Isn't that effectively TDC?jason frost wrote:You dont find TDC, you just find when the piston stops moving, then set it to 0, easy
TDC the measuring of.
It's not exactly TDC because of the dwell, but it is the at the top of piston travel.DigDug wrote:Isn't that effectively TDC?
I've seen several "tech sites" and even stickies book telling you to faff about finding exact TDC in the centre of the dwell. The gauge is measuring piston travel, if you think about it, the piston isn't moving here, so zeroing it anywhere at this time will give the exact same result. And makes looking for exact TDC a bit of a ridiculous thing to do
If the stroke and rod length is known then the piston travel distance can be calculated for a given degree setting. EG for a 58mm stroke/107 rod at 19 degrees BTDC the piston will be 1.9973mm down the bore. Simple trigonometry!
-
dirtyhandslopez
- registered user
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:15 am
- Location: Richmond Virginia, USA
- Contact:
That's all well and good Firedkp, provided that the con rod is exactly what it is suppose to be. With manufacturing tolerances being what they are, that isn't always the case, ie a 107mm con rod may not be exactly 107mm, 58mm stroke may not be exactly 58mm, so that would throw the whole equation out the window.
If using a dialguage and holding bracket isn't the best, easiest way, why did Innocenti proved two different size holding brackets(one 150's, one for 200's) to dealers? You'd think the manufactures would know what they were doing.
If you watch the dial closely when going to and past tdc, the dwell really isn't all that much to worry about in real world applications.
If using a dialguage and holding bracket isn't the best, easiest way, why did Innocenti proved two different size holding brackets(one 150's, one for 200's) to dealers? You'd think the manufactures would know what they were doing.
If you watch the dial closely when going to and past tdc, the dwell really isn't all that much to worry about in real world applications.
That's not going anywhere...
dirtyhandslopez wrote:That's all well and good Firedkp, provided that the con rod is exactly what it is suppose to be. With manufacturing tolerances being what they are, that isn't always the case, ie a 107mm con rod may not be exactly 107mm, 58mm stroke may not be exactly 58mm, so that would throw the whole equation out the window.
If using a dialguage and holding bracket isn't the best, easiest way, why did Innocenti proved two different size holding brackets(one 150's, one for 200's) to dealers? You'd think the manufactures would know what they were doing.
If you watch the dial closely when going to and past tdc, the dwell really isn't all that much to worry about in real world applications.
C’est la vie
I don't know what tolerances they are made to, but I've always thought they were precision engineered. If the rod/stroke are miles out, then what's the rest of it like? However, using the piston travel vs crank rotation in Sticky's, look what difference a 110mm vs 107mm rod makes to piston travel at 19 degrees, 0.01mm. So a rod 3mm longer and massively out of tolerance would only give a discrepancy of a fraction of a degree. With parallex error etc, you're probably going to get more discrepancy than that making the mark on mag housing.dirtyhandslopez wrote:That's all well and good Firedkp, provided that the con rod is exactly what it is suppose to be. With manufacturing tolerances being what they are, that isn't always the case, ie a 107mm con rod may not be exactly 107mm, 58mm stroke may not be exactly 58mm, so that would throw the whole equation out the window.
When using a pos stop and degree disc most on here seem to be marking 4 points (again totally unnecessary), piston stop marks, measuring and marking TDC, then measuring to mark firing point compounding this discrepancy.
dirtyhandslopez wrote:If using a dialguage and holding bracket isn't the best, easiest way, why did Innocenti proved two different size holding brackets(one 150's, one for 200's) to dealers? You'd think the manufactures would know what they were doing.
Againdirtyhandslopez wrote:If you watch the dial closely when going to and past tdc, the dwell really isn't all that much to worry about in real world applications.
-
dirtyhandslopez
- registered user
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:15 am
- Location: Richmond Virginia, USA
- Contact:
We both might be reading each others post wrong.
From what I can gather, you are saying there is no such thing as tdc becuause of the dwell factor and that using the trigonometry equation is the best way to go about it.
I say the best way IS find what is close as dammit to tdc(when the pistion is at the top of the bore=tdc in the real world)
then measure piston travel in mm backwards from tdc and make your marks.
The easiest way to know what measurement relates to what con/stroke etc is to look it up in the Sip Lambretta parts book or Sticky's
(if you have a copy, which I don't) .
Using this method, the discrepancy with be the width of the tool used to make the mark and how old the eyeballs are that are looking at said mark

From what I can gather, you are saying there is no such thing as tdc becuause of the dwell factor and that using the trigonometry equation is the best way to go about it.
I say the best way IS find what is close as dammit to tdc(when the pistion is at the top of the bore=tdc in the real world)
then measure piston travel in mm backwards from tdc and make your marks.
The easiest way to know what measurement relates to what con/stroke etc is to look it up in the Sip Lambretta parts book or Sticky's
Using this method, the discrepancy with be the width of the tool used to make the mark and how old the eyeballs are that are looking at said mark
That's not going anywhere...
I think you need to re-read my postsdirtyhandslopez wrote:
From what I can gather, you are saying there is no such thing as tdc becuause of the dwell factor and that using the trigonometry equation is the best way to go about it.
And all calculated for you by clever b*st*rds using trigonometrydirtyhandslopez wrote:The easiest way to know what measurement relates to what con/stroke etc is to look it up in the Sip Lambretta parts book or Sticky's![]()
(if you have a copy, which I don't) .
-
dirtyhandslopez
- registered user
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:15 am
- Location: Richmond Virginia, USA
- Contact:
So we are on the same page. Roughly.
Bet those smart b'tards used a calulator...It'd be well impressive if they did the math in their heads, without a pen or paper
Still, however they did it, glad they did, saves us all a lot of work.
Bet those smart b'tards used a calulator...It'd be well impressive if they did the math in their heads, without a pen or paper
That's not going anywhere...
-
10 inch Terror
- registered user
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:17 pm
- Xbox live gamer tag: No.
- Playstation gamer tag: PLEASE!
- Main scooter: Lambretta LI Imola 185
- Location: Farnborough Hampshire
- Contact:
So, will it work ? 
What confused me was, in your first post you said, tolerances in rod/stroke length would make the dial gauge process inaccurate, but then went on to say that, Innocenti deemed it the best, and that you used the method yourself. Totally contradictory.dirtyhandslopez wrote:So we are on the same page. Roughly.
If you're worried about tolerances, then you should, wind the piston down past the required "mm" and then back up to it (in the correct direction of rotation), this will eliminate any discrepancies due to backlash, caused by said poor tolerances in bearings etc.
