Cam-follower facings' phenomena

e3steve · Post by **e3steve** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:51 am

I knew what you were getting at, Teazer, you little atom-splitter, you!

Seriously guys, thank you for the replies. My main Q here is: do I fit the 'improved' rockers at all? I mean, look at the evidence: the surface of the older, side-lubed rocker is nigh-on perfect -- the surface of the newer and, supposedly better, direct-lubed animal is totally shagged! I should add that these are not from my motor and I don't have access to the cams that have been smacking them about for a few years. I bought these from magoopeter, fellow forumer and Brit (sorry Peter, N. Irish, if you prefer! Let's not get political here...) and I got all excited over the fact that two of them were the face-lubed type (I still don't know what type my motor has, yet). Peter was very open about the surface damage, and they were cheap enough, so no complaints at all.

What does one do? Improve or fall back?

Ed, what's your experience with the two types?

brewsky · Post by **brewsky** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:44 am

Wondering if the "denting" is the result of excessive valve clearances?

LOUD MOUSE · Post by **LOUD MOUSE** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:11 am

I haven't seen many installed even though I've been doing engines (other than just mine) since 1993.
Probably found 2 heads with them and one of the eight was warn similar to yours but not that bad.
These 810 parts came out "after production" (I think) and were/are expensive and I don't have a good history or opinion as to being good or bad.
I have found lots of the early issue with a sort of thin (2/3 tho.) line warn across the middle and the rest of the face perfectly smooth and no sign of wear/damage.
Not sure what actually causes this however I suspect loose adjustment.. .............lm

e3steve wrote:I knew what you were getting at, Teazer, you little atom-splitter, you!

Seriously guys, thank you for the replies. My main Q here is: do I fit the 'improved' rockers at all? I mean, look at the evidence: the surface of the older, side-lubed rocker is nigh-on perfect -- the surface of the newer and, supposedly better, direct-lubed animal is totally shagged! I should add that these are not from my motor and I don't have access to the cams that have been smacking them about for a few years. I bought these from magoopeter, fellow forumer and Brit (sorry Peter, N. Irish, if you prefer! Let's not get political here...) and I got all excited over the fact that two of them were the face-lubed type (I still don't know what type my motor has, yet). Peter was very open about the surface damage, and they were cheap enough, so no complaints at all.

What does one do? Improve or fall back?

Ed, what's your experience with the two types?

jensen · Post by **jensen** » Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:04 am

Hi Steve,

The problem of comparing both rockers and draw conclusions from it is impossible, since the history is different for both types. The other thing is that the influence of the kind of oil you use is best measured on these parts, and how they wear. When oil is squirted on the cam lobe (holed style rocker arm) there is a chance of cavitation (when oil is under high pressure and the pressure is released (this is the situation in the oil film between the cam surface and the cam) then there is a chance of low pressure damp bubbles in the oil. These bubbles implode and are also taking away material from the surface). Cavitation is a future of the oil you use in combination with the pressure and other circumstances.

I use both types of rockers and see no differences in wear, but again, the circumstances in an other engine are different (and maybe the oil).

Jensen

jensen · Post by **jensen** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:03 am

Hi

I once dissembled an engine with four of these "holed" rockers. I remember that the state the rockers were did varied a lot. The bike had done 13.000 km, and I noticed that it was probably never dissembled before. I kept three of them, but after all one is useless, it shows to much wear.

Maybe these rockers are more " sensitive" for (in)correct valve play.

The holed rockers are indeed not so common, but every once in a while, I come across them.
From the box of used rockers, but reusable, I counted 42 non holed rockers, and 7 holed ones.
rocker nr 2 was also in the box, but not anymore. nr. 1 and 3 are still good and useful.

For reference of the pictures I took another one from a regular rocker.

Jensen

LOUD MOUSE · Post by **LOUD MOUSE** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:41 am

Nice pics Jensen.
They show something I have noticed about the 810 issue.
The contact/wear area's usually aren't flat as the earlier issues usually are. ..........lm

jensen wrote:Hi

I once dissembled an engine with four of these "holed" rockers. I remember that the state the rockers were did varied a lot. The bike had done 13.000 km, and I noticed that it was probably never dissembled before. I kept three of them, but after all one is useless, it shows to much wear.

Maybe these rockers are more " sensitive" for (in)correct valve play.

The holed rockers are indeed not so common, but every once in a while, I come across them.
From the box of used rockers, but reusable, I counted 42 non holed rockers, and 7 holed ones.
rocker nr 2 was also in the box, but not anymore. nr. 1 and 3 are still good and useful.

For reference of the pictures I took another one from a regular rocker.

Jensen

e3steve · Post by **e3steve** » Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:50 pm

Jensen, thanks for your input; it is of great value here. And Ed, thanks also for your continued obs and experience. There's a pattern emerging from all the information and, to me, it appears that the 810 face-lubed rockers aren't quite presenting the results that Honda possibly hoped for.

I'll be back in Spain around month-end, along with more labour-saving devices, so I'm intending to drop my motor quite soon after my return. It will be interesting to see which type I have in the head and how they've survived.