Time for a new slogan?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Wet Sump vs Dry Sump
Next: Working on a gas tank
From: Thumper on 14 Jun 2007 16:31 "Rayvan" <rvannuland(a)cachevision.com> wrote in message news:1181848627.618624.176650(a)j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 14, 11:24 am, "Thumper" <roadap...(a)unclewebster.com> wrote: >> "Rayvan" <rvannul...(a)cachevision.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181842446.926195.61960(a)i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 14, 7:16 am, "Dave" <dspear9...(a)yahoo.delete.com> wrote: >> >> >> not for the "cool sound"? Interesting that Suzuki can get 153HP out >> >> of a >> >> 1300cc motor which is relatively quiet while HD struggles to get 100HP >> >> and >> >> only then with incredibly expensive mods and a sound that, according >> >> to >> >> another post, will "wake the dead". >> >> > Yeah, well. HP isn't everything. Some of us just don't like cheap- >> > plastic throw-away bikes that cost way too much to maintain and sound >> > like a sewing machine. >> > -- >> > Rayvan >> >> Sew you don't like BMW's? >> >> Thumper > > LOL! > I like the nekkid ones, and I love the airheads. Mine's all plastic, but it wasn't cheap. T. >
From: Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com on 14 Jun 2007 17:03 Dave wrote: >I've got a Yamaha 650 Custom (XS650) vertical twin which I rarely ride as >the vibration is awful at highway speeds. Yamaha's answer was to put >squishy rubber bushings between the bars and steering tube which makes for a >real sloppy feel. And it still vibrates like a mo-fo. I really can't >figure out WHO would seek out this bike and buy it other than those >nostalgic for the look of the old Triumph Bonneville. I inherited mine from >an older relative who no longer rides. Do you know the firing pattern on >this bike? I'm curious about it. Yes, it had a 360 degree crankshaft, with both pistons rising and falling together, but on opposite strokes. When the #1 cylinder is compressing fresh mixture, the #2 cylinder is exhausting spent gasses. When the #1 cylinder is on the exhaust stroke, the #2 cylinder is inhaling fresh mixture and it sounds like all is well and gawd is in heaven and everything is proceeding in an orderly fashion. What did Edward Turner, general manager and chief designer at The Triumph Engineering Company know when he introduced the 500cc Speed Twin in 1937? The Speed Twin became the classic model for vertical twins for the next half century. Kawasaki brought BSA designs back to Japan in the 1960's and they were built as the W1 and W2. Kawasaki is *still* building the W650 with its 360 degree crank in 2007, but only for the home market. The Japanese snap up all the classic Tirumphs and BSA's they can get ahold of. When something is classic, it gets copied by the competition, and the consumers think that it must be the best thing since sliced bread, if *everybody* is building the same essential product. What did Edward Turner know about primary and secondary balance, and when did he know it? In terms of balance, a vertical twin with a 360 degree crank is no better balanced than a single cylinder of the same displacement. What was the market for twin cylinder motorcycles like in 1937 England? Would the Limeys have wanted to pay for a better balanced engine to ride perhaps 100 miles a month? I dunno about that, but I do know that some motorcycles get tested in the crucible of highway abuse, while others are turned into media darlings by the magazines and irrationally adored by a brand loyal public. There are plenty of 650cc singles running around on the streets, I have one. It came with a chain driven counterbalancer. Why didn't Yamaha include a counterbalancer with their first 650 twin? They had counterbalancers on the XS500 and on the TX750. The XS400 even had a 180 degree crankshaft. Why does Yamaha do the things it does? I suspect that Yamaha's engineering department is separated into task groups that don't communicate well with each other. By the late 1960's, Triumph and BSA were building Trident and Rocket 3 triples, claiming that the triple was a good compromise between the vibrating twins and the more complicated fours. Yamaha was building triples in the late 1970's and got heavy into V-twins when the public claimed they really wanted a V-twin cruiser. They didn't buy the Yamaha V-twins though. They had their eyes on the classic Harley Davidson V-twin, even though the magazine writers were raving about Ducati 90-degree twins. Yamaha had to open the Star division to make cruiser riders feel they were on something better than a Virago. How does a manufacturer grow and gain market share with so many designs available? Build and sell as many different designs as the public indicates they will buy, and sell them as cheap as possible. But make the rider think he's getting a "classic". -- Message posted via MotorcycleKB.com http://www.motorcyclekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/bike/200706/1
From: The Older Gentleman on 14 Jun 2007 17:25 "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com" <u33665(a)uwe> wrote: Right, again it's time to nail the bullshit you're talking in case some twonks believe it. > What did Edward Turner, general manager and chief designer at The Triumph > Engineering Company know when he introduced the 500cc Speed Twin in 1937? He nicked the concept from Val Page, for a start. The vertical twin was *not* an Edward Turner invention. Val Page takes the credit. >Would the Limeys have > wanted to pay for a better balanced engine to ride perhaps 100 miles a month? Ignoramus. In the 1930s (and 1940s, and 1950s and even 1960s), people rode motorcycles because they couldn't afford cars. And they did rather more than 1200 miles a year. > > I dunno about that, Self-evidently. > Why didn't Yamaha include a counterbalancer with their first 650 twin? They > had counterbalancers on the XS500 and on the TX750. The XS400 even had a 180 > degree crankshaft. Because the XS650 was their *first* four-stroke. And even then, it started life as a Horex twin, copied by Hosk, whose engineers went to Showa, which was bought by Yamaha. > > Why does Yamaha do the things it does? I suspect that Yamaha's engineering > department is separated into task groups that don't communicate well with > each other. Wrong. In developing the XS650, Yamaha's bike guys talked extensively to the team that had developed the engine for the Toyota 200GT supercar. See the link at the bottom of this posting. > > By the late 1960's, Triumph and BSA were building Trident and Rocket 3 > triples, claiming that the triple was a good compromise between the vibrating > twins and the > more complicated fours. Indeed it was - in concept. Unfortunately, Triumph/BSA's manufacturing. engineering and QC rather destroyed a lot of the elegant concept. But the concept was right. Triumph does rather well out of making triples these days, if you hadn't noticed. > > Yamaha was building triples in the late 1970's and got heavy into V-twins > when the > public claimed they really wanted a V-twin cruiser. > > They didn't buy the Yamaha V-twins though. They had their eyes on the classic > Harley Davidson V-twin, even though the magazine writers were raving about > Ducati 90-degree twins. No. They continued to buy the Yamaha XS650 in the face of the new Yamaha vees and triples. It is widely believed that Yamaha killed the XS650 simply to fuel sales of the triples and vees. Which didn't happen. A couple of months ago, Classic Bike magazine in the UK published an eight-page restorer's guid to the XS650 twins, with a lot of the history, including quotes and reminiscences from the Japanese engineers who originally developed it. I strongly suggest you read it. In fact, here's the link to a free official download http://www.classicbike.co.uk/pdf/676/293869.pdf Coo, look at that! It even includes details of the later 500cc and 750cc twins you mentioned. Closer perusal of the article might convince you that I know what I'm talking about here. -- BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3 BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
From: Robert Bolton on 14 Jun 2007 19:52 "Rayvan" <rvannuland(a)cachevision.com> wrote in message news:1181847549.116640.113460(a)z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 14, 11:20 am, "Dave" <dspear9...(a)yahoo.delete.com> wrote: >> "Rayvan" <rvannul...(a)cachevision.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181842446.926195.61960(a)i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Jun >> 14, 7:16 am, "Dave" <dspear9...(a)yahoo.delete.com> wrote: >> >> > Yeah, well. HP isn't everything. Some of us just don't like cheap- >> > plastic throw-away bikes that cost way too much to maintain and sound >> > like a sewing machine. >> > -- >> > Rayvan >> >> I've got a '73 Honda CB750K3 in my garage with more than 80,000 miles >> on it. >> I'd say that'd beat out 99% of the bikes on the road for longevity. > > Harley with 80,000 is barely broken in! >> Well of course it's barely broken in. It's just had a rebuild. (Kidding, I'm kidding) Robert
From: Road Glidin' Don on 14 Jun 2007 19:59
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:12:01 -0700, Rayvan <rvannuland(a)cachevision.com> wrote: >On Jun 14, 11:36 am, "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com" <u33665(a)uwe> >wrote: >> Dave wrote: >> >For the record, it was the guy that wrote about the physics of muffler >> >construction and the unreasonable volume of muffler that would be required >> >to muffle a large twin that I found the most convincing. >> >> Well, the assertion that a quiet muffler for a Harley needs ten gallons of >> volume was hyperbole, you could probably make a nice quiet muffler for a Big >> twin using only five gallons of volume. That's still a huge muffler, it's 7 >> inches in diameter and 30 inches long and would look about right underneath a >> car. >> >> > FINALLY an actual >> >reason... of course why would you design a motor that can't be muffled if >> >not for the "cool sound"? >> >> The Harley exhaust rumble is an accident that is caused by the dual fire >> ignition system on carbureted models. > >Harleys haven't had dual fire ignition since 1999. > >> >> The coil fires a "waste spark" when the exhaust valve is open and that >> ignites any mixture left in the exhaust pipe which is rich enough to burn. >> >> An ignition system that fires a waste spark is not unusual, many Japanese >> motorcycles use twin lead coils and make a rumbling sound in the exhaust >> pipes. > >Harleys haven't had dual fire ignition since 1999. They went out with >the EVO. BTW, when I put a single fire ignition on my both my EVOs >they sounded exactly the same as before the modification. > >> The potato-potato-potato sound a Harley makes is due to the firing order. One >> cylinder fires, then the other fires 45 degrees later and then there are 675 >> degrees of crankshaft rotation until the next power stroke. > >Close, but wrong. A piston fires the next piston fires at 315 degrees >there is a 405 degree gap a piston fires the next piston fires at 315 >degrees there is a 405 degree gap and so on... > >Here's an animation: >http://wind.caspercollege.edu/~dstraka/mc/pistons2.html > >> >> It takes 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation to fire both cylinders, and, if >> you roll off the throttle, you will hear the typical Harley gear whine as it >> slowly coasts down. > >None of my H-D transmissions have ever whined. My EVOs and Shovel had >a cam whine though. LOL. Was there anything correct in that post? Guys knowing nothing about Harleys telling other people who nothing about Harleys about Harleys. What a source of information Reeky is, huh? ;) -- Home page: http://xidos.ca |