Steven Silverstein wrote,
>Another interesting detail which I could never figure out was the use
>of the early double bladed chain tensioner. They didn't use the later
>design with the piece of rubber. Did they know something that we don't
when
>they built the motor in 1967? I don't know but a guess would be it had
less
>drag. At least somebody building the motor thought it was a better design
>for a tensioner.
I would suspect that the steel to steel tensioner would have been a lower
friction than the rubber tensioner, but would wear the tension blade
rapidly.
This probably wouldnt be a major issue if the engine was to be torn down
regularly and the tensioner inspected/replaced.
Jarrid Gross
|