Dennis, thank you for all the advice you've given me
on this rebuild, it's been informative and straight to
the point.

A follow up question, though...  Regarding the top
ring, i really can't see any distinguishing top/bottom
features.  The outside edge of the ring sits
flat/perpendicular with the side clearance surfaces
(checked it by laying it on a glass surface, then
flipping it over), and the inside edge looks just as
square.  The ring seems exactly that: square.  Just a
square donut with a small bite taken out of it -
unfortunately not matching up with any of the profiles
in the total seal literature sent with the rings...

Is it hip to be square?  Or do my glasses just need an
updated prescription?

Also, going back to your .004" per every inch of bore
statement, that would put total seal's recommendation
of .013" right in the ballpark, but i'm getting closer
to .020+".  Am in trouble, or since this is the
gapless middle ring, am i pretty much ok?

Apologies for all the minute questions - this is the
first time for me to play with piston rings...

thanks for all the help,
-Damon

--- Dennis Haynes <dhaynes@optonline.net> wrote:
> The only reason to have any gap at all is to make
> sure the rings does
> not bund if it expands more than the cylinder, (they
> do). Experienced
> machinist typically use the rule of ~.004" per inch
> of cylinder
> diameter. In other words, what is the Bently
> thinking? Typo? I have used
> the Total Seals and they work great. I am surprised
> how rarely they are
> mentioned on the list. They almost eliminate
> blow-by. That inside bevel
> on the top ring faces toward the crankcase unless
> there is also a step
> on the outside. If so, the step usually faces down.
>
> Dennis

=====
'84 Westy (Sparky)
'65 Kharma Ghia (Dharma)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com