Zane 750S Crankshafts

ghwallice

Hero member
Location
Ipswich
This is only my opinion.

This is mostly focussed on the 750 crankshafts, even though it mostly applies to the 650/668 crankshafts as well. The only difference between the 750 crank and the 650/668 crank is the rods fitted, and the left outer web is unique to each motor.

Oil flow to the 750 crank is sufficient. Think of a Bultaco 350 2 stroke, developing more power per big end and spinning faster than the 750S crank. Current fuel/oil mix for the Bultaco is somewhere between 50:1 and 80:1, depending on the type of oil. It’s possible that with too much oil the 750S could create a “bow wave” and cause the big end rollers to skid.

The oil system is both pressured and unpressured. The oil at pressure (typically about 40 psi) is supplied to 7 restriction points, 2 in the cams , 2 spray holes to the underside of the pistons, 1 to clutch centre for cooling, and 2 to the inner crankshaft bearings. Some of these holes are very fine, and would be easily clogged. The inner crankshaft bearings spray oil into the slingers, where it becomes unpressurised. The big ends are supplied by centrifugal force from within the slingers and a 12mm hole in the centre of the big end pin. I cant see how any increase in oil pressure will increase oil flow to the big end. It’ll just overflow out of the slinger

(In the 650/668 there may be a need for the big end oil flow to carry away heat.)

I’ve pushed many of these cranks apart, and without obvious signs of wear, the big end pin is typically smaller in diameter (approx. 35.013) in line with the rod at TDC than it is at angle to the rod. At right angles to the rod I typically see about 35.028 on the inside of the pin (bearing surface only), down to about 35.015 on the outside of the bearing surface.



So we have out of round up to about 15 micron, and then taper of the pin about 15 micron. Most crank bearing manufacturers recommend about 2 micron, some up to 4 micron variance in the pin. It’s the taper that pushes the rod to the outside against the outer web, heats it, and wears it rapidly. I see this more often on the 650/668 engines.

So why does this happen?

My belief is that when the centre pin is pushed into the web, because of the close proximity of the 16mm oil hole in big end pin to the centre hole, the interference pressure, and the metallurgy properties of the integrated web/pin, that the big end pin becomes distorted roughly to the measurements above.



Look at the photo of the back of the inner web. That oil feed hole in the centre of the big end pin is 16mm diameter for 34 mm deep, then 11mm for and additional 23mm. That only leaves a wall thickness of 9.5mm to withstand the pressure of the interference fit of the centre pin. Pressure (typically 10 to 20 tons) is put on the pin and the side of the pin flexes up, pushing the sides of the pin outward at right angles to the rod. This explains why the 35.029 mm across the pin on the inner edge. If the pin goes elliptical, it must also stand that the diameter of the pin must reduce in line with the rod, hence the typical 35.011.

2 new, unused, webs. They measured just on the boundary of oem tolerance specifications on the bearing surface at 5 micron out of round, but within half an hour of assembly of the centre drive pin, they were up to 20 micron out of round with 10micron taper. And when the centre drive pin was taken out, it would shrink back almost to the original shape. Think of the web as being made of hot laver, and the surface hardening as the cool crust. When it is put under pressure (too much interference) it just “flows” to where it wants to be. It’s not rocket science. Just think about it.

New, unused webs, and that’s what they did.

So what is the fix?

Press the crank apart, clean it all up, polish the roller surfaces, and reassemble the centre assembly with new rollers. Then fit the outer webs without fitting the rods, and straighten the crank. Don’t push the outer webs on the last 2mm to give the grinding wheel room to grind the outer edge.

Then the crank is ground, assembled, like a car crankshaft, to get it all straight. Along with out of round and taper, parallelism becomes obvious here. That is, are the holes are drilled straight in the webs and are the pins “in line” with the crank centre line?

And your going to need 2 bloody good tradesmen to do it all!

The grinder has only about 10 to 12 micron “leeway” to get it right. The diameter of the pin needs to stay at about 35.000mm, (from about 35.010 to 35.015 after it was pushed together).

Why 35.000? Add oversize rollers and clearance to the pin, and there is bugger all to be taken out of the rod to clean it up. Grinding the big end on a Sunnen is where you need the 2nd bloody good tradesman. Most of the cranks I’ve pulled apart have been ground with 55 micron clearance, so there is 20 micron “lost” just there.

So, pin at 35.000, clearance at about 30 micron, and 2 rollers at about 5.016mm (the unobtanium oversize rollers) The originals are typically 4.997mm. The big end needs to be ground out to about 45.062mm to reclaim the conrod. About a 15 micron grind, but based on sizing to the final diameter of the pin.

With new conrods, typically 45.047, and 5.016 rollers, the big end pins can be taken down to 34.083mm. Clearance up to 36 micron might give a bit more leeway. The conrod big end is ground to suit the finished big end pin diameter.

Probably better off to target the 35.000mm and rod grind initially. That way, later on, with new rods, you might get a 2nd rebuild out of the crank.

Take it all home and leave it all assembled until you have the conrods and ready to go on. If you press the outer webs off sooner it will all just “flow” back to where it started. It needs the pressure of the interference fit to hold it all in shape.

Throw out the old roller cages and buy Koyo 45*35*20 crankshaft bearings. Take out the 4.997 rollers from the new Koyo and throw them away as well. The 5.016 rollers, at 16,743(?) will fit in nicely. The Koyo bearings have an M type steel cage. Stronger with much better oil distribution properties than the original flat cages.

When you have the rod and bearings ready to go on, press off the outer web, assemble it and press the web back on. Try and keep the time for that less than about an hour, or it may start to grow again…..

Because of the properties the metal it could take a few days to settle into position. So every morning for a few days put it in the sun, then dial guage it and tap it straight again.

Good Luck!

I accept no responsibility or liability for any issues that arise as a result of anyone’s use of this opinion.
 

Attachments

  • ZaneWeb.jpg
    ZaneWeb.jpg
    115.4 KB · Views: 27
  • ZaneWeb1.jpg
    ZaneWeb1.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 27
  • ZaneWeb2.jpg
    ZaneWeb2.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 27
Hi, not sure if I’m successfully responding or not.
Giving it a try.
I couldn’t find anybody who wanted a basket 750 Strike, so I put the boxes of parts in a scrap pile at a friends shop. If you want anything from that pile of stuff, let me know and I’ll go dig it out for you. You’ll only have to pay for packing and shipping. I’m not tryna make any money on it. Just prefer it doesn’t go to waste. Anybody interested, let me know soon. The rain is coming



This is only my opinion.

This is mostly focussed on the 750 crankshafts, even though it mostly applies to the 650/668 crankshafts as well. The only difference between the 750 crank and the 650/668 crank is the rods fitted, and the left outer web is unique to each motor.

Oil flow to the 750 crank is sufficient. Think of a Bultaco 350 2 stroke, developing more power per big end and spinning faster than the 750S crank. Current fuel/oil mix for the Bultaco is somewhere between 50:1 and 80:1, depending on the type of oil. It’s possible that with too much oil the 750S could create a “bow wave” and cause the big end rollers to skid.

The oil system is both pressured and unpressured. The oil at pressure (typically about 40 psi) is supplied to 7 restriction points, 2 in the cams , 2 spray holes to the underside of the pistons, 1 to clutch centre for cooling, and 2 to the inner crankshaft bearings. Some of these holes are very fine, and would be easily clogged. The inner crankshaft bearings spray oil into the slingers, where it becomes unpressurised. The big ends are supplied by centrifugal force from within the slingers and a 12mm hole in the centre of the big end pin. I cant see how any increase in oil pressure will increase oil flow to the big end. It’ll just overflow out of the slinger

(In the 650/668 there may be a need for the big end oil flow to carry away heat.)

I’ve pushed many of these cranks apart, and without obvious signs of wear, the big end pin is typically smaller in diameter (approx. 35.013) in line with the rod at TDC than it is at angle to the rod. At right angles to the rod I typically see about 35.028 on the inside of the pin (bearing surface only), down to about 35.015 on the outside of the bearing surface.



So we have out of round up to about 15 micron, and then taper of the pin about 15 micron. Most crank bearing manufacturers recommend about 2 micron, some up to 4 micron variance in the pin. It’s the taper that pushes the rod to the outside against the outer web, heats it, and wears it rapidly. I see this more often on the 650/668 engines.

So why does this happen?

My belief is that when the centre pin is pushed into the web, because of the close proximity of the 16mm oil hole in big end pin to the centre hole, the interference pressure, and the metallurgy properties of the integrated web/pin, that the big end pin becomes distorted roughly to the measurements above.



Look at the photo of the back of the inner web. That oil feed hole in the centre of the big end pin is 16mm diameter for 34 mm deep, then 11mm for and additional 23mm. That only leaves a wall thickness of 9.5mm to withstand the pressure of the interference fit of the centre pin. Pressure (typically 10 to 20 tons) is put on the pin and the side of the pin flexes up, pushing the sides of the pin outward at right angles to the rod. This explains why the 35.029 mm across the pin on the inner edge. If the pin goes elliptical, it must also stand that the diameter of the pin must reduce in line with the rod, hence the typical 35.011.

2 new, unused, webs. They measured just on the boundary of oem tolerance specifications on the bearing surface at 5 micron out of round, but within half an hour of assembly of the centre drive pin, they were up to 20 micron out of round with 10micron taper. And when the centre drive pin was taken out, it would shrink back almost to the original shape. Think of the web as being made of hot laver, and the surface hardening as the cool crust. When it is put under pressure (too much interference) it just “flows” to where it wants to be. It’s not rocket science. Just think about it.

New, unused webs, and that’s what they did.

So what is the fix?

Press the crank apart, clean it all up, polish the roller surfaces, and reassemble the centre assembly with new rollers. Then fit the outer webs without fitting the rods, and straighten the crank. Don’t push the outer webs on the last 2mm to give the grinding wheel room to grind the outer edge.

Then the crank is ground, assembled, like a car crankshaft, to get it all straight. Along with out of round and taper, parallelism becomes obvious here. That is, are the holes are drilled straight in the webs and are the pins “in line” with the crank centre line?

And your going to need 2 bloody good tradesmen to do it all!

The grinder has only about 10 to 12 micron “leeway” to get it right. The diameter of the pin needs to stay at about 35.000mm, (from about 35.010 to 35.015 after it was pushed together).

Why 35.000? Add oversize rollers and clearance to the pin, and there is bugger all to be taken out of the rod to clean it up. Grinding the big end on a Sunnen is where you need the 2nd bloody good tradesman. Most of the cranks I’ve pulled apart have been ground with 55 micron clearance, so there is 20 micron “lost” just there.

So, pin at 35.000, clearance at about 30 micron, and 2 rollers at about 5.016mm (the unobtanium oversize rollers) The originals are typically 4.997mm. The big end needs to be ground out to about 45.062mm to reclaim the conrod. About a 15 micron grind, but based on sizing to the final diameter of the pin.

With new conrods, typically 45.047, and 5.016 rollers, the big end pins can be taken down to 34.083mm. Clearance up to 36 micron might give a bit more leeway. The conrod big end is ground to suit the finished big end pin diameter.

Probably better off to target the 35.000mm and rod grind initially. That way, later on, with new rods, you might get a 2nd rebuild out of the crank.

Take it all home and leave it all assembled until you have the conrods and ready to go on. If you press the outer webs off sooner it will all just “flow” back to where it started. It needs the pressure of the interference fit to hold it all in shape.

Throw out the old roller cages and buy Koyo 45*35*20 crankshaft bearings. Take out the 4.997 rollers from the new Koyo and throw them away as well. The 5.016 rollers, at 16,743(?) will fit in nicely. The Koyo bearings have an M type steel cage. Stronger with much better oil distribution properties than the original flat cages.

When you have the rod and bearings ready to go on, press off the outer web, assemble it and press the web back on. Try and keep the time for that less than about an hour, or it may start to grow again…..

Because of the properties the metal it could take a few days to settle into position. So every morning for a few days put it in the sun, then dial guage it and tap it straight again.

Good Luck!

I accept no responsibility or liability for any issues that arise as a result of anyone’s use of this opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Just glad it’s you thinking this all out Greg as I couldn’t - as per the Zanelist thread mine is up to 24k 😁View attachment 93299
 
i've made big end pins for a number of different engines over the years. I'd suggest that a reduction in diameter of the center holes
to 10mm or possibly smaller won't starve the bigends and will significantly stiffen the pins.
Better metallugy wouldn't hurt either.
Plain hardened pins are not difficult or costly to make.
 
i've made big end pins for a number of different engines over the years. I'd suggest that a reduction in diameter of the center holes
to 10mm or possibly smaller won't starve the bigends and will significantly stiffen the pins.
Better metallugy wouldn't hurt either.
Plain hardened pins are not difficult or costly to make.
Greg,

The pins in these cranks are integral with the central webs and overlap with the main journals... seperate pins aren't entirely easy.

I've explained years ago that the shoddy manufacturing of the Zane cranks was the cause for the failures (and reaped loads of disbelief!), the crank pins have a basically triangular cross-section (think Wankel rotor) with a bit of taper thrown in for free! Difficult to measure with conventional means, easily detected by laser scanning. The failures were definitely not caused by lack of oil, overheating or material fatigue. All that oil filter raving is simply bullshit. The irregularities were most probably caused by worn or defective grinding machinery, the pins display the same deformation almost all in exactly the same places. On top of that, factory build spec for the big end was 0.060mm clearance... this was equal to service/wear limits of Breganze cranks. These ran with 0.010-0.015mm when first fitted.

The shoddy manufacturing extended to the cylinder heads as well, especially the 750 liquid-cooled ones. Valve guides were already scrap when the heads arrived at the assembly line!

The 500 cranks are basically identical to the Zane, same bearings throughout, just diferent rods and strokes. These soldier on for decades, not bullet-proof, but a lot better than the Zane products.

I repaired/overhauled around 30-40 Zane cranks during my OCT tenure. These were all built to "Breganze" specs, ie, 0.010mm big end clearance. To my knowledge they're all still up and running fine.

piet
 
Last edited:
Yeah, CB350's are the same one piece web and pin. Plenty of those having the pin spark eroded out and a new pin fitted.

If there's a demand,someone will set up and do it.
 
Same design for the webs on Laverda triples and '74 and Elettronica SFCs. They got it right on those - not sure how they fukt up the Zanes so badly.
The problem with converting to a press-in crankpin is that the hole will be too close to the central hole for the pin that joins the two (or more) webs together. Fitting an SFC centre pin to an SF web (centre hole bored) is problematic.
 
Same design for the webs on Laverda triples and '74 and Elettronica SFCs. They got it right on those - not sure how they fukt up the Zanes so badly.
The problem with converting to a press-in crankpin is that the hole will be too close to the central hole for the pin that joins the two (or more) webs together. Fitting an SFC centre pin to an SF web (centre hole bored) is problematic.
Basically starting out with a completely new, inexperienced design team I'd guess. Then having to make the bikes to a price to remain competitive and to earn a couple of bucks on top.

Breganze old-timers would have spotted those crazy tolerances, more care in manufacturing and quality control could have reduced many issues.

The centre main journal bore and crank pin actually overlap due to the short stroke, fitting a seperate pin would have thrown up many more issues.

piet
 
I'd suggest that a reduction in diameter of the center holes
to 10mm or possibly smaller won't starve the bigends and will significantly stiffen the pins.
Better metallugy wouldn't hurt either.
Metallurgy was not an issue, basically, the material and heat treatment were fine. Nor was the actual construction at fault, the precision, apart from the crank pins, was spot on! I managed to get the majority of these cranks to zero run-out.

Calculations have revealed the Breganze 750 pins can be taken out from 14 to 21mm before any weakening sets in. The much shorter Zane pins would tolerate even more I'd guess.

piet
 
Interesting analysis of the crank shaft problems and I think you have it figured out. I have always wanted a Zane but all I have ever seen for sale within a reasonable distance of me has a bad crank! As I have a complete machine shop at home I could probably fix one but who knows before buying one how bad it will be and there is no one locally with any experience on these motors to ask. All that were sold here appear to be dead as I have not seen a Zane on the road in 30 years. Good information and thank you if I ever get one.

Now I have to state after reading your post, and the measured dimensions to fix the crank, I always wonder how people are able to measure to .002mm with any accuracy. That for us imperial measuring guys is .000079". I have Sunnen bore gages and all the other measuring tools to check things. One Sunnen bore gage and the setting fixture and a ring gage to check calibration is $4700 and it reads in .002mm. The micrometer you are using although will display in .002mm is probably only accurate to +/- .005mm at best. And unless you have a temperature controlled environment, it is impossible to measure accurately to .002mm. So you could be 5 microns off before you even start.

I also have a big150lb (68 KG) Pratt & Whitney super micrometer that is used in calibration labs. It reads in .0005mm and is guaranteed to be accurate to +/- .0025mm and that is the best it can do.

And yes I have made big end bearings. All for old British bikes where you can't buy one. Just made one for a 1929 AJS.
 
Last edited:
No need to go THAT small, accuracy to 0.010mm is sufficient. Even old analog micrometers can be read/estimated down to 0.005mm. Yes, temperatures can be a problem, tackling these jobs at 8°C in the shop is pretty futile...

The DRO on my lathe reads to 0.001mm which, in real life, is useless because the lead screws have way more play that that.

Turning valve seat inserts from hi-expansion materials is pretty time-consuming, they need to cool down completely after every cut before measuring.

piet
 
if I was 20 years younger I'd source a fukt Zane and fit one of these fab new Yamaha 270 crank 750 or 800 twins. I think they call the hot ones R7s or R6SP??? It would go faster, last longer and have a much broader powerband. And no doubt there will be a few motors getting around from unrepairable write-offs soon enough.
 
It is possible to fit a Rotax 800 parallel twin (eg from a chain drive BMW, not the belt version). This I have done in the preliminary stage and the project has stalled, the motor fits very nicely, with the rear swing arm mounts cut in half, the gearbox sprocket centre height and (more importantly) the crankshaft centre height and fore and aft dimension can match the stock motor very easilly (so no "Norvin" too high crank centre problems), the torque is aprox double and is the BHP and even the stock BMW gearbox sprocket works perfectly for a theoretical top speed of circa 140MPH. My engine came from a crashed BMW F800s and cost very little because three of the exhaust studs were sheared off upon dismantling of the wreck, not very difficult to resolve if you have a TIG welder and can use it.
CLEM
 
It is possible to fit a Rotax 800 parallel twin (eg from a chain drive BMW, not the belt version). This I have done in the preliminary stage and the project has stalled, the motor fits very nicely, with the rear swing arm mounts cut in half, the gearbox sprocket centre height and (more importantly) the crankshaft centre height and fore and aft dimension can match the stock motor very easilly (so no "Norvin" too high crank centre problems), the torque is aprox double and is the BHP and even the stock BMW gearbox sprocket works perfectly for a theoretical top speed of circa 140MPH. My engine came from a crashed BMW F800s and cost very little because three of the exhaust studs were sheared off upon dismantling of the wreck, not very difficult to resolve if you have a TIG welder and can use it.
CLEM
double from what? the F800 GS engine has 86Nm (750 S 74) and - depending on which version - 63KW/85HP (750 S has 82). So - not to far away...

Might be though, that the characteristic of the F800 engine is a bit better... Not sure... former colleague of mine had a F800 GS. She didn't like it and traded it in for a Triumph Trident 660 (relatively equal horse power and torque figures but running much, much better). Big smile on her face now... ;-)
 
double from what? the F800 GS engine has 86Nm (750 S 74) and - depending on which version - 63KW/85HP (750 S has 82). So - not to far away...

Might be though, that the characteristic of the F800 engine is a bit better... Not sure... former colleague of mine had a F800 GS. She didn't like it and traded it in for a Triumph Trident 660 (relatively equal horse power and torque figures but running much, much better). Big smile on her face now... ;-)
I rode a loaner F800 from the dealer when my R1200RT was having a repair done under warranty. I did not like it. The bike rode like a 350cc unless you wrung its neck. No power down low at all.
 
I tested a number of micrometers, at 20C, on a 5.016 roller and most were accurate within the 0.002mm. Mine is pretty good to 1 micron, give or take a foot. My 3 post guage goes down to 0.0002mm.
It does all get very "grey" down there in those tolerances. At least If I have a reasonably accurate idea of the sizes I can stack them together to get my target clearance about right. I check with my standards every hour or so while I'm doing this, and, of course, everything has to be spotless...

I target the 30 micron clearance, at a minimum, knowing that getting absolute values correct is probably impossible. 30 to 35 micron, what does it matter, as long as the pin is round within a few micron. Rule of thumb is 1 micron per mm diameter of the pin.....I did stuff up once and tried to get a rod on with only 10 micron clearance. No way, virtually impossible, but persisted out of curiosity....and it felt tight and lumpy.....

I keep looking sideways at the KTM 890 motor....132hp(?)....drive sprocket on the left, probably do able, but I don't want to spend the rest of my life in the shed.....
 
Lav 668....65BHP @ 7800 64ft/lbs torque @ 7750
F800R....87BHP @ 8000 63ft/lbs @ 5800
The engine that I realy wanted to use was a Triumph 600 triple 107BHP @ 11750 and 52ft/lbs torque @ 9100. I couldnt make this work (did buy the engine) because it looks doable, the RHS frame member will have to be totally cut through for about 150mm and a bulge welded in, that in turn weakens and distorts everything plus the bulge in the fairing would look crap, so abandoned and sold on.

I hate quoting figures and have probably got something wrong, maybe due to Dyslexia, metric/imperial conversions, and my own tendancy to exagerate, so dont lambast me or I will cry.
Dont realy know why I am replying to Lothars quote, he is never satisfied and loves to be able to prove me wrong.
CLEM
 
R7 Yamaha, 690cc 270 crank, 6-speed box, in a bike that weighs 188kg wet. I bet one of those motors would fall into a Zane. and it's LAMS approved so could probably be easily upped for HP.
 
Lav 668....65BHP @ 7800 64ft/lbs torque @ 7750
F800R....87BHP @ 8000 63ft/lbs @ 5800
The engine that I realy wanted to use was a Triumph 600 triple 107BHP @ 11750 and 52ft/lbs torque @ 9100. I couldnt make this work (did buy the engine) because it looks doable, the RHS frame member will have to be totally cut through for about 150mm and a bulge welded in, that in turn weakens and distorts everything plus the bulge in the fairing would look crap, so abandoned and sold on.

I hate quoting figures and have probably got something wrong, maybe due to Dyslexia, metric/imperial conversions, and my own tendancy to exagerate, so dont lambast me or I will cry.
Dont realy know why I am replying to Lothars quote, he is never satisfied and loves to be able to prove me wrong.
CLEM
Sorry, Clem, the talking (and title of this thread) was about 750 S, how could I have figured you are talking about comparing a 668 engine to the F800 R, please?

Besides that, I was truely just wondering which Rotax-Engine you mean, wether I missed a major development of this engine that it would produce 130HP (twice as much as the 668) or even 160HP (which would have been twice as much as the 750) or how this would be possible.

I did not mean to make you look silly, I was just wondering, as I couldn't find any engine that produces somewhere near these figures from Rotax... Especially wondering, as the Laverda 750 was claimed to be the strongest parallel twin on the market at that time and there was an overlap of the F800 with the 750 S production and the figures were close to the 750 S engine.

Sorry if that upset you, wasn't meant bad and my intention is never ever and not in any way to make you look wrong, please. I just want to understand claims like that, cause it could have been I missed something. Would be great to fit the Triple engine into that frame, however, the Trident seems to have a great handling, too. Could be easier to just sell the Zane and buy a Triumph (something I really consider once I sold my Formula to a good home...).

all the best, Clem! ;-)
 
Back
Top