BiKenG

Only just seen this. It's a while since I did this work, but checking the parts list again shows that as I recall, there is a spring circlip on the end of the shaft as it pushes into the FDU. So to pull the shaft out requires pulling hard enough to overcome the circlip trying to stay seated in its groove. I don't now remember how hard it was, but I'm thinking it will be a fair old tug. That's why trying to push the FDU back onto the installed shaft is basically impossible as the shaft telescopes shorter rather than the circlip allowing the shaft to slide into the FDU. So you need to fit the shaft to the FDU, then install that assembly into the S/A. To have 3 hands would help with that.

Regarding the rear brake binding, I do recall the carrier being very close to the rotor, but as long as it's not actually touching, that's ok. I cannot imagine how it could be assembled with the carrier in the wrong place. Also if the binding occurs after braking, that would suggest it's a problem with the caliper.

Mind you, if yours is DCT, there's 2 calipers and I've never worked on a DCT.

You may of course have sorted it by now, in which case, what was found to be the trouble?

25 minutes ago, SEBSPEED said:

I understand that I might be asking a lot here... but is there a chance of doing a test fit of the new 8th gen header prototype on a 6th gen before they go into production?

I'm with Seb on that.

14 hours ago, Stobl said:

I sent Simmi/ Jeff an email to see if I could still get a set sent to the US, since I haven't been able to find a supplier over here, but have yet to hear back from them.  If I can get a hold of a set, I plan on getting it on the dyno for tuning.  Might as well do a before and after too  (05 with 7k miles on it at sea level).

 

If anyone needs help with forwarding a system to the US (or elsewhere), I would be prepared to have it delivered here to me in the UK and send it on to the buyer who would have to make the arrangments and any payments as I'm not currently fully mobile. Obviously it would be simpler for the seller to ship it direct, but if that proves impossible I would do what I can to help.

50 minutes ago, sfdownhill said:

 

If all goes according to plan, the new 8 gen headers will be the same as the new 5/6 gen headers from the collector exit all the way forward [including the rear primaries] until the front sections of the two front primaries.

 

Ken, yesterday Wade assigned us homework that pertains to your question about 6 gen fitment : to help foresee any fitment issues with the collector exit of the new headers for 8 gen, we are going to attempt to fit OEM mufflers and aftermarket slipons from both 8 gen and 5 gen to both of those bikes - gonna throw a multi-pipe mini-swapmeet party. Four mufflers, two bikes, no rules, best fit takes all. Even if the muffler hanger mount holes/brackets are in different locations, we will get a rough idea of whether collector exit length, angle, and position line up between the two motorcycles. If they line up as expected [Or should I say as hoped?], we can relax a tiny bit.

 

Fitment of 6 gen dual high mount mufflers can be extrapolated from the results of the 8-5 gen muffler exchange matrix because we had to cut 5/8" off the new 5/6 gen header's collector exit before the 6 gen OEM mufflers fit correctly on a 6 gen motorcycle. After the cut, OEM 6 gen mufflers fit perfectly.

I look forward to the results of your 'swapfest' 😀

2 hours ago, CornerCarver said:

I am not aware of anyone mounting 6G pipes on an 8G bike,  though I have seen many 5G high mounts (Staintune and others) mounted on the 8G.

 

I dont think the undertail on the 8G would support the weight of hanging the 6G exhaust from it.

I cannot imagine any subframe capable of carrying 2 persons plus luggage would have any difficulty with any relatively minor weight increase due to a high level exhaust. Honda systems may be a bit weighty, but surely not that heavy.

Anyway, my requirements are not for actual standard models, but they will both be using front rads hence the need for splayed front headers while needing the outlet suitable for 6th Gen high level pipes and mufflers. The 5th and 6th Gen both use the same outlet dimensions, so either a 5th Gen low level or 6th Gen high level could be fitted to either (or so I am told), but is that also true for the 8th Gen? Is the collector outlet the same?  There was mention in here that the only difference for the 8th Gen would be the splayed front headers which implies the outlet is the same, but has that been determined?

One of my projects IS using a 6th Gen back end and high level exhaust, but with front mounted rad(s). The other will also be high level, but although not necessarily VFR 6th Gen, makes sense if both bikes use the same system.

Quick question about the 8th Gen version. it will need the splayed front headers to clear the rads, but will the outlet accept the 6th Gen high level pipe/mufflers?

I am actually very interested in at least one Lextek system but currently not really in a position to do much about it having been knocked off my bike and only just returned from hospital. Uppermost in my mind right now is suing the idiot in the van who tried to execute a rapid U turn right in front of me, throwing me to the ground and puncturing my lung - not to mention the damage caused to my beautiful eVo4. Anyway...

A couple of question about this system. First of all, what is Jeff's special price for us on this and is it suitable for 8th Gen bikes? Specifically I want 2 systems for what will be 5th Gen motors with front rads and high level exhausts. So that means 8th Gen front headers with 5/6th Gen collector and outlet. After all the discussion, I'm no longer sure if the Lextek caters for the 8th Gen front rads?

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.

On 1/17/2009 at 10:51 AM, The Phantom said:

...

Single nut rear wheel can be achieved by combining a VFR400 hub assembly (fits into the 4th Gen SSS)...

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?

21 minutes ago, Smack said:

On to fairings, yes, there are some European manufacturers and THOSE would probably be cost prohibitive for ME. Understood,

 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.

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. 

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 😁

On 10/29/2011 at 8:07 PM, flyguyeddy said:

get a 4th gen frame and put a vfr800 engine in it 😉

yea yea, i know it probably wont fit very easily, but if u cut that swingarm pivot off of the back of the engine your halfway there.....

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. 😀

On 2/11/2017 at 2:46 AM, monstar said:

I've only found cbr900rr swingarm conversions talkabout here. Nobody has got anything else to work? Heard about 600rr but the linkage didn't work or was too difficult.

Just found this swingarm that looks awesome from a cbr650f. Never knew they even existed. Has a little room on the right side and shock mount is different. That could be a good thing, no linkage. Thoughts? I have no idea of dimensions.

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.

On 2/6/2017 at 10:32 PM, monstar said:

 

Anyway, here's a pic a the bike with the tank cover sitting on top. I still need the tail to get the tank/tail/subframe relationship worked out.

...

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.

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?

1 hour ago, Stray said:

Unfortunately that dyno didn’t provide torque values. 

 

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.

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?

On 1/25/2012 at 6:14 AM, FinnRC36 said:

I am very happy with my VTR forks and '99 CBR900RR (same as RC51/F4i/CBR929) brakes. I did the fork valving myself without any prior experience and got lucky as they feel very good. Couldn't you use the Maxton internals in the VTR forks? I think they would switch over very easily.

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.

22 minutes ago, Voided76 said:

....
I'm however sold on Alibaba,  BW,  and Lextek all having the same header.  lol

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. 

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 hours ago, JZH said:

 

LOL, doesn't that look familiar...

 

Ciao,

 

JZH

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.

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?

31 minutes ago, Dutchy said:

I ordered my RC36-2 (VFR750F) in August? 1997 while on assignment in Finland. My dutch dealer imported it from France since no red ones were available anymore.

Then the RC46 VFR800fi  got introduced and it took me all but 15 seconds to realise I didnot want to cancel my order... 

Registered my redslut on 9 september 1997.

 

So I assume it was possible to buy and register a '98 in '97 

 

For me, the RC36-2 is 1994-1997. The RC46-1 is 1998-2001

 

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.

2 hours ago, Voided76 said:

how are you people arguing that these headers are any different from one another?

they both have the same seams and expanded joints in the same places,  when no other header before does that.

they both had the same idea at the same time and posted their "different" headers months apart from one another eh?  Hmm.

They both have concurrent/faulty dual o2 sensor placement in the same spot in the merges, .... nah.

...

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