did you use?

Probably not. It is not uncommon when assembling vertically split cases to get the crank biased to one side which kind of rubs on the case a bit. You can usually tap the crank over just a touch and it will clear. If your crank rotates and rubs only in one spot, I would be concerned the crank is not trued very well. You might double check with your builder but I commonly see cranks that are "trued" that have .005" of runout which will not last very long. Just something to look at. Mull Engineering

Our work would "look" pretty much the same but we have a little more range in what we can do with a Banshee head. standard 350 motors, strokers (4mm and 7mm), big bore, cheetah cub, etc. We are also getting ready to test a 72mm bore but that will be pushing it with these heads.

I would recommend it if you can find one. We have to remove quite a bit of material to get that squish area corrected. You are probably around .045-.050" on squish if the pistons come up to zero deck. I would like to see .010 off that number.

Thanks for the feedback Mike. The RZ heads do not give us as much to work with as the Banshee head but they certainly need all they can get. Please drop me a line when you run it to see how you like it. We can do a little more with it but some areas get pretty thin and we like to keep reliability at the top of the list.

Man, and there I thought a nasty cam and flowmasters was cool. Ain't nuthin like the sound of a sick cow mooing (Honda with monza tip). Hell, I think I should make a CO2 scare-a-rator. Just purge that fine ass CO2 near the windshield and all the chicks will want some....