In these days of computer animation, young people don’t see real engine cutaways as often as we once did. When you can peel away the layers with the click of a mouse, the old art of machining away metal to reveal the moving parts underneath is rapidly giving way to CAD software and 3D rendering. The young are likely convinced they’ve seen what they need to, but there’s something qualitatively different when you can touch the moving part and when a 360 degree view is generated by walking around or turning the display. Even more impressive, though, is when someone makes their own cutaway starting with a bandsaw and time.
Matt Thurman of Action Motorsports had some old, non-running engines that followed him home. You know how it goes, swap meets, deals too good to pass up, boxes of parts and all of a sudden there they are, in all of their useless glory, but Matt decided to make something of it all, so why not a cutaway? Sure, you can do a lot of this on a computer screen without getting your hands dirty, and if you “cut away” too much with the software you can always put it back on and cut somewhere else, but in the real world you have to take your time and plan your cuts because once it’s gone, there’s no going back.
Matt’s done a couple of these which he details on his website, the latest is on display in his office. I think it came out really nice, but I’m beginning to suspect we’ll be seeing fewer cutaways like this in the future. If your first look inside an engine occurred when you took a wrench, unbolted the head and saw the piston down in the cylinder, you’re from an earlier time. Now, a quick Google search or YouTube video shows someone else doing the work and a few moments later, it’s off to something else, which is too bad because real life and real learning are more than an unending stream of virtual images on a computer screen.
In the meantime, some guys are still out in their shops making metal shavings and turning out nifty projects like this. I think it looks pretty cool. Nice work, Matt.
Michael Dickson says
Interesting. Thanks.
todd says
I prefer rebuilding the engine, putting it in a bike and riding down a nice road. It takes very little technical skill to take a bandsaw to an engine. I guess that’s what you do when your efforts to get it running keep failing. Engine cutaways are much more appropriate in CAD where they can be of much more use than just a static art display. It takes the accumulation of many years of skill to render an engine in CAD where any detail can be viewed at any angle and any design improved.
If your goal is to not ride and instead enjoy a the view of a small portion of engine detail in the comfort of your living room recliner, then by all means.
Paul Crowe says
WARNING: It has been observed that in a small number of cases, extended use of CAD software can make users cranky.
todd says
Paul, I’m sorry you feel you must belittle the profession that brings us all these wonderful engines we get to enjoy. Let’s get one thing straight; I could run a bandsaw and angle grinder to “work” on engines when I was 10 years old. By the time I was in high school I could actually rebuild an engine for decades of reliable service. It wasn’t until after college and many years of full-on engineering experience and hands-on at the CAD wheel that I was able to design an engine let alone the whole vehicle. Do not fear, I haven’t forgotten how to use my angle grinder…
I understand that some people may not appreciate these skills and, instead, value the destructive use of power tools but, don’t feel like you must offend members of a hard working profession in order to win the approval of the static mechanical sculpture crowd.
Paul Crowe says
… belittling and offending the members of a hard working profession and praising the destructive use of tools? … That’s what you took away from this post?
Wow, … just wow.
Double Todd says
Sorry Paul, he is right. Powertools ARE so destructive. I have heard it rumored that both Al-Queda and ISIS use powertool when making bombs. If they didn’t have angle grinders, we wouldn’t be over there having to fix this. Most people also don’t know this but Hitler himself was once seen use a tool in a garage and it was plugged into the wall. To this day we are not sure what type of powertool it was but many think it was somehow linked to destructiveness and the fall of the Nazis and imperial Japan, thus ending the second world war. Further, Manuel Noriega was once photographed using a Milwaukee 18volt rechargeable impact drill back in the 80’s. Years ahead of Dewalt and years before it was introduced into the American market. Personally, I believe South America has been funding the use of power tools in the good old USA for years and the red color, ubiquitous to all Milwaukee products, is really communist red. CAD programs might seem innocent but in reality it was first designed by John Kennedy to help fight communist influences and the bane of the use of powertools and destructiveness in general. That’s why he was shot.
Moron, i cant believe you didn’t know this.
What are you, Merican or not?
Paul Crowe says
Historians have called JFK a bit of a cad, but I always thought they were referring to his after hours exploits with Marilyn Monroe. I didn’t know!
Matt t says
Hi Todd, the engines were complete junk, no way they were going to be rebuilt and run correctly. I built a cnc mill at home and used that for all of the intricate cuts and to make sure each piece matched up. Over 100 hours of machine time on one of these engines. I am proficient in pro-e and various cad/cam programs. For me this was a challenge to see if I could make something that would otherwise be scrapped to live on.
Pete says
TODD YOU ARE A TOOL. WHO CARES WHAT YOU PREFER. MATT HAD A “SCRAP” ENGINE AND DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING HE THOUGHT WAS COOL WITH IT OTHER THAN THROWING IT AWAY. WHY DON’T YOU GO REBUILD YOUR EGO AND RIDE IT DOWN THE ROAD TO ANOTHER WEBSITE
carbon says
Some veeeerrrry thin-skinned CAD jockeys read your posts, obviously!
jomama says
Todd, talk about missing the point! I worked in a Cad-Cam environment for many years and have since retired. It’s great in its place, but you still need a person to accurately run the band saw, grinder and hand tools (even if it’s just to assemble the proto type for testing) or all you have is a really cool cartoon and a pile of parts! Beautiful job Matt. Lets see more!
todd says
Correct, and usually it’s the person designing and engineering the engine who’s putting the initial prototypes together, modifying the pieces and then redesigning them. The topic tries to give the impression that a person running a CAD tool doesn’t know how to work with his hands.
I’ve never worked anywhere where the designer doesn’t get his hands dirty.
Hopper says
I’ve always been fascinated by cutaway engines. CAD simulations just are not the same thing, to me. Great work on these examples. I have an old Norton twin engine with cracked barrels and cases, might have to get the hacksaw and angle grinder out. With a glass table top bolted to the rocker box it would make a neat piece of decor.
jon spencer says
Many years ago the Navy had a Rate that built cutaways to be used as training aids.
If you ever get to the Museum of Flight near Seattle they have a Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major as a example.
The cutaways that they made ran from gate valves to machine guns, basically if it had moving parts and needed maintenance they made cutaways.
When one can see how parts interact, it makes the learning easier.
Paul Crowe says
Looking at a cutaway of a P&W R-4360 is enough to make your head hurt when you think about how that was designed and built before computers, just your basic drafting tools. Those are the most phenomenal engines ever.
Wave says
Hi Paul,
I love cutaway engines and this looks like a really nicely made one.
Without wanting to re-start a massive argument, this article seems like a complete turnaround from your position in “We Don’t Need Any More Custom Motorcycles, We Need Prototypes”.
You have warned your readers to keep up with the progress of modern technology and techniques, and not to stay stuck in the past using hand tools and old-fashioned methods.
Now, you seem to be lamenting the loss of those very same methods.
Paul Crowe says
If someone were designing a new engine, you fire up the CAD software and get to work. If you want to trial fit some of the pieces to make sure they fit and interact correctly you can watch an animation on screen or 3D print them or maybe CNC the parts in question. If you have an old scrap engine and you want to display the internal parts in a pleasing way while enjoying working on a relaxing project, you fire up the bandsaw. There’s no contradiction.
As my comments on that post you refer to explain, when you’re designing and building something new, take advantage of all of the tools available today to stretch your imagination and abilities to the max. Like that R-4360 in the comment above, would you start something like that today with protractors and compasses or Solidworks?
Use the tools appropriate to the job. Making a cutaway of an old scrap engine, he used exactly the right tools and methods.
In both this post and the previous one about prototypes, I refer to young people who, in this case, might spend too much time on screen which makes it a lot harder to appreciate the actual machine, giving them a false sense of knowing and understanding what they don’t. Computer screens today are everywhere and often the best route to where you’re going, but in some cases, there are other methods that work better. If you ignore my reference to the young, you’ll misinterpret what I’m saying, both in this post and the other.
Chuck L says
The comments are a great addition to the article, and to the subject, in a goofy sort of way. As has been mentioned by others, if I was designing an engine, I’d use CAD. But if I wanted to actually “see” an engine, in “real” 3D, I’d choose to view an actual cutaway. (Sorry, CAD fans, but at this point in technology, the “3D” you claim to see on a screen is actually still 2D, or 2D.1 at most. As a famous artist once said, “No, it’s not a dog. It’s a picture of a dog”, or something like that.)
Anyway, claiming that CAD is “better” than an actual cutaway, or vice versa, is one of the oddest debates I’ve ever seen. I love CAD, and I’m old enough to have once done a Mechanical Drawing project in a high school assignment, in pencil, of an overhead cam desmodromic engine I’d designed (Got an A+ on that sucker!), so I know how hard “the hard way” is.
But if you were at a car show, and there was a large room with two displays; one with a screen showing an interactive CAD of a famous engine, and the other being a physical cutaway of the actual engine, which display do you really think would be getting almost all of the “ooohs” and “ahhhs”?
Matt t says
Hi Paul, a big thank you for posting! I knew this project would turn off some people as parts for these bikes aren’t easy to come by. I know this firsthand because I love 350’s and have painstakingly restored a couple. I have rebuilt 350 engines and in my opinion these were beyond saving (broken cam chains breaking cases and the debris through the oil system, rusty cranks/cams, etc. The comments related to CAD are fun to read – a great discussion and it would be interesting to hear from more people in the industry and students too. For me I feel proud thinking that these engines will be enjoyed for years to come and hopefully raise enthusiasm for vintage iron. Thanks again Paul!