Ace UCE project.

[GSS]

Ace,
Excellent! Thank you for taking this on. I shall certainly be following with interest and will look forward to potentially getting in line for an ACE job on my UCE..........where is ScooterBob?........it would be great to get some insight from him as well. This looks like the beginning of a great project!

GSS

[raderj]

Ace, have you considered the 535 piston that nfield sells?  Has anyone used it with success?

[ace.cafe]

Ace, have you considered the 535 piston that nfield sells?  Has anyone used it with success?

Yes, I'm aware of it. I don't know about anyone using it in a UCE,except Scooter Bob, and he's not with CMW anymore. It's actually a piston for an AVL.
At any rate, once we get the G5, and can do some inspection and measurements, we'll know what it can take.
If that piston is fine, then that's an option that can be used. If not, then pistons can be made.

If it can take a 535 overbore, then that's something that I'd like to do. it's worth a couple hp to do that, and it strengthens the torque curve  all thru the range.
It all depends on the thickness of the cylinder bore liner in the barrel.
But if it can't take the 535(87mm) overbore,  maybe it might take an 86mm overbore, and we can make pistons for that, or anything it can take. So, the options are wide open, and we just have to look at the bore liner thickness and see what is safe to do.

I think that whatever is used for a piston, we'll want  to set the deck height for a proper squish band .

For me, the critical factors are doing things that meet the desired results that the users want,  at costs low enough that they will pay, and with installation within their capabilities, so they can do it at home, or their dealer/mechanic can do it.
I have this feeling that a moderate power boost that is not too expensive, and easy to install will be attactive to the UCE owners generally.
And for people who want to go beyond that, we can go as far as they want to go with the modifications. The budget is always the limiting factor with stuff like this.

[HMR]

Hey Ace,
That's good news...

FYI: http://racedynamics.in/products/powertronic

With all the proposed power upgrades I think handling issues will have to be looked at concurrently. The UCE is a much more compact engine than its predecessors mounted much the same way on a marginally modified frame and that I believe has changed the weight distribution too much to the front... my layman 2 cents...

http://youtu.be/X7ABWmHDZh8
watch at about :20 secs into the video

HMR
Mumbai

A little more info comes to light.
The ECU cuts off the fuel pump at 5500rpm.

This means that if we plan to keep costs down, we can keep the rpms under that point, so we don't have to buy a new ECU or Power Commander. Nor do we have to fiddle with the hydraulic lifters.
For a cost sensitive build, that would be the redline.

For higher rpms than that, we'd have to spend hundreds for an ECU change and new maps, or go to a carburetor. And we'd also have to do the lifters and the valve springs, and it would be more stress on the bottom end, and we might probably have to do cams to explot that rpm range.
If the aim is to stay under $1k budget, then I think it's best to work within the 5500rpm existing redline.

And, Welcome Back, Nigel!
 
.

[ace.cafe]

Hey Ace,
That's good news...

With all the proposed power upgrades I think handling issues will have to be looked at concurrently. The UCE is a much more compact engine than its predecessors mounted much the same way on a marginally modified frame and that I believe has changed the weight distribution too much to the front... my layman 2 cents...

http://youtu.be/X7ABWmHDZh8
watch at about :20 secs into the video

HMR
Mumbai

Hi HMR,
Yes, the C5 has been known to exhibit some of that squirrelly behavior, but some of the guys seemed to have solved most of that with some shock bolt adjustments(or something like that), from what I remember. Also, I think that the factory has dialed in some extra trail with the new front ends.
Anyway, it doesn't happen with the G5, and I think the C5 issue has been solved.
But, I'll pay attention to that.

And we'll be in touch with those guys at RD in Bangalore.

[HMR]

Hi HMR,
Yes, the C5 has been known to exhibit some of that squirrelly behavior, but some of the guys seemed to have solved most of that with some shock bolt adjustments(or something like that), from what I remember. Also, I think that the factory has dialed in some extra trail with the new front ends.
Anyway, it doesn't happen with the G5, and I think the C5 issue has been solved.
But, I'll pay attention to that.

And we'll be in touch with those guys at RD in Bangalore.

Ace

I have 4 REs, all older generation, carburetted. I have ridden the UCE 500 extensively since 2007 but have not been totally convinced about the bike. The newer models are much better with the remapped ECU and front end tweaks but its yet to win me over. Hopefully, the ACE Classic hot rod will help me change my mind

Let me know if you need any help from India on this project...

Regards
HMR
Mumbai

[ace.cafe]

Ace

I have 4 REs, all older generation, carburetted. I have ridden the UCE 500 extensively since 2007 but have not been totally convinced about the bike. The newer models are much better with the remapped ECU and front end tweaks but its yet to win me over. Hopefully, the ACE Classic hot rod will help me change my mind

Let me know if you need any help from India on this project...

Regards
HMR
Mumbai

HMR,
Yes, I understand the feelings. I have become very attached to the older models with the Fireball, and this is a different bike.
But the fact that the UCE is a different bike gives opportunities to do some different things, and have a great result in its own way.

I'm very much looking forward to making this UCE project something special.

[Desi Bike]

I'll be following this project for sure. Although a freer flowing exhaust will help, I'm not to keen on an increase in noise over the stock torpedo. It just seems that most exchange mufflers/silencers increase the noise and backfarts far too much for my liking.

Increase in torque and over all power at the same sound output? Can it be done?

[ace.cafe]

I'll be following this project for sure. Although a freer flowing exhaust will help, I'm not to keen on an increase in noise over the stock torpedo. It just seems that most exchange mufflers/silencers increase the noise and backfarts far too much for my liking.

Increase in torque and over all power at the same sound output? Can it be done?

Yes, it can be done, but it might not meet styling expectations. It would require a large size silencer chamber. Much larger than most people would find attractive on a motorcycle.

[Desi Bike]

Hmmm. Bigger than the stock torpedo, might have to pass then. That's about my limit for size. I kinda like the look of the thing but its subjective as to what people like on there own bikes. Has anyone gutted the stock one? Does it flow better and still control the noise?

[Ducati Scotty]

I did find out that there is no outer race on the big end roller. So, that's not so good.

I'm having trouble visualizing this.  Is it just inner race around the crank and then ball bearings riding on the raw aluminum of the case?

Scott

[ace.cafe]

I'm having trouble visualizing this.  Is it just inner race around the crank and then ball bearings riding on the raw aluminum of the case?

Scott

No, it's a roller bearing in the big-end of the con-rod, with long rollers that some might call needle rollers. But they are a little too thick to be properly termed needle rollers.

There are actually no "races" on this bearing, in proper terms.
The inner race is just the surface of the crankpin, and the outer race is just the eye of the con-rod. The rollers are contained in a cage which holds them in place, and the entire caged-roller assembly is captured on both sides by the thrust washers inside each of the flywheels.
I'm quite certain that this is for reducing manufacturing costs for RE.

In the more rugged versions of this kind of roller bearing(like the Alpha bearing), the surface of the crankpin would be hardened, and there would be a hardened cylindrical race pressed into the eye of the con-rod and honed to precise clearance fit.
This is a much more expensive way of doing this bearing because the crankpin must be specially made with enough surface hardness for contact with the roller, and the outer race must be hard too. Then the outer race must be pressed-in, and machined flush with the rod outer dimensions, and then honed to .0085"-.001" clearance for the race-to-rollers. This amounts to over $300 per unit, just to get a bearing like that done in each bike. We do this as a regular thing, so I'm very familiar with the procedure.

The main bearings are fitted into the crankcase, which are bigger roller bearings. And they have outer races that press into the cases with an interference fit, and inner races that press onto the crankshaft end-stubs with an interference fit.
That's perfectly fine, and not what we are talking about with the UCE big-end.
The issue under discussion without the race is the con-rod big-end roller bearing.

[Ducati Scotty]

Crystal clear, thank you.

Aside from a full new crank and con rod are there any other possibilities to beef this up?

Scott

[Arizoni]

IMO, it is indeed too bad that the lower connecting rod design didn't utilize a roller bearing that had a hardened outer sleeve which could have been pressed into place.
That would have provided a very hard (HRC 63-65) smooth, durable surface for the rollers to ride on and when all is said and done would have cost less than the existing design.

Speaking of this roller bearing design with the rollers running directly in the connecting rods bore it would be a good idea to check the surface hardness there.
I assume they case hardened the surface by carburizing or nitriding? 
If they left the surface at a hardness below HRC 60 that could be a weak link in the design.

As a side note to Ace, I think you forgot a zero?  I think the clearance should have been .00085-.0010?

Getting to Scotty's thought, because the CPU limits the engine speed to 5500 rpm, the lower bearings will probably not need beefing up.
While this is fine for the "low cost" version that will probably increase the torque a bit it will be an issue if much of an increase in horsepower is desired.

Increasing horse power usually requires increasing the max speed of the engine.

[ace.cafe]

IMO, it is indeed too bad that the lower connecting rod design didn't utilize a roller bearing that had a hardened outer sleeve which could have been pressed into place.
That would have provided a very hard (HRC 63-65) smooth, durable surface for the rollers to ride on and when all is said and done would have cost less than the existing design.

Speaking of this roller bearing design with the rollers running directly in the connecting rods bore it would be a good idea to check the surface hardness there.
I assume they case hardened the surface by carburizing or nitriding?  
If they left the surface at a hardness below HRC 60 that could be a weak link in the design.

As a side note to Ace, I think you forgot a zero?  I think the clearance should have been .00085-.0010?

Getting to Scotty's thought, because the CPU limits the engine speed to 5500 rpm, the lower bearings will probably not need beefing up.
While this is fine for the "low cost" version that will probably increase the torque a bit it will be an issue if much of an increase in horsepower is desired.

Increasing horse power usually requires increasing the max speed of the engine.

Yes, thank you, I forgot a zero. .00085"-.001" clearance, race-to-roller.

I don't know if they did anything for the hardness of the con-rod eye. As far as anecdotal reports are concerned, I have heard that it is the crankpin that is softer and wearing out. Not the rod. But this is based on very small sampling of verbal reports from India, so I'm not too sure how pervasive this is.

I agree about the low cost version staying under  5500 rpm. It makes sense from a lot of angles.
As far as anything hotter than that goes, if I'm having to tear down the bottom end anyway, I'm putting an Alpha bearing in there, or something with a fully-raced set-up with proper hardness levels.
And similar main bearings that I use in the Fireball.
Then, I can not worry about that stuff, and put the pedal to the metal with the rest of the mods, if desired.

To tell you my guess, I think that the low cost option will be the popular option.
I have found with the Fireball that people don't want to be tearing down their engines, and they like simpler mods. If we didn't have to do the Iron Barrel bottom-end jobs, we would have a lot more Fireballs on the road right now. And with the UCE bottom end being better than the Iron Barrel, we can exploit that into an easy-to-install mod package which doesn't cost as much. The more of the factory stuff we can use, the less costly the mods will be.