tfaith08

Triples don't, duals do.

I'm in a position to buy some works dual rates with reservoirs and a set of triples without for roughly the same price. Both are set up for my weight. I ride some very tight, 1st gear trails and some very fast and bumpy trails. Suggestions?

Looking for Works front shocks w/res. Would like to spend no more than $325 for triples, $275 for duals (NEG). Location is southwest Alabama, have paypal account, ready to buy.

The problem there is that the transfers would have a rapid change in cross area if you widened them up that much. Piston support with the reduced sleeve area would probably cause a few problems, namely with the rings bulging, but I see what you're getting at. Someone mentioned it earlier (or maybe it was another thread), but modern designs use triple transfers on each side. This really does a lot to keep the mixture flowing in the intended path. Again, it was also mentioned that there is a lot to be gained from getting the mixture into the cylinder in a controlled manner. The triple ports do a lot to help that, I believe. There are a lot of things that fall into the "minor gains" territory, and those are the things that intrigue me. It's obvious that aiming a port in the right direction will provide some nice gains, but things like adding a radius to an otherwise straight surface to pull the mixture in the direction of the curve are things that fall into that group. A dyno and a lot of time are needed to create an above average port configuration. The difference of 2-3hp from small things isn't that easy to come by. Sure, you can get that extra few hp from shifting the power peak to the right, but what about those that want a wide powerband? Some of these things are so incremental that an inconstancy on the dyno will cover up that gain. However, 10 or so small changes can add up to an extra hp or better response throughout the RPM range. After some time, you stumble upon well in excess of just 10 little ideas. However, you do have to consider just how difficult it is to create the same configuration over and over, especially on large surfaces and hard to see areas. I'm working on a 250R cylinder that I'm grinding the transfers much further forward on. It gets really hard to see some of those small changes that you did the day before. Therein lies the implication that one must make no more than one change at a time. 9-10 different bikes with the exact same parts will all produce a slightly different power curve. However, the largest drawback is that spending an extra 3-4 hours doing some very detailed work for only another 1-2 hp isn't worth it to most people, especially professional builders. For the DIY with spare time that isn't consumed by anything else, he may benefit from things like this.

58 isn't bad. Flotek has 60 posted online for his port with Toomeys, V-Forces, 20cc domes, +4 timing, and a filter. I do tend to start a post with a short, straight forward idea and it turns into a 10 paragraph rant about one thing. I'll try it here. On the roof angles, I know that there's a lot of correlation to the aiming (front/rear). A Banshee has a pretty steep angle on the secondary, but the ports are angled back pretty well there. On the 250R, the ports aren't as steep, but they're not angled as far back either. I'd like to angle the transfers back some more on the R, but the ring gaps are right in that area and the owner won't drop the money to get a piston so that I can measure this one. I have a few things left to do with this next COMSOL model and I'll post some pics.

$4.50 for a pack of cigarettes, or a SuperFlow flow bench? I think I know the answer lol. I would absolutely not call this a method of quantifying your port work by any means, but it is cool.

I'd say to lets keep it to Banshee engines, but I don't see why other applications couldn't be cited as well. I mean, once you start using epoxy in excess, a lot of porting configurations become possible. I'm looking at getting another set of Banshee cylinders and adding epoxy to the outside of where I want to cut the Boyesen ports. I was looking at the extra 250R jug that's on my bench and I'm trying to see what the original design was going for. It's obvious that the engineers were going for a top down approach, but for what reason? Was it to aim the ports down that much or was it because the mixture was easier to get to flow in that direction? Design constraints? Why? I can see that aiming them down will allow the mixture a chance to make it to the mains. I can also see where aiming them up a bit higher might make the mixture want to pile up on the front wall of the secondary, so I don't know the reason. I know what I think about them, but I'm trying to get some constructive discussion going. I'll tell you something that's pretty cool for you smokers (of cigarettes, of course). Take a cylinder and blow smoke through some of the transfers while holding the cylinder up to a light and watch what happens. It's cooler than you'd think it would be. If anyone doesn't understand some of the flow concepts that have been discussed thus far in this thread, go do that and you'll see.

Does anyone have any thoughts on Boyesen port aiming/dimensions?

A rotary valve can make some good power and they are very tunable, but a reed is more dynamic when talking about cylinder pressure. And I do like how a lot of the modern, remaining high performance bikes have case reed designs.

So I wonder what the determining factor is here with the cases. In theory, if you had a cylinder with porting configuration "A" and then cut another cylinder from a different application to the same proportions with the same bore and stroke, rod angle, head design, timing advance, pipe, reed, carburetion capabilities, filter and filter location, etc. it should produce an identical powerband. Take a Blaster for example. With it's 66mm bore, if it was possible to stroke it to a 72mm (from 57) with a blank cylinder modified to the same proportions as a 250R and everything as described above, it would effectively be an air cooled 250R engine IN THEORY. Now there is obviously the possibility of doing this to make an engine the same as a watercraft. The reason I say that is because somewhere along the line, the case volume has to be altered to become an identical setup before optimum power is achieved. So with that, the case volume dimension has to have a set of determining factors here. The first that I think is triple transfers on watercraft. (does your 200hp configuration fit this bill?) That should create a greater velocity because of the same amount of pressure difference between the reed and cylinder, but the smaller port size due to the area of 2 port dividers rather than one. Also, the angle between the reed and the transfers, as well as the distance from the reed to the case and the transfers, would play a part here if I'm thinking correctly. Now with a Banshee (or any engine), what would be the point where one would need have the case volume increased? I don't mean to imply that the goal here is to increase case volume, but I'd like to know when it would become beneficial to do so. I can come up with only a few times where I believe that it would be a good idea. One is when the increase comes as a byproduct of streamlining the flow from the reed and to the transfers. *This is one of the two places where my recent focus has been.* The other is when an engine is designed for a wide powerband and a pipe designed to pull enough AFM is fitted.

I purchased a black head from Chariot around Christmas and installed it when I moved back home. The shipping was very quick, the packaging was more than sufficient, and the domes fit like a glove. With the head, I also received every o-ring needed for installation as well as 5-6 others for backup. Installing the head was straight forward. I used Vaseline to secure the o-rings in place. Then, I screwed a spark plug into each done and placed them into the head. I used the spark plugs to hold the head while I lowered it onto the banshee. Removing the head required a bit of coercion, to which the Chariot piece was nearly the same (obviously, this means that the head was very close to the factory fit). Stock at 160' ASL, compression was 114 left and 116 right. With the PD 21cc domes, compression was 149 left and 150 right. One of the best things about the piece is that the radiator is noticeably hotter, which means that the head is pulling much more heat from the engine. For 185 shipped, this is an amazing piece. The quality of the piece, the fit, the appearance, the packaging, and the timely shipping were definite pluses. The next time I need a piece and Chariot makes it, I'll be buying from them.

camatv, I think I'm on to a few things with that same exact topic as well. I'll PM you about them. Thinking about a 2 stroke as a whole is sort of mind numbing at first, but once you get a good grasp on the function of each little area, you'll start to see it. THAT'S when good ideas come. To tap on your post about the transfer aiming, I do agree that not combinations are meant to have rearward facing ports. Out where I am (in the woods), most guys want bottom end AND top end for the open areas, which makes it difficult. I really do try to consider the transfers in several ways, to include without a pipe, too much scavenge, too little, and just right. From all of that, I have found that the longer the transfer length and the more rearward they face, the smoother the powerband. It does nick a bit off of peak, bot most would rather have 80% peak power over 2500rpm than 2 more peak HP with a 1000rpm powerband. On the other hand, you have guys (like me) that just love the way their bike puts power down, but they want more. What do you really do in a situation like that? I guess that's why you always pipe to port instead of port to pipe. The crankcase volume does bring a somewhat unexplored topic. Most everyone thinks of the airflow as "through the piston ports" and "through the transfers", but no one thinks about the in-between. What about the flow between the piston ports and the transfer ports? It isn't exactly smooth. A bit of epoxy and some more curves can really put you on top of some great numbers, but your transfers better be absofuckinglutely perfect, otherwise the power will vanish. Tapping on that, the majority of my thought goes into getting more flow to the mains. With Boyesen ports on a Banshee or Blaster, more air is going to reach the secondaries, as will a 250R, but what about the rears? The 250R does a better job than most because the Boyesen ports are aimed down, which gives the air more of a chance to be in the place it needs to be for whichever port. BUT, the problem where more air reaches the secondaries than the mains does allow for more pressure in the back of the cylinder does persist. Does this help scavenge the cylinder or does it go out of the exhaust? Again, this depends on the airflow through each. This is getting into my secrets here, but I believe that the secondaries shouldn't be allowed to flow to their full potential for that very reason. 90% with a careful shape is about best IMO. Additionally, I think the Banshee has a good design by having them aimed slightly upward because it does reduce the overall ability of the AFM to pile up at the boost port. However, since the ports are very short after the last curve in the tunnel, the AFM can't be that concentrated, so it has to pile up and dissipate rather than flow. With this, I like to either do a slight bottleneck with the big end at the cylinder OR epoxy the small radius and cut the outside ones very large. Combined with the mains flowing at maximum speed to the back, it produces a very wide powerband. Why? If the secondaries are flowing just as fast as the mains and are facing one another, pressure builds up and the flow from the boost port just adds to the turbulence. By this time, the mains have nothing to run into but pressure. The momentum from the mains jsut pushes everything out of the way and only a portion makes it's way up top. Keep in mind that as the exhaust flows out of the exhaust port, it does have the slinky effect of the gasses moving. That pressure up top makes it harder for the air to make it up top. Since it has to go somewhere, and since fluids create a low pressure as they flow, the AFM just blends with the exhaust mixture as it passes by. Of course, you do have the majority sitting around the boost port, snaking it's way up and you still have the pipe scavenging effect pulling the pressure out, but if you can direct that pressure ONLY up the back of the cylinder while the exhaust really vents, you'll be quite happy. My thinking for that is because the mains are at greater risk for loss out of the exhaust port, the AFM has to be screaming out of the tunnels. The secondaries need to have the bottleneck early in the tunnel to make flow a tad difficult to get going, but flow like hell after they move. They also need to be angled slightly upward (I like 7-10 degrees on this type). That way, the boost port has enough room to start moving and has momentum in an upward direction because the secondaries aren't piling shit up, while the flow from the mains approaches. As the suction wave happens, the pressure from under the bottleneck is building up and screams out of the tunnel as everything else is just now dissipating. BUT... if the secondaries are at a 7-10 degree angle, how can the floor be angled to get air across the top of the piston and prevent a low pressure spot which pulls the charge down AND maintain a shape that promotes flow in the direction that we want, which is 7-10 degrees upward? If we depend on the flow from the mains to do the trick, we run into turbulence. It does become a very difficult topic at that point and the answer hasn't come to me yet, but I'll get it to you guys when I figure it out. Furthermore, a somewhat lower initial flow from the transfers means that there is more AFM vented from in front of the reeds (which is always good) than if it had to travel down to the secondaries. *Keep in mind that air does have a slinky effect and momentum here. I had to remind myself of that when writing all of this down in my notes.* Now if travel was even to both, the AFM would try to split and create a very low pressure spot, halting the momentum of the AFM because of excess vacuum. This is another reason why I think the secondaries should be delayed a bit. Boyesen ports may help out here some as well, but again, I haven't put as much thought into the design of these. Last thing on porting for now, I swear. What about the area above and below the reed cage? If air exists there, it can flow. If it can flow, it can potentially give the reed pedal resistance and prevent it from opening while the pipe is in it's suction phase. Again, keep in mind that air has a slinky effect and it will take time to get from the pipe to the transfers to the crankcase to the reeds. Under an upstroke, this is a babyshit problem. However, every incremental gain outside of that is a worthwile gain in my book. If that area is filled with epoxy, it can be a good thing to have. On the other hand, if the pressure is much too high to allow the reeds to open at this time, that epoxy just took up quite a bit of volume that was right there by the boost port. Best over at Blasterforum did something like this and he said it had gobs of bottom end power. I don't think it was a piece to a jigsaw puzzle of a build, but he did it and he said he was happy with it. He had pics and a tutorial for it. I'd say that a Dremel is good for porting 4-strokes, carbs, small manifolds, transfer bottoms, exhaust ports, and reed cages. For really good transfer work, you need a good handpiece. My stuff is out with a buddy right now and I'm stuck with a Dremel. To be honest, I just ported a TTR125 head, carried the shape out to the intake manifold, matched it to the carb, ported the carb, and cleaned the exhaust port up with a Dremel Chainsaver. That one is the one to get if you must buy a Dremel. It's small, cheap, powerful, and very balanced. Outside of that.... YOU WILL NOT BEAT A QUALITY PORTING SETUP

I'd thought about where you could add the extra volume as well. However, I'll never chase that idea because I don't have the resources. I know Passion Racing has some stuff like this conjured up and used on bikes, but you'll never squeeze any info out of those guys. I do agree that along the bottoms of the transfers would be a good idea, but you have to worry about structural integrity as well. However, around the crank wouldn't be too bad because the piston's downward travel would force the charge out of the way, potentially creating a bit of momentum in the direction of the transfers. Again, I haven't put much thought into this. I have seen a few hot saws that have the factory ports epoxied over and huge transfers cut out in them that are made out of epoxy. Maybe that would be a consideration for a way to add structural integrity back to the removed area. Actually, I'm thinking about scavenging now and think that the extra diameters and tapers of the throat and first megaphone sections would contribute greatly to this. I just got through reading a thread where a guy wanted to know if a Banshee pipe would work on a Blaster. I like reading stuff like that because you'll occasionally have a guy post up some scientific reason as to why it won't work. Now, I'm thinking that a pipe designed for extra cc would pull more of that mixture and work well with the extra volume. I'm sure that the reverse megaphone would have a big part in this as well, but pipe design eludes me. I think it also plays a slight part in getting the reeds back open when the transfers uncover (or slightly thereafter). In the end, if we have the same volume in the cylinder at 90 +/- degrees BTDC, it doesn't matter if we lost some out of the exhaust port to make sure that the exhaust gasses were purged more effectively. BUT, that's where the reverse megaphone comes in. Maybe a throat and megaphone designed for 40cc more and a reverse megaphone that can only handle 20 extra cc would do well here. Yeah, we'd lose some AFM, but we'd have more in the cylinder and when shooting for maximum performance, who cares about fuel economy?

Cheap, fast, reliable. Pick any 2, but you can't have 3. That's generally how it goes. When you put the top end back together, make sure you check for anything pried apart with a flat-tip screwdriver. If that has happened, get ready for a leak in that spot. Might as well go ahead and get the epoxy out. Get new seals, new gaskets, replace hoses, fix wires, etc. Make sure your sleeve is fine, piston-sleeve clearance is within spec, check the end gap on your rings, replace any worn parts. If you need a bore, get forged pistons and give them to the chop boring the cylinder. Lube everything up, assemble, torque everything to spec and in the order that you should. Do a leakdown test, fix any discrepancies. Add fluids, and watch for leaks from screwdriver idiots, fix any discrepancies. Make sure you pipes are seated correctly. Do heat cycles. Tune it and do a plug chop. Anything can be made reliable. A lot of guys say that a Banshee needs to be rebuilt every 90 hours, but my dad has a '94 with the factory hone marks. Run good oil, good gas, at good ratios, always (this doesn't mean Quicksilver or Stihl). Run a clean filter with filter oil. Don't keep it wound out. Use the clutch. If you must refrain from using the clutch, at least use it on downshifts. If you run gas with ethanol, run the gas out of it before you allow it to sit for more than a day or 2. This isn't a rebuild guide, but I think that covers most screw ups. I just put the 24th tank in my banshee and I haven't had a hitch yet. My dads has been running strong for over 20 without a rebuild.

I'm worried about that clunking sound. If you try to take off in second, does it bog the same?

I bet you can convince some guy with a Raptor to buy your boost bottle. "Bro, can you imagine a Raptor with a Banshee boost bottle?! Yeah, it's kind of like NOS."

If anyone is trying to save money by porting a cylinder by themselves, it's a waste of time. However, if you have 4 machines and an extra cylinder or set of cylinders for each and already have a Dremel, you're potentially in a decent spot. If you have some money, trash the Dremel and buy a porting setup. Now, I say Dremel because a lot of people have one sitting around or know someone that does. I also think that a Dremel is a great tool to learn on because it is a limited piece of gear; you can't accomplish that much with it and it's hard to mess up with. I was telling the guy that taught me that I wished that I had a ton of money to spend on a shop and the equipment to learn on, and he responded with, "If you had the money before the experience, you'd be stupid with it." I agree 100%, which is why I think that most should start with a Dremel. Hell, I prefer my Dremel when it's feasible to use it. For example, of those who do port their stuff, how many actually alter port widths and heights? Of those, who can actually design them to their liking/needs? Of all the people I've ever talked to, to include quite a few very experienced and intelligent mechanics, most have no clue what to start with. When they do start "porting", they start with the bottoms of the transfers and maybe touch the exhaust up a bit if they have a long enough sanding bit or carbide and they leave it at that. For that, a Dremel is fine. On the other hand, you have guys that actually have the potential to do a decent job. If they start with a Dremel, they'll see the limitations and do what they can without over-stepping the capabilities of the grinder. To narrow it down even further, you have a few that have the $600 for a professional grinder and bits, given that they have another cylinder to port in the future. I say all of that to say this: there is a very wide margin of people between those who port and those who don't have the money to do it themselves or pay a pro to do it. You can't just shove everyone into one group or another. What if a kid comes across an old LTR and uses his grandfathers Dremel set to try and learn on? Is there anything wrong with that? That's how the hell I got my start. I'm all for free flow of information. In the end, you'll rarely beat a CC setup. You have to have the CCs right angle grinder and a motor at a minimum. No Dremel will ever beat a CC piece. However, I'd love to see how a noob with a full fledged CC pro setup would compare to a pro with a Dremel. As for a dyno, they're a must if you're without someone to guide you. I have occasional access to a dyno, but it's a sneak it in this day ordeal. BUT, there again, most people don't have access to a dyno. As mentioned in my post, beginners need to shoot for an adjustment to the current power curve rather than building something radical on the first go. Once they achieve their goal, they should stop and call it good. Placebo effect does start to kick in though. I also agree with the reputable builder thing. A builder should always test their own work, albeit at a reasonable interval. I've seen it and I've done it myself where numbers will creep over time. For example, if I open my piston ports up on my Banshee to "X" by "Y" and then do someone elses, then another, then another, and so on, the surrounding area of the piston ports will have differed, even though the "X" and "Y" are the same. I have a set of Banshee cylinders that have 2 different porting configurations on them. One is for trail and one is for drag. My widths and heights are all upstairs as well as written down, but those curves from all those cylinders will blend together after a while. If I come across a guy who's open to me trying something new on his cylinders, I'll do it to his bike. If it works, I'll add it to the 2 that I have sitting. Is Registered User really KOR?

Looks someone wanted to start on porting but got lazy and ground the paint off. Does the other cylinder look the same?

You have to also know when to chase an imperfection and when to leave or epoxy it. If you're chasing one tiny dip in the casting or an accidental grind from the carbide, you should determine whether fixing it can jeopardize your entire surface. A guy (can't remember where I read it) was porting a 250R and his carbide grabbed and dug a rut right out to his cylinder. He ended up going from his planned 188 duration to a 196ish duration and had to redo his transfers to match. He lost out pretty badly, but he could have done a starting notch on both sides instead. A starting notch is just a 3-5mm wide cutaway that can be up to another 10degrees higher than the rest of the exhaust port that is meant to aid starting. Once you rev up, the effects of the notch aren't noticeable. They're used to reduce kick-back from larger displacement engines and those with higher compression That's one example of a fix it, leave it, or re-plan scenario.

I start with exhaust duration. Then, I go with transfer duration based off of exhaust duration using blowdown figures. After that, I use a version of Jennings's port-time area formulas to find width/corner diameters. I generally like to keep the corners at the highest possible radius as allowed by port shape and port-time area numbers. After that, I put a piece of paper in the cylinder and use a pencil to scratch over all of the ports. I then measure the ports and figure height from duration. I then mark the new numbers and shapes down on the same paper and then translate it over to the cylinder(s). Once I have all of my marks, I use carbides cut to them and then match the rest of the port shape to them. Then, I port the bottoms of the ports and make sure they line up and match the shape of the ports. I double check all of my port measurements and once all of that is done, I switch to stones and finish all of my surfaces and call it good.

https://workspaces.acrobat.com/app.html#d=5eNaltKS9ZOTGrp0FI7cGA That was posted on there. I skimmed through and agree with a lot of it, but one thing kind of stands out. I don't like to port match the exhaust port to the pipe. A smaller diameter will maintain velocity and momentum. However, a step will prevent exhaust reversion, which we want with an expansion chamber. I'm experimenting with a reverse venturi nozzle right now. This will maintain the velocity, but allow the pipe reversion to take place. I did notice one thing that I highly agree with. The picture of the modified boost port that has a taper around the reed side of it is something I like to do. There isn't much volume for the boost port to pull from when approaching BDC. Making the transition to the boost port will aid in flow here, if my thinking is right.

I tried the angling of the transfers toward the back of the cylinder on quite a few cylinders. However, I've only ever done a port job without and then with back to back on my wife's Blaster. I found that it didn't feel like it affected peak power whatsoever, but it did add just a bump to bottom end and midrange, but it did help on over-rev. In my mind, what's happening here is that the charge is being forced toward the boost port and then forced up by the boost port. Like you said, it keeps the charge away from the exhaust. When the initial wave pulls the charge out of the cylinder, the AFM has to redirect because it already has momentum in another direction. It ultimately amounts to less in the expansion chamber, making the return wave a bit weaker. In addition, the smaller content creates a lower pressure in the pipe, which I think makes the exhaust pull out of the cylinder a bit more. Since the charge is already looping back then up, it has to then travel from the upper region of the cylinder, giving it more distance to travel. This makes it harder for the charge to snake its way out of the exhaust port. Also, I do believe that there exists a slightly grater vacuum between that region of the cylinder and the exhaust with rearward facing ports, so think on that. As for peak, I do think it may bump it to the right by 100rpm or so, but again, this is a theoretical idea; I never felt it on the Blaster. On over-rev, the return wave is only partially making it back to the cylinder before the piston closes the port. That vacuum I mentioned earlier contributes here, I THINK. I believe that it helps the exhaust continue to pull the charge on around because it has a further path to travel as opposed to the original design. As for crank volume, I don't have the resources to test this. With a pipe that doesn't have a great scavenging effect, I'd like to think that a smaller crankcase would be more beneficial throughout. Without a strong suction from the pipe, about the only way to get charge into the bottom end would be from the upward reciprocation of the piston. Don't forget about the momentum of the charge traveling through the reeds. If everything flows well enough, the potential exists for a slight supercharging effect. Now a pipe with a great scavenging effect would take more advantage of the larger crankcase volume. Not much more than basic reasoning is required to understand that the piston won't pull in as much or create as much pressure due to the pressure differential, but the pull from the pipe has the potential to pull mixture through the reeds and through the transfers even at BDC. I think the limit here with a very, very thoroughly designed pipe/port combination would be where the reeds stay open for all but just after the transfers open. Again, this is all in my mind. I don't have a formal education in fluid dynamics or fluid mechanics, but I have read up on them enough to answer the occasional porting question.

Well, if Zilla wants to see the thread trashed, he can try to get it taken it down. Otherwise, I'm going to make a contribution whether you, or anyone else, want me to or not. I've been building engines since I was 11 years old and I had a multiple world record holding hot saw builder (PM me for the name) that took me under his wing and taught me a lot. I had already quit drag racing my LT250R by the time you joined the forum, Zilla and I'm assuming you joined because you had some question about how to jet a carb and couldn't use the search bar. With the exception of the Tecate-4, I've ported every model of 2 stroke quad there is, as well as quite a few dirt bikes, chainsaws, and kart engines. I don't give a shit if you have 5,800 posts, don't talk to me like I'm a noob until you can make somewhat of a contribution that isn't regurgitated MacDizzy, Bell, or Jennings material. So until then, why don't you piss off until you can decide to make a contribution to the forum (which is what we should all be here for) instead of picking apart the definition of porting. Matter of fact, why don't you chime in and give us your experience-based guidance on how to port a cylinder? I know that there are guys out there, both registered and non-registered (guests) that are actively looking for more information on porting, because I know I searched relentlessly for anything other MacDizzy's site when I got my start. I read that site front to back and just about had it memorized, but there were still gaps. I couldn't buy a book, I couldn't find any worthwhile material, I sure as hell couldn't afford a professional porting job, but I wanted to learn. I started on every 2 stroke engine I could get my hands on and learned what worked and what didn't. When I finally got Jennings's book, I understood it because I'd been through the process. Now, I'm crunching numbers for a TRX250R cylinder, and the owner wants the widest powerband possible with an emphasis on lower mid-range. He's using a 36mm Keihin and PC exhaust, 22cc dome, and a short-rod bottom end. Why don't you tell me what numbers you'd use for the transfers, since I'm currently figuring those out? Oh, and I still need an angle for the boost port as well. This is an exercise in which I can 1) show the other readers how I use my methods, and 2) show you that you have no place to try and pick this thread apart unless you actually do know what's going on, in which case it really wouldn't matter because you lack the basic courtesies required to sustain an intelligent, constructive conversation, or at least so have you proven thus far. In either case, you need to GTFO, ZillaFreak.

Only use the sandpaper to get the edges just a bit. The pin I'm referring to goes here: *NOT MY IMAGE*

I had that problem with my left carb. I just took a file and beveled the cutout on the slide and rounded the pin off just a bit. Do you have wear on the pin? Have you oiled your cable recently? Is your adjustment nut on the other one stripped? Have you checked to see if the previous owner cut the springs to reduce pull? I have taken 200 grit sandpaper to some slides and slide cutouts in the past and it solved the problem.