|
Gr3y posted:I have that bike's big brother (1982 CB750SC). Great bike. The only think I would recommend is as soon as you get it home do the brakes. Two sets of pads for the fronts and new shoes for the back should run less then 80 bucks. That would help a ton. Is there a problem with Nighthawk brakes or something?
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2009 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
A friend's dad just got a blackbird. The friend really likes it and says the motor is even smoother than my VFR800. Bastard! At any rate they're pretty cool bikes and I'd definitely buy one if I was in the market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
Stoic Commie posted:That would help a ton. Is there a problem with Nighthawk brakes or something? Mine just feel really soft and I have no confidence in them, so I'm putting on some organic pads and new shoes. I think this is going to be my rule for any bike I buy that isn't brand spanking new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
Stoic Commie posted:The only mechanical problem he mentioned is that the blinkers will occasionally stop working, apparently a ground wire somewhere. Its probably the flasher unit itself. I've found the mechanical ones to be flaky. Easy fix.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 02:12
|
|
|
8ender posted:Its probably the flasher unit itself. I've found the mechanical ones to be flaky. Easy fix. I don't know how much that will run, but it's missing the left side cover in the pics and with brakes, I'm going to try to talk him down to $450.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
Stoic Commie posted:I don't know how much that will run, but it's missing the left side cover in the pics and with brakes, I'm going to try to talk him down to $450. A nice electronic flasher runs around $10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 02:43
|
|
|
Gr3y posted:Beside mine being 2 years older than I am? Not really. If they feel soft, I'd change the brake fluid-a good idea on a yearly basis anyway. New fluid and a good bleed should give you a nice firm lever.New shoes and pads won't hurt at all either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:If they feel soft, I'd change the brake fluid-a good idea on a yearly basis anyway. New fluid and a good bleed should give you a nice firm lever.New shoes and pads won't hurt at all either. Oh, the feel of the lever is fine. It has a very nice, positive, engagement. The issue is the brakes just don't really feel like they're biting. I'm sure they're serviceable but I had a get off due to my lack of confidence in being able to make an emergency stop (I'm pretty sure the bike would have been capable of what I needed it to do, I just didn't have enough confidence in my equipment to make it.) The new brakes are almost as much of a mental thing for me as a mechanical thing for the bike.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 04:43
|
|
|
You want bad brakes? I got your bad brakes! I have a Honda CM400 in the fleet, which I have been considering selling, figuring it would be an ideal beginners bike. Problem being is that the brakes are terrible. The CM400E has drum brakes, the shoes appear fine but the brakes are just about useless. My concern with it as a beginners bike is that if the n00b needed to stop quickly, it won't happen on that bike-and I have this feeling that it would be irresponsible to sell a bike like that to a new rider. If I wanted disk brakes, I'd have to do a Comstar wheel swap, and I refuse to do that to the bike. Wouldn't be kind at all. If you lack confidence, I would second the motion for you to do what you need to get it back. Lack of confidence makes for nervous, unpleasant riding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 05:40
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:You want bad brakes? I got your bad brakes! Are the drums themselves glazed? I thought the CM400 was a little bike, I would think drums on it would be enough to stop it. But kudos on not unloading it on a beginner. Having no brakes is no god drat fun. You mentioned a disk swap, off hand do you know what's required to convert a rear drum machine to rear brakes? I'm thinking it's just a matter of finding a rear wheel donor with a rotor, fitting calipers to the frame, and maybe swapping in a new MC for the rear (I don't know if my bike has a separate MC for the rear or if it's all run off the one on the bars). But if it's so simple I would assume that everyone would have done it by now. A bad brake story of my own: My first car was my grandpa's '69 Nova. My folks shelled out some decent cash to have the interior redone and a nice paint job on it, but did nothing to it mechanically. It has drums all around but the system is so shot (I'm thinking issues with the MC and all the lines) that I had to bleed it on a daily basis to keep it semi functional. Why they gave a broke rear end high school student (and then broke rear end college student), with only a socket set to his name, a car with no brakes I'll never know. I eventually had to shelve it as it just wasn't safe to tool around a busy college town in. That thing is still in storage and hand to god, when I have a garage of my own it'll be re-restored and have a proper braking system in it. Till then it gets to quietly get a little shittier every year in some rent-a-shed lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 06:56
|
|
|
Gr3y posted:
Depends on the bike, and if there was a version of the bike that used a rear disk. Usually the caliper mounts to the swing arm, so you would have to fab up a mount or use the disk brake swing arm. You'd have a seperate MC for the rear brake and mounting that would take some patience unless you had the disk brake version on hand. And after all that work, you'd find that your braking capacity hasn't increased by much since the rear brake is still only 30% on a good day. If I wanted more stopping poswer, I'd be more inclined to mount another disk to the front.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 07:24
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Depends on the bike, and if there was a version of the bike that used a rear disk. Ahhh. Good to know. I already have a twin rotor setup up front, so unless I start moving into exotic waved or cross drilled set ups there isn't a whole lot for me to do. And if I find myself needing superbike braking on my 27 year old standard I really need to reevaluate what I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 08:01
|
|
|
Gr3y posted:Ahhh. Good to know. I already have a twin rotor setup up front, so unless I start moving into exotic waved or cross drilled set ups there isn't a whole lot for me to do. And if I find myself needing superbike braking on my 27 year old standard I really need to reevaluate what I'm doing. Wave rotors are just neat. They aren't a braking advantage. Drilled holes, or cut groves provide the same feel as wave rotors. They're lighter, which improves steering. Having better braking is always an advantage. That's why I'm running a large diameter rotors, drilled rotors, big piston calipers, stainless steel braided lines, and a small piston master cylinder. After having brake fade coming down from 80mph, I will never risk that again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 14:29
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Wave rotors are just neat. They aren't a braking advantage. Drilled holes, or cut groves provide the same feel as wave rotors. They're lighter, which improves steering. Well this isn't entirely true... Wave rotors stay at a lower temp than regular cross-drilled or slotted rotors and some riders say that the braking feel is more consistent. More of track minded gear than street really though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 14:53
|
|
|
CoolBlue posted:Well this isn't entirely true... They'd have to heat up faster. There's less mass, and the same amount of energy is being put into the disks. That will make the rotor will heat up and reach equilibrium faster. I could see that giving a more consistent feel. They also have a great many leading edges. Each leading edge provides more bite. Their surface to mass ratio isn't significantly different from even a undrilled disk. I wonder if fade with wave rotors hits more sharply than with solid disks. It would make sense that once you exceeded the heat rejection capacity of the disk, it's temperature would climb faster than a solid disk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 15:27
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:They'd have to heat up faster. There's less mass, and the same amount of energy is being put into the disks. That will make the rotor will heat up and reach equilibrium faster. I could see that giving a more consistent feel. They also have a great many leading edges. Each leading edge provides more bite. Their surface to mass ratio isn't significantly different from even a undrilled disk. Well the way I understand it, they don't actually have less mass than conventional rotors, but I could be mistaken. Not sure about the temp climbing faster than a conventional disk, I think the leading edges and just all around odd shape would cause turbulent flow around the rotor. Either way they look bad rear end, but cost too much money for any advantage you may or may not see on the street.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 22:34
|
|
|
As I understand these things-drilled rotors help to ensure that the pads always have a nice fresh surface to press against the disk. They are, if you will, self cleaning and dont glaze (as readily). Wave rotors? Look cool and may be of value on the track, and honestly may be a consumable in that environment. We dont usually change our rotors after every spirited ride. On the street, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 03:21
|
|
|
Looking at http://baltimore.craigslist.org/mcy/1079257786.html as a first bike--1973 Suzuki GT250. Can't imagine it being any good on the open road, but looks good otherwise. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 16:42
|
|
|
It will do 110mph. I think that qualifies as just fine for the open road. http://www.suzukicycles.org/GT-series/GT250.shtml The asking price seems reasonable. I'd be looking to pay 800 for that rather than $1000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 16:49
|
|
|
So I went and looked at that 83 Nighthawk 550. It was pretty good, a little dirty and some pitting on the chrome, but nice otherwise. There were only three problems with it. 1. He said it was the first time it had been out of the garage since last season, and after we got it running when I would rev the engine in neutral up to around 5000 rpms then let it drop down a bit then rev it back up it would bog down. As in it wouldn't rev properly and sounded like the engine wasn't getting enough fuel. He said it was just because it had been sitting and would go away eventually. (The fuel was stabalized while it sat and the carbs were cleaned and synched last season according to him) 2. When riding it, when I would turn or swerve it felt like the steering was pulling to the right and didn't want to respond to me turning the bars properly. I noticed after I got off of the bike that the right fork seal was destroyed, is that the cause? Or is it something more serious? Note: The bike has never been crashed. 3. There was a tiny oil leak as seen here running down the plastic cover right above where the oil goes in and the shifter.  I didn't notice if it was there before I rode it, but there was no oil leaking from anywhere when we looked it over and we couldn't find the source. Is it a problem? So considering all of this I offered him $475. What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
I'll leave the other guys to discuss the rest of the trickier mechanical bits, but when it comes to things like steering, start with the simplest first. Were the tyres properly inflated? If no, then the bike will handle like a big bag of poo poo, and will often feel like it's trying to steer in a direction quite counter to what you would normally expect. This can be apparent with the tyres being as little as 5psi under recommended pressure, so...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 20:27
|
|
|
Iniquitous posted:Looking at http://baltimore.craigslist.org/mcy/1079257786.html as a first bike--1973 Suzuki GT250. Can't imagine it being any good on the open road, but looks good otherwise. Any thoughts? Thats an awesome bike and I'd be buying it myself if it were anywhere near me. I need a second bike like I need a hole in my head but still, a two stroke standard sounds like a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 20:31
|
|
|
Simkin posted:I'll leave the other guys to discuss the rest of the trickier mechanical bits, but when it comes to things like steering, start with the simplest first. The tires were brand new and had been put on before it was stored for winter. They had not been inflated since it had been taken out of storage, but it was kept on blocks and I didn't feel any give when I pressed on them. However since they had not been inflated since last year I'm sure they lost some air one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 20:40
|
|
|
Stoic Commie posted:The tires were brand new and had been put on before it was stored for winter. They had not been inflated since it had been taken out of storage, but it was kept on blocks and I didn't feel any give when I pressed on them. However since they had not been inflated since last year I'm sure they lost some air one way or the other. You need to check the tire pressures. The rest of it sounds like the carbs may need to be cleaned...if you want to store it right, you add stabilizer, and then drain the carbs, either by running the bike till it dies, or draining the float bowls. If you leave gas in it too long, even with stabilizer, it'll eventually varnish. Besides that, seems pretty reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 22:02
|
|
|
Z3n posted:You need to check the tire pressures. So you don't think the oil leak is a problem then? Oh and it also needs brake pads and rear brake shoes. Is taking off the rear tire and changing the shoes going to make me want to kill myself?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
the leak is likely nothing. Changing shoes and pads isn't hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 22:29
|
|
|
Stoic Commie posted:So you don't think the oil leak is a problem then? Oh and it also needs brake pads and rear brake shoes. Is taking off the rear tire and changing the shoes going to make me want to kill myself? My Clymer manual should arrive tomorrow so I'll be able to let you know tomorrow night. My '82 has an ugly rear end oil leak from a bolt on the head, but that's all it is: ugly. It losses about a teaspoon a month and that's about it. As long as it doesn't start leaking oil like an AMF era Harley you shouldn't be too concerned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 22:31
|
|
|
Another possible problem regarding the steering may be a combo of bad head bearings and misaligned forks. Tire pressure can be an issue but if the bike feels "drunk" it's more likely to be the bearings. Getting the bearing off the bottom of the triple clamp can be interesting, the rest isn't hard, mostly busywork.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2009 05:36
|
|
|
Is a Ninja 250 a good beginners bike?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2009 17:28
|
|
|
Nope, not at all. Yes, it's an excellent beginner's bike. There's a huge market. Good resale value, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2009 17:31
|
|
|
kdc67 posted:Nope, not at all. Cool, thanks. I'm currently riding a scooter that I'm happy with, but know that eventually I will want to move up to something with a bit more power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2009 17:40
|
|
|
Has anyone transitioned from a Nighthawk Honda CB250 to the CB750? I really like the Nighthawk (so far as my noob rear end can grasp) for handling, overall comfort, etc. I'd just like something that's a little more stable on the highway and that has a little more guts. On steep hills the 250cc really labors to hold 50mph, and passing on the interstate is a bit tricky since 75mph is about the best it will do on short notice, though I can get to 80 if I get a good 20sec of clear roadway and tuck in. The 750 has at least twice as much horsepower, and I'm a bit concerned I'll be out of my league with only 6mo of riding. Further, I'm moving from Austin to the DC area, and not sure if the 750 is a bit heavy/cumbersome for urban street riding. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2009 23:40
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Has anyone transitioned from a Nighthawk Honda CB250 to the CB750? The 750 has 75hp new and cruiser geometry. Its definitely upper limit of newbie power level territory, but its not a SS by any means. It comes down to whether you consider yourself a new rider still. Have you put down a ton of miles in that 6 months? Do you feel comfortable on your current bike at all speeds? Have you scared the hell out of yourself recently? Really only you can answer the question whether you are ready to move up to it. I'd say try and test ride one and see if it feels like too much for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2009 01:23
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:The 750 has 75hp new and cruiser geometry. Its definitely upper limit of newbie power level territory, but its not a SS by any means. It comes down to whether you consider yourself a new rider still. Have you put down a ton of miles in that 6 months? Do you feel comfortable on your current bike at all speeds? Have you scared the hell out of yourself recently? Really only you can answer the question whether you are ready to move up to it. I'd say try and test ride one and see if it feels like too much for you. Cruiser geometry? Looking at the pics the pegs are directly below the seat; isn't it just more of a burly UJM/Standard? I'm looking at other options as well, maybe something a bit lighter and with clear UJM/Brit lines. The W650 is pretty cool but hard to find. Generally pretty open on trad/naked bikes, the more WWII-ish the better. Except that I'm not much of a mech so looking for post-1980 bikes where it's not going to be a hassle keeping them running.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2009 02:07
|
|
|
 Geeeeeeeeee Esssssssss Five Hundreddddddd
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2009 02:15
|
|
|
Simkin posted:
A little swoopier-looking than I prefer. Looking for something more primitive. For example, I love the look of the old Matchless, I just don't want to have to deal with maintaining a 40yr old bike, and feeling bad if I scratch an irreplaceable item. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2009 02:53
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:A little swoopier-looking than I prefer. What about a Triumph? Those seem to be pretty close to exactly what you're after. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2009 03:09
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:The 750 has 75hp new and cruiser geometry. TapTheForwardAssist posted:Has anyone transitioned from a Nighthawk Honda CB250 to the CB750? There's lots of bikes that will do what you want. If you want power, there's a lot of ways to get it. I'm going to push GS's. Though the SecaII would be good to look for. Bandit 600. And even the CB750. How much of a struggle is it to get up hills for you? What's your desired cruising speed? Top speed? I like to point at bikes with about 50hp, becuase that will get you to 90-100mph in good time, and top out in the 110-120 range. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Mar 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2009 03:16
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Cruiser != standard Standards are closer to sportbikes, than they are to cruisers. All bikes are either cruisers or sportbikes no exceptions.  I guess you guys are right tho, its not really a cruiser. The picture I looked at was deceptively cruiserish though. I blame wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Honda_CB750SC_Nighthawk_1982.JPG My point still stands, its got rather relaxed geometry and not too much power. I too vote a Triumph Bonneville or Scrambler is the best choice though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
pr0zac posted:All bikes are either cruisers or sportbikes no exceptions. Hey that's my bike! Just way prettier... The first DOHC CB750s are weird because it's clear that Honda had no loving clue with what they were going to do with them. You had a sport variant (the F) the standard (K) and the will-pass-as-a-crusier (SC, aka Nighthawk). The Nighthawks have that rake to the gas tank that looks very cruiserish, but retain the standard seating position. Great bikes that you can find pretty cheap. I used the 250 Nighthawk for my training and I have the 750 for my bike. Honestly it's not bad, but it's much, much heavier then the 250.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2009 03:49
|
|