Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

Tips and Recommendations from Guru Mike Nixon

Moderator: Whiskerfish

Post Reply
User avatar
mikenixon
Early 'Wing Guru
Early 'Wing Guru
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:51 am
Location: Prescott, AZ
Contact:

Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#1

Post by mikenixon »

The GL1000 Kettering ignition owes much the the CB450, and it in turn to Honda's original two-cylinder cars (which by the way whose engines were built much like the CB350 twins'). Two ignition coils, two points sets. The difference of course is the Wing's four cylinders, which means its two ignition coils have two plug wires and have to fire twice as many spark plugs, so let's deal with that first. Honda was using half as many ignition coils to run twice as many cylinders as early as its 160 twin days, and probably before that but I am not as familiar with those machines going back into the dark halls of history. (A motorcycle older than I am is just too old to bother with in my view...) Most of the multicylinder four-stroke engines of the 70s and into the 80s used this so-called "waste spark" system, wherein one ignition coil connected to two spark plugs. Even car makers got into the act, later than the bike makers in an unusual reversal of their usual roles, in the early 1980s. They called it DIS, or "distributorless ignition systems.". Means just what it says, no distributor. Just like on bikes, pulsers to coils, coils to plugs, transistors for switching. This distributorless or waste spark system relies on the fact that sparking a dual lead ignition coil twice as often as previously necessary is a convenient way to fire two plugs in two distinct cylinders. The double firing means each cylinder at alternate times receives a spark when it doesn't need it, so that the other cylinder can get one at the same time that it *does* need, and this trades back and forth. The previously "dud" cylinder becomes the active one and the previously active one becomes the dud. This system doesn't hurt anything because the exact opposite point in each combustion event in a four-stroke engine is an exhaust event, meaning the unused ("waste") spark occurs harmlessly (if uselessly) within a combustion chamber filled with exhaust gasses. Works fine. There is a lot more that could be said about this, but interestingly, the wasted spark system requires that one spark plug fire from center electrode to ground electrode, and the other plug on the same coil fire "backward" from ground electrode to center electrode, after the electricity has traveled though the cylinder head. Yup, the two plugs fire in series. Banish that image in your mind of electricity traveling down the two plug wires to the plugs and after firing just disappearing. That ain't what happens. Electricity has to travel in a circle, and the circle includes the two plugs and their wires.

Image

There are a lot of technicalities surrounding this, such as reverse firing plugs requiring more voltage (which since they're in series means they both do, the reverse firing one as well as the forward firing one), and other interesting considerations, but the end result is that it works. By the way, you can easily tell a forward firing plug from a reverse firing plug two ways. There's a lot more to it, but let's save that for another time ... :-) As I say, there is a lot going on here that is not commonly understood.

You have noticed there are two marks on the GL1000's flywheel viewable through the ignition timing inspection window. One is "T" for top dead center (TDC, used while adjusting the valves) and the other "F" (fire) which is used for ignition timing, Those relatively new to engine tech will wonder why ignition can't commence at TDC. Well, it could. The reason most engines don't is it takes, at idle rpm, a few crankshaft degrees' movement to get combustion enough underway to have the resulting cylinder pressure near its peak as the piston positions itself for its rapid downward journey. In fact every engine has its own ideal amount of "advance" i.e. head start, it likes to have to get this result. Some 10 degrees, some only 5, and there have indeed been engines that timed at idle right at 0, or TDC. Car engines, mostly, and for emissions reasons primarily. You may also have heard of ignition advance spoken of in another way, and that is what is often called "full advance," referring to as the engine is revved, the timing needs to advance still further than that initial 10 degrees to as much as 35 or 40 degrees before top dead center. The spring-loaded mechanism found hiding behind the ignition points plate takes care of this chore, with flyweights that react to rpm. Full advance is necessary because a faster turning engine's ignition needs more of a head start than it needed at idle. Engineers have for many years spoken of full advance figures, such as 24, 27, 38 or 42 degrees, and related them directly to combustion efficiency. That is, how evenly and promptly combustion is happening in the cylinder. Engines requiring large amounts of full advance are those whose combustion is not as smooth as it could be. The early Wing has virtually hemispherical combustion chambers, which while not the worst they could be, are not the best burning either. (Another topic for another time.). Engines requiring lower numbers, i.e. smaller amounts of full advance, are engines having superior combustion characteristics, and for a given engine size, tend to make more power. These are engines with almost flat chambers, whose flame movement is unimpeded by odd combustion chamber contours and combustion is therefore tidily prompt. Today's sprocket rockets in fact run timings in the 20s. Their combustion is so good, they not only get by with half the ignition advance older engine designs such as our GL1000 need, they do it with cylinders running 12.5:1 compression and some of them at least using 86 octane unleaded! It is no coincidence either that these new bikes have valve angles that are only 12-15 degrees from completely vertical. Older engines that needed airflow over their combustion chamber roofs had to have their valves splayed outward far, which in turn dictated hugely voluminous combustion chambers, which needed lots of ignition advance. Later engines are made with very steeply positioned valves, are liquid cooled to compensate for the lost access to the top of the chamber by airflow, and make tons more power, with half the total ignition advance. So the full ignition advance requirement of an engine ultimately goes back to its valve angle, but in any case speaks volumes about its engine's combustion efficiency.

This matter of the GL1000 having wobbly ignition timing is an interesting one. Dealer techs of course glommed onto the fact immediately (I was discussing the split timing method with Fred Germain, Honda corporate's L.A. area tech rep in the Spring of 1977), but it was nonetheless interesting for me to read about it in print for the first time just a few weeks ago, having acquired a copy of the Wingworld magazine (thanks, Jeff!, aka California Wing Nut) in which Mark Overby outlines the technique. There is no better way to do the job if you're going the static timing route, and I do prefer it myself, though I have tried both static and dynamic method and in fact started with the dynamic method back in 1975 and continued with it for two years, using a custom-made dwell meter created for me by one of the shop's customers. Before timing your GL1000's ignition you need to make very sure of the cam belt condition and more importantly tension. I have a particular method of tensioning which involves finding the loosest spot by hand and not relying on crankshaft positioning. But it is probably mostly being anal on my part.... You will still have the camshaft clearance in its bearings to contend with, unfortunately, even with properly adjusted belts. Putting a dial indicator on a cam still in the engine will show between 0.001"-0.003" total runnout, not surprising given Honda's designed-in loose fit of the cam to the head (all their overhead cam bikes are like this, and are worsened of course by wear) and the effect valve spring pressure has on the rotating camshaft, causing it to be pushed back and forth slightly in its bearings. Nothing to be done about it, I am afraid, though I have experimented with specially modified advancer assemblies, ones hand filed (stoned, actually) to compensate for the camshaft's wiggle. I have had appreciable success in getting the two different timings on one set of points (the crux of the issue) to within 1 crankshaft degree, almost eliminating the "ghost" effect (what is seen on a strobe type dynamic timing light). But it's painstaking work and is very hard to do exactly. It does however validate what is happening at the camshaft. For my own or special customers' bikes, it is worth it, but most folks aren't going to want to do it. So do the split timing thing, and while you're at it, don't worry about the gap overly much. Now finally we are to the controversy, and I wish I could avoid it, but I guess I can't. Overby makes much of point dwell in his article, and while I understand his point I think it unfortunate as it complicates things and thus discourages owners from doing the timing job themselves. My opinion is, if both points are within the factory 0.012"-0.016" range, you're good. Don't worry about it. Doing the timing is hard enough by the static method. You don't need added worries thrown in.

Now let's get practical. The real difficulty in timing, dynamically or statically, the GL1000 (and any of Honda's points powered multis), is two-fold. First is the fact that Honda designed the points assembly to not have any concentric pieces. Nothing is on center! That is, when rotating the base (backing) plate to time the left side, the left side gap changes at the same time. The same is true of the sub plate (where the right side points are timed). Pivot it to dial in right side timing and its points gap changes too. So after painstakingly getting both point assemblies perfectly gapped, then you rotate the base plate a smidge to get the timing right, and it ruins all your hard work, throwing the gaps (both left and right) out of adjustment. This is the paramount problem, and it is designed-in and cannot therefore be overcome. Making things even worse is that the fit of the points plate (backing, base) in the cylinder head is somewhat loose, with the result that each time one loosens the big Phillips screws to rotate the base plate to adjust timing for the left side points, the slop in the machined area that grips the plate makes the gaps in the two points assemblies change once again! So the gaps change with every timing adjustment, due to two system shortcomings -- non concentric mounting of the points to the backing plate, and loose fitment of this same plate to the head. I gently peen the cylinder head area around the backing plate whenever I do one of these (on SOHC inline fours too), but a) you can't do it too much or the backing (base) plate becomes impossible to remove, and b) you still have the non-concentricity of the pivoting parts to contend with, so little is gained. Take heart though, the exact same problems exist on the twins and inline fours. So the drill is, gap, then timing, then gap again, then timing again, in ever-smaller increments, until both are where you want them. It takes a pro about three go-rounds, so I imagine for a weekend tech it might take several. If this process isn't your experience and you are a master at static timing, I would appreciate hearing from you! :-). I know of no other way. The only difference doing it dynamically is it takes slightly less time as you can see the gaps change by viewing the dwell, you don't need to physically keep regapping as you do with the static method. You just tweak the dwell each go-round as necessary. Of course the main reason folks like myself don't prefer the dynamic method is the difficulty of viewing the marks though the timing inspection window, even using the factory "bombsight," which I have, and even with the bombsight modified by the knocking out of one of its two windows, which I did 37 years ago. Still too hard to see in my view. Of course, now we have Randakk's new degree wheel that can be mounted on the left cam pulley, replicating the method Triumph innaugurated on their twins back in the 60s and Honda themselves resurrected on the 1979 six cylinder CBX. It promises to be useful.

Dyna and their ilk I have one problem with. Though they eliminate all this fussing with gaps and such, and also eliminate the need to maintain the points condition, being replacements for the points, they are not as reliable as they could be. I have removed as many or more than I have installed, if you can appreciate that. In addition, when fitting the Dyna timing rotor onto the stock advancer assembly, it is all too easy to end up with an advancer assembly that does not fully advance. It is imperative that you check full advance when installing an aftermarket electronic ignition. The problem was (it may have been fixed by now for all I know) the Dyna rotor was thicker than the stock points rotor, so the advancer flyweights came to rest in a partially deployed position, meaning that some of the advance was already used up. Watch out for this, as I say, by checking the full advance.
User avatar
zachvilla
Lead Member
Lead Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:04 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#2

Post by zachvilla »

Hey mikenixon!

I have a GL1000 79' that I have been working on both myself, and with the honda shop (ma and pa official dealer with an amazing honda mechanic).

I know your post is a few years old, but its the only thing i have found that seems to indicate some of the issues i have been having across the entire internet. i hope you respond!

I have my carbs rebuilt first by me, then essectially rebuilt again from the ground up by the honda shop. They are spotless and tuned. The bike FINALLY runs great, where before it wouldnt even idle. There is a lingering problem however and both myself and the mechanic are stumped. it has a strange idle. It doesnt die, and it doesnt really fluctuate; at idle it sings for 2 seconds, and then it sounds like the engine 'got something it liked' and kind of burbles up in rpm ever so slightly, and then immediately dips almost imperceptibly like 'it got something it didn't like." These two little events happen in about 1 sec. and then the idle returns to normal. Kind of like it wants to stall, but it never does. when you open the throttle, you can hear the same thing but much quiter at 2500 rpms as well. It may be happening at rpms, but the engine gets too loud and fast, and you cant hear it.

When hooked up to a timing light (like you were referring to in your post) on the spark plug wire, each time one of these burbles happen, the light goes out for one pulse, or two, like there is no spark, but then returns to normal. The mechanic has tested the coils and they are good to go. The burbles are very regular... happneing every 2 or 3 seconds or so. The mechanic swears the carbs are great, so he thinks it points to something in the ignition system. It has new points, and hona condensor and new spark plug caps. as i said the coils test great. he suggested trying a different set of coils just to see, and I am not convinced thats it. He aslo thinks it may be a short somewhere in wiring....

I was reading your post and read about the "ghost effect" and I wish I kenw more what you meant by that. It seems like what I am describing with the timing light is what you are referring to, and it makes me think that I just have a timing issue, and the engine needs to be timed, re-timed, and done again until its right... especially if the system seems to run better at high rpms, and not so smoothly at idle.

What are your thoughts?!?

desperate in LA,
Zach
User avatar
mikenixon
Early 'Wing Guru
Early 'Wing Guru
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:51 am
Location: Prescott, AZ
Contact:

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#3

Post by mikenixon »

Zach, wow. Some frustration there for sure. Although the GL1000 does indeed have some built-in foibles (rubber belt driven point ignition that changes timing slightly with each revolutuon, for example, and very very tiny carb circuits that resist all but obsessive devotion to cleaning), the engine can simply be tuned properly and it will work very well indeed. I just did a GL1000 a few weeks ago, and I have done many many of them, tune-up wise. Why don't you bring it by?

I say this with some hesitation as I am very busy with carburetors, but at least I can listen and give you an opinion.
User avatar
mikenixon
Early 'Wing Guru
Early 'Wing Guru
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:51 am
Location: Prescott, AZ
Contact:

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#4

Post by mikenixon »

Zach, good talking with you just now.
User avatar
zachvilla
Lead Member
Lead Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:04 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#5

Post by zachvilla »

Likewise! Thanks Mike for reaching out. Hopefully we can get this sucker licked.

z.
User avatar
AussieGold
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:35 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#6

Post by AussieGold »

just read the first post and you will get no argument from me on any of those points. but....(there's always a but :lol: )
the ignition system fitted originally in 1975 was good for the time. it is now 2013. in my opinion, my bikes run better,start easier,
and more importantly ( for me) need less maintenance , with 2013 electronic ignitions fitted.
having said that, this is what i do. i keep the original points plate , cam lobe etc, in a snaplock bag in the glove box. just in case the
magic smoke gets out of the Dyna. happened before and i had to limp home on two cylinders. :IDTS:
so, love the Dyna but keep the points handy :lol:
User avatar
mikenixon
Early 'Wing Guru
Early 'Wing Guru
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:51 am
Location: Prescott, AZ
Contact:

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#7

Post by mikenixon »

I won't argue with that. I have no axe to grind.

Folks do however put too much faith in points replacement systems, regarding them as a magic wand. "Oh, the ignition is fine. It's a Dyna.". Ah, no. There are many issues with points replacement systems (note I do not call them electronic ignitions but points replacement systems, so as to differentiate them from OEM electronic systems which at the least are many many times more durable, though in principle they operate the same say). Issues with installation and adjustment (many Dynas will not time properly without modifying the reluctor). Issues with longevity. And in the end, the only gain, even after dealing with those issues, is reduced maintenance. It is a considerable gain, but only overlooming the fuss of proper installation and only if discounting the short life of these systems.

I know our subject isn't about aftermarket systems in general, but since you highjacked our friend's thread I feel justified in highjacking it back. :-). I have seen Dyna systems that could not be properly timed. I have seen Marteks and Prestolites and Gerex systems that I wouldn't give you 10 cents for. In my mind, once the stock system is set up correctly, it lasts and even when it does need adjusting (6,000-8,000 mile intervals if installed correctly) it doesn't take much effort because all the work was done at the initial install. I know I won't convince you and I don't need to. I went through this whole aftermarket versus stock ignition thing on my own CB500 Four, on which bike as a career tech I ended up running the stock system for 50,000 of its eventual 91,000 miles, after trying many aftermarket systems. This with just 2 points replacements and with with an average of 8,000 miles between adjustments. This in addition to all the Dynas and MSDs and all the rest I put on my customer's bikes and monitored for them during services for, well, some 15 years or so while I was a dealer tech.

I don't believe there is a performance advantage. There can't be. A Dyna S is the exact same thing a GL1100 has, a collapsing field Kettering design, whose emergence was precipitated by the federal government mandating in 1978 that an ignition never need adjustment for the term of the emissions warranty, which at that time was 3 years. There is no place for added performance to come from, unless you compare its performance to that of an improperly set up stock system.
User avatar
AussieGold
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:35 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#8

Post by AussieGold »

I meant no disrespect, nor was it my intention to " highjack" a thread. and I certainly have no axe to grind. i read with great interest the first post re
GL ignition, and learnt things i did not know. i merely pointed out that, for me, a points replacement system is preferable and better than points. :-D
User avatar
mikenixon
Early 'Wing Guru
Early 'Wing Guru
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:51 am
Location: Prescott, AZ
Contact:

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#9

Post by mikenixon »

Cool. It is for many. I wasn't trying to be argumentative either. :-D
User avatar
sunnbobb
Facebook Admin
Facebook Admin
Posts: 21272
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:09 pm
My Album: http://www.ngwclub.com/gallery/v/wingmans/sunnbobb/
Location: LaConner, WA

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#10

Post by sunnbobb »

Mike, I have never really considered the fact that the GL1000 points are driven by the Cam belt. What a revelation for me thinking about the gl1100, where the electronic ignition is not driven off of the timing belt... Much to ponder, the difference, yes?
User avatar
joedrum
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:07 am
Location: Orlando Fla.

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#11

Post by joedrum »

well ive always thought that the belts and all were much bigger effect on 1000 iggy system than cam wobble by far .....and drive this point home posting about it ...this the first post ive ever seen that has mention this other than mine .... good
User avatar
mikenixon
Early 'Wing Guru
Early 'Wing Guru
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:51 am
Location: Prescott, AZ
Contact:

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#12

Post by mikenixon »

Well, the really interesting thing is no matter how carefully and correctly the belts are tensioned, you always have a tight spot and a loose spot as the cam revolves, leading to a slight inconsistency in ignition timing. This is of course why the "split timing" method is necessary. I have experimented with narrowing the ghost effect by "stoning" the advancer cam, to good effect. But nothing will overcome completely the fact that the points are timed by a rubber belt that due to on again off again valve spring pressure is not consistently tensioned.
User avatar
mikenixon
Early 'Wing Guru
Early 'Wing Guru
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:51 am
Location: Prescott, AZ
Contact:

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#13

Post by mikenixon »

It should be added that since the issue does not lie with the ignition parts themselves, fitting a Dyna or its like will not correct it. As far as that goes, Dynas introduce their own problems, not the least of which is the unintended shortening of the advance curve, what they have been famous for since the beginning. It is only fair to say also that we're close to splitting hairs here. Even with the ghost timing, the GL1000 engine runs very well when properly tuned. So no one should grasp on this idiosyncrasy of this model thinking it is the source of any performance issues they are having. It's not. It's just an interesting and all but harmless weakness in the design.
User avatar
mikenixon
Early 'Wing Guru
Early 'Wing Guru
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:51 am
Location: Prescott, AZ
Contact:

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#14

Post by mikenixon »

joedrum wrote:well ive always thought that the belts and all were much bigger effect on 1000 iggy system than cam wobble by far .....and drive this point home posting about it ...this the first post ive ever seen that has mention this other than mine .... good
Yup. I think camshaft movement, and also a bent cam snout, both play a role, in addition to the belt issue. Though I am not sure cam movement (which in Honda style is due to very generous cam bearing clearances) has nearly the effect that the belt does. However, a bent cam snout (for want of a better name) is very common and plays a significant role in ghost timing, in my opinion. I recently measured 0.002" runnout on a cam snout on a GL1000.
User avatar
82aspy
True Blue Steel Biker
True Blue Steel Biker
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:12 pm
Location: canuck

Re: Considering the GL1000 Ignition in Particular

#15

Post by 82aspy »

magneto & points
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto
Magnetos have traditionally been used in aviation piston engines even though a low-voltage electrical system is usually available, to keep the ignition system independent of the battery and charging system and to keep the engine running in the event of alternator or battery failure. For redundancy purposes, virtually all piston engine aircraft are fitted with two magneto systems, each supplying power to one of two spark plugs in each cylinder.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Mike Nixon's Spot”