Running In

[spiki-spikester]

Sorry, but it was going to get mentioned sooner or later !

I always find running in to be a total pain. But I dare not play fast and loose with it. What are people's plans - to religiously run in according to Triumph's instructions, to thrash it from day 1, or to ease in a bit and then ignore the rest of the run in

My curiosity has got the better of me

ps. let's not rehash the Motorman (if that's what he's called) debate !

[Thirdway]

I would be careful of exceeding the running in limits on a Triumph. The dealer warned me that the electronics were capable of recording over revs etc to offset warranty claims on my 955i Speed triple !

Dont labour the engine, let it rev freely, plenty of gear changes. Short journeys to start with sub 20 miles at varying engine revs, let it rev up hills and then shut the throttle on descents. Take it home and let it go stone cold and repeat, gradually increasing the revs and miles.

This gives a good heat/cool cycle that helps the rings mate to the bores, shutting the throttles on hill descents will suck the pistons to the walls under vacuum and let the engine cool down after a bit of work getting up a hill.

Simple as that.

[Diego]

> ...it was going to get mentioned sooner or later !.

Already has been, in fact. The subject is a significant part of the Street Triple Oil Consumption thread.

For my part, I see no reason to do anything other than basically what Triumph recommends. (The only really difficult part is the rev limits in the first hundred miles.) The factory procedure has always served me well, and it's not as if a momentary blip over the "magic numbers" spells doom. Not laboring the engine and not maintaining sustained constant engine speed are two universal essentials, and are also emphasized in Triumph's literature. Thirdway makes some good points about those, and other things you can do. These others were also recommended by my own dealer, and though there is some question whether they are essential with newer engines, they also seem to have served me well so far.

[Dirk_Gently]

I think i'll just be following Triumph recommendations. When I can finally pick it up this will be the 1st thing I have owned that will require braking in. The Street3 is my first brand new vehicle!

[jonboy99]

Motoman's way has worked for me on the last 5 bikes i've owned, so i'll be doing it on the street as well, especially with the oil burning rep of teh daytona.
Anyone got any more info about the on board computer storing details of the way it was run in? Sounds a bit big brother, how can they not trust us?

[Diego]

>Motoman's way has worked for me on the last 5 bikes i've owned, so i'll be doing it on the street as well, especially with the oil burning rep of teh daytona.

I'm glad to hear they survived it. Referring you to the previous oil consumption thread here, however, break-in style has had no apparent relation to which specimens did or did not use oil.

For me, the manufacturers' recommendations have worked great for all 8 bikes I've owned, so...

[jonboy99]

Are you referring to this thread?
Because it looks like a rather larger proportion of motoman method bikes don't burn oil.
I'm aware that some other threads on this subject have got quite heated, and I have no intention of starting another argument, but i've seen no evidence that the motoman method destroys engines as you imply.
I've no doubt that survey doesn't have adequate statistical power to prove a difference, but it doesn't back up your null hypothesising either.

[jonboy99]

Oops, that was another forum, but i'd be interested to see any good evidence either way.

[Will]

There isn't an obvious correlation between break in type and oil consumption. The motor is a high revving, relatively long stroke motor, and it is dependent on tight tolerances. Street Triples are not as high revving and are therefore less dependent upon such tight tolerances. Street Triples also have the benefit of a couple years of Triumph experience with the motor. I doubt they will use much oil, if any. Another factor nobody has thought about is whether the engines were broken in using a lot of short trips and heat cycles or one long ride. Also, were the engines that use oil run at a relatively constant speed or were they run up and down a lot? You can't look at one issue- motoman vs. factory- and come to any meaningful conclusion.

Just to set the whole break in debate to its general principles, there are three things I think about when breaking in an engine:

1. Setting the rings- all Motoman cares about.
2. Final machining and flushing the residual casting and machining debris out of the motor.
3. Relieving internal stresses in metal parts.

Engine compression sets the rings. Varying revs makes sure the rings don't cut grooves in the cylinder walls as they get set.

Operating the motor and changing the oil a lot takes care of any remaining machining and debris flushing.

Lots and lots of heat cycles cook out any stresses in the metal's chrystalline structure.

Have at it, but at least have at it with some real information.

[Diego]

The points Will mentions tend to be ignored by fad break-in methods. I like to address the whole package myself, because there's more to it than seating rings--something that on a modern engine is hard not to do, apparently, if burning oil is one's principal measure. I haven't had a single bike in the last 20 years that needed topping up between scheduled services!

Trying to honor Spike's request (and my own stated policy) of not furthering yet another tedious "motoman debate," I will only point out that manufacturers' recommendations are based on long-term testing. We're all free to do what we choose, so I'm just saying that for me to depart from what has worked on 100% of my modern-era bikes thus far, I'll first need to see controlled studies that support some other method, including long-term wear analysis.