Should the Regulator be too Hot to Touch?

[5twins]

The instructions in my manual say to adjust both the core (#1) and points gap (#4). I assume that screw (#10) w/locknut will adjust the core gap but there is no explanation given for adjusting the points gap. I think I just bend the tab that one half of the points pair is on (#3). It looks to have some marks on it like it may have been bent (adjusted) before .....

Edit - I figured it out and labeled the drawing to show it. Screw #10 doesn't adjust the core gap, it controls the voltage output. Core gap is adjusted with screw 14 and points gap with screw 13.

 

[freddy3]

Interesting... I don't recall even seeing an adjustment for the regulator's point gap on either of the two I've got. They must've changed the design, adding that adjustment, in '78. My manuals only cover the 650 twins '70-'75 and I don't see anything about that adjustment in any of 'em.

 

[5twins]

Amazing what a little tweak can do, lol. I didn't touch the adjustment screw (#10), I simply closed up the points gap (#4) to within spec. Now I'm putting out a bit over 13V at idle and a bit over 14V at 3K.

The points gap is easily set by loosening the Philips screw shown between #5 and 6 above. The bottom point bracket is slotted so it will move up and down. The spec is .3-.4mm which translates to .012"-.016". Mine was set at about .019"-.020". I closed it up to about .015"-.016". First try I set it to about .014" but that had the charge climbing to about 14.5V @ 3K.

 

[retiredgentleman]

I'm not surprised 5twins. The mechanical regulators were used for decades by cars, trucks and bikes and kept batteries charged just fine.

I think you can draw a comparison with the points in the ignition system. The points and the mechanical regulator both get the job done. However, we know they can go out of spec and then need some adjustment.

Some guys enjoy tinkering and adjusting, and the early designs of ignition and charging are just what the doctor ordered.

I've got lazy and took the easy way out with Pamco and a solid state regulator. At least I still have the ATU with its mechanical flyweights and springs to amuse me

 

[XSLeo]

One thing I found when trying to adjust the reg on the 75 was with the cover off to do the adjustment the voltage was one thing and when you put the cover back on the voltage changes.
I don't recall just how much or higher or lower but a difference. So do the adjustment, replace the cover and check to see the difference, might need to adjust a bit up or down to compensate for the change. It may take a few tries.
I think the cover effects the magnetic feild around the winding and causes the change.
Leo

 

[freddy3]

I think the cover effects the magnetic feild around the winding and causes the change.

I would've thought the cover was grounded (to the baseplate) to mitigate stray fields, but it just occurred to me that there's a rubber gasket between the cover and the baseplate, so maybe the cover isn't grounded. I've got another set of plugs en route that I'm hoping will remedy my hesitation problem, but I should probably re-check the voltage since all my readings were done with the cover removed.

 

[XSLeo]

From looking in my Factory manuals the 70 to 73 used a TLIZ-49 regulator. In 74 they started using a TLIZ-80 regulator. Used it up till 79. Hard to tell by the pics in the book, they look the same. Both are adjustable.
Leo

 

[5twins]

You know, I think I noticed that. Voltage was a little higher with the cover off. This is something I'm going to be monitoring now that I know I can tinker with it, lol.

 

[freddy3]

For archive purposes, a set of new B8ES plugs (gapped to .35mm) solved my hesitation problem (old plugs were only 6 months old, so they must've been damaged when the rectifier initially shorted out). Bike still idles a bit rough and occasionally stalls while idling, but runs well at speed. Next, I'll try retiming it to see if that smooths out the idle.

 

[freddy3]

Again, for archive purposes: For some reason, after adjusting the points, no matter how far I rotated the points plate (in either direction), I was unable to adjust the points so they opened when the rotor's timing mark lined up within the Firing marks on the stator. However, I was able to adjust it closer than it was. After that, I took the bike out for a ride and it ran (almost) like a dream. (I say almost because it still idles a bit rough, but not as bad as it was and it no longer stalls at lights.)

So, new plugs (gapped to spec) and timing adjustment did the trick. Thanks, again, for everyones' help.

 

[5twins]

Besides rotating the plate, some have side to side or up and down play. Sometimes you need to play with that as well to get the timing right on.

 

[freddy3]

Thanks, but I spent nearly two hours rotating, sliding and moving the plate every-which-way, but I was never able to get the rotor mark any closer than where the red line is in this diagram:

 

[5twins]

If you've run out of adjustment slot on your timing plate and still haven't reached the proper timing mark, that can be a sign that your timing chain is all stretched out and in need of replacement. Also, your points gaps may be too big, try making them smaller especially if the points are used. Used points develop pits and that's where the spark jumps. You can't accurately measure or set pitted points with a feeler gauge, you need a dwell meter. The gap is actually bigger than what your feeler gauge is indicating.

 

[retiredgentleman]

freddy3;

I had some of the same difficulties that you are having, back when I used points. To overcome it, I filed the slotted grooves longer in the large backplate, to increase the adjustment range.

You can spend a lot of time fiddling with points, so back in 2008 I installed a Pamco and no longer need to do any adjustments.

 

[freddy3]

5twins: Presuming the Service Manual isn't wrong about the cam chain adjustment, before setting the timing, I adjusted the cam chain as per the Service Manual:

After setting the cam chain adjustment, I adjusted the points gap to .35mm and, then, I set the timing.

The points are fairly new (installed last year) and didn't look pitted. Though, to be safe, I always run a points file through them to be sure they're flat and then clean them with electrical contact cleaner. I've got another new set of points I can try, but since the bike's running mostly well (again, an intermittent, slight stutter in the idle) I'm hesitant to change anything.

RG: I've considered switching over to electronic ignition (you're certainly not the first to suggest it), but I want to keep the bike stock, at least as much and as long as is possible.

 

[5twins]

Check your cam chain with the engine idling. That book method is hit and miss. You want the plunger to move in and out slightly at idle (about a MM or 2). If it doesn't move, your adjustment is too tight, if it bounces in/out more than a few MMs, your setting is too loose.

I would be leery of running it with the timing that far advanced. Remember, what you're off at idle is also going to show at full advance. From your pic, that's going to put you way far over the full advance mark. You can hole a piston if you run too much like that.

I would set the points gaps to the minimum (.3mm or .012") since they are used. That will retard the timing some more for you.

 

[freddy3]

Check your cam chain with the engine idling. That book method is hit and miss. You want the plunger to move in and out slightly at idle (about a MM or 2). If it doesn't move, your adjustment is too tight, if it bounces in/out more than a few MMs, your setting is too loose.

So, I remove the cam tensioner cover and start the engine? Isn't it going to spray oil all over when the engine's running?

I would be leery of running it with the timing that far advanced. Remember, what you're off at idle is also going to show at full advance. From your pic, that's going to put you way far over the full advance mark. You can hole a piston if you run too much like that.
I would set the points gaps to the minimum (.3mm or .012") since they are used. That will retard the timing some more for you.

The point gaps are currently set to .35mm. Is reducing the gap by .05mm going to make much difference?

 

[5twins]

Oil isn't going to spray out, a little bit may dribble out if you run it long enough with the cap off. Fold up a paper towel and set it on top of the case under the adjuster to catch any that does drip.

I said reducing the gap will help. It may not put you right on the "F" mark but will move you closer to it than you are now. You may even need to go tighter on the gap, like .010". Have you checked the timing at full advance? That's the important setting. Like I said, running too far advanced there can hole a piston. If it reads right but your idle timing is as it is now, then the problem may not be with your adjustments but rather with your ATU. Maybe it's not returning all the way to the retarded position. Have you serviced it ever? It needs to be lubed and the rod it attaches to also needs to be pulled out, cleaned, and lubed occasionally. Or maybe the springs on it are getting weak.

 

[sgallaty]

I didn't read this topic, but please do yourself a favor and chuck that stone-age piece of shit solenoid voltage regulator. You can get a solid state regulator from an auto parts store that'll improve your bike's performance, charging rate and stability.

This is another dogbunny hack. He needs to get on here and do some schoolin'

 

[freddy3]

Is the "ATU" the advance unit? If so, yes, I replaced the advance (weights, springs, rod, etc.) and lubed the advance rod at the end of last year. (The idle was running fast and would "hang" when revved and replacing those parts remedied the problem.)

I'll try reducing the point gap and check the cam tensioner with the engine running; and then I'll report back if that helps the timing. Thanks again!