cassandtim Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 Well the story starts out with my motorcycle accident last August during Sportbike Northwest. I made the decision to rebuild the bike but wanted to upgrade the suspension by doing the RC51 fork conversion. After seeing how many issues that I was going to have to deal with (geometry issues, wanting superbike bars, etc.) I just decided to go ahead and design my own triples for the conversion. Below are some pictures of what I have modelled so far. Any inputs are welcome. I'm off to design the lowers now. Cheers, Tim VFR Top Triple Assembly 1.jpeg VFR Top Triple Iso 1.jpeg VFR Top Triple Iso 2.jpeg VFR Top Triple Iso 3.jpeg VFR Top Triple Iso 4.jpeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer BusyLittleShop Posted May 5, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 5, 2008 Tim... I'd design a little more metal in the area of the pinch bolt threads... you can use the amount of thread engaugement that's in the stock Honda tree as a guide... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassandtim Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 Yeah, it looks kinda slim in there but I used the Vortex RC51 top triple to get a lot of the measurements from. There's actually about 15mm of bite on the short side there, which is 5mm more than the Vortex. I'll email you some close-ups when I get time this week. I'm almost done with the lower triple, then it's off to meet with my CNC guy on Tuesday. I gotta get this thing done as it's totally holding everything else up. Should be kind of neat when I'm done. The thing that I think is coolest is the abilitiy to adjust the bar height by changing the size of spacer under the lower bar clamp block. Talk with you soon Larry. Cheers, -T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veefer800Canuck Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Sweet. Can't wait to see the finished product in the flesh. If course, you're going to make them available to Pioneering Frankenviffers at a substantial discount, right? :biggrin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassandtim Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 After all of the bonehead questions you've answered for me Rob, I'll customize it anyway you want :biggrin:. Cheers, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JES_VFR Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 do I see bar mounts on the triple??? I take it you are not going to use clip ons?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEBSPEED Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Don't you need a gullwing triple(like the 929/954) to keep the stock geometry? Looks good otherwise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer magellan Posted May 9, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 9, 2008 Don't you need a gullwing triple(like the 929/954) to keep the stock geometry?Looks good otherwise! The 6th gen doesn't have a gullwing top triple. A lot of guys use a gullwing top so they can mount clip-ons above the clamp with shorter-than-stock forks, but that's not an issue with bars and risers. If anyone doing an RC51 conversion wants a version of Tim's triple with gullwings and without holes for the handlebar risers, it's a reasonably easy change in CAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEBSPEED Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 ...the RC forks are shorter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer magellan Posted May 9, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 9, 2008 ...the RC forks are shorter... True. If you want enough fork to stick through the top triple that you can mount clip-ons above the triple, you need a gullwing. RC51 forks will mount without a gullwing; you just won't have much of anything to clamp to above the triple. In Tim's case, no problemo since he's using risers with a handlebar. :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer SAFE-T Posted May 10, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 10, 2008 ...the RC forks are shorter... True. If you want enough fork to stick through the top triple that you can mount clip-ons above the triple, you need a gullwing. RC51 forks will mount without a gullwing; you just won't have much of anything to clamp to above the triple. In Tim's case, no problemo since he's using risers with a handlebar. :biggrin: Makes you wonder why he didn't just use an RC51 top triple clamp and drill two holes in it to mount the bar risers. :huh: At least, it makes me wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassandtim Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 Wonder no longer for I am here temporarily to explain all. Well almost all :biggrin: Please keep in mind that I work in the engineering (Civil) trades and suffer from a severe case of OCD. I realize that most of what led me to this is complete overkill for the average person that wants to do the conversion. I had a visit last Thanksgiving at BLS's place and we had some fairly in-depth discussions concerning the fork offset of the VFR (40mm) vs the RC51 (30mm) and the effect the conversions have on the stock VFR geometry. I went home and began to do some research and analysis, mostly analyzing the geometry in AutoCAD and looking at the changes that occur when the offset difference is applied to the VFR. At that point I had no intention of attempting to manufacture a set of triples as I felt that I could live with the geometry changes. I actually had a couple of RC51 triples (stock & Vortex brand) and my original intention was to use one of them with a set of MX bar clamps. I even looked at the LSL riser bar option for the RC51. A fews things soon became apparent; the first being that the ignition switch will not bolt directly up to the stock RC51 triple top triple without modification (cutting or grinding). The second is that I run a RAM ball mount on the two bolts that mount the front of the fuel tank; with the RC51 LSL kit I would have to remove that as there would be interference there. Third, I wanted to use a set of preload adjuster knobs on the forks (yes, for the bling factor) and there was no way that they'd fit under the bars with the 30mm offset. I came to the conclusion that, for me, it would be easier to try my hand at modelling what I want and having them CNC'd than to deal with modifying parts to fit my needs. After working with Darth Bling on the GSXR mirror mount models I knew that it couldn't be that tough to complete these and it's kind of fun too (in a sick OCD sorta way). I'm trying to find a balance between form and function even though I might be leaning towards form a little more. Like I stated before: for most it will seem like a ridiculous exercise but, as most of my riding buddies here in the PNW can attest to, I'm a perfection freak . I should be wrapping up the lowers today and will meet with the machinist on Monday. If anyone has any questions (besides "why?" as I've tried to explain that here) feel free to post up or send me a pm. Cheers, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer tok tokkie Posted May 11, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 11, 2008 I like your style. I made my own simply because I could & wanted to (no need because I had a gull wing in stock). If I had seen yours mine would have also had holes as that looks better to me than the one I made. scarab 13.jpg scarab 4.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer SAFE-T Posted May 11, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 11, 2008 Wonder no longer for I am here temporarily to explain all. I am completely satisfied :biggrin: ...that you guys have too much time on your hands I miss those endless days of tinkering sometimes - laying on the showroom floors of Ducati dealerships with a tape measure... Owner came by one day and said it would be faster if I just bought one rather than make my own :laugh: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer magellan Posted May 12, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 12, 2008 Wonder no longer for I am here temporarily to explain all. I am completely satisfied :fing02: ...that you guys have too much time on your hands I miss those endless days of tinkering sometimes - laying on the showroom floors of Ducati dealerships with a tape measure... Owner came by one day and said it would be faster if I just bought one rather than make my own :angry: Yet another OCD victim. :rolleyes: You guys have the nicest toys... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassandtim Posted May 14, 2008 Author Share Posted May 14, 2008 Ok, so I've got the lowers modelled (see below) and I'll meet with my CNC Machinist tonight or tomorrow to discuss the particulars. I'll probably redesign the steering stops and make them a bit more angular (easier to cut?). They still need to beefed up towards the bottom as the stock lower triple is flat and this one is gull-wing in shape based on the stock RC51 lower. I'll post up when I get estimate on material cost, machine time, and machining costs later this week. Lower Triple: VFR Lower Triple Iso 4.jpeg VFR Lower Triple Iso 3.jpeg VFR Lower Triple Iso 2.jpeg VFR Lower Triple Iso 1.jpeg Final Assembly: VFR Triple Assembly 1.jpeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer magellan Posted May 15, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 15, 2008 Can't wait to see it all in 7075-T6. Now hurry up so I can finish assembly :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer mello dude Posted May 15, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 15, 2008 Can't wait to see it all in 7075-T6. Now hurry up so I can finish assembly :pissed: Just for fun - ok I'm a sick bastard..... For the sake of engineering argument on materials, what about a 5000 or 2000 series aluminum such as 2024-T3? The 7075-T6 is strong as hell, but not so great in the fatique end of the stick. -It still maybe the best, just want to here other opinions. MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer magellan Posted May 15, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 15, 2008 For the sake of engineering argument on materials, what about a 5000 or 2000 series aluminum such as 2024-T3? The 7075-T6 is strong as hell, but not so great in the fatique end of the stick. -It still maybe the best, just want to here other opinions. Tim really has his heart set on 7075. As far as fatigue, well, fatigue implies bending, and I don't see these things bending in the least except for on the rare occasions when the fork clamps are loosened. I guess I see it as a matter of choice rather than necessity either way. These things ain't gonna break... :pissed: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer seamus Posted May 15, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 15, 2008 They look real good. Can't wait to see the final product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer BusyLittleShop Posted May 20, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 20, 2008 Can't wait to see it all in 7075-T6. Now hurry up so I can finish assembly :blink: Just for fun - ok I'm a sick bastard..... For the sake of engineering argument on materials, what about a 5000 or 2000 series aluminum such as 2024-T3? The 7075-T6 is strong as hell, but not so great in the fatique end of the stick. -It still maybe the best, just want to here other opinions. MD How about Magnesium??? I machined Mr.RC45's triple clamps out of this least understood metal of motion... I think it's by far the best and lightest material... 7075 T6 is one of the highest strength aluminum alloys available. Its strength-to weight ratio is excellent and it is ideally used for highly stressed parts... consequently you may design the triple clamps with a thinner wall thickness and still achieve the desired strength... 2024 is one of the best known of the high strength aluminum alloys. With its high strength and excellent fatigue resistance, it is used to advantage on structures and parts where good strength-to-weight ratio is desired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Bling Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 How about Magnesium??? Ha ha ha. I was just over at Tim's place this evening visiting and I made some off hand comment that he should machine the clamps out of magnesium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer tok tokkie Posted May 20, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 20, 2008 BLS, those triples are things of beauty & grace. Did you make those on a conventional Bridgeport type mill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer mello dude Posted May 20, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 20, 2008 How about Magnesium??? Ha ha ha. I was just over at Tim's place this evening visiting and I made some off hand comment that he should machine the clamps out of magnesium. Admittedly in my engineering travels I have not had the opportunity to play with magnesium. But doesnt that material degrade over time? (years) Kinda why the major mfrs avoid it for structual parts? I'm thinking 2024 is a strong candidate..... MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Contributer toro1 Posted May 20, 2008 Member Contributer Share Posted May 20, 2008 BLS, those triples are things of beauty & grace. I second that opinion. Another fun material to machine is titanium -- drills and endmills love titanium. If magnesium is not coated, yes, it eats away over time from the elements. I have certainly noticed this on the unpainted areas of my front wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.