|
Motorcycles » rec.motorcycles.tech » Head shake
| Head shake [message #763070] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 06:05 |
|
I have read somewhere that *any* kind of looseness or sloppiness in a bike's
suspension system can manifest as a head shake/tank slapper. True?
My CB900F (#1) has always been a little bit twitchy on the steering. It's
been both stable and responsive, as long as I was touching the bars. Even a
single fingertip on a bar end would keep it stable. But if I let go of the
bars completely, it would begin an oscillation that would grow in a most
alarming fashion. If I grabbed the bars it would quickly settle down, and
it never got to be a real tank slapper. This has been a steady situation
through several different brands and types of tires.
I'm now resurrecting my bike after a long sleep, and as part of another
procedure I pulled off one of the rear shocks. Lo and behold, the rubber
bushing on the upper shock mount is decayed and broken, allowing the shock
to flop around quite a bit. Could this be a source of head-shaking
instability? Probably. Why did I never notice this before? Damned if I
know. Just lazy, I guess.
So I'm replacing the bushings. I should replace the shocks, but at $500 a
side that'll have to wait. I'm also rebuilding the forks with new seals and
bushings. The parts are a week away, and it'll be longer than that before I
can ride (separate issue), but I'm excited to find out how the bike behaves
with the new parts.
-Scott
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763071 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 06:28 |
|
Scott wrote:
> I have read somewhere that *any* kind of looseness or sloppiness in a bike's
> suspension system can manifest as a head shake/tank slapper. True?
>
> My CB900F (#1) has always been a little bit twitchy on the steering. It's
> So I'm replacing the bushings. I should replace the shocks, but at $500 a
> side that'll have to wait. I'm also rebuilding the forks with new seals and
You can buy perfectly good aftermarket shocks for your CB900F for $250 or less
for both shocks.
--
'01 SV650S '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13 '81 CM400T
OMF #7
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763072 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 06:28 |
|
That could be part of it but also change the fork oil, balance the front
tire and make sure both tires are properly inflated. It also wouldn't
hurt to make sure the steering head bearings are properly adjusted.
Tony
Scott wrote:
> I have read somewhere that *any* kind of looseness or sloppiness in a bike's
> suspension system can manifest as a head shake/tank slapper. True?
>
> My CB900F (#1) has always been a little bit twitchy on the steering. It's
> been both stable and responsive, as long as I was touching the bars. Even a
> single fingertip on a bar end would keep it stable. But if I let go of the
> bars completely, it would begin an oscillation that would grow in a most
> alarming fashion. If I grabbed the bars it would quickly settle down, and
> it never got to be a real tank slapper. This has been a steady situation
> through several different brands and types of tires.
>
> I'm now resurrecting my bike after a long sleep, and as part of another
> procedure I pulled off one of the rear shocks. Lo and behold, the rubber
> bushing on the upper shock mount is decayed and broken, allowing the shock
> to flop around quite a bit. Could this be a source of head-shaking
> instability? Probably. Why did I never notice this before? Damned if I
> know. Just lazy, I guess.
>
> So I'm replacing the bushings. I should replace the shocks, but at $500 a
> side that'll have to wait. I'm also rebuilding the forks with new seals and
> bushings. The parts are a week away, and it'll be longer than that before I
> can ride (separate issue), but I'm excited to find out how the bike behaves
> with the new parts.
>
> -Scott
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763077 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 09:08 |
|
Scott <nobody [at] xmission.com> wrote:
> I have read somewhere that *any* kind of looseness or sloppiness in a bike's
> suspension system can manifest as a head shake/tank slapper. True?
The key word is *can*.
It can be a contributory factor, yes. However, one single imperfect
suspension component, on its own, is highly unlikely to cause it.
In addition, you have the problems of tyres, luggage fitment, fitment of
badly designed fairings, you name it.
Your Honda is a big, lardy old bus designed in the 1970s, when Honda
really hadn't got their chassis technology thought out. Replace the fork
components and the shocks by all means, but there's only so much you can
do to help.
And think - the swinging arm moves, at the back, up and down, in a near
vertical plane. A worn rubber bushing isn't going to affect that at all.
So the short answer is that replacing it isn't really going to make any
appreciable difference, although it's wise to do it if you're
overhauiling the suspension completely.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763083 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 18:31 |
|
Scott wrote:
> I have read somewhere that *any* kind of looseness or sloppiness in a bike's
> suspension system can manifest as a head shake/tank slapper. True?
That's usually a bunch of BULLSHIT that mechanics use to get you to pay
them money to "fix" problems that are INHERENT to the design of street
motorcycles.
Oh, well, if you put your machine onto the centerstand and you can grab
the front wheel and move it back and forth half an inch, your steering
head bearings are worn out or need to be retorqued. I wouldn't worry
too much about loose swing arm bearings that allow you to move the rear
wheel side to side a quarter of an inch.
Your premise is that *any* kind of looseness or sloppiness in a bike's
suspension system can manifest as a head shake/tank slapper.
Modern motorcycle chassis engineers know that a certain amount of
"sloppiness" is actually very desireable and they are designing more
limber chasses to deal with
head shakes/tanks slappers/speed weaves.
There are a number of factors involved in the "head shake/tank slapper"
syndrome.
What you are describing is a so-called "speed wobble". That's when the
forks oscillate back and forth from side to side at a frequency of 5 or
more times per second. The chassis doesn't roll or yaw very much, it
stays vertical.
The rider who experiences a "speed wobble" has little chance to realize
what
is happening, and has no time to decide on a corrective action or to
implement the corrective action.
The sudden onset and end of the speed wobble mystifies riders and makes
money for motorcycle mechanics when they charge the ignorant customer
to change his steering head bearings (or tighten them), or he sells
them a set of trick new shock absorbers for $400 to $500 or tells him
that he needs to have his swing arm bushings or bearings replaced or
that his forks are worn out or whatever.
The real reason for a head shake/tank slapper/speed wobble is that the
front tire doesn't have enough traction to stop the motorcycle chassis
from falling over to the right or left sides.
This loss of traction usually occurs as the motorcycle goes over a rise
in elevation on the road, or crosses railroad tracks. In this case,
front tire traction is instantaneously reduced or even becomes
non-existant when weight transfers to the rear tire as the front tire
*dances* on the pavement.
The head shake/tank slapper/speed wobble is damped out as the front
tire regains traction.
But motorcycles will also experience a deceleration wobble when weight
shifts to the front end as the rider rolls off the throttle. The amount
of rake and trail is decreased slightly, and this is enough to start
the head shake/tank slapper/speed wobble.
So the real culprits are the age of the rubber in the front tire
(whether it's new and damps out oscillations, or if it's old and cannot
damp oscillations), the profile of the front tire (front tires wear to
a "V" shape over time, losing traction, while rear tires wear flat,
increasing their traction), and front suspension compliance (fork oil
that's too thick will reduce front tire traction).
> My CB900F (#1) has always been a little bit twitchy on the steering. It's
> been both stable and responsive, as long as I was touching the bars. Even a
> single fingertip on a bar end would keep it stable.
It was designed that way to be light handling in parking lots and to
reduce steering effort while you are leaned over in a long sweeping
corner. A "neutral steering" machine will only take about 1 pound of
force on the handlebars to hold the machine in cornering attitude.
> But if I let go of the bars completely, it would begin an oscillation that would
> grow in a most alarming fashion. If I grabbed the bars it would quickly settle
> down, and it never got to be a real tank slapper. This has been a steady situation
> through several different brands and types of tires.
Did you ever hear the story of the patient that went to a doctor and
said, "Doc, it hurts when I hit myself in the head with a hammer." The
doctor replied, "Then don't hit yourself in the head with a hammer."
As I said, your Honda is designed to have light, responsive and precise
steering in low speed situations, like around town and in parking lots.
If your Honda was designed for high speed stability at 180 miles an
hour on a race track, the steering would be unpleasantly heavy in a
parking lot.
You may remember when Superbike racing started. Enthusiastic novice
racers would buy a Honda CB900F or a CB1100F or a GS1000 or a Kawasaki
KZ1000 that was designed for light, precise parking lot steering and
they would go out and try to ride 150 mph on a race track. And they
came back to the pits scared silly from the violent head shake/tank
slapper/speed wobbles.
The street oriented machines even got into a worse situation. They went
into high speed weaves that would cause the motorcycle to roll and yaw
violently, throwing the rider off to the side or over the handlebars.
I have experienced high speed weaves. They are caused by the rear tire
having a lot more traction than the front tire. High speed weaves take
place at a frequency between 3 and 5 cycles per second, and the rider
CAN do something about the weave.
He can roll off the throttle, regaining front tire traction by
transferring weight forward.
He can do the same thing by sliding forward or laying down on the gas
tank. He can also transfer weight forward by tapping the rear brake
pedal.
A last resort is to take your feet off the foot pegs, lowering the
whole center of mass of the motorcycle. This may not be an entirely
volunary action. If you are in a speed weave with your feet off the
foot pegs, the motorcycle may throw you off. So don't hold on, let it
go.
When your feet are off the foot pegs, you run the risk of getting your
left foot caught in the chain and having toes severed. That happened to
pro racer Doug Polen several year ago. Another racer, Chuck Graves,
makes am accessory "shark's tooth" that keeps the rider's foot out of
the drive chain/sprocket meat grinder.
Back to the early Superbike racers. Initially, the racers believed the
old bullshit about the problem being "chassis flex", that the steel
chasses behaved like they had a hinge in the middle because they were
"too limber". So the racers braced their chasses six ways from Sunday,
and the motorcycles STILL had problems with head shakes/tank
slappers/speed wobbles and violent underwear-destroying speed weaves.
The racers learned that they needed to keep more weight on the front
tire to make it grip properly. So they pulled the forks up through the
triple clamps as much as an inch. You'd be amazed at how much that
helps the front tire traction. They also cut the frame just behind the
steering head and leaned the steering head a little forward at the top,
reducing the fork rake.
A few degrees less fork rake, and half an inch more trail will help
stop head shake/tank slapper/speed wobbles.
The racers also learned to use a lighter weight fork oil to control
traction over small amplitude, high frequency bumps instead of using a
heavier weight fork oil to reduce
larger amplitude, lower frequency bumps.
> I'm now resurrecting my bike after a long sleep, and as part of another
> procedure I pulled off one of the rear shocks. Lo and behold, the rubber
> bushing on the upper shock mount is decayed and broken, allowing the shock
> to flop around quite a bit. Could this be a source of head-shaking
> instability? Probably. Why did I never notice this before? Damned if I
> know. Just lazy, I guess.
I doubt that this is causing your problem. A guy with his own machine
shop used to
scout for work on Usenet by insisting that the cause of head shake/tank
slapper/speed wobbles and speed weaves was mechanical sloppiness. He
refused to believe that Honda and Kawasaki were finding that handling
over rough surfaces got WORSE, not better, when they removed all
sources of chassis "sloppiness".
Honda and Kawasaki began redesigning their high tech space age chasses
to be less stiff. They now claim that their newest chasses are
"improved" but refuse to say whether they are stiffer or more limber.
> So I'm replacing the bushings. I should replace the shocks, but at $500 a
> side that'll have to wait. I'm also rebuilding the forks with new seals and
> bushings. The parts are a week away, and it'll be longer than that before I
> can ride (separate issue), but I'm excited to find out how the bike behaves
> with the new parts.
Can you cancel the order before the parts arrive? You're "shotgunning"
a bunch or repairs that you may not need.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763084 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 20:41 |
|
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 23:28:37 -0500, Mark Olson <olsonm [at] tiny.net> wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>> So I'm replacing the bushings. I should replace the shocks, but at $500 a
>> side that'll have to wait. I'm also rebuilding the forks with new seals and
>
>You can buy perfectly good aftermarket shocks for your CB900F for $250 or less
>for both shocks.
$249.98, and free shipping! But I'm having an internal debate on "fix it
cheap" versus "keep it close to stock", and so I'm going to cheat and not do
anything about it right now.
But aftermarket progressive springs seem appealing. Are they really worth
using? If nothing else I'd be happy to have progressives up front, because
I've learned to hate trying to keep the damn air forks properly inflated.
-Scott
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763085 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 20:41 |
|
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 08:08:07 +0100, chateau.murraySPAMKILL [at] dsl.pipex.com (The
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Scott <nobody [at] xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> I have read somewhere that *any* kind of looseness or sloppiness in a bike's
>> suspension system can manifest as a head shake/tank slapper. True?
>
>The key word is *can*.
>
>It can be a contributory factor, yes. However, one single imperfect
>suspension component, on its own, is highly unlikely to cause it.
The bike's a quarter of a century old. It's not one single imperfection,
it's a long series of little imperfections. Who knows what they add up to.
But I find that I'm actually enjoying the process of going through and
fixing these little things, not because I'm trying to solve a problem, but
just because broken things ought to be fixed. Speculating on cause and
effect is more for sport at this point.
So I'll fix what's wrong, and either the head shake will disappear or it
won't. It's not as if I couldn't add a steering damper.
I'm finding the process itself interesting. This bike is an old friend, but
I've been away from it for some years. Now I find myself with a more
critical eye, and a changed lifestyle that permits me to fix things the
right way, rather than sliding by with race tape and baling wire.
>In addition, you have the problems of tyres, luggage fitment, fitment of
>badly designed fairings, you name it.
Been through lots of tires. No bags, fairings, or windshield. Got a
luggage rack, though. The bike's native storage capacity is approximately
one can of beer, if you leave the toolkit home.
>Your Honda is a big, lardy old bus designed in the 1970s, when Honda
>really hadn't got their chassis technology thought out. Replace the fork
>components and the shocks by all means, but there's only so much you can
>do to help.
Agreed. It's a shame the aesthetics of the motorcycle market have changed
so much. I'd love to have a bike with modern technology, but there's damn
few bikes today that are worth spitting on, as far as styling.
>And think - the swinging arm moves, at the back, up and down, in a near
>vertical plane. A worn rubber bushing isn't going to affect that at all.
>So the short answer is that replacing it isn't really going to make any
>appreciable difference, although it's wise to do it if you're
>overhauiling the suspension completely.
Do you think a bad bushing could allow the swingarm to set up some kind of
undesireable resonance?
-Scott
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763086 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 20:41 |
|
On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 04:28:53 GMT, Anthony W <technojock [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>That could be part of it but also change the fork oil, balance the front
>tire and make sure both tires are properly inflated. It also wouldn't
>hurt to make sure the steering head bearings are properly adjusted.
Ah, yes -- and now is the time to look after the head bearings, since the
front end's already torn down while I rebuild the forks.
Question: Assuming price is not a factor, what compelling reasons exist for
using purpose-specific fork oil rather than ATF?
-Scott
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763088 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 22:20 |
|
Scott wrote:
> Ah, yes -- and now is the time to look after the head bearings, since the
> front end's already torn down while I rebuild the forks.
>
> Question: Assuming price is not a factor, what compelling reasons exist for
> using purpose-specific fork oil rather than ATF?
>
> -Scott
Some oil is thicker than ATF and some is thinner. Thinner oil gives
less damping and a softer ride and thicker oil give more dampening and a
harsher ride. I've used ATF as a starting point in all my bikes over
the past 30 years and it's worked well for me. Keep in mind that many
1970's bikes came with fish oil in the forks and shocks. I've seen
water in the fork oil (mostly from condensation cause killer tank
slapper wobbles.)
Since you have the fork tubes out, you might as well remove the triple
clamps and repack the steering head bearings. I'm pretty sure Honda was
using tapered roller steering head bearings by the time the CB900 came
out. If not, install a set.
A new set of progressive springs would be worth it as the stock ones are
somewhat weakened from age and use. Sacked out springs effectively
shortens the front end giving a harsher ride and quicker steering. The
stock springs were progressive too but not from the "Progressive"
company that makes shocks and springs.
Make sure all the little stuff is done before you spend money on the big
stuff or you may find yourself PO'ed... ;o)
The CB900F was a good handling bike for it's year and by the time it was
made, handling was an important selling feature. Once the Japanese
discovered handling, it was all over for the old Triumph. Leaky old
shakers were not worth putting up with anymore for good handling. The
900C wasn't as good handling but still shouldn't wobble.
Tony
Motorcycle mechanic since 1976
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763089 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 22:29 |
|
Scott wrote:
>> And think - the swinging arm moves, at the back, up and down, in a near
>> vertical plane. A worn rubber bushing isn't going to affect that at all.
>> So the short answer is that replacing it isn't really going to make any
>> appreciable difference, although it's wise to do it if you're
>> overhauiling the suspension completely.
>
> Do you think a bad bushing could allow the swingarm to set up some kind of
> undesireable resonance?
>
> -Scott
It could. I don't remember if Honda used needle bearings or bushings on
the swing arm on your bike but, regardless a wobbly swing arm isn't
good. With new bushings you won't be able to feel any side to side
wobble and only a slight amount when still serviceable. By the time you
get to a quarter inch of wiggle, they're long past shot.
Roller or needle bearing swing arms should require a dial indicator to
find the side to side wobble and it should be indetectable by hand.
Tony
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763090 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 22:31 |
|
Scott wrote:
> $249.98, and free shipping! But I'm having an internal debate on "fix it
> cheap" versus "keep it close to stock", and so I'm going to cheat and not do
> anything about it right now.
>
> But aftermarket progressive springs seem appealing. Are they really worth
> using? If nothing else I'd be happy to have progressives up front, because
> I've learned to hate trying to keep the damn air forks properly inflated.
>
> -Scott
Parts & More has Taiwanese made shocks for under a C note. I've never
used them but some people I know have and liked them. However don't buy
their turn signals...
Tony
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763091 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 22:38 |
|
Scott <nobody [at] xmission.com> wrote:
> Do you think a bad bushing could allow the swingarm to set up some kind of
> undesireable resonance?
Christ knows.
"No" would be my gut reaction.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763092 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 22:38 |
|
Scott <nobody [at] xmission.com> wrote:
> But aftermarket progressive springs seem appealing. Are they really worth
> using?
Yes. Dirt cheap and a worthwhile mod.
I had them on my old airhead BMW (admittedly a bike with a soft front
end as stock) and I've pre-loaded OE fork springs as an (even cheaper)
fix on other bikes.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763093 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 22:38 |
|
Scott <nobody [at] xmission.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 04:28:53 GMT, Anthony W <technojock [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >That could be part of it but also change the fork oil, balance the front
> >tire and make sure both tires are properly inflated. It also wouldn't
> >hurt to make sure the steering head bearings are properly adjusted.
>
> Ah, yes -- and now is the time to look after the head bearings, since the
> front end's already torn down while I rebuild the forks.
>
> Question: Assuming price is not a factor, what compelling reasons exist for
> using purpose-specific fork oil rather than ATF?
>
The ability to choose between viscosities.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763095 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 22:43 |
|
Anthony W <technojock [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> It could. I don't remember if Honda used needle bearings or bushings on
> the swing arm on your bike but, regardless a wobbly swing arm isn't
> good. With new bushings you won't be able to feel any side to side
> wobble and only a slight amount when still serviceable. By the time you
> get to a quarter inch of wiggle, they're long past shot.
AAARRGGHHH! Another one!
We're not talking about the swinging arm bearings!
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763096 ] |
Sun, 04 June 2006 22:44 |
|
FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't worry
> too much about loose swing arm bearings that allow you to move the rear
> wheel side to side a quarter of an inch.
Jesus H Christ. Here we go again. Reams of pseudo-scientific waffle that
misses the point.
You really think yanking the forks up through the yokes is a cure-all?
And, in caser you hadn't noticed, the OP is not talking about worn s/arm
bushes *at all*. He's talking about the rubber grommets in the shock
absorber eyelets.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763097 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 00:23 |
|
Scott wrote:
> But aftermarket progressive springs seem appealing. Are they really worth
> using? If nothing else I'd be happy to have progressives up front, because
> I've learned to hate trying to keep the damn air forks properly inflated.
No, forget the Progressive fork springs! I bought two sets. Never
again.
Those people make a few part numbers of springs and try to tell you
that you can use the same spring in several different models. Yeah,
right!
If you have a lower rate shorter original equipment spring and you
replace it with a progressively wound spring that has more, closer
wound coils and the instruction sheet tells you to throw the stock
sheet metal tubular spacers away, then the Progressive spring is going
to take up extra space inside the fork tube.
That means there's less room for fork oil. How much less fork oil
should you use?
Progressive can't tell you, because they've never installed their
springs in every model that they claim to make a spring for!
Is that bullshit, or what? The best Progressive can do is give a you a
ballpark figure of the least amount of air space that might remain
above the oil when the fork leg is collapsed.
They said about 140 to 150 millimeters from the top of the fork tube to
the fork oil is
about the least air space that you can allow for.
So that might mean you have to remove the fork caps and go through all
the hassle of reducing the oil level and trying again and again, until
you get a fork that doesn't hydraulic lock before it uses all of its
travel.
A fork that hydraulic locks can blow the oil seals out.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763098 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 00:44 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't worry
> > too much about loose swing arm bearings that allow you to move the rear
> > wheel side to side a quarter of an inch.
>
> Jesus H Christ. Here we go again. Reams of pseudo-scientific waffle that
> misses the point.
It isn't "waffle", I know what I'm talking about because I've been
through all this chassis shit.
>
> You really think yanking the forks up through the yokes is a cure-all?
It's not a "cure all", but it's effective if you're performance riding
on roads with good traction and ess-curve after ess-curve. You know
you've gone to far with pulling the forks up when the motorcycle
doesn't transition from side to side easily, but wants to keep going
the way it was headed when you first flicked it into the corner.
If all you're doing is riding down an English country lane that's
pretty much zig and zag around corners where farmers would not let the
road cross their fields of rape, you never get the motorbike down into
deep lean angles for long enough to feel whether the chassis is
neutral, tries to run wide, or falls into a turn.
I don't think you have any real sportbike roads in England anyway. You
have to go to Wales or Scotland.
If you ever have the occasion to ride on the famous Angeles Crest
Highway above Los Angeles, you'll find about 60 miles of off camber
corners followed by correctly cambered corners and ess curve after ess
curve, 120 mph straight and 100 mph sweepers and winds blowing up
canyons to upset your lines and frost heaves to make the front tire
dance and laughing coyotes waltzing across the road ahead while turkey
vultures circle overhead.
It's a road that throws everything at you. Pine cones, squirrels,
landslides, ice snow, deer, mountain sheep, you name it, but no matter
what it has challenged you with, it still isn't a race track, like
nearby Willow Springs that puts handling and performance into a
completely different perspective.
Willow Springs melts rear tires on one side and the traction balance
between front and rear is especially noticeable as your race bike rocks
from side to side as you try to ride it in a straight line returning to
the paddock.
>
> And, in caser you hadn't noticed, the OP is not talking about worn s/arm
> bushes *at all*. He's talking about the rubber grommets in the shock
> absorber eyelets.
I *know* what he was talking about. The rubber grommets absorb some of
the high frequency vibration that the tire feeds into the swing arm.
If the swing arm flexed a bit, it still wouldn't cause a head shake,
because head shakes are caused by loss of front tire traction going
over bumps.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763099 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 00:44 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Anthony W <technojock [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It could. I don't remember if Honda used needle bearings or bushings on
>> the swing arm on your bike but, regardless a wobbly swing arm isn't
>> good. With new bushings you won't be able to feel any side to side
>> wobble and only a slight amount when still serviceable. By the time you
>> get to a quarter inch of wiggle, they're long past shot.
>
>
> AAARRGGHHH! Another one!
>
> We're not talking about the swinging arm bearings!
No but the subject came up so I addressed it.
Tony
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763100 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 01:10 |
|
FB wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>
>>But aftermarket progressive springs seem appealing. Are they really worth
>>using? If nothing else I'd be happy to have progressives up front, because
>>I've learned to hate trying to keep the damn air forks properly inflated.
>
>
> No, forget the Progressive fork springs! I bought two sets. Never
> again.
Have you found time to watch Moto GP lately? I mention this since I know
they are using after market suspensions like Ohlins or otherwise best
money can buy. Serviced and gone over before every race by a
professional mechanic and ridden by the best riders in the world.
They still get tank slappers and go over the bars.
My favorite whipping boy is the way rake and trail are set up to make
steering self centering among other things. Cars do this too. Turning
right or left raises the vehicle so it tries to point the wheels
straight ahead to reach the most stable point. Problem is wheels
oscillate like a seesaw past the center point.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763104 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 02:28 |
|
Rick Cortese wrote:
> Have you found time to watch Moto GP lately? I mention this since I know
> they are using after market suspensions like Ohlins or otherwise best
> money can buy. Serviced and gone over before every race by a
> professional mechanic and ridden by the best riders in the world.
Ohlins shocks and forks have two compression damping circuits. One is
an adjustable needle and orifice to control damping at rather low
stroking speeds for control over larger bumps that occur at lower
frequency.
The other compression damping curcuit is a shim stack that blows off
excess pressure when the tire hits smaller bumps at higher frequencies.
The latest thing on Formula I cars is extrenally removable valving. You
get a box of about 16 preset chrome plated valves and they go into
holes in the shock absorber body. It's laying on its side, so it
doesn't leak oil. I don't know what they do about pressurization while
they are swapping valves.
>
> They still get tank slappers and go over the bars.
When they get spit off to one side of the bike and still hang onto the
bars they are actually in a huge, out of control *speed weave*. The
chassis is rolling and yawing at the same time. When they lose control
and don't let go of the bars, the motorcycle trips over its own front
wheel, which is pointed sideways to the direction of travel.
Freddy Spencer likes to say that there is a lot of energy transferred,
as the rider is launched 10 or 15 feet into the air and flips with the
machine down the race track.
If the rider would just let go of the bars, the motorcycle would often
recover stability and go running down the track, riderless.
>
> My favorite whipping boy is the way rake and trail are set up to make
> steering self centering among other things. Cars do this too. Turning
> right or left raises the vehicle so it tries to point the wheels
> straight ahead to reach the most stable point. Problem is wheels
> oscillate like a seesaw past the center point.
The older the tires are, the less damping you get from hysteresis in
the rubber.
That's when you need a velocity sensitive steering damper. That's
unlikely to be a solution for theOP and his elderly UJM.
The main thing HE needs to understand is how old, hard rubber loses its
grip and why he needs to lower the front end slightly to make his front
tire grip better.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763105 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 05:00 |
|
On 4 Jun 2006 09:31:37 -0700, "FB" <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>Can you cancel the order before the parts arrive? You're "shotgunning"
>a bunch or repairs that you may not need.
Nope. Everything I'm doing is necessary for other reasons. I just got
curious about what factors might contribute to the tendency to wobble. I'm
not doing any repairs to specifically address the wobble at this time.
Thank you for the dissertation. Very informative.
-Scott
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763106 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 06:51 |
|
On 4 Jun 2006 17:28:32 -0700, "FB" <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>That's when you need a velocity sensitive steering damper. That's
>unlikely to be a solution for theOP and his elderly UJM.
To be determined.
>The main thing HE needs to understand is how old, hard rubber loses its
>grip and why he needs to lower the front end slightly to make his front
>tire grip better.
Define "old". I never had a tire last more than three years on that bike.
-Scott
--
'73 CB450K
'82 CB900F (x2)
'04 FSC600 (SWMBO)
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763108 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 08:15 |
|
FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't think you have any real sportbike roads in England anyway. You
> have to go to Wales or Scotland.
You really *really* don't know this country.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763109 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 08:15 |
|
FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> The main thing HE needs to understand is how old, hard rubber loses its
> grip and why he needs to lower the front end slightly to make his front
> tire grip better.
Oh FOR FUCK's SAKE! Again with this cure-all?
Make the steering quicker on a bike that's already giving him grief?
You know, you're a worthy successor to the late great Hoyt sometimes.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763110 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 08:49 |
|
FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> > But aftermarket progressive springs seem appealing. Are they really worth
> > using? If nothing else I'd be happy to have progressives up front, because
> > I've learned to hate trying to keep the damn air forks properly inflated.
>
> No, forget the Progressive fork springs! I bought two sets. Never
> again.
He didn't use an upper case P, so he may or not be referring to the firm
by that name. There are other manufacturers.
>
> Those people make a few part numbers of springs and try to tell you
> that you can use the same spring in several different models. Yeah,
> right!
>
> If you have a lower rate shorter original equipment spring and you
> replace it with a progressively wound spring that has more, closer
> wound coils and the instruction sheet tells you to throw the stock
> sheet metal tubular spacers away, then the Progressive spring is going
> to take up extra space inside the fork tube.
This assumes that the aftermarket spring doesn't have more widely spaced
coils elsewhere
>
> That means there's less room for fork oil. How much less fork oil
> should you use?
>
> Progressive can't tell you, because they've never installed their
> springs in every model that they claim to make a spring for!
>
> Is that bullshit, or what? The best Progressive can do is give a you a
> ballpark figure of the least amount of air space that might remain
> above the oil when the fork leg is collapsed.
>
> They said about 140 to 150 millimeters from the top of the fork tube to
> the fork oil is
> about the least air space that you can allow for.
On old CB900s and the like, you just used to pour in the recommended
quantity and not measure air gaps etc. Not that I'm denying that it's
the right way of doing things, mind.
>
> So that might mean you have to remove the fork caps and go through all
> the hassle of reducing the oil level and trying again and again, until
> you get a fork that doesn't hydraulic lock before it uses all of its
> travel.
>
> A fork that hydraulic locks can blow the oil seals out.
Yes. Never seen it happen. You'd have to seriously overfill the leg to
get it that bad.
Look, for years, if not decades, I've known people who've used
aftermarket fork springs and read articles, ranging from small postings
to large technical treatises, recommending them.
I've used them, and thery made a big difference. Massive improvement.
Considering how cheap they were, it was one of the best value mods I've
ever done.
And you're telling the world it's wrong and you're right? That's a wee
bit arrogant.
You're posting a lot of informed and accurate tech stuff and you are
also drawing a lot of wrong conclusions and also omitting as much stuff
as you post.....
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763112 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 10:50 |
|
"FB" <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149461055.177386.315620 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If you ever have the occasion to ride on the famous Angeles Crest
> Highway above Los Angeles, you'll find about 60 miles of off camber
> corners followed by correctly cambered corners and ess curve after ess
> curve, 120 mph straight and 100 mph sweepers and winds blowing up
> canyons to upset your lines and frost heaves to make the front tire
> dance and laughing coyotes waltzing across the road ahead while turkey
> vultures circle overhead.
>
> It's a road that throws everything at you. Pine cones, squirrels,
> landslides, ice snow, deer, mountain sheep, you name it,
I'd take any of that over the parking lot at Home Depot.
Went there the other day, was idling out of the lot getting ready to
take a right turn, going about a mile and hour, put just a slight bit of
front braking on and without warning the bike went down.
Stood up to get the bike up and nearly went down myself. Looked down
and the pavement was slick with oil. We aren't talking drips from cars
here, we are talking 2-3 quarts of 10W-40 poured out onto the lot amounts
of oil. Fucking bastards and their shit cars why don't they get the damn
things
repaired!
Unfortunately it had been raining earlier so there were puddles all over
the lot, that's why I missed this one.
>
> If the swing arm flexed a bit, it still wouldn't cause a head shake,
> because head shakes are caused by loss of front tire traction going
> over bumps.
>
I agree, I go over lots of really cruddy city roads as well as steel grate
bridges, and when I hit pavement that's badly grooved the steering
head always wobbles a bit.
If you look at that video of the guy riding over the 8 foot deep pond
that was posted in the rec.motorcycles group last week, the front
steering wobble is -extremely- evident.
Ted
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763116 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 17:17 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The main thing HE needs to understand is how old, hard rubber loses its
> > grip and why he needs to lower the front end slightly to make his front
> > tire grip better.
>
> Oh FOR FUCK's SAKE! Again with this cure-all?
>
> Make the steering quicker on a bike that's already giving him grief?
It sounds like you've never actually pulled the forks up through the
triple trees to get more front tire grip. Try it, you might learn
something.
Although the machine will turn in quicker, the steering feel is heavier
because there's more traction. The front end doesn't begin to shake so
easily, and speed weaves begin at higher speeds.
>
> You know, you're a worthy successor to the late great Hoyt sometimes.
How would you like to make a small wager on that, perhaps $10K USD?
;-)
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763117 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 17:44 |
|
FB wrote:
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
<snip>
>
> It sounds like you've never actually pulled the forks up through the
> triple trees to get more front tire grip. Try it, you might learn
> something.
I have, I have. I'm still far from certain I'd want to do it on a 1970s
era 900.
>
> Although the machine will turn in quicker, the steering feel is heavier
> because there's more traction. The front end doesn't begin to shake so
> easily, and speed weaves begin at higher speeds.
> >
> > You know, you're a worthy successor to the late great Hoyt sometimes.
>
> How would you like to make a small wager on that, perhaps $10K USD?
> ;-)
Well, indeed.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763120 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 20:16 |
|
chateau.murray [at] btinternet.com wrote:
> FB wrote:
> > It sounds like you've never actually pulled the forks up through the
> > triple trees to get more front tire grip. Try it, you might learn
> > something.
>
> I have, I have. I'm still far from certain I'd want to do it on a 1970s
> era 900.
That method is a lot more reversible than cutting the frame and
re-positioning the steering head.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #763122 ] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 23:22 |
|
FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> chateau.murray [at] btinternet.com wrote:
> > FB wrote:
>
> > > It sounds like you've never actually pulled the forks up through the
> > > triple trees to get more front tire grip. Try it, you might learn
> > > something.
> >
> > I have, I have. I'm still far from certain I'd want to do it on a 1970s
> > era 900.
>
> That method is a lot more reversible than cutting the frame and
> re-positioning the steering head.
Sigh.
Or you could do what Honda did and just bolt a bloody great lump of cast
iron (10lbs plus) onto the front forks.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769058 ] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 03:53 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No, forget the Progressive fork springs! I bought two sets. Never
> > again.
>
> He didn't use an upper case P, so he may or not be referring to the firm
> by that name. There are other manufacturers.
Here in the USA, Progressive Suspension has hijacked the generic term
for a spring that is wound progressively.
>
> >
> > Those people make a few part numbers of springs and try to tell you
> > that you can use the same spring in several different models. Yeah,
> > right!
> >
> > If you have a lower rate shorter original equipment spring and you
> > replace it with a progressively wound spring that has more, closer
> > wound coils and the instruction sheet tells you to throw the stock
> > sheet metal tubular spacers away, then the Progressive spring is going
> > to take up extra space inside the fork tube.
>
> This assumes that the aftermarket spring doesn't have more widely spaced
> coils elsewhere
Back in the 1970's, Japan Inc. was springing motorcycles so they could
carry about 500 pounds of rider and passenger. Even the little commuter
bikes were sprung ridiculously stiff.
My GT-750 Water Buffalo had 44 pound/inch straight wound springs, as I
recall and it seemed to be perfectly sprung in the front. I had a lot
of confidence in the handling of that machine.
But then Suzuki, in its incrutable wisdom, installed 24 lb/in rate
springs in the front end of my GS-1100.
OK, so the GS-1100 had about 25% more fork travel. Logic would imply
that you could use a 33 pound/inch straight wound spring in a machine
that weighed about as much as the Water Buffalo.
Riders have a hard time predicted the necessary steering input when a
fork is stroking through long travel. That's why the enduance racers
wanted anti-dive suspension and that's what they got with the GS-1100
with its compression blow off valves.
But the forks still moved up and down too much for the taste of a lot
of riders. That's why they installed stiffer progressively wound
Progressive Suspension springs.
As the closely wound coils collapse and bind on each other, it's like
having a variable length preload spacer to work on the remaining coils.
> I've used them, and thery made a big difference. Massive improvement.
> Considering how cheap they were, it was one of the best value mods I've
> ever done.
>
> And you're telling the world it's wrong and you're right? That's a wee
> bit arrogant.
No, I'm saying that Progressive Suspension makes the same spring to fit
multiple models and that they haven't tested every possible
installation.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769061 ] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 16:53 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Even the little commuter
> > bikes were sprung ridiculously stiff.
>
> This is utter, utter nonsense. The small commuter bikes of the day were,
> in the main, sprung too softly. My Honda CD175 could be bottomed out
> with ease. Ditto just about every Jap bike of 250cc or under, especially
> Hondas.
But you weighed *twice* the designed solo rider weight.
>
> Grim memories of CB250G5s, CJ250s, and the like.
Hondas are light duty, disposa-cycles.
>
> Of course, "little commuter bikes" may mean 400cc+ in the US, but for
> the rest of the world, it means 250cc and under and in that bracket, you
> really are talking crap.
When you talk to a Californian about a "commuter bike" he may living 50
miles from work and be thinking about the possibility of braving the
freeway traffic jam on nice days in order to "save" money on gasoline.
But to Euros, a "commuter bike" might be a 49cc moped capable of
zipping through lines of traffic so he can ride 6 kilometers home for a
two hour lunch.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769062 ] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 17:16 |
|
FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This is utter, utter nonsense. The small commuter bikes of the day were,
> > in the main, sprung too softly. My Honda CD175 could be bottomed out
> > with ease. Ditto just about every Jap bike of 250cc or under, especially
> > Hondas.
>
> But you weighed *twice* the designed solo rider weight.
> >
> > Grim memories of CB250G5s, CJ250s, and the like.
>
> Hondas are light duty, disposa-cycles.
> >
> > Of course, "little commuter bikes" may mean 400cc+ in the US, but for
> > the rest of the world, it means 250cc and under and in that bracket, you
> > really are talking crap.
>
> When you talk to a Californian about a "commuter bike" he may living 50
> miles from work and be thinking about the possibility of braving the
> freeway traffic jam on nice days in order to "save" money on gasoline.
>
> But to Euros, a "commuter bike" might be a 49cc moped capable of
> zipping through lines of traffic so he can ride 6 kilometers home for a
> two hour lunch.
For fuck's sake. You do yourself no favours, you know that?
Let's start with weight - who says I weighed twice the design weight?
You mean I'm twice as heavy as a Jap (or was)? At the time, that was
unlikely and secondly....
...well, I remember overhearing some arsehole at a bike show
knowledgeably explaining to his mate that the trouble with Jap bikes was
that they were designed for Japs and therefore didn't fit westerners.
The Japanese design for export markets, you know.
In fact, for a hell of a long time, big bikes were not intended for the
home market at all because of the Jap licence limits and their odd bike
test requirements which stated that you had to be able to pick the bike
up from lying-on-its-side. And not many could pick up (say) a Z1.
Secondly, your Honda comments. So derisory I'll leave them.
Thirdly, your idea of European riding.....
It's true that a helluva lot of Nifty Fifties are sold over here. That's
because they're ideal town transport - no jams, free parking, and we're
allowed to lane-split. Economical, too - remember our juice is highly
taxed and so costs about US$8.50 per (imperial) gallon. Oh, and you're
allowed to ride them at 14 in some countries (though not the UK).
But this appears to be the recurring theme in your discourses: sweeping
generalisations that, if qualified, might have some truth in them, but
which otherwise come out as a kind of Usenet long drawn-out fart. "Brits
don't know about sports bikes because they don't have the roads for
them" sort of thing.
I mean, I know a lot of people who say the Yanks can't ride for toffee
because all their roads are straight - and that's rubbish too.
"Jap commuter bikes were too stiffly sprung" - I mean, that's just
*crap*. I wouldn't argue that their suspension was often woefully
under-damped, but that isn't the same thing.
Take a good long hard look at what you're posting, and pull your neck in
a bit, because while you hit the nail on the head sometimes, a lot of
what you post is opinionated drivel.
Knock, knock....
Hello, Hoyt???
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769063 ] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 17:56 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
>
> Or you could do what Honda did and just bolt a bloody great lump of cast
> iron (10lbs plus) onto the front forks.
>
>
The infamous Honda "solid-state" steering damper?
Were the ribs used to radiate heat or to improve the structural rigidity of the device?
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769064 ] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 18:10 |
|
James Clark <clark35.at.attglobal.net [at] mousepotato.com> wrote:
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Or you could do what Honda did and just bolt a bloody great lump of cast
> > iron (10lbs plus) onto the front forks.
> >
> >
>
> The infamous Honda "solid-state" steering damper?
>
>
>
> Were the ribs used to radiate heat or to improve the structural rigidity
of the device?
Heh. Who knows? Bloody lawnmower/Flintstones engineering, if you ask me.
"It's wobbling, Soichiro."
'Hm. Have we any depleted uranium?'
"Too expensive. Cast iron is cheap, though."
'OK, bolt this lump to the front forks. It'll damp something out.'
Utterly unbelievable.....
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769065 ] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 21:24 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> Take a good long hard look at what you're posting, and pull your neck in
> a bit, because while you hit the nail on the head sometimes, a lot of
> what you post is opinionated drivel.
>
> Knock, knock....
>
> Hello, Hoyt???
I think you and Hoyt will probably spend ten thousand years together in
Purgatory, and then you'll decide to marry and live happily ever after.
In the meantime, Progressive Suspension springs suck, and Dynojet kits
are a rip off.
And beware of your Frankenstein centrifugal starter clutch.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769066 ] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 22:46 |
|
FB <flying_booger [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> And beware of your Frankenstein centrifugal starter clutch.
Eh? If this is a reference to my Morini's Mephistophelian starter motor
system, you're on the money.
If it's a reference to Triumph's starter clutch problem, you're years
out of date. They fixed it ages ago.
In fact - and not for the first time - I can't think wtf you're on
about.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769069 ] |
Wed, 07 June 2006 02:55 |
|
The Older Gentleman wrote:
> In fact - and not for the first time - I can't think wtf you're on
> about.
I'm "on" about my pret peeves. But you are just generally peevish.
|
|
|
| Re: Head shake [message #769094 ] |
Thu, 08 June 2006 12:13 |
|
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> We aren't talking drips from cars
> here, we are talking 2-3 quarts of 10W-40 poured out onto the lot amounts
> of oil. Fucking bastards and their shit cars why don't they get the damn
> things repaired!
Sheesh, man, make your mind up! One minute you want them to repair
their cars, next minute you won't even let them change their oil in the
carpark!
-----sharks
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 18:09:02 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.39386 Sekunden |
