Jump to content

mk3dub

Member Contributer
  • Posts

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

mk3dub last won the day on February 17 2015

mk3dub had the most liked content!

About mk3dub

  • Birthday 01/03/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.stoltecmoto.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bangor, PA
  • In My Garage:
    '03 VFR
    '14 FZ-09
    '05 CBR600RR
    '02 KTM 250 EXC

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

mk3dub's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

18

Reputation

  1. Greg, I'd quit screwing around with the shop you're using, especially if you've already paid for the design work. Beyond that, you can use the file I made for you. It's fully parametric, which is geek speak for fully editable. You'll need the software to make the changes, or I can do that for you. I guess I'm not fully up to speed on what needs to change, though. If you look for another designer/consultant/shop to build just the file, you'll be in a couple hundred bucks. Time is money and no one outside of this community cares about how much time and effort you've expended thus far.
  2. No problem - was happy to help. I didn't want to see anyone get taken advantage of.
  3. Greg, despite the hours I spent on those models, I'm not going to participate in this group buy - sorry. Just a bit too rich for my blood when all is said and done. That said, I hope the models serve you guys well.
  4. There are some great options out there for printing in plastics and metal. Metal would be the right solution, but it's pricey. Using the model I posted above goes for about $125 in stainless steel and about $180 in aluminum...that's each side, so double for a pair. Plastic would be much cheaper, but the issue is that the plastic structure wouldn't be ideal for use as a weight bearing part without some modifications. First, plastic will creep over time...I.e, it won't remain dimensionally stable and the bolts will loosen over time. A metallic spacer would be needed so the plastic isn't compressed under the mounting bolts. Also, a threaded insert would be required for the main bolt...the plastic wouldn't be strong/durable enough to retain the bolt torque. These features are easy to incorporate into an injection molded part because the spacers and inserts are permanently locked in place during the mold process...but molded parts like these require custom machined molds that can cost upwards of $10,000. That's only an option for the OEM who makes thousands of these. Back to the earlier question about cost. $80 may be manageable, but it'll be tight. As I mentioned earlier, this part will be fully CNC'd, which requires labor in programming and set up (the time required to manually fixture the parts on the machine). Depending on the shop's overhead, you could be looking at $100-$200/hr in labor. So, it's critical to minimize the number of times an operator needs to physically interface with the part and machine. Of course, the shop charges for machine run time, too. The more machining required, the more time required. Adding in a custom bolt, there is more time. There is also anodize, which typically incures a lot charge. The more you plate, the cheaper the ammortized cost becomes. Sorry if this sounds like a ramble, but I'm trying to shed light on where some of these costs go. Our biggest hurdle is the low volume. In the production world, we're barely breaking out of prototype quantities here.
  5. There's another fellow on here who was working on a set of 8th Gen mirrors. I'm not sure where he ever finished. Just about all the OE mirrors with integrated signals have a horizontal-ish base mount - whereas the VFR uses a nearly vertical base. So, most (all?) will require some sort of adapter base. I suspect the GSXR mirror was originally selected because there were umpteen million GSXRs produced with many available used. Plus, the mirror was actually quite large by sport bike standards and didn't vibrate to holy hell. The base could definitely be simplified considerably if the svelte form factor of the original weren't a hard requirement. Heck, a piece of bent angle could do the trick if we didn't care about the aesthetics. When I first offered my services to Greg, the tacit understanding was that the original design was to be improved and reverse engineered to make more. A clean sheet design to reduce cost was never specifically discussed. While I think the original design looks great (what I posted a few weeks ago), I personally wouldn't have designed a mount like that if I were going to produce a set just for myself...just from a manufacturability standpoint. I would have foregone the fancy contours and used a piece of bent sheet metal. Of those who are interested, what's the general consensus on an upper price threshold? That conversation should probably happen (again) before we continue down this path and end up with a $1XX kit.
  6. Sadly, I can confirm that there is absolutely no way this design can be made for $35 per set. MAYBE if we outsourced to China, but even then, there is a lot of machining. The only way to bring the cost down is if one of us owned a machine shop w/ a CNC, did the programming for free, and only charged for the materials. Sadly, that won't happen. That said, all is not lost. I received the Belleville washers from Greg last week, but was out of town on business for a couple days and dealt with the homestead when I returned - which included 22 inches of snow. I'll have some time this week to wrap up a couple details before heading out on another trip. I'm working on this stuff as quickly as I can! Between two jobs and a family, there is only so much time left...
  7. Another update to better show you guys what I've done. I updated the assembly to included the threaded insert (red), the threaded insert stakes to lock in place (blue), the center drilled bolt (yellow), and a washer to capture the Bellville springs (orange). The mirror base is not shown here. I can use a set of the springs before settling on the bolt length and washer diameter. Anyone have them? Also, does anyone know the exact bolt size used on the original design? I do not have that. Still need to: 1. Verify mounting fastener size and update model accordingly. I'll have the bike up on the lift to fix CCTs and a leaky Scottoiler, so I'll do this then. 2. Assembly plastic piece to bike to figure out the detent clocking/orientation.
  8. FOREWARNING: LONG POST - BEAR WITH ME. OK, I have a minor update. Well, it might not look like an update to the casual observer, but we've come a long way. Unfortunately, Greg's original model was being held hostage and we didn't have anything to work from. Fortunately, he did have the a printed part that was based on the original design. He sent this to me along with the GSXR mirror and base. I set to work and spent a few hours here and there getting us back to the starting line. I then added the detents and made a few improvements (from my perspective). I'd like to hear your thoughts. My seat of the pants thoughts: There is no way this wasn't going to be an expensive part. Although nicely designed/styled, it was clearly never best suited to being machined. The complex curves require CNC operation with multiple setups. In an ideal world, this part would be die cast - as the GSXR mirror base was. Of course, there is no way we could justify the tooling expense on such a small production run for jokers like us with an obsolete bike. So, machining it is! The detents will add some cost, but I agree that adding them is the right thing to do for strength and adjustment. If we're going to spend good money, we may as well get our money's worth. I know there has been discussion about some original owners cracking their mounts - forgive me for not looking through all 56+ pages, but what broke? The machined adapter base or the cast GSXR mirror stalk? Reference the three images attached to this post - two isometric views and one cross section. The changes I've made: As mentioned above, I added the detents. These still need to be clocked properly so the mirror sits in the right position on the bike. But, they're in the model ready to be properly oriented. I removed the radii that were shown a few pages back on the edges. Careful review of the parts indicate that the detents are chamfered, not rounded. This makes sense given how they work, and also saves some cost. Machining those little rounds on the outside corners is no small feat. No pun intended. I've enlarged the central hole to incorporate a threaded Keensert. This was done to improve durability and strength to ensure that the threads don't pull out if over-torqued. The original design didn't leave many threads engaged, especially over the wire pass-thru hole. Another advantage of the Keensert is that we'll avoid direct contact between the aluminum (though it is anodized) and the stainless steel bolt. This will reduce any chance of galling or galvanic corrosion. For those who aren't familiar with Keenserts (there are other trade names), do a Google search - neat product. Also, I added the standard drill bit angle on the bottom of the hole. This allows the machinist to use a standard sized drill instead of a flat bottom end mill. Should reduce cost a bit, but also helps with wire routing. I moved the wire pass thru hole off-center so that the wire now passes under the Keensert. This was done to give more thread engagement and improve the lead-in angle on the wiring. Should make snaking it through a bit easier. Moving the wire hole off center could make installing on the bike tricky - getting the hole drilled in the proper location so as not to pinch the wire. So, I added a pocket that will allow some flexibility in hole placement. Chamfered the hole to ensure that the wires don't get pinched and short out. As you can see, I've abandoned the thru-bolt concept that you guys came up with earlier. Not that I particularly disliked the idea, but I was hoping to keep the final design as clean as possible without any exposed fasteners or wires. Also, this shape requires less material and contour machining. If this is a show-stopper for some reason that I'm not privy to, let me know. I'm open to suggestions since I'm new to this party. Things that need to be done before quoting the design: Determine proper detent orientation. My plan was to install the printed part on the bike, paint the detents on the mirror, and 'stamp' the part with the wet-painted stalk in the position that makes sense. This would then be measured and transferred to the model. Review the original features - holes, bores, etc. for producibility - i.e. ensuring we didn't pick some off the wall non-standard tooling. Fix accordingly. Print a new part, install, and hope that the mirror is oriented properly. If not, adjust, rinse, repeat. Once we have the detents figured out, we can begin shopping the part with suppliers. Some will want a fully dimensioned/toleranced drawing, but others can work with the CAD model. So...a drawing may need to be created. We'll need to finalize the center-drilled bolt and bellville washers. My current design calls for a 10 mm bolt (IIRC) and a 5 mm thru hole. Anyway, sorry for the novel...I just wanted to ensure everyone who has been patiently waiting for so long is aware of the status. We're getting closer
  9. I can assist with the updating if you do not have the cability. We have a couple different CAD systems we can use.
  10. If someone sends me the cad file, I can make the changes and talk with some of our suppliers to get a price quote. Send me an email at salesatstoltecmotodotcom.
  11. Hey Greg...please add me to the list.
  12. Glad to hear you're making progress, Greg. Thanks for spending your time on this 'little' pet project of yours - we all appreciate it and are excited to see how it all shakes out. Keep us posted....
  13. I'm a long-time fan of triples. Started my love affair with a 1050 Speed Triple and eventually owned a Tiger 1050 (Speed Triple'd up) and a Daytona 675. From the moment I saw Yamaha's plans on the FZ-09, I knew it was going to be a hit and I knew I wanted in. The engine is an absolute monster with a perfectly linear torque curve. Despite 'only' having 115 hp (crank), it makes power like a much bigger bike. Tt helps that the stock bike is about 414 lbs wet, but it'll run with the plastic clad liter bikes up to about 80 mph when drag and horsepower start playing games. I'm hardly a good person to extol on the stock bike, because mine is FAR from it. That said, it's simply killer once you dial in the suspension and ECU. Here are a couple links to some of the work I've done...if you feel like reading: http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/yamaha-fz-09-improving-the-suspension http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/yamaha-fz-09-improving-the-fueling http://www.fz09.org/forum/10-fz-09-builds/412-stoltec-project-bike-gonna-long-thread.html It's hard to compare it to the VFR in all seriousness. The VFR is much bigger, heavier, and a good bit slower. None of that is a dig on the VFR, because I quite like the viffer for commuting and general sport touring. It's stable, predictable, and sane while still having a charismatic engine. It's a great daily bike. The FZ can do that too, but it has some seriously sharp teeth that it'll bear in the blink of an eye if provoked. The key is setting up the suspension and ECU for sport riding (if that's your thing) and going along for the ride. Or, if it suits you, leave it stock and enjoy the ~$8k pricetag. Triumph has some work to do to catch up, IMO. You'll like the Yamaha Brembo. It's a great bargain (not accounting for your conversion rate). Your description is actually pretty well-put: "They needed a good handful to be decent". I'd say they are good enough all around, but they lack the oomph that I like when riding in the twisties, and they don't have that immediacy I've come to love with riding where I do (combo of rural deer infested roads and a mix of 80+ mph highway). It's those 'major' stopping events that leave me questioning if I'm going to run into the car in front of me. I never have that question on my other bikes. Again, in fairness, there is a really good chance that I've just been spoiled and reverting back to ~17 year old technology is hard on my riding style.
  14. No idea about the Vfr brake problem (mines got a gsxr front end with radials) but if you decide to get rid of the spare R6master, let me know- I also have an MT 09, and looking to upgrade it. I recognize your username. You might recognize me as Stoltec Moto over there If the pivot distance of both brake master clinders is the same, expect an increase in effort of 30% (a 16mm. brake master cilinder is 30% larger than the 6th gen 14mm master cilinder). If the pivot distances are not equal, and that is not unlikely as e.g. Brembo radials come in 16,18 & 20mm pivot distance. I don't know what the pivot distance is of the 6th gen but on my 3rd gen it is roughly 25mm. If the 6th gen is close to that number it could add another 30% extra effort.I would check & clean the pads and discs before anything else. As the others have said, the stock brake setup is more than adequate and you should have not problem lifting the rear wheel when braking. Checked pistons yesterday. No issues, all work well. While in there, I swapped what I had previously thought were stock pads back in. They aren't. They are EBC HH. Incidentally, there is more feel and stopping power with the EBC's, so I'm happy with the improvement. That said, it still doesn't leave me particularly impressed. Given a change in piston diameter alone, the 16 mm swap would require 14% more effort (as mentioned in my original post). But you are correct that moving the pivot will further impact the effort. The initial lever travel feels excessive to me, but I've concluded that there is no air in the system. Bleeding by hand, MityVac, and compressor all confirm that. Once the initial travel is taken up, the pull is firm and feel is decent. But that first bit of travel is too much for me and what I'm used to. And to be clear, it doesn't demonstrate any of the classic 'air in the system' symptoms...no sponginess, lever never pulls to the bar, etc. I disassembled the m/c to check the bore and all is well. After riding this some more, I'm just about convinced that I have a fully functional VFR brake system. I realized that the rotors are smaller than the FZ-09, the calipers are only 3 piston sliding (as opposed to the FZ's 4 piston fixed monoblocks), and the bike weighs about 150 lbs more. Same kind of comparison with the CBR600RR. I either need to adjust my expectations or get to wrenching.
  15. Odd, for some reason, I didn't get notification of replied to the thread. Interesting. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. It was a long, long, long winter so I honestly cannot say if the brakes are the better, worse, or the same as compared to fully stock. At this point, I can only guess. I don't ever remember being 'blown away' with the stock setup, though. That said, I'm still not happy with the current setup. Hearing the comments here, I'm going to try for another bleed (though in fairness, the front's bleed very easily, which is the bulk of what I feel) and will check the pistons. Lever travel? There is a good bit of travel before anything meaningful happens, but it's reasonably firm once I get to that point. Feels like shit in comparison to my FZ-09 w/ R6 master cylinder or CBR600RR w/ Brembo RC19, however. I suppose I could try swapping back to the stock pads. These pads do like a bit of heat to get going, but the difference isn't tremendous between hot and cold.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.