Jump to content

BiKenG

Members
  • Content Count

    619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by BiKenG

  1. Not a bike sold here in the UK (I don't think) so I'm not familiar with it, but it would appear to use the exact same hub as the VFR750, but it also has the single nut fixing. Shame that Honda decided to use a different drive pin PCD (deliberate I wonder?), but great info. Thanks. Just need to locate a couple here in the UK though. If anyone over in the US has one spare and would be prepared to organise shipping, please let me know.
  2. Old thread, but had to correct this. An NC30 or NC35 hub is indeed the same diameter as for the RC36 but the NC hubs are 10mm narrower. If anyone knows how to make that work, please let me know. I've even contemplated cutting the 400 hub and inserting a spacing ring and welding it all back together. Otherwise, anyone got a spare RC30 hub and axle?
  3. I just had a look at Beasley Composites and they can supply RC45 parts suitable for road use with holes for the lights. However I'm also looking for the same for the RC30, but they only offer race versions for that. Either way, no prices so I've no idea if they're worth considering.
  4. My time frame is similarly 'extended' as I have many other products concurrently underway. Have fun with using ethanol. You do understand that more power does does not necessarily mean better acceleration, that being a function of torque. Increase the max revs of any engine means a higher max power figure, but that does not necessarily mean more torque. It may be the same or even be reduced. Power enables your top speed, but it's torque that gets you there. I'm not bothered about the 'power' of the VFR as that's not what I want it for. If I do feel the need, I have much quicker bikes to play on, although trying not to. 😀 I've not really thought about painting/decals etc. The RC45 uses an interesting idea of different fairing pieces having a different base colour, but then decals that spread across joins which is the simplest way to achieve that colour pattern. Whatever you do discover about decals etc, please report back here and I'll do the same. Hopefully we can help each other out on that.
  5. I haven't checked on Beasley Composites yet. I was going to do that yesterday, but forgot. I'm going to look today, but I suspect probably not ideal for me as I'm in the UK and I somehow doubt they are. Why do you want to use ethanol? Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's got a lower calorific value than regular petrol. Do you mean methanol? Personally I wouldn't. A small overbore and some suitable pistons a camshafts a la Mohawk would make a nice usable power output. Much as I cannot shake off the long held desire for more power, it makes no sense whatsoever with the limitations imposed on us by the authorities (over here anyway). 200hp and 200mph bikes is simply insane in this day and age and realistically totally unusable to anywhere near their max. I don't care how good a rider anyone thinks they are. 100mph in the UK and lose your license if caught. 120mph means possibly go to jail and I REALLY don't want to do that. So for me these days the emphasis is on interesting bikes to look at and comfortable ones to ride. 😀 Having said that, 120 rwhp from a VFR is a nice output. I've ridden a fair bit with Mohawk and his bike is the fastest VFR800 I've ever come across. Some way to go though until it can match my VFR1200 eVo4 😁
  6. Resurrecting this thread, but I actually looked into doing this and although yes you could cut the S/A mount off the back of the RC46 engine, the front mounts are way off. You would have the cut the original front mounts off the frame (i.e. those 2 lower side rails on the RC36), fabricate new mounts and weld them onto the frame. All in all I decided it wasn't worth it as the 4th Gen frame is not actually very similar to the RC45 frame anyway. Once the bodywork is on it wouldn't be too obvious, but the front engine mounts for the RC45 are more like the RVT1000, with long arms that drop down from the main frame rails which are themselves much deeper on the RC45. Presumably to keep it really stiff. I have decided to use a 5th Gen 800 as the starting point. Although as standard the frame looks quite different around the Swing/Arm area, by the time you fit a VTEC lower frame (with footrest mounts etc), you could then fit a simple plate between the 2 and it would at first glance look like the solid frame as used on the 4th Gen and RC45. The front engine mounts are then more similar (but hidden so no big deal anyway) and most importantly, it is then basically an RC45 engine with cam drive on the end rather than in the middle and of course, fuel injection. With some cams as designed by Mohawk (copying the RC45 profiles), it would make slightly more power than an actual standard RC45. That's what I'm starting with, anyway. Fortunately I have an actual RC45 to copy from as needed. Currently I'm looking into sources of plastics, both for this and an RC30 replica that WILL be based on a 4th Gen. 😀
  7. No doubt this has since been sorted, but any S/A without linkage is likely to be problematic trying to fit it into the RC36 chassis. One thing about those, the RC36.1 (3rd Gen) has a 243mm width (at the front) S/A, whereas the RC36.2 (4th Gen) is only 235mm. Both those are quite narrow so finding anything suitable to fit without any machining will be tricky. The BlackBird has a nice simple twin spar S/A, but it's 248mm. The CBR900RRW/X is 243 at the front, but although correct for the RC36.1, still a little too wide for the RC36.2 (and anyway has additional bracing which is not like the RC45 twin spar S/As. It may well be that some machining is the only option.
  8. Resurrecting this as I'm starting a similar project, but based on a VFR800. I'd be interested to know where the tank cover came from and also the rest of the bodywork. I rather hoped RC45 replica plastics could be sourced from China but I've not found anyone offering these (due to the low numbers of RC45s produced I guess). Any suggestions about finding suitable plastics would be gratefully received.
  9. Thread getting a bit dusty so I thought I'd try and resurrect it as I am intended to attempt the exact same conversion. Could Pachinko update us on how it all went? What tank did he use in the end etc. and from where did he obtain the replica bodywork? And as requested previously - pictures?
  10. We could calculate that. If someone was prepared to enter the power figures (read from the dyno graph) into a spreadsheet that could then be used to calculate and show the torque curve. Further, if other data from other dyno runs with different exhausts was also entered, we could build up a set of torque/power stats that would provide the perfect comparison chart. The only issue with that would be differing parameters like actual bike and dyno used and atmospheric conditions etc. However, it WOULD be better than nothing.
  11. I agree with both Seb and Mohawk. The Lextek looks like a reasonable system at a good price and depending on your individual requirements, may indeed be the ideal choice. But... I would have liked to see a back to back comparison with the same bike fitted with the standard system. In isolation, that dyno chart is let's say, not as useful as it would be if we had the standard one to compare. Maybe that bike on that dyno just produces higher figures and the standard system might produce higher/better results, showing the Lextek as perhaps significantly inferior. I'm not suggesting it is, but without the comparison, let's be honest, we don't actually know. I guess we could try looking at another chart of a standard bike and see how that compares. Not ideal, but probably better than nothing at all. Anyone got one to hand?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Well electrics are no problem and I have designed some simple electronic circuits, but the 2 wire Wheel Speed Sensors defeat me. 😕
  15. 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.
  16. 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. 😀
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. Yup. That's what I said. And both at roughly the same price. It is kinda suspicious.
  24. 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. 😀
  25. 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". 😀
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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