Honda-SOHC

I feel that there could be elements of many previous posts that will be affecting it.

The lever travel is linked to how soon the passage into the reservoir is closed off during lever stroke.  As Steff says,  if you squeezed the original quickly enough you'd get a little feedback visible with the cap open.  Once that locks off completely the line pressure then builds properly,  if this is a soft close it will give you more lever travel.

My recall of K2 and K6 was that the lever was quite soft and would probably go to about half travel if set up well.

But of the F1 it seemed more dead and harder to get lever travel.  Whether it changed spec between the two I've no idea.  But if it did and the pattern part is F1 based,  then it could account for some differences in feel and travel.
Or just that the pattern part doesn't quite replicate the internal geometry of an original.

An original master with refurbished seals may give you a different feel.

You're right,  forgot about those. 

They are inches diameter,  aspect ratio expressed as percentage of width,  which is mostly in millimetres now! Not confusing at all 

We drive around in miles still,  but buy fuel in litres.

Aren't mainline railways all the same,  apart from those cunning Spanish chaps?

And off down the pub for a pint of oldsquirrelbollocks, or is that now officially, I'll have a 568.261ml of old peculiar rats nadgers please barkeep.

I think I'm ambi-dexcimal 

Just feel fitter in kg, and the conversion makes it easy to drink "foreign" beer without getting rumbled 

Alot of things are better in decimal though:-

Diana Doors vs Bridget Bardot.

Lucas vs Cibié or even the super chic Sev-Marchal.

Austin Maxi vs Citroën DS

 

Assuming the piston itself can move without binding in the caliper body,  then it's most affected by the seal.

It's the function of the seal along with the groove in which it sits that withdraws the piston when lever is released.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Image (not that clear but good illustration)  shows how the seal deforms under application,  then retracts piston when fluid pressure subsides to give running clearance.

If piston is binding then seal can't exert enough pull to get it back down bore.

You needed to be absolutely scrupulous in cleaning that seal groove very carefully to make it work as originally.

Nice work,  looks pretty sweet.

What a background too 

By way of investigation,  you could go round them with your torque wrench set to same as when you assembled it to see if they "click" at that setting.

This will at least tell you if they are holding any less tension than prior to running.

If loose,  then there may just possibly be some benefit in re-torqueing them to spec.

If they all click OK,  you would probably looking at replacement seals / gasket to effect a cure.

As ka-ja and Bryanj point out,  long term experience can encompass many of the subtle elements that are not immediately apparent to someone new to these subjects.
In addition to that,  it's the reason why flat spanners and Allen keys etc have diminishing lengths as they go down in bolt size, to in effect limit the torque applied by the user and give some semblance of feel consistent with each size when tightening.

This is effectively subverted when using a socket set with one length handle for all bolt sizes,  especially if you are using 1/2 inch drive with 10mm socket.

Even when using an appropriate rate torque wrench it seems like you aren't really tightening them enough.

I've no problem in judging without a torque wrench for non critical bolts,  but have been involved with writing manuals in which a task has to be accomplished by users with very different skill levels. It's quite a challenge to convey the correct route to such a wide range of familiarity, and end up with the same final result.

There's an old description for this " those that can do and know they can are fine, those that know they can't do and seek assistance are fine, those that can't see that they can't do are where problems exist" 

This thread seems to be more "behind the scenes" discussion of how the spec is affecting the final method on these engines.

To answer your last torque question Simon,  it's useful to compare the cam cover bolts to the cylinder head studs to show the difference.  The head stud has flanged nut operating on washers to reduce the torque measured from straight surface friction.  This allows it, during tightening, to pull the stud into tension within its elasticity. The resistance in torque reading will mostly come from the thread pitch lengthening on the stud coming into conflict with the nut threads which are being compressed. 
The cam cover bolts are never going to be at that level (even those size steel bolts will easily take something in excess of 10 tons of tensile load,  they'd pull the alloy threads out of the casting long before that)  so they delete the washer with the resulting torque you measure being just from friction between the underside of the bolt flange and the alloy casting. The threads really aren't being measured in this application. 

It occurred to me that the numbers quoted in the manual are not really assembly accurate figures.  They appear to be a range that "includes" torque wrench typical error figures. I.e. aim point plus or minus 10%.
That's not the same as giving the mid range figure and accepting the error of torque would do the job.  It allows,  promotes? A situation in which you can start at the extremes of error and then add some more with a torque wrench.