Jump to content

BiKenG

Members
  • Content Count

    608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by BiKenG

  1. I realise this is a VFR forum, but many have tried different front fork setups and it occurred to me someone may have ended up with what I need sitting around unused and in need of a good home. I'm after a complete Front Fork assembly, i.e. legs, yokes (triple clamps) and maybe wheel axle from a FireBlade/CBR900 RRW or RRX (i.e. '98 or '99). Has to be those years so they are for 310mm discs. I am in the UK, but should be shippable from anywhere.
  2. BiKenG

    Front end conversion - was yours worth it ??

    Just to clarify this, or indeed correct it, although the calliper fitment is the same on all the above, they are not all the same. The CBR900RRW/X and the SP-1 (early RC51) all have 32 and 34mm pistons. The later RC51 (SP-2) and 954 'Blade use 30 and 32 pistons (same as later radial callipers) and the CBR929 (CBR900RRY/1) has 30 and 34 pistons. The differences are not huge, but they are different.
  3. Looking for a 6th Gen VTEC complete rear muffler assembly, i.e. from link pipe to twin cans with covers and brackets. I'm in the UK, so probably has to be here due to shipping, although Europe might be possible.
  4. I'm thinking about injecting an RC36.2 and hoped we could have a good technical discussion about it here. First of all:- I realise that the RC46 throttle bodies won't just drop on. Durbahn has injected an RC30 and a 400. However I believe he used the Motec system. I have also read (here?) of someone using MegaSquirt on a V4. But... It seems to me that the RC46 injection is way closer to what is required than either Motec or MegaSquirt and MUST be cheaper than either of those. So I'm pondering the possibility of modifying the RC46 throttle bodies to fit the RC36 and use the RC46 ECU, with a Dynojet PC or Rapid Bike module to 'tune' the ECU's delivery to suit the different motor, although I'm thinking that it probably would actually run without either. Not well enough to use, no doubt, but it would sure help development if you have something that runs. The throttle bodies will take a lot of modification, but that surely must be easier than trying to manufacture something from scratch. They'll need to be split apart, mounted in the correct relative position and suitable linkages and fuel pipes made. Tricky, but as I said, has to be easier than starting from scratch and there would be a readily available wiring harness too - RC46. Another very tricky task would be to add a Cam sensor probably requiring accurately positioning and welding something to a cam. However, maybe the existing output from the RC36's Ignition sensor could be used as the CranK Position sensor. Everything else is external and can be simply added to the bike, plugged into the RC46 wiring harness which would have all the right connectors. I notice that the 5th Gen FI system uses an atmospheric pressure (BARO) sensor, but that is no longer used on later VFR's, nor any other bikes I briefly checked. But if the ECU needs it and the wiring harness has the connection (yes to both), then the BARO sensor can be plugged in and used. So there's 3 major issues I see here. 1. Modifying the RC46 throttle bodies to suit the RC36 intakes. 2. Creating a Cam Position Sensor 3. Using a Power Commander to modify the ECU's control sufficiently to suit this engine. I'm pretty sure 1. can be done. 2. can definitely be done, but I'm less sure about 3. I see no actual reason why not, but it would largely depend on the range of adjustment afforded by the add-on management module (PC or other). Please don't ask WHY? No point arguing about that. But apart from that, what do others think about this?
  5. BiKenG

    Gear Indicator

    Yes, they would not be powered and simply generate an electromagnetic pulse signal over the 2 wires. 2 wire Hall effect sensors for ABS are a touch more complicated.
  6. BiKenG

    Gear Indicator

    Well electrics are no problem and I have designed some simple electronic circuits, but the 2 wire Wheel Speed Sensors defeat me. 😕
  7. BiKenG

    Gear Indicator

    Sorry to hear about your cold. The cough just keeps hanging around. No it's not the simple lack of a ground wire, using the mounting as the earth return. There are just 2 electrical connections. Nothing else is used and it's not CANBUS either as far as I can tell. I still can't get my head around it.
  8. BiKenG

    Gear Indicator

    I also find myself doing occasional calculations in my head during the more boring bits. But trust me, when hacking down the Alps, sprinting between hairpins (sometimes with vertical drop offs of thousands of feet) and rapidly downshifting while getting past that last car as you sling the bike into the next hairpin is not boring and also not the time to be having to mentally calculate which gear you might be in and how many downshifts need to be done before peeling into the turn. With the gear position displayed and easily visible, it all becomes a LOT simpler. Of course even while gently cruising it is also helpful to know. As I've said before, riding without a GPI is not a problem for me, likewise I can do hand signals when I want to turn. But just like I prefer indicators as they allow better control, a GPI can be a great asset when riding. It's nothing to do with needing it due to not being a good enough rider. It is additional information that can be used to your advantage. Not only enabling you to avoid having to pull up or stab down the gear lever repeatedly, just to confirm you are actually in top or first, but during the entire shifting process. Having a GPI doesn't make you any less of a man. 😀
  9. BiKenG

    Gear Indicator

    As you say, Wheel Speed Sensors are simple devices - or are they... Some vehicles (e.g. VFR1200) use 2 wire sensors. With just those 2 wires the control unit supplies power AND reads the pulse. Explain that. 😀 What are we doing here on Christmas Day.
  10. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    Well, from the pictures we’ve seen, they’re not the same. The Alibaba front downpipes cross over whereas the other 2 do not. That’s not to say they’re not all manufactured at the same factory though, but let’s not see things that aren’t there.
  11. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    As regards the widening of the pipe after it leaves the cylinder heard, have we not established that in top level racing this has been found to be very effective? Whatever the reasons, a header pipe that widens from the port diameter to a larger size is what seems to work best. Admittedly we're seeing here a series of different diameter pipes welded together, rather than a nice tapered pipe section, but that will mean a big cost difference and may not affect the efficiency of this design to any measurable degree. So I don't think the basic premise of this aspect of the design is a problem and neither do I think any fractions of a millimetre in diameter will have any significant impact by itself. However, the overall performance of this system, which is after all radically different from Honda's best design, can only be determined on the dyno and for that, we are all eagerly awaiting some real data.
  12. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    That's what I thought initially, but in the picture the front pipes cross over, whereas the BW (and I think the Lextek but cannot now find the pictures) do not cross at the front. That's not to say though that these are not the actual manufacturers of said systems.
  13. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    I have to say I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, we really don't want to piss off suppliers who are being helpful and offering a good deal, but it is also true that the customer deserves to know what they're buying and so far, we don't. Yes, Jeff is putting his on a dyno (he didn't have to buy a bike as he knew I was prepared to use mine so that's down to him, no actual brownie points gained) and we are (probably all) very keen to know the outcome of that. But so far we still have nothing, so I think it's not unrealistic of those waiting for this information to get impatient. However, when it comes to BW it's a slightly different story. They have a chequered history and although that may be behind them, we have long been assured they are working on the BEST system ever for the VFR yet it now very much looks like they are simply buying in and re-selling someone else's product. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, just that it's not what they've been telling us for the last few months and now to cap it all, they seem reluctant to release any actual dyno results. Instead appearing to try and deflect such requests with very dubious claims that it's impossible to produce truly comparative data and we should simply look at figures from their different systems on different bikes as that should give us an idea. Sorry, this is disingenuous bunkum. I have no previous experience with BW, but right now I feel we've been somewhat led up the garden path. They can easily correct this situation by coming clean about the source of their product and doing some real tests and/or discussing it with us on here. No, we're not looking for race track performance, but right now we have NO idea whatsoever how this system even runs and I think (potential) customers deserve to know more than what we've been told so far which is quite frankly, not a lot. This is not having a dig at potential suppliers, just asking very reasonable questions, prior to stumping up any actual hard cash. How can they expect anything less?
  14. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    Yes, as I think we can agree, the first VFR800 was a '98 year model, but first ones were sold at the end of '97. Still a '98 bike though. It's the Model Year that crucially defines the bike, not when it was first sold and/or registered.
  15. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    Yup. That's what I said. And both at roughly the same price. It is kinda suspicious.
  16. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    Well I don't think this has anything to do with Honda. They manufacture a certain design and spec of bike and it gets labelled as an 'J' or 'L' etc which is a simple code to denote its 'Model year'. When it actually gets sold and registered is largely nothing to do with them. It may creep in before the end of the previous year (during which it was actually introduced) or it may sit in a dealer's showroom for years so the date of first registration is not necessarily equivalent to the 'Model Year'. This is something a lot of people seem to find hard to understand, or use to deliberately misrepresent the age of a bike - even dealers sadly. But in reality it's not that complicated. The '98 model year was 'W' which to the best of my knowledge was applied to the very first VFR800. As far as I know there was NO VFR800FI-V. Ergo, the first VFR800 was a '98, even if sold at the back end of '97. I have to take issue with the statement that it was labelled as a '97 in the UK. So who labelled it? The press? Maybe and some dealers possibly and certainly Haynes, but the reality is it was never labelled by Honda as a '97 - anywhere. Not at the time, although younger employees with less concern for accuracy (as is the trend these days) may have subsequently implied otherwise. Back when I worked at Honda UK these actual age questions did not seem so important as it was all a lot newer and fresher in the mind. Now we're talking many, many years ago and memories fade and get distorted over time. But unless anyone can provide any evidence of there being a VFR800FI-V, we can all settle on the first VFR800 being '98-'99, then with added HISS (not USA) and Cat. '00-'01 and then V-Tec from '02. Please, don't get sidetracked by press and/or Haynes into believing anything different. There is one glaring anomaly to the above. The CBX1000. Back when it was introduced, Honda didn't have such a structured annual model naming system. 1980 was to introduce 'A' as the model year and although the CBX was actually introduced in '78, it carried the 'Z' designation which was used as a 'catch-up' to bring all models into line. So continuing with the 'Z' through '79 means 'Z' was actually used for 2 years. Once everything was in sync, they changed to 'A' for '80, 'B' in '81 etc and have carried that on until today, although running out of letters caused a swap to numeric code '1' in '01 which continues to this day. It's a bit like part numbers. Honda don't just throw out random numbers for all parts. There is a carefully structured system for naming of parts - even more important now than when first introduced with the number of parts growing year by year. Model Codes also follow a structured scheme. The RC46 is the 46th model of that type (road sports) in that capacity range (I forget the limits, something like 600 - 900cc). It is not some randomly cool code that the use of RC30 seemed to suggest. Likewise the model years. There is a system to all this that Honda do. They have to have a system or soon they wouldn't know what they were doing. Well they know in theory anyway. 😀
  17. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    I cannot disagree with you but I think getting that info presents something of a problem. BW apparently refuse to provide any such thing which is disappointing and makes me think they're hiding something and although the Lextek is soon to be on the dyno, they do not have a catless header to compare. Indeed, when I spoke to Jeff (Lextek supplier) he tried to convince me that a one-off dyno run of his system was all that was required as dyno results are corrected for atmospheric conditions etc so can be compared with any other results from other bikes on other dynos. But although correction factors are applied, as we know results can vary significantly and the only way to get a true understanding of the effect of changing an exhaust is same bike, same dyno on same day and only the exhaust swapped. Sadly, I don't think we're going to get that with either of these systems. Having said that, an independent dyno run with just the exhaust change should give us some idea of how well they work or not and let's face it, we're not talking race track fine tuning here. I have to say though that I am still suspicious of how similar the 2 systems are. Same bore size change, done in the same way, same sensor positioning etc. and then there's the merge scheme. Previous (performance) systems have used the same scheme as Honda, now 2 systems appear that take a different approach and while that may indeed work ok for the road, it is surprising that 2 manufacturers simultaneously (and supposedly independently) both decide to go against accepted (and Honda's) wisdom and opt for this alternative merge scheme. Coincidence? As someone once said, "there's no such thing as coincidence". In any case, changing the merging from Honda;s original VFR800 scheme (Lefts and Rights) to the alternative Fronts and Rears is even more reason to want to see a dyno comparison of the new system against the Honda original. So we're back to that problem again. Still, I suppose this is a better problem to have than "who can we get to make a system". 😀
  18. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    Well I remember first seeing the VFR800 as a new model at the UK Motorcycle Show that is traditionally held in Nov/Dec and that must have been '97. They usually show new models slated for release and availability the following year, but it is possible some bikes made it to the UK and were sold actually in '97. But they would have been '98 model bikes so despite some early sales, the VFR800 did really start from '98 year model. BTW, don't rely on Haynes for ANYTHING. 😁
  19. Really, I must have missed that. In fact, I still cannot find any mention by the OP of that having been done.
  20. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    I'd be interested to know what their current VFR750 system is like. Is it still the original SBS product with the rough/restrictive internals or a better made product altogether.
  21. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    So just like buses, you wait forever for one, then 2 turn up. I've been studying the photos and there are minor differences, but the Lextek and the BW are uncannily similar. Interestingly, they both use the Fronts and Rears merge scheme, but is this simply for cost, or did they find that worked best on the dyno? In which case, what were they trying to achieve? We have established that Lefts and Rights each merging make best top end power whereas Fronts and Rears merging gives better mid range (according to the results of what Honda and others have used), so why have Lextek and BW ended up the same? Did they independently determine that better mid range was more desirable, or was some other factor (like cost) of greater significance? Whatever, we need to see dyno results for both of these systems. Something that is noticeably lacking from both suppliers at present. There are other questions though. As Seb said, we need to know the joints (merges in particular) are clean inside. From what we have seen the Lextek are good, but we need to confirm this for the BW. There is also the question of whether the Rears clear the V-Tec cam chain tensioner. I'm not sure if we confirmed that yet with the Lextek, but as yet we have no idea about the BW in this regard and do the flanges rotate to accommodate different head bolt orientation? Yes for Lextek, but also need to confirm that for BW. With both these 2 points confirmed, then to the best of my knowledge that would mean a system could be used on any 5th or 6th Gen or have I missed anything? I think we also established that the same system could be used on the 8th Gen with simply different (splayed) front downpipes to clear the rads and maybe a different outlet? I'm not 100% on this but if we can confirm it, then that's something else to discuss with both Lextek and BW. It has to be in their best interests to have a system that's applicable to the widest range of models. So a few questions to resolve and dyno results to be viewed and then looks like we'll have a choice of 2 systems. Could be worse. 😀
  22. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    Yes, remarkably similar. Coincidence? 🤨 Interesting that they exclude the 6th and 8th Gen. Hmm, they claim suitable for both Carburettor and Injected models. That's a bit worrying.
  23. Well I don't want to be a scaremonger, but "instantly" is exactly how it can fail and why Honda went to the trouble of the recall. Initially the Universal Joint is simply stiff due to the assembly process leaving the bearings too tight. So what you might then think is that it will simply wear out faster, but what Honda are concerned about is that the UJ will crack and break apart and that means instant and possibly catastrophic failure. They had I believe experienced 2 total failures like this prior to issuing the recall, although no injuries have been caused (to the best of my knowledge). Part of the process was to have each bike checked immediately to detect any imminent failures and if new parts were not immediately available, they would have to remain off-road until the part (shaft assembly) could be replaced. In fact I seem to recall in these cases a new 'old' type part (checked before fitment to ensure it was not too tight) would be installed to keep the bike going until the 'new' part was available and could be installed. Expensive for Honda, but when it comes to safety, they don't mess about. The above is not simply heresay. I have seen a drive shaft (my own, although not on my actual bike) where the UJ bearing mounts/retainers are badly cracked and likely to fail imminently if used. This was taken from a bike dismantled for entirely other reasons, not related to the shaft. I bought the back end and when the recall was announced some time later I had a look at my spare shaft and was horrified how bad it was. My actual bike was not that bad and the UJ simply stiff and 'notchy'. If I still had the 'old' part on the bike and there were no untoward symptoms, would I have continued to use the bike? Possibly, for a short while until the replacement part was available. But that would be my decision and in no way a recommendation for others to employ the same course of action. This is a potentially very serious problem and should be taken seriously. I don't think it is possible for Honda to deny supplying 'New' parts to any bike not yet fixed. That's part of what an official recall means. It is a legal as well as technical process. So there should be no issue getting parts. The replacement is a bit fiddly, but not hard and then you have a brand new drive shaft that should last the life of the bike.
  24. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    Interesting reading for sure, but something is not adding up. I am not interested in max power figures, except for comparison purposes. In that Honda doc, they state the 5.2 makes 106 PS and the provided graph, while not including any figures shows the 5.2 making quite a bit more than the 5.1 they show for comparison. In fact from that Honda graph, a very rough estimate would put the 5.1 at no more than 100 PS. Yet figures I have for the 5.1 state 110 HP. Now I realise that PS are slightly bigger than traditional HP so the number would be slightly lower, but certainly not 10%. Those 5.1 figures are not from Honda literature, but from some press info. However, it is almost certainly simply copied from Honda's own literature at the time. So either I'm missing something here, or someone's being economical with the truth. BTW, Honda's figures for the Gen 6 are 107 PS max. So certainly same ballpark. The 8th Gen dropped to 104.
  25. BiKenG

    5th & 6th VFR 800 Header build

    Pretty sure I see HISS there, so he will probably find an O2 sensor here as well... Yes I can see the HISS module as well. It's even advertised as a 2000, so that makes it a Gen 5.2 and the same as my bike. Oh well. I'm still available.😀
×

Important Information

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