Topic: beehive (Read 8466 times)

rigidorbust · « **on:** July 21, 2014, 06:18:01 AM »

going beehive but, do i go with 5/16 or 7mm valve stem,i have a 2012 cvo ,is the heads the same on a cvo and a regular 2012

HILLSIDECYCLE.COM · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2014, 06:59:22 AM »

All The 110" heads we see are a 5/16" stem.
Scott

rigidorbust · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2014, 11:38:34 AM »

thanks

PanHeadRed · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2014, 04:25:09 PM »

Harley does not use beehive spring in their performance applications.

Ridgerunr · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2014, 08:55:18 PM »

Quote from: PanHeadRed on July 23, 2014, 04:25:09 PM

Harley does not use beehive spring in their performance applications.

And their overkill. 195lb springs for a 255 cam not needed.

flyin-r · « **Reply #5 on:** September 09, 2014, 12:01:16 AM »

Quote from: Ridgerunr on July 23, 2014, 08:55:18 PM

And their overkill. 195lb springs for a 255 cam not needed.

Exactly! The 110 lifter bores and rocker arm bushings wear out fast.

North Star · « **Reply #6 on:** September 09, 2014, 11:59:32 PM »

So why did HD choose to put in the heavy valve springs?

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #7 on:** September 10, 2014, 09:55:46 AM »

Must have been an engineering justification.
Well we have fixed that error in the aftermarket. The soft bushings too.

North Star · « **Reply #8 on:** September 10, 2014, 03:20:08 PM »

To remove/replace the valve springs, can you just remove the rocker box cover or do the heads have to be removed?

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #9 on:** September 10, 2014, 03:38:35 PM »

The springs can be changed with the heads on using the nub tool goodson.com

HILLSIDECYCLE.COM · « **Reply #10 on:** September 12, 2014, 05:10:50 AM »

Quote from: North Star on September 10, 2014, 03:20:08 PM

To remove/replace the valve springs, can you just remove the rocker box cover or do the heads have to be removed?

Best to pull the heads as other factors can/do come into play when doing this, what may seem, simple swap.
Scott

prodrag1320 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 12, 2014, 07:54:30 AM »

Quote from: HILLSIDECYCLE.COM on September 12, 2014, 05:10:50 AM

Best to pull the heads as other factors can/do come into play when doing this, what may seem, simple swap.
Scott

I agree,better to pull the heads

Doc 1 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 12, 2014, 09:22:10 AM »

Quote from: HD Street Performance on September 10, 2014, 09:55:46 AM

Must have been an engineering justification.
Well we have fixed that error in the aftermarket. The soft bushings too.

Harley uses these over kill springs so they will work with all their cams.

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #13 on:** September 12, 2014, 10:34:43 AM »

Thanks Doc makes sense.
Here is a link to the Nub tool

HILLSIDECYCLE.COM · « **Reply #14 on:** September 15, 2014, 08:08:04 AM »

The guy wanting to install a high(er)-lift cam may/may not benefit with that purchase vs labor dollars, for a one-time use, and as I said, many other factors come into play.
Scott

Dan_Lockwood · « **Reply #15 on:** September 15, 2014, 08:43:32 AM »

I thought that the "beehive" type spring being wound with oval wire versus round wire and the tapered upper end, was supposed to cut down on the harmonics that dual and triple springs exhibit???

Also with the lighter weight of just the one spring and the smaller keeper at the top, the valve float was supposed to also be reduced...

Assuming that the spring rate correct, and I'm sure they come in different rates, isn't the beehive a good thing to be using?

Just thought I would pose some positive aspects of the beehive and why it was designed originally.

Any thoughts?

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #16 on:** September 15, 2014, 10:13:16 AM »

Dan I agree. The beehives are a good product when used and speced properly. They don't work in all applications however.

Ridgerunr · « **Reply #17 on:** September 16, 2014, 10:39:22 AM »

Quote from: HD Street Performance on September 15, 2014, 10:13:16 AM

Dan I agree. The beehives are a good product when used and speced properly. They don't work in all applications however.

Let me ask this: if the behives in 103'ers are ok for .570 lift, anyone know why the use of the high seat pressure springs in the 110"?

Steve Cole · « **Reply #18 on:** September 16, 2014, 10:54:31 AM »

Quote from: Ridgerunr on September 16, 2014, 10:39:22 AM

Let me ask this: if the behives in 103'ers are ok for .570 lift, anyone know why the use of the high seat pressure springs in the 110"?

Just because people run them at higher lifts doesn't make it right. Also the 110 has larger valves that weigh more. Who knows the real answer, lots of opinions and lots of people say this is better than that. Funny thing is the opinions are on both sides of the fence! Both types of springs when used properly work great.

flyin-r · « **Reply #19 on:** September 16, 2014, 12:38:28 PM »

I can't help but believe that the high seat pressure of the stock springs in my 110 contributed to the worn out lifter bores I have in 69,000 miles. The excessive wear is on the thrust sides. ESP warranty will cover the cost of replacing the cases, but I'm on the hook for everything else.

GMR-PERFORMANCE · « **Reply #20 on:** September 16, 2014, 01:52:52 PM »

all things equal you can run less seat pressure with a beehive. As there is a reduction in mass . Does that mean the beehive is the best not really.

Ridgerunr · « **Reply #21 on:** September 16, 2014, 03:09:58 PM »

Quote from: GMR-PERFORMANCE on September 16, 2014, 01:52:52 PM

all things equal you can run less seat pressure with a beehive. As there is a reduction in mass . Does that mean the beehive is the best not really.

Best for what? The failures these guys are seeing are not with .640" lift cams, and stock 110" motors are not on the ragged edge. I don't think anyone is saying beehives are the best, but easier on the whole valve train than the heavy springs that come in them.
.550" lift (255) work fine with springs that are in the 103" heads. Know of several 103"/255 cam'd, 1 with 50,000+ miles and another with 70,000+ miles, no lifter failures or other problems.

GMR-PERFORMANCE · « **Reply #22 on:** September 16, 2014, 03:44:51 PM »

I am not dis agreeing . I feel the stock 110 head has more spring pressure that is needed. You cannot however compare a stock HD head to the CVO head either. A beehive is not going to be any easier or harder on anything.. Example look at the SE CNC head with a beehive spring, it just one more example of too much pressure. Lift also have nothing to do with it, A S&S 640 is super easy on the valve train, then look at say a short duration 590 lift stick that is good for nothing more than chewing up parts.. Just got to repair one of those set ups .. I know the crew on the right coast has it all figured out. Yep seat pressure at 200 and it was a rattling bucket of bolts. Tossed all the "super stuff" ran a basic 570 lift cam basic spring pack and it made more hp had the same tq curve and had zero valve train noise. ( we did have to replace rockers as they where ate up) but I just read where a shop stated that spring pressure was a internet myth.. Dunno just keep doing what we do

Steve Cole · « **Reply #23 on:** September 16, 2014, 04:37:39 PM »

Quote from: flyin-r on September 16, 2014, 12:38:28 PM

I can't help but believe that the high seat pressure of the stock springs in my 110 contributed to the worn out lifter bores I have in 69,000 miles. The excessive wear is on the thrust sides. ESP warranty will cover the cost of replacing the cases, but I'm on the hook for everything else.

Is this with a stock camshaft? Thrust side wear is NOT typically caused by valve spring pressure. That is typically the sign of an aggressive opening ramp on a camshaft. Most think of a lifter moving up and down but a camshaft has no way to do that. So it starts by pushing sideways on the lifter and the side load reduces as it climbs up the ramp of the camshaft. This side loading is very well known by any engine builder that has been around the block a time or two. With a camshaft we can gain better performance by getting aggressive on the ramps but there is a price to pay for doing it! Typically you gain noise and lifter wear at the same time. So use some aggressive ramp speeds and your going to hurt the lifter bore but if power is what your after it will win. With camshaft design you have to balance how much wear and noise your willing to life with as that will limit just what you can do.

Ridgerunr · « **Reply #24 on:** September 16, 2014, 04:55:42 PM »

Steve I agree that pressure is pressure wether double wound or beehive. Reason I talk about beehive is HD is already putting them in the smaller cu in motor so I just question (to myself mainly) why not the 110? After all HD has usually been about saving $$, iventory control, etc. etc. Any way in my old HTCC CNC heads I got rid of the OE 195# after a lifter failed and installed S&S 175# springs, with several .625" cams no valve float @ 6200 rpms, quiet and no lifter failures.

flyin-r · « **Reply #25 on:** September 16, 2014, 05:56:32 PM »

Steve,
Yes, I'm running the stock 110 (#255 cam). Do I have any reasonable hope of getting more miles out of the new cases? I still plan to go with the beehive springs.

GMR-PERFORMANCE · « **Reply #26 on:** September 16, 2014, 06:03:32 PM »

flyin ,....install a set of 600 avv beehive springs. They will work fine with a direct bolt in for that set up.

flyin-r · « **Reply #27 on:** September 16, 2014, 06:08:08 PM »

Quote from: GMR-PERFORMANCE on September 16, 2014, 06:03:32 PM

flyin ,....install a set of 600 avv beehive springs. They will work fine with a direct bolt in for that set up.

Thanks GMR. Will do.

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #28 on:** September 16, 2014, 10:56:45 PM »

Well I use the Beehives on the 110 heads. I do use the stock springs too on the low dollar jobs too with an explanation.
My spring dejour is the AV-6500s however which enables higher RPM control and room for upward growth with the proper valve protrusion.
Have had a set of heads back here that were hammered, rider hits 80-90 all day long and this one had 30K, pressure was within 5 lbs of new.
Never had a set break.

PanHeadRed · « **Reply #29 on:** September 17, 2014, 07:54:52 AM »

#175 lbs are not considered heavy springs.

.56" lift in 211 deg of crank rotation can be considered aggressive for a cam.

Ridgerunr · « **Reply #30 on:** September 17, 2014, 08:40:11 AM »

"#175 lbs are not considered heavy springs."

Agree. For most street machines, should be fine.

I don't have the expertise you guys that do heads for a living have, I'm relating my experience. The 175# springs in the HTCC heads I mentioned earlier, had over 50,000 hard miles on them.

HILLSIDECYCLE.COM · « **Reply #31 on:** September 17, 2014, 08:44:48 AM »

All of our Stage III and Stage IV Heads come standard equipped with .650" AV&V springs, from Goodson.
BTW, FWTFIW, we are currently manufacturing an HD cylinder head fixture(that I've used here now for over 20 years) for Goodson, to be sold exclusively thru them.

Handy multi-use tool.
Scott

HD Street Performance · « **Reply #32 on:** September 17, 2014, 09:56:46 AM »

I make my own tooling and currently working on an airfloat table fixture. Maybe goodson wants that.
175# is just a number out of context of the spring rate and what the pressure is over the nose at maximum lift. In other words it may be high or it may not. Plus 175# and lets say 400 over the nose may be spot on for a 2+ inch heavy valve head expected to hit 6500 but the same pressure for lighter valves would be overkill.

HILLSIDECYCLE.COM · « **Reply #33 on:** September 17, 2014, 10:03:18 AM »

Sell it to them.........

Author Topic: beehive (Read 8466 times)