BiKenG

Thinking further on this merging issue, Honda merge the Lefts and Rights and then merges the resulting Left and Right (as does the TBR) on all bikes I've checked that use a 180° crank (VFR750 and VFR800), but on the bikes with 360° cranks (RC30, RC45, NC30, NC35) they merge Fronts and Rears and then Front and Rear. I think this gives a clear indication of what is the best for the bike under discussion here, i.e. the VFR800. Which rather leaves a question over the Lextek system. Unless the picture is actually of a 400 (or RC30/45) system. Again, do we have any idea about BW's intentions regarding this? As far as I'm concerned, the CSK system is way out of reach pricewise. It appears they do fantastic work, but even at the regular price indicated by Louis it's not appropriate for me and let's be honest, if you're that keen on spending money to get a fast V4, buy the Aprilia, or Ducati, or Norton. For my purposes the Lextek price makes more sense. That's not to denigrate CSK in any way. Fabulous looking work and Louis has jumped in here and been very accommodating, but it won't be for me.

I think this is something that needs to be settled. Honda pair the Lefts and the Rights as did TBR and Erion before that (same guy I think). Although the Tuono is Fronts and Rears paired, that may not be relevant to our requirement. The Aprilia has a different cylinder angle and I've no idea what the firing order, nor crank angle is. So what works best for Aprilia V4 power may not work for the VFR. So I would tend towards thinking the original Honda merge style would be best. Everyone holds up the TBR as the system to copy and that's what they use so does it not make sense to stick with that? Has this been discussed with BW? Any idea what their intentions are with regard to this aspect?

As far as I can make out, you +1'd JZH's comment about Black Widow, but then commented on the Delkevic which indeed seems to have their 8th Gen rear slip joints backwards. It does seem wrong to me, but in reality, does it actually make any difference. Not to the flow as there is the same small gap in the otherwise smooth internal bore. Where that gap then leads is surely incidental. Also, would it affect potential sealing of the joint? Since static pressure is going to be exerted in all directions equally, the only difference would be due to the movement of the gas and like the flow, I don't see how the direction the gap takes could make any difference. Indeed with a perfect seal, it could make no difference. As I said, it does seem wrong to me, but is that in fact just a misguided concern.

Seems to me this is crucial for any prospective manufacturer. The problem is always going to be cost of design/manufacture vs size of market and since in this case it wouldn't impact on performance, modularity just HAS to be the way to go. I could do with some clarification though. Is the collector outlet the same on the 5th Gen as the 6th Gen? Obviously completely different systems downstream, but is the collector actually interchangeable? The reason I ask is because my requirement for such an exhaust is to suit an 800 special I'm building which will have the 6th Gen high level rear end, but as a naked bike will need the front rad of the 8th Gen and hence the wide spaced front downtubes. Seems to me from what Seb says, this could be done by piecing together Delkevic parts. But how do they use the same collector, unless the outlet is actually the same for the 5th and 6th Gens. Or do they use the same actual collector but have different outlets that can be attached?. Hence my question. Actually another thought. Why do Honda cross the pipes over. Since they cross both front and back it doesn't change the merge order, so why do it. I can't see any obvious reason. Anyone?

Oh yes. No question. But that doesn't necessarily mean it works any better.

I can see them now. That wasn't the case when I first looked. I'm poring over them now. 😀 Doesn't anyone have a Triumph wheel to measure its offset?

Fixing picture links would be great.

Just seen this and wondered about the final outcome. I cannot now remember the cam cover to head seal on the VFR1200, but I do remember many years ago after a service on an RVT1000 (RC51 / SP-1) when I noticed it smoking on the overrun. As has been mentioned above, it was a missing PAIR oil seal. Allows oil to get sucked into the exhaust although I don't recall any oil leaking out of the engine. Once I took the cam cover off I could spot that the seal was missing and once replaced and all back together, no more problem. So that sounds like the exact same problem.

Hi Jim, long time no see. Not since that endurance race at Snetterton all those years ago. On a GSXR I seem to recall. Did the Enigma project get anywhere? Since I’ve heard nothing about it for some time, I suspect not. Oh well. Nothing ventured... Glad to see you’ve got the VFR bug. I’ve just come back from a brief trip on my eVo4 (1200 special) with 3 VFR800s, all also ridden by ex Honda staffers. Plus there’ll be another VFR800 joining. It’s still a great bike, even if the current press are bored by its lack of fancy whizz bang (and essentially unnecessary) features. I always liked that F model. It was a shame they had those cam problems. In fact it was the fairing from that 750F that I used on my CBX that MotorCycle Mechanics featured on their front cover March ‘85. Warranty return if I remember correctly. Just needed painting. Just the job. 😀 Hope to see you around here more. Look forward to seeing how your bikes progress.

Thanks gig. Just what I thought it would be.

Question for those who've used Ducati axles. On the (driven/cush) LHS what type of washer do they use under the nut? Honda like to use a dished/spring washer, but are Ducati the same or is it just a plain flat washer? I've looked at parts lists, but they just state "washer" which is no help at all.

So you got a 20.5mm offset? Is that for the 1098/1198 wheel for the larger axle? I measured 23mm on my 916 wheel and that concurs with what I have seen reported elsewhere. Which means Ducati used a different offset on their different axle sizes.

I now think that is incorrect as I misread the diagram which in fact states the 916/996 etc hub is 98mm dia. which means it would need a 3.5mm sleeve to fit in the VFR750's S/A which uses a 105mm dia hub. Possible but not ideal and I've no idea where that would position the wheel. Although being 10mm wider might allow some 'adjustment'. All in all, not a great solution I think. A bigger problem is trying to arrange a single nut fixing for e.g. the RC45 wheel as the 400's axle cannot really be shuffled sideways in the 750 hub the 7mm required to align the wheel. Not sure where I go from here. 😞

The Tuono 1100 is I think a cracking bike, but to be honest, any company that simply shuts down for the summer holidays (and to hell with customer service, parts etc) is suspect in my books. I sure love the idea of a new RVF1000, but I actually think the Ducati or Norton V4s will be better road bikes with their larger capacity and none of them can possibly allow me to go any faster as that's governed entirely by speed limits and nothing to do with the bike's performance. I've set myself a new rule. No more bikes that require tax and MOT. So apart from the VFRs, it's 40 year old classics for me. But there's a lot of interesting Hondas in that bracket now 🙂

I may not have explained that this bike is based on a VFR750 with Gen3 SSSA whose rear end is 70 wide by 105mm dia. The Ducati hub is 80 wide by 110 dia. and no matter which way I look at it, 110 into 105 don't go 😞 So the simplest solution is to stick with the 750 hub and axle and just make an extension to suit the 916 wheel.

In that case, the goal is the wheel, but I won't be using Ducati axles and stuff. Goes against the grain on a Honda (apart from the wheel of course 🙂 ) Anyone got an accurate Ducati wheel offset? Hard to measure exactly. Is it 23mm or 7/8"?

You do realise it will not be a VFR. It'll be a track weapon. I'd like them to produce a naked version, but I doubt they will. Either way, it won't be a VFR. Naked versions of the Norton and Ducati V4s are intended and will be very interesting. There's always the Aprilia. Why not that? It's a very good bike. None of them VFRs though. Either track focussed or naked. If you want a bigger VFR, you'll be disappointed. Hang on, there's already a big VFR. Without a doubt, brilliant bike. I like mine naked though 🙂

Well, for starters, I think that's a LOT of money for not a lot. Just a few brackets that are not suitable for my purposes and I'd still have to buy a complete Ducati axle assembly. Secondly, why pay for someone else to do something I can do myself (once I have all the info). Where's the fun in that 🙂 My intention is to have a 916 type nut and axle thread on an NC[30|35] axle that will provide what I need for these bikes. Same concept as Steen's, but with a different thread and no need to manufacture the actual nuts. Since I'll be using my own calipers and hence need to make my own mount brackets for those, even less reason to waste money on the EC kit which would actually provide me with nothing that I need. "Paddle my own furrow" eh Mohawk 😉

Further consideration has made me realise that my dream of using identical axles to allow swapping of RC45 and 916 wheels is not going to happen. The 916 wheel is 4mm wider at the centre AND will require a 4mm spacer, so the axle will need to be 8mm longer which is too much to allow for with a special conical spacer. No big deal though as I never actually intended to swap wheels, just thought it would be a cool feature. However I did weigh both wheels as it was clear to me that although 1/2" narrower, the 916 felt a fair bit heavier:- 916 = 6,055 gms RC45 = 5,260 gms That's bare, clean wheel with valve. More questions now. Could someone with the LARGE Ducati axle (1098 etc) let me know some measurements of the wheel/nut end i.e. length of axle from flange face to thread end and also diameter(s). Just pondering whether to use those dimensions (and hence 1098 type nut) for the RC45 wheel.

I am working through 2 conversions. One is to accept an RC45 wheel and the other a 916 wheel. Those are now set. I just need to figure out the best way to modify the NC[30|35] axles. Since both wheels rely on the conical spacer to centrally locate them, I'm thinking I might make 2 identical axle extensions to suit the (smaller bore) 916 wheel and use std. 916 axle nuts (well, Ti ones). Then a std. 916 spacer can be used with the 916 wheel and I'll make a special spacer to suit the RC45 wheel. That way, either wheel can actually be used on either bike. Actually the axles will need some slight machining to the outer end so the 916 wheel will fit, but they can be identical. Just need the special cone spacer to suit the RC45 wheel and inner spacer with longer drive pins for the 916 type wheel. I like the fact that then any RC45 or 916 (748 etc) type wheel could be used on either bike with minimal work involved. I'd still like to know though what steel Steen used for his axle extension as I presume it's suitable and I'll then use the same.

Ha, no, not code. I have been in touch with Steen, but he was heavily involved in something (business, or moving house, I now forget which) and is apt to take a very long time to reply. In any case, I'm sure he gets posts to this thread, so I figured asking here provided the best 'audience'. 😀 Did you ever mount an RC45 wheel to your modified axle? Surely someone has and can comment on its fitment and the length of the modified axle?

Regarding Ducati axle and wheel, how is the wheel located on the axle? On an NC30 the wheel is a snug fit over the enlarged boss next to the disc/drive pin flange, so the spacer and nut just hold it in place. The RC45 wheel is not so snug on the inner side, but the conical spacer is snug over the outer end of the axle and so locates the wheel. How do Ducati do it? From looking at measurements, it would appear that the wheel is actually quite loose on the axle and it is only the conical spacer that locates the wheel, centralising it and pushing it up against the flange, holding it in that central position by the clamping force of the nut. Not that different from the RC45 in fact, although the Ducati wheel is even looser on the axle as far as I can see. Is this how others see it? The only location of the Ducati's wheel is done by the conical spacer? BTW, what is the offset of the 1098 (6") wheel? Honda use a 19mm offset and the 916 (smaller axle) is 23mm, but what about those Ducs with the larger axle? What offset do they use? Same as for the smaller axle?

I think Steen is very busy. The assembly I have here is also 80mm when pushed together. But the RC45 wheel and nut is about 67 mm thick which leaves about 13mm protruding beyond the wheel. The groove and lip at the end are about 7mm, so that means 5mm of spare thread. Seems to me that with the nut on and tight, only the groove and lip should be visible so the clip can be fitted. There should be no exposed thread. If nothing else, that would mean the nut can come loose out to the retaining clip and allow the wheel to slide 5mm side to side. This cannot be a good thing as it'll just be flopping around. I originally thought it was 7mm too long, but the measurements above indicate 5mm. So let's take the middle ground and I can't help but think the extension piece is about 6mm too long. I'm not knocking Steen here, the pieces are beautifully made. It just seems I must be missing something here.

Another question about Steen's (VFRRR) conversion kit. I have one here and loosely inserted it into an NC35 axle. Strangely, it is quite loose. Doesn't rattle, but slides in and out. I thought they had to be push fit into the axle. Anyway... I then inserted it into an RC45 wheel and I cannot help but think it's nearly 8mm too long. If I hold the insert into the axle and spin the nut down until it starts to bind on the wheel, there's almost 8mm of thread protruding beyond the nut, before the outer lip with holes to take the pin. The whole threaded portion looks like it should be about 8mm shorter, otherwise it sticks out way too far. Anyone else found this? I cannot see why this is. The RC45 wheel is new and certainly not 'thinned' in any way. The axle is certainly not modified and the extension piece is how it was supplied. How can it end up being 8mm too long? Any ideas?

Regarding Steen's (VFRRR) conversion pieces, anyone know for sure the materials they're made from. Steel and Al alloy I know, but exactly what alloys? The axle extension is very magnetic which suggests it's not stainless and Steen made no mention of this so it's likely to be mild steel. In which case, how is everyone who uses one actually protecting the metal? If left bare it will surely rust badly. Paint it? And what about the alloy nut. 7075 perhaps? Or what? Anyone know? Of course Steen knows, but he's kinda busy and I hoped someone else would know for sure.