|
Whoa. Wife Turds posted:So, uhh.... is LWR worth watching at least? none of this really sounds like a ringing endorsement... LWR is VERY, VERY much worth watching. it's excelent. LWD is.. dull.
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2008 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Orange Someone posted:Having a top speed of between 55 and 60 means you really do hoarde each and every one of those miles-per-hour, thus anyone slowing me down is A: driving really slowly and B: going to get passed as soon as I can see what the gently caress is coming. This. So this. This is one of the reasons riding a slow bike is so much of a ball.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2008 15:13
|
|
|
Simkin posted:*500cc 2 stroke goodness* I'd be looking for the suzuki. Strangely enough, suzuki did import a good number.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2008 14:08
|
|
|
Simkin posted:It strikes me that you'd have to be some sort of broken in the head to consider a 500cc two stroke a sport tourer, but then again, the closest to riding it I've been is a 77 RD400. I've not seen an RG500 for sale around here... ever, but there's been a few RZ500s. Did one just sell a lot better than the other, or were the Suzukis just stuffed into hedgerows at a much greater pace? I'm going by the in depth review that TWO made of the RG and RZ500's a few months back. The RZ was a "made for the street" bike. It's got reed valves, gentle pipes, a longer wheelbase.. all sorts of things aimed at the street rider. The RG500 is, in essence, a clone of suzuki's then current square four GP500 bike. The frame design is the same. The motor is the same square four with carbs sticking out the sides. The RG uses disk valves, so it makes very little power at the bottom, however being disk valves, there's essentially no intake resistance when they're open. Making much more power up top. If you need a direct example of the sort of difference this makes, Phat Alberts RV90 makes 8hp. My TC90 makes 11hp, with the same displacement. Same air cooled motor. Same port designs. Same company made them for the same years. The only other difference is the RV is reed valve, the TC is disk valve. If you really want a mind bender. Suzuki made a 750cc 3 cylinder 2 stroke "big" bike. By my estimation, it would have best been called a sport tourer in todays market. But back in 1973, they just had motorcycles. :-) The thing had no powerband, just a wide spread of torque. It made roughly 75hp. Though 150hp was within reason on the street. 200 in race trim. Excepting the RG500, H1 and H2, the rule of thumb is: The bigger the 2 stroke, the more mild the motor. As for finding them, I see more RG's for sale than RZ's.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2008 18:49
|
|
|
They're contained within the fairing. But they quite litterally stick out the sides of the motor. I can't be bothered to host it: http://www.allensperformance.co.uk/images/gallery/rg500race03.jpg Those are carbs sticking out the sides.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2008 20:12
|
|
|
The airbox was a large spider like thing that came down from the headstock down to the mouth on each carb. It's ugly, and nasty. Yet it worked. Going to individual filters doesn't help the situation that much. Also, airflow in that part of the fairing does one thing well, and that's make the carburetors meter funny. Completely stock, they're good for 90-95hp. With proper jetting they're in the ballpark of 105hp. If you ask me, that's something to write home about. I've always wanted to hotrod a GT750 motor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2008 20:28
|
|
|
The hayabusa has essentially no power advantage over modern 1000cc bikes. This wasn't the case when the bike was released in 2000 or whatever. The hayabusa can accelerate harder due to a longer wheelbase and lower CG. It also has a higher top speed due to slick aerodynamics being a design consideration. Modern supersports aim for some front downforce, and that's about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2008 16:19
|
|
|
Zenaida posted:I'm so confused by this. I guess I can understand not having a frame, but how does the rear suspension being in the front help? How does it even work? And what's going on with the front suspension? Is that a telelever? it does have a frame. The frame just happens to be the shape of a motorcycle engine. The fairing, tank, and tail are bolted to the top of the cylinder heads. They're one piece IIRC, and also contain the radiator. The front suspension is called hossak. In essence it's a double a arm suspension pointing out the front of the bike. BMW uses a bastaradization of it as the telelever, and on the K1200 bikes it's now a true hossak design. The rear shock up front is done for cooling. Shocks get hot as they do their job. Putting the shock there both keeps it cool, and moves the weight somewhere benificial to the bike. Weight low, and up front helps keep the front end down. the arrangement was managed with a few bellcranks and pushrods.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2008 19:29
|
|
|
Well you're looking at a lot of differnet questions there. Lets answer the simple ones first. As for bellcranks and oddly positioned shocks. That's done today, in one way or another. Suzuki uses a "full floater" arrangement. Where both ends of the shock squeeze down when the back end compresses. Honda uses their "unilink" setup, which is honda, and honda's alone. Yamaha has their Mono-X setup. Those all put the shocks in slightly different positions. Buell slings their shocks under the bike like britten did. There's no huge advantage to any of these. it's just a different way of doing it. Don't put to much thought into it. As for the forks, different front ends feel different. Racers tend to stick with what they know. As it's predictable. ELF ran some exotic chassis setups in gp500. The fork wasn't critical to the success of the britten. While it's a neat feature, it's just part of the package. I"m sure part of the choice was due to the fact you can't make forks at home, and you can make a hossak at home. The bike wasn't a fluke. The genius of the bike is that it came out of one mans mind. Without fail, the best racing machines are born that way. He envisioned the whole package, and built that package. Bikes built by teams always are full of compromises. The bike is still a radical design to this day. That should say something about how far ahead he was.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2008 02:06
|
|
|
Tonight I had my first ride on my moped. That seat needs to be fixed. Like... now. The handlebars need to be replaced too. They're a little bent, and way to narrow.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2008 09:03
|
|
|
Put less weight on your wrists. Also, with time your body becomes accustomed to certain levels of vibration. Grips.. don't really do much. they claim a lot, but any time they make them soft enough to actually do anything, they are then so mushy that your hands cramp up for lack of anything substantial to hold on to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2008 20:26
|
|
|
TripleZ posted:Why is it Harley is picked on? Is it because of the faults they had in the past? Do you just dislike the stereotype of the Harley rider? They're heavy, they're slow, they're designed with looks in mind instead of good function. If you need examples:
All of that said, they have done some neat things. For instance they designed brake disks that don't need the separate carriers to avoid warping. They did manage to make their EFI look like a carb. They did manage to completely hide the rear suspension. And even after all of that. The Japanese and British do it better. They build bigger bikes, with more power, and better equipment. They build smaller bikes that look as good but make more power and weigh 100lbs less. They build bikes that actually look like choppers and classic bikes. PS. I even wave at bicylists. And I ride a moped. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 5, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2008 21:32
|
|
|
Cheese Eats Mouse PS. It's a joke...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2008 23:18
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I usually wave to anyone on 2 wheels-scooters, even bicyclists. The bicyclists usually don't wave back, I don't think they can spare the energy! So do I. And I'll vouch for bike riders not having the energy to spare. When I'm 15 miles in, I ain't raising my hands for anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2008 08:19
|
|
|
I found the shift lever, and carb cover for my TC90... yey. They've survived two moves, and I didn't actually lose them! And I reassembled the carb from my 1977 GS550. That took me three hours.... Oh, and one more thing. The TC90 is for sale. It comes with the tune up kit (points, condenser, plug..) and shift lever. In it's current state, it does run, and it shouldn't be far from being useful. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Dec 8, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2008 02:17
|
|
|
The stock motor is a 90cc 2 stroke. That means it really only makes best power in the top say.. third of it's rpm range. the CT90 is a 4 stroke. With power that's roughly the same. But it's torque curve is wide and flat. You can read "wide and flat" as useful. And there are some very surprising upgrades available for that "block." Upwards of 20hp, and 140cc is well within a phat albert type budget.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2009 03:00
|
|
|
The was a Wolf edition one for sale at the last slimey crud run I went on. It wasn't perfect, but it's asking price of $12500 was almost enough for me to start calling banks. They're the harder edged of the big racerep 2 strokes that hit the street in the mid 80's. The RZ500 was a porker and really was just a big street oriented 2 stroke. The RG very nearly is the GP500 bike suzuki ran. The NSR400.. I can't speak much of other than it being a triple, and I haven't seen anyone going gaga over them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Any ideas? Everything seems just fine except that hitting the starter in 1st or whatever does absolutely nothing, and previously it started fine in 1st, and I bascially never used Neutral because it's hard to hit without deliberate effort. Check the wires to your clutch switch.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2009 18:58
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:2-stroke stuff You're both right and wrong. Everything you said "could" be true. But isn't necessarily. I'll happily go into detail on all of that when I get home.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 22:50
|
|
|
The art of the 2 stroke... TapTheForwardAssist, you brought up some great points about 2 strokes. For any given motor, one or more of your points is likely true. The amount of power per cc on a 2 stroke is directly related to how highly tuned the motor is. This is in the range of "tuned for reliability or tuned for power" not the "so rich it's spitting raw fuel out the back or so lean it's eating holes in pistons" tuning. Without getting into to much detail, 2 strokes work best at certain rpms. Each component of the motor can be built to work best at a certain rpm range. If everything is designed for the same rpm, you get magical things like 50hp 125cc bikes. 2 strokes also live by the same rules that 4 strokes do, when it comes to ultimate power. 2 strokes are air pumps, the faster you can make the air pump move air, the more power it makes. Astronomically high rpm operation is one of the tricks that's used to make power from small motors. Even 4 strokes do it now, look at 600cc supersports and motogp. The life of a 2 stroke is not easy. The motor lives it's life trying to eek the most out of every drop of oil it gets. Over the years MFG's have figured out how to make the moving surfaces in a 2 stroke live a long time. They use bearings almost everywhere, bearings that live well with just a suggestion of oil. If well taken care of, the bottom end of a 2 stroke almost need never wear out. Suzuki, and yamaha both ended up running oiling systems on their street 2 strokes that aren't that far removed from what you find on a 4 stroke bike. Oil lines went directly to each of the main bearings ensuring that they got their trickle of oil. It takes remarkably little oil to keep these motors happy. Sadly, all the tricks in the book will never save the piston rings. Piston rings need oil to survive. oil is hard to come by on a 2 stroke. Do the math there ;-) The faster you spin a motor, the hotter those rings get, and the more stress they're under. On pokey, low rpm motors. Say, a lawnmower, or a GT750, rings can last a long long time. Say, the 70,000 miles that Phat Albert mentioned. As you make more power, and turn the motor faster, and run components tuned to narrower rpm ranges, you start to eat into ring life. And eventually rod bearing life. This is really the downfall of 2 strokes. Because there's a lack of oil, metal on metal contact happens. And they do wear out. 4 strokes, really need never really wear out. (for all intents and purposes at least) 125MX racers will often change rings every race. While 250 riders can wait a few races. 125's and 250MX bikes make nearly the same power. Just imagine how much more stressed the 125 is versus the 250! KTM is actually selling a Euro 3 compliant 125cc 2 stroke motard. The carb is pretty tricky to make sure the fuel mixture stays within the euro 3 standards, but really the bike is just a run of the mill 2 stroke. Yet it's cleaner than anything sold in the US. Aprilia also had some direct injected 2 strokes that were frighteningly clean. 2 strokes don't need to be dirty. A properly tuned, and setup 2 stroke will virtually never foul a plug. Depending on how hard you run the bike, you may never need to clean the exhaust. The less stress you put on the bike, the higher the chances of building up carbon in the exhaust, and getting the plug fouled. Heat is what cleans those parts, running the bike lightly, keeps those parts cool. The motors are not universally basic or crude. They can be anything from lawnmower simple to "this is technology honda wishes they had" complex. Two strokes got advanced ignition systems long before four strokes, because two strokes respond very much to ignition timing. The motors can have variable intakes, variable exhausts, they often have crazy carbs. If I were to characterize a 2 stroke, I'd have to say a this: * Narrow Powerband * Finite Lifespan * Simple to work on * Cheaper to tune Two strokes have that thing where they work really well in a narrow range of rpm. The more power you make, the narrower that band. My Peugeot has a maximum power rated of 2hp, at 6000rpm. And it's maximum torque is at 3200 or something like that. Because the motor isn't "tuned" for any specific rpm it has a wide operating range. I can expect it to run ok from 2800rpm to almost 7000rpm. To bring up the counter example, a suzuki RK166, made 20hp, from the same 50cc. But it's powerband was from 16,500rpm to 17,000rpm. Yes, that's 500rpm wide... I don't know a lot about the honda hobbit. The faster you turn the motor, the sooner it wears out. That's reality with 2 strokes. You can find some more power by removing any restrictions on the motor. There are several restriction points, one can be the air filter, the carb, and some exhausts have nasty little restrictors in them. As long as the bike is still a single speed machine, incresing the top speed will hurt the motors longevity. Now here's the next problem. As you start to use "tuned" parts. Like ported cylinders and tuned pipes, you're narrowing the powerband. Making the bike slower off the line. And necessitating tuning the clutch to keep the motor spinning somewhere sane in the powerband. If you watch videos of racing puches, that's why the motors are always revving to high heaven. With highly tuned motors, you will have no torque at all at low rpm. Okey, enough text. :-) Ask away. Or tell me I'm wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
Bimota bankrupted themselves on that project. Aprilia's scooter did make it to market. Those outboards work well, at full throttle. At near idle, they had a tendency to hole pistons and destroy their injector needles. They did fix that in the end. :-) Boat motors are also fairly low rpm. I wonder if that system is workable at 12-14krpm. And if so, when do we find some venture capital and make the US a sportbike superpower?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 03:38
|
|
|
That's a good question. I know it's done. It's a "common" thing on snowmobiles. I could see some real problems developing if you have radically different pressure on either side of the motor. The problem is see is with a good turbo match, you get not a whole lot of back pressure. Without playing thought experiment time. Yes, it works. Yes, you get radical horsepower levels.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 21:40
|
|
|
... would you look at that...  And now it's in it's frosty cold new home.  Yey for complete, working, enduros. Anyone want a TC90?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2009 02:07
|
|
|
Like I said.. KTM has a 125cc 2 stroke, that's euro 3 legal. That means emissions tighter than anything the US has.... and it burns oil. The evinrude motors are actually really high tech. The KTM motor is just.. ho-hum.. run of the mill 2 stroke.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2009 05:49
|
|
|
`Nemesis posted:I'll do full tuck on the freeway if I'm facing some annoying headwinds *snip* be aerodynamic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2009 23:50
|
|
|
Layers. Lots of layers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2009 00:11
|
|
|
MrKatharsis posted:At 500 miles a week, you should factor in new tires twice a year. That will add $600-800/year by itself. I assume you are insuring the bike, which can run between $50-100/month(on the cheap end). It ends up being pretty close to a wash. quote:Keep in mind with that kind of mileage, you'll be wearing the bike out pretty quickly. A lot of bikes don't make it past 40k miles before the cost of needed repairs becomes higher than the value of the machine. Unless it's a BMW, you'll have to replace the bike every few years. quote:If you had an efficient car, the comparison would not even be close. The car comes out much farther ahead. Phat_Albert posted:If you want to ride and save money, buy a used Honda Elite 80 for as cheap as possible, dont wear gear, and dont insure it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 20:13
|
|
|
Tires are a 2-10,000 mile thing. Chains and sprockets are a 2-30,000 mile thing. Depends on if it's a plain ,or o-ring chain and what conditions you run it in. Bikes tend to need new batteries every 2-4 years. Cars (at least mine..) go 8. The more powerful the bike, and the heavier the bike, the faster they use tires. A CB750 both has lots of torque, and is quite heavy. I think the last time I did the math, I did it "my focus" versus "my GS550ES" Both of which have had amazing reliability records. My focus won out by a decent margin. Including a $400 repair or two. When doing the math, be sure to figure in riding gear. That fits in the same category as oil changes and windshield wiper blades on a car. I believe, if you're careful. And you get good deals on your stuff. And your car is expesive to drive or park. A bike can be cheaper to commute on. Under most circumstances, it's not.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2009 01:39
|
|
|
There's something missing here. if it ran.. it had spark.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2009 06:20
|
|
|
Chill_Bebop posted:I was wondering how someone tests a magneto. Did idle once push started? I think you're blaming the wrong thing. I forgot, what sort of bike is it? Magnetos are easy to test. CDI's aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2009 20:22
|
|
|
I hate to say this.. Everything points to a problem with the starter, not the bike. Tell us the procedure you're using for kickstarting the bike?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2009 01:52
|
|
|
Well there's your problem. 4 strokes are little more complicated to get running than just "turn it on and boot like mad." You want to gently push the kicker untill the motor comes up against compression, then reset the kicker. Then you can step through the kicker. You don't want to just "kick like hell" you want to give it a concentrated, firm, smooth kick. Okey, embarrassment time. This is me, this is a 2 stroke. But it shows something of the proper method of kicking. Notice I don't just jump on the kicker. I push it against compression, then step through. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5593204124208604818&hl=en This guy does it right too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ldqzqAdTwE&feature=related
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2009 03:47
|
|
|
This is where you demand your money back. If it's not running right, he didn't complete the job. My bikes all run just fine, even on year old gas. Old gas won't be a problem until you reach high throttle settings. Basically, your mechanic is poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
I got my RM250 for.. $250. Sold it for $961. I got my GS450L for $100 (roughly) and sold it for $850. I"m anxious to see what the 86 GS550ES sells for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:My cbr 125 has a brake probem, at least i think it is. There are two bolts that hold your back brake to the caliper. Remove said bolts. Use bungie to keep brake off of the brake disk. Viola, working bike. If it's actually the back brake. jujube posted:And what about the TLR? Big twins get me so hot augh It's all fixable. But you'll be out a grand before you're done making the bike "right". And even then, it's a bike with some geometry issues regarding the swingarm and chain, so the rear suspension effectively locks up under power. I'd still buy one....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2009 19:30
|
|
|
Oh the joys of helping others. KDC67 and I went to the Midwest GS tire changing party at Joes. It was fun. There were roughly 20 tires changed. 10-12 people showed. Lunch was served. And remarkably, only one set of forkseals were changed. (typically 2-4 sets are taken care of) I think the second worst picture ever taken of me was done yesterday. And, I may have taken the best picture of the day.  It's a 1982 Katana 1100. It's completely stock. And it's un-restored. I think It may have new shocks on it. But that's it. Lets see here. We also took good shots of my CT1 and TC90 So here's my 1971 Yamaha CT1. This is the bike "just before" the DT series of bikes. They're quite similar, with the major difference being that this is a piston port bike, instead of reed valve. I'm $320 deep in it now.   And a 1971 Suzuki TC90. I'm probally 300 deep in this one. And I just kinda want it gone. They're "neat" because they are disk valve motors, and have a 4x2 transmission. And it runs!   I've got the carb cover, and a complete tuneup kit for it. I'll be listing that bad boy on ebay tonight. We'll see what comes of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2009 23:49
|
|
|
Ola posted:Is that an R/R exposed to cold fresh air I see right under the Katana's saddle? Is it mounted like that originally? As for wheel ballance, I've been told not to worry much. Z3n and Phat Albert know better than I do. Christoff posted:Jesus, I can only imagine how much that thing must weigh. Phat_Albert posted:Did the Katanas come with polished engines like that?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
You sure it's the alternator? :-) Does it HAVE a proper alternator? Could it be a stator? could it just be the regulator/rectifier?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
Testing the stator is a 5 minute thing. :-) Hop to it!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Bikes are single track vehicles. That makes most road crap only hit us once. And motorcycles don't get thrown side to side due to potholes either. Potholes dent rims. (I've got a few dents to prove it) But that's it really.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2009 19:18
|
|