|
Motorcycles » rec.motorcycles.tech » best and worst designs
| best and worst designs [message #485260] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 04:59 |
|
Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are the
worst and best designs in the past 25 years? Honda seems to have a
propensity for excessive amounts of wiring connectors is one example.
What about serviceability? Any good war stories? Every manufacturer has
made their share of mistakes.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485261 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 06:43 |
|
BMW's electric-assisted brakes come to mind. When simple hydraulics would
have sufficed as on prior year models. Too noisy. Too costly. Too heavy.
Simply, just too much.
B~
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485263 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 07:14 |
|
On 2005-10-18, R. Pierce Butler <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote:
> Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are the
> worst and best designs in the past 25 years? Honda seems to have a
> propensity for excessive amounts of wiring connectors is one example.
>
> What about serviceability? Any good war stories? Every manufacturer has
> made their share of mistakes.
>
> pierce
My personal nemesis was a 1983 Honda VF750F. Total piece of cr*p on
a stick. If it didn't start on the first try it would often flood and
not start at all. The only cure was to wait for 20 minutes to half an
hour before trying again. The clutch was a real charmer too, even
after I replaced the plates and spring. No matter how far I pulled it
in, it wouldn't fully release. That didn't stop it from slipping under
load though. I became an expert at "clutchless" shifting and nobody
could tell me how to fix the wretched thing. Most of the usual
suppliers of after market clutch plates didn't make any for that cycle
(at the time) and I was told that the one that was made by someone was
worse than the OEM!
My favorite "feature" was the under sized oil feed system to the
cyclinder heads. The cams and bearings scored and pitted themselves to
death in my bike after about 10,000 miles. Someone at one of the
magazines ran an article on how to fix it, but it required a lot of
drilling and maybe a milling machine along with real time and
money. Honda continued to use the engine for years afterwards in the
Magna series even though they knew the engine would be junk after only
a few years. I also replaced the cam chain tensioner but the new one
only worked for about a thousand miles before the chain started
hammering away again. The cycle spent more time in my garage, in
pieces, than on the street and left me stranded, I can't count how
many times.
It might not have been so bad if my experience with the local honda
dealership hadn't forced me to the conclusion that they were a bunch
of lying crooks. Years later I worked with someone who had worked at
that (now closed) dealership and he confirmed their lack of ethics and
told me a few stories about their operation. Maybe other bikes and
dealers are better but I'll never --ever-- buy another Honda. No way.
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485264 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 07:41 |
|
ben <benscott [at] bedroom.boskone> wrote in
news:slrndl9175.acq.benscott [at] bedroom.boskone:
> On 2005-10-18, R. Pierce Butler <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote:
>> Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are
>> the worst and best designs in the past 25 years? Honda seems to have a
>> propensity for excessive amounts of wiring connectors is one example.
>>
>> What about serviceability? Any good war stories? Every manufacturer
>> has made their share of mistakes.
>>
>> pierce
>
> My personal nemesis was a 1983 Honda VF750F. Total piece of cr*p on
> a stick. If it didn't start on the first try it would often flood and
> not start at all. The only cure was to wait for 20 minutes to half an
> hour before trying again. The clutch was a real charmer too, even
> after I replaced the plates and spring. No matter how far I pulled it
> in, it wouldn't fully release. That didn't stop it from slipping under
> load though. I became an expert at "clutchless" shifting and nobody
> could tell me how to fix the wretched thing. Most of the usual
> suppliers of after market clutch plates didn't make any for that cycle
> (at the time) and I was told that the one that was made by someone was
> worse than the OEM!
>
> My favorite "feature" was the under sized oil feed system to the
> cyclinder heads. The cams and bearings scored and pitted themselves to
> death in my bike after about 10,000 miles. Someone at one of the
> magazines ran an article on how to fix it, but it required a lot of
> drilling and maybe a milling machine along with real time and
> money. Honda continued to use the engine for years afterwards in the
> Magna series even though they knew the engine would be junk after only
> a few years. I also replaced the cam chain tensioner but the new one
> only worked for about a thousand miles before the chain started
> hammering away again. The cycle spent more time in my garage, in
> pieces, than on the street and left me stranded, I can't count how
> many times.
>
> It might not have been so bad if my experience with the local honda
> dealership hadn't forced me to the conclusion that they were a bunch
> of lying crooks. Years later I worked with someone who had worked at
> that (now closed) dealership and he confirmed their lack of ethics and
> told me a few stories about their operation. Maybe other bikes and
> dealers are better but I'll never --ever-- buy another Honda. No way.
>
In 1983 I was riding a 81 CBX, a 6 cylinder bike that, so far, has been
good to me. It sat for nearly 15 years with 20k miles on it. It is now
back on the road and has racked up more miles. It is a reasonable machine
that has never left me stranded. There is a weak point in it and it is the
alternator clutch. The bike seems quite serviceable with no recurring
problems. I think Honda put their best engineers on that project as it was
their flagship. It receiveed a lot of press as it was the quickest and
fastest machine on the planet at the time. It was soon dethroned. By
todays standards it is rather tame. Complaints? The lack of grease
fittings on the rear suspension. You would think that Honda would put
grease fittings on it. Honda seems to avoid grease zerks.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485266 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 08:14 |
|
R. Pierce Butler <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote:
> Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are the
> worst and best designs in the past 25 years? Honda seems to have a
> propensity for excessive amounts of wiring connectors is one example.
>
> What about serviceability? Any good war stories? Every manufacturer has
> made their share of mistakes.
>
Honda CB500T - one of the worst engines ever built anywhere by anyone.
Anti-dive forks - loads of different solutions to a problem that didn't
reall exist, and none of them worked.
Sixteen-inch front wheels bolted onto bikes not designed for them. Like
Moto Guzzis.
Honda VF750 - under-developed, unreliable.
Yamaha XZ550 - as above.
The list is endless.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS TR65 GPz550 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485268 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 09:04 |
|
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
> Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are the
> worst and best designs in the past 25 years?
"Worst" and "best" are very subjective. For example, is a Hayabusa the
"best" motorcycle of the past 25 years? Only if you define "best" as
"fastest", but there are people who would argue thusly.
What is "best" for me probably is not "best" for you. I value pleasant,
comfortable, economical low-maintenance motorcycles rather than the
ultimate in performance and handling. A Ducati may make your "best"
list, but will not make mine because it is a maintenance queen.
> What about serviceability? Any good war stories?
Serviceability is one thing that modern Harley-Davidson motorcycles
excell at. The valves adjust themselves, the final drive never needs
lubrication, about all you must do to maintain it is regularly change
the oil and air filter and occasionally the spark plugs. I understand
that they now even use sealed bearings so that you no longer need to
regularly lubricate the wheel bearings. And everything is out there in
the open, easily accessed. By contrast, even the most reliable of the
Japanese makes (Honda) requires final-drive spline lubrication on their
shaft-drive bikes, and don't mention chains to me (maintenance queens
all the way!). And because they bury the mechanicals of their bikes
under tons of plastic to "streamline" them (why that is necessary given
that the fastest anybody would sanely wish to go on American highways is
85mph, eludes me), accessing said mechanicals is an exercise in
disassembling a jigsaw puzzle (to be re-assembled at the end of the
process).
That said, Harley-Davidson motorcycles are far too expensive and lack
many modern amenities (such as, say, modern handling and accelleration).
So they are not for everybody, and I'd be hard-pressed to point at,
say, an Electra-Glide and call it the "best" touring bike ever...
- Elron
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485269 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 14:45 |
|
> "ben" wrote:
> ....My favorite "feature" was the under sized oil feed system to the
> cyclinder heads. The cams and bearings scored and pitted themselves to
> death in my bike after about 10,000 miles.
Hmm.......
Wonder if that is why my Honda CB350 of the mid 60's scored and chewed up
the rockers? I thought it was bizarre when I tore into the bike and saw the
scoring. Almost like someone took a file to the cam and lifters. The cams
were pitted as well, bad casting, but they installed it anyway. The new
parts were perfect in finish. Guess they figgered someone might look at
those. Oh, and that noisy cam chain tensioner (although I cannot say BMW
has done any better years later).
Maybe that's why I steered away from Honda. Seemed like they put the cheap
B-grade stuff into the engine and put the good A-grade stuff out on the
parts shelves.
B~
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485270 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 14:48 |
|
Forgot. BMW's "It never needs lubrication" clutch and driveline splines
of late.
Yeah. Right.
And their R-259 engines didn't *surge* neither....
B~
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485272 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 17:27 |
|
In article <Xns96F2DFC136C73mc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote:
> Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are the
> worst and best designs in the past 25 years? Honda seems to have a
> propensity for excessive amounts of wiring connectors is one example.
>
> What about serviceability? Any good war stories? Every manufacturer has
> made their share of mistakes.
>
> pierce
No contest. Yamaha made the 750 twin, the sequel to their fairly
successful 650 twin, must have been about 1974? just before their
triple-shaft drive. Chains all over, counter ballancer, and direct cam
in head bearing surfaces. Not a one made it past 10000 miles without
seizing, Yamaha pulled the plug in less than a year and totally scrapped
it and gave buyers credit toward new bikes and came out with the triple.
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485273 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 17:53 |
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in
news:Xns96F371A9D968mc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1:
> ben <benscott [at] bedroom.boskone> wrote in
> news:slrndl9175.acq.benscott [at] bedroom.boskone:
>
>> My personal nemesis was a 1983 Honda VF750F. [...]
>
> In 1983 I was riding a 81 CBX, a 6 cylinder bike that, so far, has
> been good to me. [...] I think Honda put their best
> engineers on that project as it was their flagship.
Honda seems to have quite a wide variation of ability in its engineers.
I have a VF700S, which I've done a lot of maintenance and repair on.
Some parts of the bike were brilliant, others were completely moronic.
This past spring, I helped a friend re-street a VF500F. The bike was
brilliant from front to back. The fairing could be easily removed by one
person. The tank was the same way. Etc, etc, etc.
As far as I can tell, Honda had all it's good engineers working on the
VF500F, and had the boss's son-in-law heading up the VF700S project.
Which is too bad--the VF700S has all the features I'd like to get in a
new motorcycle. But no one makes anything like it, possibly because it
was such a dismal failure for Honda.
--
Mike Freeman
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485278 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 18:55 |
|
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
> Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are the
> worst and best designs in the past 25 years? Honda seems to have a
> propensity for excessive amounts of wiring connectors is one example.
>
> What about serviceability? Any good war stories? Every manufacturer has
> made their share of mistakes.
>
> pierce
Worst I ever rode was a Harley 750 Sportster that was put together
during the AMF days. The disk brakes grabbed like they had a swollen
prostrate, acceleration was what you would expect for something 500cc
smaller, and if you wanted to do anything but go in a straight line you
were left wanting.
For consistantly stupid I would say the Japanese for putting rebound
only shocks on their bikes. I assume the situation has changed now but
there was nothing quite like the nose dive their bikes would take on
hard braking into a corner or negotiating bumps. People into vintage
racing often spend several hundred dollars buying after market shocks
for a bike that only cost that much new. True you would expect it with
inflation but the point is they consistanting put parts on deemed by
many to only be worthy of tossing.
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485279 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 19:49 |
|
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
> Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are the
> worst and best designs in the past 25 years?
The 1988 Yamaha FZR-1000 was the yardstick by which every other
sportbike chassis was measured by until Honda took the low-mass
approach to sportbikes in 1993 with the CBR-900RR. Nevertheless, it
still took Honda, Kawasaki, and Suzuki about 12 years to pick up the
gauntlet thrown down by Yamaha's brilliant ExUP exhaust throttling
valve.
Any design to come out of Japan for the last 25 years, no matter how
mediochre the performance really couldn't be called a "bad" design. If
any particular model was particularly unpopular, Honda would just drop
it from the lineup after a year or two, but occasionally riders would
demand its return.
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485280 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 20:18 |
|
Michael J. Freeman <pi3832NOSPM [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> This past spring, I helped a friend re-street a VF500F. The bike was
> brilliant from front to back.
Except for the weak crank.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS TR65 GPz550 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485281 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 20:18 |
|
Ray Curry <raycurry [at] pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <Xns96F2DFC136C73mc2500183316chgoill [at] 10.232.1.1>,
> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote:
>
> > Almost everyone has had issues with a varity of motorcycles. What are the
> > worst and best designs in the past 25 years? Honda seems to have a
> > propensity for excessive amounts of wiring connectors is one example.
> >
> > What about serviceability? Any good war stories? Every manufacturer has
> > made their share of mistakes.
> >
> > pierce
>
> No contest. Yamaha made the 750 twin, the sequel to their fairly
> successful 650 twin, must have been about 1974? just before their
> triple-shaft drive. Chains all over, counter ballancer, and direct cam
> in head bearing surfaces. Not a one made it past 10000 miles without
> seizing, Yamaha pulled the plug in less than a year and totally scrapped
> it and gave buyers credit toward new bikes and came out with the triple.
Heh. The TX750 twin. I'd forgotten that, because they (wisely) never
sold it in the UK.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS TR65 GPz550 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485282 ] |
Tue, 18 October 2005 20:18 |
|
krusty kritter <kriyamanna [at] aol.com> wrote:
> Nevertheless, it
> still took Honda, Kawasaki, and Suzuki about 12 years to pick up the
> gauntlet thrown down by Yamaha's brilliant ExUP exhaust throttling
> valve.
Indeed. And Yamaha's two-stroke power-valve has *never* been equalled,
never mind bettered.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS TR65 GPz550 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485284 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 03:54 |
|
Ray Curry <raycurry [at] pacbell.net> wrote:
>No contest. Yamaha made the 750 twin, the sequel to their fairly
>successful 650 twin, must have been about 1974?
Sigh... that brings back memories... my first "real road bike" was a
650 twin with that wonderful upright two-lunger. It was retro (kind
of a Japanese Triumph) but still very cool, and sounded great. It was
a workhorse, and I don't recall ever having a moment's trouble with
it.
Mark "other than getting passed by faster bikes" Hickey
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485319 ] |
Thu, 20 October 2005 22:33 |
|
One of the best designs I've seen is the Honda CX series of bikes. I
own a '78 CX500. Granted, they had cam chain tensioner issues the first
year, but the service I got from Honda was first rate. My particular
bike had 10,000 odd miles on it when I took it in for the recall. Honda
ended up putting in a new short block.
The design was what attracted me to the CX in the first place. An
across the frame V twin, shaft drive, liquid cooling, maintenance free
ignition, tubeless tires. All the above in 1978. I could have bought a
new Yamaha XS750D for exactly what I paid for the CX from the same
dealer. I chose the CX instead. And something I've always wondered -
how did that engine rev to 10,000 RPM with pushrods? I thought one of
the reasons for SOHC or DOHC designs was higher engine speeds and less
reiprocating mass in the valvetrain.
Anyway, I racked up 32,000 miles on my CX in 8 years with no problems
whatsoever.
Yeah, it wasn't really fast, it was a little tall and topheavy. But it
got me where I wanted to go.
My $.02.
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485320 ] |
Thu, 20 October 2005 23:11 |
|
Lhead <chestand [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> One of the best designs I've seen is the Honda CX series of bikes.
I would not argue. That bike was *years* ahead of its time, and the
amazing thing is that Honda has never tried to make anything in the same
mould; to the same original concept.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS XS650x2 CB400F CB125S DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485325 ] |
Fri, 21 October 2005 03:38 |
|
"Lhead" <chestand [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:1129840434.163472.243040
[at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> One of the best designs I've seen is the Honda CX series of bikes. I
> own a '78 CX500. Granted, they had cam chain tensioner issues the first
> year, but the service I got from Honda was first rate. My particular
> bike had 10,000 odd miles on it when I took it in for the recall. Honda
> ended up putting in a new short block.
> The design was what attracted me to the CX in the first place. An
> across the frame V twin, shaft drive, liquid cooling, maintenance free
> ignition, tubeless tires. All the above in 1978. I could have bought a
> new Yamaha XS750D for exactly what I paid for the CX from the same
> dealer. I chose the CX instead. And something I've always wondered -
> how did that engine rev to 10,000 RPM with pushrods? I thought one of
> the reasons for SOHC or DOHC designs was higher engine speeds and less
> reiprocating mass in the valvetrain.
> Anyway, I racked up 32,000 miles on my CX in 8 years with no problems
> whatsoever.
> Yeah, it wasn't really fast, it was a little tall and topheavy. But it
> got me where I wanted to go.
> My $.02.
>
IIRC, the CX500 was used by the city of Chicago as a replacement for their
aging HD powered trikes. The parking enforcement officers would use them.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485331 ] |
Fri, 21 October 2005 10:11 |
|
Lhead wrote:
> One of the best designs I've seen is the Honda CX series of bikes. I
> own a '78 CX500. Granted, they had cam chain tensioner issues the first
> year, but the service I got from Honda was first rate. My particular
> bike had 10,000 odd miles on it when I took it in for the recall. Honda
> ended up putting in a new short block.
> The design was what attracted me to the CX in the first place. An
> across the frame V twin, shaft drive, liquid cooling, maintenance free
> ignition, tubeless tires. All the above in 1978. I could have bought a
> new Yamaha XS750D for exactly what I paid for the CX from the same
> dealer. I chose the CX instead. And something I've always wondered -
> how did that engine rev to 10,000 RPM with pushrods? I thought one of
> the reasons for SOHC or DOHC designs was higher engine speeds and less
> reiprocating mass in the valvetrain.
> Anyway, I racked up 32,000 miles on my CX in 8 years with no problems
> whatsoever.
> Yeah, it wasn't really fast, it was a little tall and topheavy. But it
> got me where I wanted to go.
> My $.02.
And I'll agree as well. I road one for 18 months day-in, day-out as a
courier. The engine did not have a single problem during that time and
I rode it _very_ hard (I was 18-19 at the time). Only problem I had was
a broken sub-frame and that was my fault for carrying way too much in a
rack that was not up to the job.
My boss owned the bike and was nice enough to put a set of Marzocchi
shocks on the back and keep fresh Pirelli Phantoms on it for me. I went
through a few sets, but was able to scrape the footpegs regularly :-)
Brian.
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #485336 ] |
Fri, 21 October 2005 16:37 |
|
Somebody wrote:
> One of the best designs I've seen is the Honda CX series of bikes. I
> own a '78 CX500. (snip for brevity)
> Yeah, it wasn't really fast, it was a little tall and topheavy. But it
> got me where I wanted to go.
The CX500 was an appliance-like motorcycle. I doubt that it ever gave
anybody a hard on...
A Los Angeles-based moto maven once wrote that, if you needed to be
anywhere in the western USA by tomorrow, and you hated to fly, ride a
Yamaha FZR-1000 and you would get there on schedule. I was never in
that much of a hurry.
The third day out of Los Angeles, on a sight-seeing trip through Utah
to Mesa Verde NP in Colorado, I was on my knees beside my shiny new
FZR-1000, trying Pirsigly to apply a little chain lube without benefit
of a centerstand.
A tall seedy-looking local in rather casual old clothes came over and
wanted to know what was wrong, and I told him there was no problem, I
was just oiling the chain.
He asked me what it was like to ride, "All bent over like that?"
I told him it was no problem, I just leaned forward over the tank bag
and
that supported my upper body weight.
He said something about how he didn't think he'd ever need anything so
fancy, claiming that his CX500 got him to work and back. He said that
the handling was a little quirky, between the torque reaction and the
gusty crosswinds out there in western Colorado.
I tried to tell the guy that it didn't matter *what* he rode, all that
mattered was the fact that he did ride a motorcycle and that he didn't
have to make excuses for it.
The ride is the thing, not the machine. The motorcycle's personality
should not dominate the rider's spirit.
Yeah, right. I rode down a winding canyon from Hanksville toward Lake
Powell at 90 mph, screaming in my helmet, the scenery was so awesomely
beautiful, but the motorcycle was in control of my ride, it demanded to
be ridden FAST, I couldn't stop to smell the cactus flowers...
On the way toward Four Corners, a Navajo or Ute gentleman told me that
the soft luggage I had hanging all over the Yamaha was a nice rig for
travelling, but he wanted to know if the wind didn't blow the bike
around a lot. I hadn't encountered really strong crosswinds yet.
Riding south out of Tuba City toward Flagstaff, the steady crosswind
was so strong, it almost ripped my velcro-ed map case off the tank bag.
Some cruiser riders headed home from the Grand Canyon were poking along
at about 45 mph as they crossed the Little Colorado. I think they gave
up and waited for darkness, when the winds would die down.
The ride from Mesa Verde back to Los Angeles only took 14 hours total
on the road, but I did stop overnight. No point in riding to the point
of exhaustion just because the motorcycle never gets tired...
FZR-1000's were once praised for being about 50 to 75 pounds lighter
than Kawasaki's ZX10/11/12 series. Those porkers were called
"sportbikes" in their day, but since the motomags insisted that they
needed something a lot lighter for their racetrack aspirations, FZR's
and the older ZX's are now sometimes referred to as "power bikes".
If you want to beam instantaneously to the horizon a "power bike" is
what you need. Maybe a Hayabusa would get you there.
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #498649 ] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 11:23 |
|
Re: > Wonder if that is why my Honda CB350 of the mid 60's scored and chewed
up
> the rockers? <snip>
My early 70s CB500-4 needed its #1 cylinder's intake valve re-adjusted
almost constantly (about as often as it got ridden, which wasn't all that
much). Turns out that, even though the (steel) rocker arms were free to
rotate on their (steel) shafts, the shafts were also free to rotate in the
aluminum carrier. This resulted in the carrier journals wearing out very
quickly. When I became friends with a master machinist, first he mumbled
something about stupid design and then he took the whole assembly into the
school where he taught machine shop and, with a pro-grade milling machine,
put threaded holes in the sides of the rocker shafts, flats on the outside
of the carrier journals, and inserted machine screws through to hold the
shafts solidly in place (allowing the steel rockers to rotate on the steel
shafts -- no more steel shafts rotating on aluminum journals). He was such a
perfectionist that he even made threaded holes in the ends of the shafts so
a screw could be threaded in to enable pulling the shafts out super easy.
Once this modification was cinched down tight, no more problems with wonky
valve adjustments...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #498668 ] |
Thu, 03 November 2005 18:31 |
|
B. Peg wrote:
> Wonder if that is why my Honda CB350 of the mid 60's scored and chewed up
> the rockers? I thought it was bizarre when I tore into the bike and saw the
> scoring. Almost like someone took a file to the cam and lifters. The cams
> were pitted as well, bad casting, but they installed it anyway. The new
> parts were perfect in finish. Guess they figgered someone might look at
> those. Oh, and that noisy cam chain tensioner (although I cannot say BMW
> has done any better years later).
>
> Maybe that's why I steered away from Honda. Seemed like they put the cheap
> B-grade stuff into the engine and put the good A-grade stuff out on the
> parts shelves.
It was about 1967. The parts counter guy at Bill Krause Honda in
Inglewood showed me a bunch of replacement parts for early model
Hondas. He said that Honda was farming out engine parts production to
anybody who would build the stuff at a cheap price. One of the
camshafts he showed me had a great big divot right in the middle of the
lobe, but whoever made it shipped it to Honda and Honda's receiving
inspectors bought it and exported it to the distributor.
Sometimes stuff got mislabelledor got put into the wrong bin and got
shipped out as the wrong part number. He showed me a piston for a
Yamaha production road racer. It had a big square hole hand formed in
the rear skirt of the pistonto feed a booster port that the road-going
motorcycles didn't have.
He said, "It looks like some kid cut a hole in the back of the piston!"
Who knows, maybe Kenny Roberts did it when he was a kid...
|
|
|
| Re: best and worst designs [message #693288 ] |
Mon, 10 April 2006 05:17 |
|
krusty kritter wrote:
> I rode down a winding canyon from Hanksville toward Lake
> Powell at 90 mph, screaming in my helmet, the scenery was so awesomely
> beautiful, but the motorcycle was in control of my ride, it demanded to
> be ridden FAST, I couldn't stop to smell the cactus flowers...
That is the most wonderful ride in the country. Capitol Reef to Mexican
Hat and back again. I wish we'd had more time for Utah, but I don't
think my Suzuki could even hit 90...
Thank you for reminding me.
--
Cheers,
Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk.
Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ?
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sat Jan 10 00:41:15 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.16377 Sekunden |
