Motorcycle Chassis Design Digest #751-760
MC-Chassis-Dgst Sunday, September 6 1998 Volume 01 : Number 751
1. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
2. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
3. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
4. Alan Lapp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
5. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
6. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
7. bsags@isat.com (David Kath) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #750
8. David Weinshenker Subj: MC-Chassis Re: puston wanted...
9. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
10. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Periodic list stats and reminders
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 08:29:36
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
Thanks to all who wrote about the pistons.
I am seriously considering using XL350 units in 1.0 mm over, despite being
shorter and having slightly larger pin, as I have those sleeves on hand and
would like to clean up the pin bores in the crank anyway. This will mean
shortening the jug though, so if anyone has info on the rights and wrongs
of that, your advice is also welcome.
Best wishes,
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
Last words => "Hey guys, watch this!" <= of a redneck
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:45:23 -0400
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
The Suzuki pistons have a compression height of about 5/8, .625, which is
less than 16 mm { I think, no very near calipers at home }.
The longer the stroke of an engine the higher the side loads that the
piston skirts must handle. A lot depends on the rod to stroke length ratio.
I had planned on using these pistons in a 1600 cc Fiat stroker engine, 81
bore X 80 mm stroke.
Ray
- ----------
> From: batwings@i-plus.net
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
> Date: Sunday, September 06, 1998 2:50 AM
>
> At 08:55 PM 9/5/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >I know that Suzuki GS1100's are 80mm bore and are basically flattops
with
> >four very small valve reliefs. I have a set of 700 V-twin Suzuki pistons
in
> >my shed that are very similar to the GS1100 pistons. I will measure them
> >for you tomorrow. If the pins were smaller you could have the rods
bushed.
> >If these pistons have the right deck height then I would use some
> >aftermarket piston as the Suzuki piston isn't intended for the longer
> >stroke of you application.
>
> Thanks, Ray. I will of course bush them myself if it needs done. I don't
> however understand why the piston cares which stroke it's used with.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:47:11 -0400
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
Run a spacer under the jug. No cam chain hassles.
Ray
- ----------
> From: batwings@i-plus.net
> To: race@micapeak.com; mc-chassis-design-digest@list.sirius.com;
vintage-roadrace@list.sirius.com; vintage-dirt@list.sirius.com;
thumper@dorje.com; yam650@micapeak.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
> Date: Sunday, September 06, 1998 4:29 AM
>
> Thanks to all who wrote about the pistons.
>
> I am seriously considering using XL350 units in 1.0 mm over, despite
being
> shorter and having slightly larger pin, as I have those sleeves on hand
and
> would like to clean up the pin bores in the crank anyway. This will mean
> shortening the jug though, so if anyone has info on the rights and wrongs
> of that, your advice is also welcome.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 11:16:05 +0100
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
>>aftermarket piston as the Suzuki piston isn't intended for the longer
>>stroke of you application.
>
>Thanks, Ray. I will of course bush them myself if it needs done. I don't
>however understand why the piston cares which stroke it's used with.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Hoyt
I'd imagine that a long stroke piston would have more latitude in weigh.
Another thought is that J&E will custom make a piston your specs.
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 10:03:11 -0600
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
Take a look at the DR350 pistons. They have the same stock bore as the
XL350 but they have a 19mm pin from what I have in my notes. I don't have
the deck height available. Somebody will have one of these sitting on a
shelf. You could do the 1mm oversized piston, and bush the rod down to the
19mm size. This would save you from having to open up the rod too far to
fit the bushing (the Honda 21mm pin would put you oversized by 1mm + the
bushing size, the DR would be undersized by 1mm allowing some of that for
the bushing size.
Jim
Swiss
Sorry, guys, was having computer problems for the last week and missed a
bit. Will look for the Digest and try to catch up.
- -----Original Message-----
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
>Thanks to all who wrote about the pistons.
>
>I am seriously considering using XL350 units in 1.0 mm over, despite being
>shorter and having slightly larger pin, as I have those sleeves on hand and
>would like to clean up the pin bores in the crank anyway. This will mean
>shortening the jug though, so if anyone has info on the rights and wrongs
>of that, your advice is also welcome.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 10:24:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
- -> Need source of pistons 80 mm bore by 20mm pin by 39 mm deck hgt.
- -> These are more specifically for big-boring Yam XS650 to 744cc.
You don't want to use the off-the-shelf pistons from Arias, Venolia,
Wiseco, etc?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 11:23:59 -0700
From: bsags@isat.com (David Kath)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #750
>
> Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 16:20:30
> From: batwings@i-plus.net
> Subject: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
>
> Need source of pistons 80 mm bore by 20mm pin by 39 mm deck hgt. These are
> more specifically for big-boring Yam XS650 to 744cc.
> Hoyt
> ---------------------------
Hoyt... Have you tried Wiesco, Aries, or Venolia for pistons? Venolia
will custom machine to your specs if required. My friends who are AHMRA
racing have had several pistons made venolia. JE will also custom make
pistons. Believe they have a 5 pc minimum order or something tho..
dave - NV
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 16:08:16 -0700
From: David Weinshenker
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: puston wanted...
David Kath wrote:
> Hoyt... Have you tried Wiseco, Arias, or Venolia for pistons? Venolia
> will custom machine to your specs if required.
I believe Arias is the same - I was once living on a farm
commune and we needed some tractor pistons; I remember Arias
gave us a quote not much higher for custom than we eventually
paid for the "real" replacement parts! I think they could do
flat or dome top shape as you require.
- -dave w
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 21:48:24
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
At 10:24 AM 9/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>-> Need source of pistons 80 mm bore by 20mm pin by 39 mm deck hgt.
>-> These are more specifically for big-boring Yam XS650 to 744cc.
>
> You don't want to use the off-the-shelf pistons from Arias, Venolia,
>Wiseco, etc?
Prefer cast pistons for size stability over time. You're aware I like to
fit them tight, break them in slowly. Not so easy with forged. They wiggle
around under the heat. Thanks, though; I may have to go that way and I'll
swallow the pill with determination if so.
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 20:21:52 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Periodic list stats and reminders
It is again time for the periodic reminders and stats.
As of 6 September 1998 (previous count was 4 July) the number of
recipients of my lists (regular and digest) are:
laverda 63+29=92 (up 8)
suzuki-gs-twin 74+17=91 (up 7)
vintage-dirt 79+21=100 (up 17)
vintage-roadrace 99+41=140 (up 13)
mc-chassis-design 94+62=156 (up 2)
lightweight-roadrace 45+11=56 (down 18)
More reminders:
Recent bounces to the lists have been for the same old stuff:
1> posting from an address other than the one you signed up from.
These lists are "closed" and won't accept outside posts. I've
inquired with my ISP about implementing some sort of postpone command
so that those who need it could be listed under two addresses, but
only receive mail at one of them, but haven't heard back from them
yet.
2> Use of reserved or command words in posts. I've got the lists
configured to look for messages where people are trying to sign on/off
to the lists etc but sending the message to the list instead of the
majordomo software. These then come to me, and not out to the lists.
One draw back of this is that the software gets a bit overzealous at
times, and if it sees the words: h*lp, s*ubscribe, s*b it will grab
that message and bounce it to me. Please try to word your messages to
avoid using those terms, or replace a character as I did above.
3> Cross posting is still a problem now and then. Recently,
someone posted to a couple of my lists and some other lists, and
everyone on the other list who isn't on my lists that included all
original addressees in their reply generated a "non-member s*bmission"
bounce message to me. I then have to read the darn thing, try to
figure out if it is a current s*bscriber posting from another
location, or if it is a real non-member post. If you feel the need to
post to multiple lists, use an individual message addressed to one
list. This is a common request from all the list
owners/administrators for the lists that I'm on so it shouldn't seem
like a really obscure practice.
4> For sale/wanted ads. Everyone has been pretty good about not
spamming the lists, and has kept the ads short and fairly unobtrusive.
Thanks. If you have something for sale, please list the location of
the goods in the original message as there is a pretty widespread
international s*bscriber base for the lists.
So if you have tools for sale, that is likely appropriate to any of
the lists. If you have a frame jig to build vintage roadracers you
want to dispose of, then that would probably be germane to the
chassis, vintage-rr, and possibly lightweight rr lists. An ad to sell
your HD FatBoy isn't germane to any of the lists. You are all
reasonably sharp folks - it shouldn't be hard to figure out what is
appropriate, and if you are really unsure just drop me a note and ask
what I'd prefer.
If you've got a garage full of stuff to sell, then make a short post
to the appropriate list that you've got tons of stuff with a GENERAL
description, and ask people to contact you off-list for a detailed
listing. The same thing goes for people asking about stuff that is
mentioned as being for sale - contact the person directly rather than
filling the lists with messages saying "how much?". I also want to
emphasize the need to mention your location if you post an ad since
these are international forums.
5> Replying to persons instead of the list. In re #4, if you have
questions about the for sale stuff, please direct them to the person
who has the stuff for sale, not back to the lists. The same goes for
posts of "me too, I agree" etc messages
6> Trimming out quoted text. Again, most people are being pretty good
about this, but I still see some multiscreen messages quoted in a
reply. This is OK if you need to insert a comment on the original
message every few lines, but if you are just posting a general comment
please pare the original message down as much as possible. This helps
keep the digests a bit more manageable for those who receive them.
7> Courtesy. Everyone has been very good about this, and I
appreciate it. There have been a few small exchanges that I think
were attributable to misunderstandings/lack of clarity in posts, but
they were resolved without resorting to flame wars. Do keep in mind
that the people on the lists are of various genders/sexual
orientations/nationalities/etc. I'd rather you erred on the side of
excessive "political correctness" (a term I find often used by those
who are trying to justify their own lack of civility) than otherwise.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #751
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Monday, September 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 752
1. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Solicitation for temp list admins
2. Dick Brewster Subj: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
3. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
4. "Mike Fletcher" Subj: MC-Chassis New Member
5. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: MC-Chassis Danger! Bonehead Post!
6. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis New Member
7. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis digest archives - proposed change
8. Bob & Jean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: puston wanted...
9. "Mike Fletcher" Subj: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
10. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
11. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
12. Les Sharp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis digest archives - proposed change
13. "Mike Fletcher" Subj: MC-Chassis CAD Software
14. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis New Guzzi superbike engine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 20:34:05 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Solicitation for temp list admins
I'm going to be in Spain October 13-29. I'd like to get a volunteer
or six to handle list administration chores while I'm gone.
This could be one person from each list, or if somebody wants to do
them all that is fine too.
If you were to be admin for all 6 lists you'd probably see 5-10
messages each day. Some of these you won't have to do anything about
- - they'll be notices of people s#b/uns#bing themselves without any
problems.
What you would need to deal with would be the s*b/uns*b messages that
are sent to the list(s) instead of majordomo. You can either send a
message back to the person telling them how to successfully complete
the action, or manually add or delete them.
You'll also see an occasional bounce message where people haven't
modified the key words (like s*b) causing their post to be sent to
the administrator as a potential command gone wrong. The other type
of bounce that is likely is where someone has crossposted, and a
person on a different list has replied to all addresses, causing a
non-member s*bmission bounce. In these cases I either forward the
message to the list with the key word modified and a reminder about
doing so, or send a message to the person asking them if they are
posting from an address other than the one they are s&bscribed under.
You'd also need to help people on the list get off the list if they
post a general plea for help to the list.
It isn't normally a great amount of work, but it would be nice to
have someone watching over things while I'm gone.
I'd like to be able to set any volunteer(s) up a week or two in
advance so they can see what is going on and have me available to
get them sorted out on how to do things.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Moore
-------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 20:46:34 -0700
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
Hoyt wrote:
<< Thanks to all who wrote about the pistons.
I am seriously considering using XL350 units in 1.0 mm over,
despite being
shorter and having slightly larger pin, as I have those sleeves
on hand and
would like to clean up the pin bores in the crank anyway. This
will mean
shortening the jug though, so if anyone has info on the rights
and wrongs
of that, your advice is also welcome.
Best wishes,
Hoyt >>
Or you could stroke it. I'm very generous with other peoples
time (:-)
Are they enough shorter to bother using for stroker pistons?
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 07:08:59
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis thanks for 80 mm bore by 39 deck by 20mm pin
At 08:46 PM 9/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Or you could stroke it. I'm very generous with other peoples
>time (:-)
Hey, that's a good idea~~ Why din't I think of it?
Seriously, the motor can be made as big as 844 cc w/o using stroker crank.
Amazing, isn't it?
>Are they enough shorter to bother using for stroker pistons?
Those pistons from XL are 10.5 mm shorter. Causes problems as you would
shorten jug, then shorten cam chain two links and hmmm, looks like the cam
chain would still have a lot of slack as it is 8mm pitch or a hair under
that. Hence I think there is a better piston choice. Who wants to spend all
that time lining up and re-boring the dowel holes anyway? I will still, of
course, use the XL 350 liners. They require the cases opened up 2 mm but
they would actually be able to take 85 mm bore (844 cc) assuming I don't
care about spigot thickness, which in that case would be 1.5 mm. But I had
doubts when Honda did that to the 185 making it 196 cc and
factory-available only with no oversizes ... they had installed the biggest
one right there. We would all agree that this is not what I would like to
do for a kit customers might buy.
That stroker idea, however ... if one shortens as above the cam chain and
cylinder, it still leaves room for 5 mm more stroke. That would make it
roughly another 100cc bigger yet. Dig it.
Best regards,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 08:20:43 -0400
From: "Mike Fletcher"
Subject: MC-Chassis New Member
Hello All!
My name is Michael. I have three motorcycles; Yamaha 1985 FJ1100, Yamaha
1987 V535, and the beginngs of a Suzuki Drag Bike (D&G big tire chassis and
FRP body). Presently I am working on the FJ1100, geating ready to drag race
it next spring. I have designed a new swingarm to accomadate a 7" wide slick
and removed all the rear suspension. More to come........
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:31:09 -0400
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: MC-Chassis Danger! Bonehead Post!
A spacer under the jugs of the big bore Yam 650 won't help the too short
deck height. Sorry, kayak trip on the mind.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 14:25:21
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis New Member
At 08:20 AM 9/7/98 -0400, you wrote:
>FRP body). Presently I am working on the FJ1100, geating ready to drag race
>it next spring. I have designed a new swingarm to accomadate a 7" wide slick
>and removed all the rear suspension. More to come........
It can hurt ya. That was the one which was famous for loosening up mm bots
and generally shaking hard from time to time.
It would be OK to race if you weld rhe frame loop where the bolt-in
sections are, and replace some of those rubber MM with solid ones; ditto
the MM which are merely greased tube-and-spigot joints. Dig it.
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 15:00:49 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis digest archives - proposed change
The list digest archives on the website are getting pretty much out of
hand.
Bob Schnick has taken over (much to my relief) the task of making the
archive copy of the chassis design list, but I've got substantial
backlogs (~250 for the Suzuki GS list, for example) of digests for the
other lists, and I'm beginning to despair of getting them up to date.
Plus, the archives take up a lot of space on the ISPs server, and that
space might be better put to use with more photos, articles, etc (when
I get a chance to put them there).
I don't know how helpful having all the digests available is to you,
the list members. Anyone subscribed to a list can request any digest
for the list through majordomo. It seems to me that having the
digests available to browse via html files is more useful for those
who might be wanting to see what the lists are about before
subscribing. If that is the case, then I don't really need to have up
to date archives of the digests.
What I propose to do is this: I'm going to try and just zip up big
batches of the digests and put them on the email list page with a link
to them. That should enable anyone who is interested to download and
unzip them. I've got a copy of WinZip 5.6 for Windows which I'd use to
do this. I don't think Ill make them self-extracting, as that just
swells the size back up.
If anyone has comments on this, or feels that another zip format is
far superior and more readily available, please feel free to drop me a
note.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 16:50:34 -0700
From: Bob & Jean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: puston wanted...
Just looked at my Arias catalog and noticed they supply piston in either
of two alloys, #2618 or #4032. The former for strength and the later for
size stability. This message is brought to you on behalf of Lurkers
Anonymous. Cheers Bob
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 19:51:17 -0400
From: "Mike Fletcher"
Subject: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
Thanks for the tip on the bolt- in sections on the FJ frame. I am
considering a complete frame with a back bone tank. The biggest problem I
have with this is getting the locations for the motor mounts correct. I
have to design and fabricate a outer bearing support, starter plate, and a
billet support for the lower end of the motor. There are a couple of
companies that specilize in reverse engineering and digitizing existing
parts. Once I have the x,y,z location on the various tapped holes the
mounting holes on the frame should be no problem. I will layout the entire
frame with solid modeling software to check the locations. Any suggestions
or comments welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 17:00:22 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
> have with this is getting the locations for the motor mounts correct. I
> have to design and fabricate a outer bearing support, starter plate, and a
> billet support for the lower end of the motor. There are a couple of
> companies that specilize in reverse engineering and digitizing existing
> parts. Once I have the x,y,z location on the various tapped holes the
> mounting holes on the frame should be no problem. I will layout the entire
> frame with solid modeling software to check the locations. Any suggestions
> or comments welcome.
Hello Mike,
If the holes are already tapped, just make either some bushings with
a threaded outside and standard rod inside (that you can put a bit of
the rod into snugly) or a solid bit of threaded rod with a point or
smooth round section on one end. Fill all the holes with those and
you can either measure between all the rods with calipers
(subtracting one rod OD from each measurement for the center
distance) or put the cases down on some paper and have the sharp ends
of the transfer rods mark the paper, whereupon you measure them up.
Should be a lot cheaper than having someone digitize them.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:25:06 -0600
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
Hi Mike, Just curious as to what software you plan to use. I want to pick
up some CAD/3D programming in the near future and was looking at
MicroStation by Bentley.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Mike Fletcher
To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 6:09 PM
Subject: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
>Thanks for the tip on the bolt- in sections on the FJ frame. I am
>considering a complete frame with a back bone tank. The biggest problem I
>have with this is getting the locations for the motor mounts correct. I
>have to design and fabricate a outer bearing support, starter plate, and a
>billet support for the lower end of the motor. There are a couple of
>companies that specilize in reverse engineering and digitizing existing
>parts. Once I have the x,y,z location on the various tapped holes the
>mounting holes on the frame should be no problem. I will layout the
entire
>frame with solid modeling software to check the locations. Any suggestions
>or comments welcome.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 09:26:02 +0800
From: Les Sharp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis digest archives - proposed change
Mike,
I vote for Winzip!
- --
Best regards, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
Planet Gearhead: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/conten~1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:35:29 -0400
From: "Mike Fletcher"
Subject: MC-Chassis CAD Software
I use AutoCad 14.01. Mechanical Desktop 3.0, and Genius Desktop 2.0
Software. These programs are the most popular and there is more tutorial
and training centers available for these platforms than any other CAD
software. The Mechanical Desktop package is the best overall design package
I have used. I use this stuff daily on the job. Check out www.autodesk.com
and get the demo CD. You need at least a 200mhz processor with at least 128
meg of ram for any soilid modeling software. I use a 333mhz with 256 meg of
ram. When you use the dynamic rotation of a rendered part or assembly you
will notice the difference. Good Luck!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:32:32 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis New Guzzi superbike engine
A recent "Cycle News" has an article on the new Guzzi VA-10 by Alan
Cathcart.
There is a side by side picture of the Daytona and VA-10 engines,
and they look (by my calipers) to be the same width. They don't
show a pushrod twin for comparison, so I can't say if the
Daytona/VA-10 are wider than the classic engine. The VA-10 would be
even wider if they hadn't narrowed the V-angle to 75 degrees. FYI -
The old engine will fit within a H-D XR750 long track fairing. My
guess is the Daytona is probably a bit wider than the pushrod engine.
Cathcart says: "Marabese's design drawings show a single-sided
swingarm, of whose merits, however, the engineering team remains
unconvinced, pointing to the difficulty of combining optimum
suspension setup with correct chain tension and rear ride height that
Ducati and Honda teams have stuggled with on the 916 and RC45, as
well as the reduced unsprung weight of a conventional swingarm."
Would anyone care to hazard why a single-sided swingarm would be any
different than a regular one insofar as "the difficulty of combining
optimum suspension setup with correct chain tension and rear ride
height"? Is this likely a translation problem, or is AC just making
one of his technical errors?
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #752
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Tuesday, September 8 1998 Volume 01 : Number 753
1. Mfstj@aol.com Subj: MC-Chassis Steel Tube
2. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
3. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Steel Tube
4. jdahl@dvicomm.com (John Dahl) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis New Guzzi superbike engine
5. "Peter Snell" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: SSSA chain adjustment
6. bc180@freenet.carleton.ca (Peter Alan Engelbert) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: puston wanted...
7. Andy Overstreet Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Steel Tube
8. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: SSSA chain adjustment
9. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Steel Tube
10. papazit@juno.com (Chris L Johnson) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis New Guzzi superbike engine
11. papazit@juno.com (Chris L Johnson) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
12. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re:Non-virtual solid modelling
13. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Jouralistic suspension of Physics.
14. "Thomas Alberti" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
15. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
16. "john.mead" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 07:56:00 EDT
From: Mfstj@aol.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Steel Tube
Hi,
There seems to be a consensus on the list that mild steel tubeing is fine
for frames but not a lot of discusion on weather it needs to be seamless or if
ERW will do. What do people think, has any one sucssesfuly used ERW?
Cheers
Matthew Davies
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 07:35:49
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis My first frame fj1100
At 07:51 PM 9/7/98 -0400, you wrote:
>The biggest problem I
>have with this is getting the locations for the motor mounts correct. I
>have to design and fabricate a outer bearing support, starter plate, and a
>billet support for the lower end of the motor.
I almost alweays use cardboard to catch MM etc. Usually one can make the MM
pattern complete with holes out of the cardboard and false-fit it to the
motor to check on all that, then transfer the pattern to the metal. In your
case, you have to pick up the countershaft location accutrately, no? In
cases like this, I always mount the real parts together and place both in
the milling machine together, pick up the CL of the important part with
dial indicator and then machine. Often, you can place the motor bit, locate
center, then add the bit to be machined. Anyway if you have a bit of slop
in the MM holes, you can center the support bng bore at any time.
Interesting project. Good luck.
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 05:08:42 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Steel Tube
> There seems to be a consensus on the list that mild steel tubeing is fine
> for frames but not a lot of discusion on weather it needs to be seamless or if
> ERW will do. What do people think, has any one sucssesfuly used ERW?
Hello Matthew,
ERW works just fine.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Euro Spares, SF CA
Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors"
Host of 6 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
http://www.eurospares.com
AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 08:19:00 -0400
From: jdahl@dvicomm.com (John Dahl)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis New Guzzi superbike engine
Michael Moore wrote:
> Would anyone care to hazard why a single-sided swingarm would
> be any
> different than a regular one insofar as "the difficulty of
> combining
> optimum suspension setup with correct chain tension and rear
> ride
> height"? Is this likely a translation problem, or is AC just
> making
> one of his technical errors?
>
I would guess that the SA is equiped with eccentric chain tension
adjusters, and that the problems AC noted are due to the
eccentrics not the single sided SA. At least it sounds like the
problems eccentrics cause for me.
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 08:56:40 -0400
From: "Peter Snell"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: SSSA chain adjustment
Michael hisself wrote;
>
> Would anyone care to hazard why a single-sided swingarm would be any
> different than a regular one insofar as "the difficulty of combining
> optimum suspension setup with correct chain tension and rear ride
> height"? Is this likely a translation problem, or is AC just making
> one of his technical errors?
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
Most of the sssa use a big eccentric clamped in the back of the swing
arm to hold the wheel assem. It's similar to the set up Kawi uses in
it's conventional swingarms for chain adjustment, but the scale is
bigger. When you make a big adjustment to the chain tension (ie tooth
smaller or bigger), it makes a significant change in ride height and
swing arm angle. It's the same but lesser effect when adjusting chain
tension on a conventional set up.
My favourite Cathcart quote appeared in the latest Cycle Canada.
Writing about the new Aprillia superbike he said that Aprillia had '
reduced the polar moment of inertia by moving the center of mass closer
to the center of gravity.' (not a word for word quote, since I don't
have the article in front of me, but you get the idea) Oh, how I
laughed.;-)
__
Pete Snell
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario, | We dance round in a ring and suppose,
Canada. | But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
Snell-p@rmc.ca | Robert Frost (1874-1963)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:10:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: bc180@freenet.carleton.ca (Peter Alan Engelbert)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: puston wanted...
>
>Just looked at my Arias catalog and noticed they supply piston in either
>of two alloys, #2618 or #4032. The former for strength and the later for
>size stability. This message is brought to you on behalf of Lurkers
>Anonymous. Cheers Bob
>
>
Where would a person get the Arias catalogue?
- --
Peter Engelbert: bc180@Freenet.Carleton.CA or engelbp@mczcr.gov.on.ca
Vintage Road Racing: it's never too late to have a happy childhood.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 08:10:50 -0600 (MDT)
From: Andy Overstreet
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Steel Tube
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 Mfstj@aol.com wrote:
> Hi,
> There seems to be a consensus on the list that mild steel tubeing is fine
> for frames but not a lot of discusion on weather it needs to be seamless or if
> ERW will do. What do people think, has any one sucssesfuly used ERW?
>
> Cheers
> Matthew Davies
Well, I just cut a Gold Wing in half the other day, and that thing had the
crappiest looking ERW tubing I have ever seen in it. I think you'd be hard
pressed to buy anything that poor looking, but of course they aren't
concerned with light weight either!
Andy Overstreet
Albuquerque, NM USA
"All that glitters has a high refractive index."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:35:02 -0400
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: SSSA chain adjustment
In article <35F52988.DB3DBCD0@rmc.ca>, Peter Snell
writes
> My favourite Cathcart quote appeared in the latest Cycle Canada.
>Writing about the new Aprilia superbike he said that Aprilia had '
>reduced the polar moment of inertia by moving the center of mass closer
>to the center of gravity.' (not a word for word quote, since I don't
>have the article in front of me, but you get the idea) Oh, how I
>laughed.;-)
Well AC trained as a lawyer at Cambridge University, so I guess it's to
be expected...
- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
CN250/Helix/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
>8600 Bike Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> Clear Is Cool <
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:09:29 -0500
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Steel Tube
Matthew asked: "What do people think, has any one successfully used
ERW?"
I think you will be very satisfied if you use EW-DOM tubing. The DOM
stands for "drawn over mandrel" so the weld seam is flattened, and since
this tubing is formed from flat stock, the wall thickness
(theoretically) is more consistent than seamless tubing. DOM tubing is
common in most M/C frame size wherever I have looked.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:57:42 -0400
From: papazit@juno.com (Chris L Johnson)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis New Guzzi superbike engine
>Would anyone care to hazard why a single-sided swingarm would be any
>different than a regular one insofar as "the difficulty of combining
>optimum suspension setup with correct chain tension and rear ride
>height"? Is this likely a translation problem, or is AC just making
>one of his technical errors?
>
>Cheers,
>Michael
As for the chain: I would wonder about the resultant effect the large
cross section required for equivalent torsional stiffness on a single
sided swingarm. The fat profile may require the chain to ride up and
over a hump that would go away as the suspension compresses. Single
sided is cool, and makes for a clean package, but it comes at a cost.
The thing has to be big and robust to make up for the lack of a member on
the other side. This would seem to be a problem that could be designed
around - if in fact the problem even exists.
As for the suspension, I don't know.
As for the rear ride height, I also don't know.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:19:27 -0400
From: papazit@juno.com (Chris L Johnson)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:35:29 -0400 "Mike Fletcher"
writes:
>I use AutoCad 14.01. Mechanical Desktop 3.0, and Genius Desktop 2.0
>Software. These programs are the most popular and there is more
>tutorial and training centers available for these platforms than any
other CAD
>software.
As a user of past Autodesk products and now Pro/Engineer and as one
familiar with Solid Works, here is my opinion: check out Solid Works.
My past experience with Autodesk products has been that there is more
training material available for its products because they are so clumsy
as to require a lot of training. Then again, I haven't seen the latest
stuff. I used AutoCad 12 and hated it with a vengeance! Very poor user
interface and lots of extra steps required to do simple things.
The same is almost as true for Pro/Engineer, which has a stubborn user
interface, albeit very high technical capability.
Solid Works is one of the easiest to learn packages I've seen, and the
capability of the package is nipping atthe heels of Pro/Engineer. These
may be more expensive than the abive Autodesk products, but they are also
more capable. Solid Works is about a $4k program with $1.3k annual
maintenance.
Chris (CJ) Johnson, Director of Engineering,
College Park Industries, Inc. http://www.college-park.com
(810) 294-7950 (at CPI), (616) 664-4173 (home office)
papazit@juno.com
Scorpa 250/Gas-Gas 160/Fantic 305/Three 650 Yamahas/BMW R75/6
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:33:35 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re:Non-virtual solid modelling
Mike said,
<<
Once I have the x,y,z location on the various tapped holes the
mounting holes on the frame should be no problem. I will layout the entire
frame with solid modeling software to check the locations. Any suggestions
or comments welcome.
>>
Use real solid modelling, put the engine on a box and wrap tubes around it.
Tony Foale.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:41:16 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Jouralistic suspension of Physics.
Michael said,
<<
Would anyone care to hazard why a single-sided swingarm would be any
different than a regular one insofar as "the difficulty of combining
optimum suspension setup with correct chain tension and rear ride
height"? Is this likely a translation problem, or is AC just making
one of his technical errors?
>>
Sounds like typical journalistic ranting to me.
Tony Foale.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 18:14:03 -0500
From: "Thomas Alberti"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
> Solid Works is one of the easiest to learn packages I've seen, and the
> capability of the package is nipping atthe heels of Pro/Engineer.
I agree entirely. I came from a high end Unix based solid modeller, and
Solid Works is nearly as powerful, but a whole lot MORE useful and easy to
use.
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 16:42:17 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
Other than esthetics is there a compelling reason to use round tubing
over square?
It seems like sqare tubing would be easier to clamp in place or cut to
fit and angle.
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 09:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "john.mead"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
Gee, how much did you say all of this software costs??
John Mead
- ----------
>
> I use AutoCad 14.01. Mechanical Desktop 3.0, and Genius Desktop 2.0
> Software. These programs are the most popular and there is more tutorial
> and training centers available for these platforms than any other CAD
> software. The Mechanical Desktop package is the best overall design package
> I have used. I use this stuff daily on the job. Check out www.autodesk.com
> and get the demo CD. You need at least a 200mhz processor with at least 128
> meg of ram for any soilid modeling software. I use a 333mhz with 256 meg of
> ram. When you use the dynamic rotation of a rendered part or assembly you
> will notice the difference. Good Luck!
>
>
>
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #753
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Wednesday, September 9 1998 Volume 01 : Number 754
1. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
2. Bob & Jean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: puston wanted...
3. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
4. papazit@juno.com (Chris L Johnson) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
5. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis ERW tube
6. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis Guzzi narrow V 1000 cc
7. fshixon@muskie.lerc.nasa.gov (D Hixon) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Jouralistic suspension of Physics.
8. Douglas Lofgren Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Jouralistic suspension of Physics.
9. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Journalistic suspension of Physics.
10. 04SHAFIR@cua.edu Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
11. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
12. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Jouralistic suspension of Physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:43:27 -0600
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
Thanks for the information guys. As a returned College Student who used to
work as an Electronics Tech., I am fairly short on purchasing $4k systems.
I have heard the same comments about both AutoCad and AutoCad LT as far as
the difficulty in use. I have looked at 5 different programs so far and the
MicroStation seems to offer the most for the money. They have a Full
Version with Student pricing at about $250 vs. $3k+ for the std. over the
counter pricing. They just came out with a New Release (isn't everyone!!!)
but one interesting thing about their release that I checked out earlier
this year was that it was integrated with a 3D-Motion/Stress-Analysis
program. Since I would want to wait until the new Release will be available
to Students (something that I saw that AutoDesk does NOT do, 12 is their
Edu. version), I will have time to check out the Solid Works system. Do
they have a Web Site (sure they do) and do you know if they work with
Educational Programs?? It seems to be really tough to find someone with the
cross/program background that you show Chris as many seem to get stuck using
just one program and are reluctant to even try changing.
Jim
Swiss
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
>
>
>>I use AutoCad 14.01. Mechanical Desktop 3.0, and Genius Desktop 2.0
>>Software. >
>As a user of past Autodesk products and now Pro/Engineer and as one
>familiar with Solid Works, here is my opinion: check out Solid Works.
>My past experience with Autodesk products has been that there is more
>training material available for its products because they are so clumsy
>as to require a lot of training. Then again, I haven't seen the latest
>stuff. I used AutoCad 12 and hated it with a vengeance! Very poor user
>interface and lots of extra steps required to do simple things.
>
>The same is almost as true for Pro/Engineer, which has a stubborn user
>interface, albeit very high technical capability.
>
>Solid Works is one of the easiest to learn packages I've seen, and the
>capability of the package is nipping atthe heels of Pro/Engineer. These
>may be more expensive than the abive Autodesk products, but they are also
>more capable. Solid Works is about a $4k program with $1.3k annual
>maintenance.
>
>Chris (CJ) Johnson, Director of Engineering,
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 19:24:48 -0700
From: Bob & Jean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: puston wanted...
Arias can be reached at:
Arias Forged Pistons
13420 S. Normandie Ave.
Gardena, Ca. 90249
Phone [310] 532 9737
[213] 770 0055
Fax [310] 516 8203
They are also reproducing the Howard 12 port heads for GMC 270s and 302,
but of course they are too archaic for this group[grin]. Cheers Bob
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 07:22:49
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
At 04:42 PM 9/8/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Other than esthetics is there a compelling reason to use round tubing
>over square?
No
>It seems like sqare tubing would be easier to clamp in place or cut to
>fit and angle.
That's *exactly* why I used it in some of my frames.
best wishes,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:57:23 -0400
From: papazit@juno.com (Chris L Johnson)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
>...as many seem to get stuck
>using just one program and are reluctant to even try changing.
>
>Jim
>Swiss
>Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
Here's another one: Design Wave bought by PTC (Pro/Engineer) from
Intergraph, was it? It's a Solid Works wannabe. There are student
discount available, I think, for nearly all the CAD packages. Key, I
think, is hooking into one that will have the most commercial viability
down the road. The higher up-front cost might be worth it then.
Chris (CJ) Johnson, Director of Engineering,
College Park Industries, Inc. http://www.college-park.com
(810) 294-7950 (at CPI), (616) 664-4173 (home office)
papazit@juno.com
Scorpa 250/Gas-Gas 160/Fantic 305/Three 650 Yamahas/BMW R75/6
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:12:49 +1000
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis ERW tube
> There seems to be a consensus on the list that mild steel tubeing is fine
> for frames but not a lot of discusion on weather it needs to be seamless or if
> ERW will do. What do people think, has any one sucssesfuly used ERW?
>
Yep - ERW is fine. BTW - seamless probably isn't.
> Well, I just cut a Gold Wing in half the other day, and that thing had the
> crappiest looking ERW tubing I have ever seen in it. I think you'd be hard
> pressed to buy anything that poor looking, but of course they aren't
> concerned with light weight either!
SFC 750 Twin Laverdas were made from standard wall thickness
1 inch black waterpipe. Pretty but very heavy .
For the worst ever frame design - look at the Yamaha 200 4 wheeled
farmbike ( ATV in US ). They were redesigned from a trike and the
tube work around the old headstock has to be seen to be believed.
Cheers IAN
- --
Ian Drysdale
DRYSDALE MOTORCYCLE CO.
Melbourne. Australia
http://werple.net.au/~iwd
Ph. + 613 9562 4260
Fax.+ 613 9546 8938
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:22:17 +1000
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis Guzzi narrow V 1000 cc
I think the new Guzzi motor design is a lovely thing. Maybe the
fact that I am a CX rider may be swaying my opinion but I don't
think so.
The stacked gearbox 90 deg to the crank is actually a similar design
to the straight 4 cylinder ( logitudinal ) GP racer they built in the
1950's ( but never raced ? ). Of course this lead to the brilliant
500 - V8.
It is potentially a winner I think - whilst still retaining the Guzzi
feel and basic layout.
Cheers IAN
- --
Ian Drysdale
DRYSDALE MOTORCYCLE CO.
Melbourne. Australia
http://werple.net.au/~iwd
Ph. + 613 9562 4260
Fax.+ 613 9546 8938
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: fshixon@muskie.lerc.nasa.gov (D Hixon)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Jouralistic suspension of Physics.
Hi folks,
>From Tony Foale:
Michael said,
<<
Would anyone care to hazard why a single-sided swingarm would be any
different than a regular one insofar as "the difficulty of combining
optimum suspension setup with correct chain tension and rear ride
height"? Is this likely a translation problem, or is AC just making
one of his technical errors?
>>
Sounds like typical journalistic ranting to me.
Tony Foale.
- ---------------------end of quote-----------------------------------
>From my understanding, it's not the single-sided swingarm directly;
instead, it's the eccentric chain adjuster. The Computrack folks
say it's really hard to get that set up right because adjusting
the chain can throw off the chain/swingarm relationship as well
as the front end geometry (due to ride height changes).
Have fun,
Ray
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
R Hixon | phone: (216) 962-3146
ICOMP, Ohio Aerospace Institute | WERA #623
22800 Cedar Point RD | 1995 Triumph Speed Triple for sale...
Brook Park, Ohio 44142 | email: fshixon@muskie.lerc.nasa.gov
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 09:40:34 -0700
From: Douglas Lofgren
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Jouralistic suspension of Physics.
Tony Foale wrote:
>> "the difficulty of combining
>> optimum suspension setup with correct chain tension and rear ride
>> height"?
>
> Sounds like typical journalistic ranting to me.
I certainly don't know much about suspension, but, AC's comment
doesn't seem so completely out in left field.
The eccentric does change the ride height and the linkage geometry
(relative to the rear axle) when the chain is adjusted.
Enlighten me.
Doug Lofgren
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:23:20 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Journalistic suspension of Physics.
As a note to this subject,
In Kevin Cameron's "Sport Bike Performance" book there is mention
that eccentric adjusters have been abandoned by most race teams due
to these chassis tuning complications. (ride height vs chain tension
vs wheel base). Also mentioned is that if you LIKE eccentric
adjusters, use them! These interdependent variables are not inherent
to SSSA's. Knowing what adjustments will provide the required
changes and having a clue to the trade offs is the issue.
Independent adjustments of each feature would allow logical changes
with less compromise perhaps.
If ride height(CG) goes up, weight transfer goes up (Acceleration +
or -)
If wheel base is extended, weight transfer goes down. (CG shifts
also)
What works for one rider style may not work for others.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> I certainly don't know much about suspension, but, AC's comment
> doesn't seem so completely out in left field.
> The eccentric does change the ride height and the linkage
geometry
> (relative to the rear axle) when the chain is adjusted.
> Enlighten me.
>
>
> Doug Lofgren
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 12:15:47 -0500 (EST)
From: 04SHAFIR@cua.edu
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
Hello Yousuf,
For a given maximum safe load round tubing will be about 30% (if I didn't
screwed up with calculation againe) lighter then square.
Eugene.
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 yhakim@m5.sprynet.com wrote:
> Other than esthetics is there a compelling reason to use round tubing
> over square?
> It seems like sqare tubing would be easier to clamp in place or cut to
> fit and angle.
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:42:32 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
>Other than esthetics is there a compelling reason to use round tubing
>over square?
Yes, the round section is best for resisting torsional and
compressive loads, as well as bending loads that might be come from
any direction. Also, for tubes of equal weight and wall thickness
the round tube will have a larger second moment of area making it
stiffer in bending as well as better at the torsional and
compressive loads. (The preceding was lifted from Tony and Vic's
book - pages 146/147). It als says "the use of square-section
tubing is more difficult to understand and probably owes much to
fashion."
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:42:32 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Jouralistic suspension of Physics.
> From my understanding, it's not the single-sided swingarm directly;
> instead, it's the eccentric chain adjuster. The Computrack folks
> say it's really hard to get that set up right because adjusting
> the chain can throw off the chain/swingarm relationship as well
> as the front end geometry (due to ride height changes).
Hello Ray,
If AC had said that, then it would have made sense. It looks like he
could use the services of an editor with a bit more tech savvy.
I think the SSSA that James Parker did used a sliding adjustment
rather than eccentric, so it certainly is possible to do.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #754
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Friday, September 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 755
1. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
2. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
3. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
4. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Archive updates
5. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
6. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
7. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
8. Alan Lapp Subj: MC-Chassis F-USA and Questions to the List
9. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis F-USA and Questions to the List
10. "Gary Beale" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
11. jdahl@dvicomm.com (John Dahl) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis F-USA and Questions to the List
12. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis MicroProse GP 500 PC game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 10:55:15 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
OK the current performance bench mark seems to be the R1 at about
400 lbs and 130 RW HP
Now a SOS racer at about 200 lbs and 65 hp should give equivilant power
to weight and hence acceleration. Losing those 200 lbs has to make the
twisty bits easier. The only place you would lose out is top speed.
Does it make sense that a big single in a 250 GP or equivilant frame
would make a better R1 (for a much lower price)?
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:59:50 -0500
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
Don't forget, gas, oil and (ta-da) rider weight are CONSTANT.
So, it is a 550-580lb bike (with 150-180lb rider with safety gear) and
130 HP.
The SOS racer would be 350-380 Lbs and 65 HP. It would be difficult to
have a 290 Lb SOS racer (including rider weight).
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com [SMTP:yhakim@m5.sprynet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 12:55 PM
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
>
> OK the current performance bench mark seems to be the R1 at about
> 400 lbs and 130 RW HP
> Now a SOS racer at about 200 lbs and 65 hp should give equivilant
> power
> to weight and hence acceleration. Losing those 200 lbs has to make the
>
> twisty bits easier. The only place you would lose out is top speed.
> Does it make sense that a big single in a 250 GP or equivilant frame
> would make a better R1 (for a much lower price)?
> ______________________________________________________
> Yousuf
> ______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 14:38:26 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
yhakim@m5.sprynet.com wrote:
>
> OK the current performance bench mark seems to be the R1 at about
> 400 lbs and 130 RW HP
> Now a SOS racer at about 200 lbs and 65 hp should give equivilant power
> to weight and hence acceleration. Losing those 200 lbs has to make the
> twisty bits easier. The only place you would lose out is top speed.
> Does it make sense that a big single in a 250 GP or equivilant frame
> would make a better R1 (for a much lower price)?
Don't forget that the rider's weight plays a larger part in the equation
with a lighter bike...
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:16:53 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Archive updates
I've just put links to big chunks of the digests in PKZIP 1.02 for DOS
format on the email list page. Some of these files end up being close
to 1MB when unzipped, but that will give you plenty to search through
with your word processor's "find" function. (this doesn't apply to
the chassis list, as Bob Schnick is doing those digests in HTML
format).
That brings most all of the lists pretty well up to date - though the
Laverda list just needs a couple more digests to make an even 50 for
the next batch.
FYI - I found my email editor made it real easy to select a bunch of
email files and print them to a consolidated text file - yours
probably does to if you need something like that. I may have to
figure out what other helpful things the program will do (I also found
it can search for text strings in all the messages in a given folder -
I had thought it was limited to just an open message - DUH).
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:39:22 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
Pete said;
<<
Most of the sssa use a big eccentric clamped in the back of the swing
arm to hold the wheel assem. It's similar to the set up Kawi uses in
it's conventional swingarms for chain adjustment, but the scale is
bigger
>>
This is quite true, but there is absolutely no good reason why a SSSA needs
more axle movement than a DSSA.
In my SSSAs. I used a big eccentric to hold the stub axle but the actual
eccentricity of that axle was similar to a DSSA.
As many production designs use a live axle, the eccentrics need to be larger
again to accomodate the bearings, that does not necessarily mean that the
range of chain adjustment is any greater than normal.
I thought your AC quote was great.
Tony Foale
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/Softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:50:34 -0400
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
How about the original Formula USA, ie anything goes. A certain TZ250 rider
won some of these events. The high muckety-muck rules makers eventually ran
him off.
Ray
- ----------
> From: Marty Maclean
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Oversimplifying designs?
> Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 5:38 PM
>
> yhakim@m5.sprynet.com wrote:
> >
> > OK the current performance bench mark seems to be the R1 at about
> > 400 lbs and 130 RW HP
> > Now a SOS racer at about 200 lbs and 65 hp should give equivilant power
> > to weight and hence acceleration. Losing those 200 lbs has to make the
> > twisty bits easier. The only place you would lose out is top speed.
> > Does it make sense that a big single in a 250 GP or equivilant frame
> > would make a better R1 (for a much lower price)?
>
> Don't forget that the rider's weight plays a larger part in the equation
> with a lighter bike...
>
> Marty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 18:47:08 -0600
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
In truth, the range of chain adjustment depends upon the radius of the
circle that the axle center uses. With the larger bearings required for the
eccentric adjusters on SSSA bikes, the height variation AND the range of
travel when compared to a DSSA WITH eccentric adjusters (such as some of the
Kawasaki's) will be greater on the SSSA bikes. This is because with the
larger radius, on the leading and trailing sides the height changes more
when you adjust the same amount of length in the chain.
HOWEVER, this is not true of all of the movement, because in the Center of
the adjustment range, the Rise/Run of the adjustment will actually be LESS.
This should confuse a few of you, but if you will draw it out with different
radius circles and measure the rise/run variations, you will be able to see
it. So, If the Factory race bikes were setting their suspensions up with
the axle near the center position, the rise per amount of chain adjustment
should be marginal. This cannot approach the relatively flat adjustment of
a push/pull type of dual arm adjuster, but even these can make minimum
changes in ride height due to swingarm angle. And, ALL of these systems
vary the wheelbase so that is not a relevant factor.
Since, as Tony says, "no good reason why a SSSA needs more axle movement"
why not use the center portion of the eccentric travel and limit the rise of
the axle centerline. If the bike handles better with the axle in the
forward or rearmost areas of adjustment, it sounds like there is a wheelbase
problem.
Jim
Swiss
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
Pete said;
<<
Most of the sssa use a big eccentric clamped in the back of the swing
arm to hold the wheel assem. It's similar to the set up Kawi uses in
it's conventional swingarms for chain adjustment, but the scale is
bigger
>>
This is quite true, but there is absolutely no good reason why a SSSA needs
more axle movement than a DSSA.
In my SSSAs. I used a big eccentric to hold the stub axle but the actual
eccentricity of that axle was similar to a DSSA.
As many production designs use a live axle, the eccentrics need to be larger
again to accomodate the bearings, that does not necessarily mean that the
range of chain adjustment is any greater than normal.
Tony Foale
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:16:03 +0100
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: MC-Chassis F-USA and Questions to the List
>How about the original Formula USA, ie anything goes. A certain TZ250 rider
>won some of these events. The high muckety-muck rules makers eventually ran
>him off.
I used to *LOVE* F-USA!!! True, a real race-designed bike will actually
run away with the event, but there was something so fun about watching a
turbo'd CBR900 leave 200 yard blackies exiting corners... at 120 mph!
Anyway, reminiscence aside, I have serious questions for the group:
Last week, I was punted into the next county by a day-dreaming rider
drafting me. He hit me full-throttle when we got to the brake markers at
the end of the straight at Summit Point.
One of the items damaged is a Marchesini Hawk wheel - it has a chunk taken
out, and a bend. I need to know if there is a commercial venture that
specializes in repairing magnesium rims. I'm getting better at welding
alloys, but I'm not ready to tackle this one!
Second, the very rare hand-made Kerker reverse cone megaphone was crumpled
pretty badly. If I recall correctly, Aircone doesn't deal in stainless.
Is there another fabrication company which will produce a megaphone in
stainless?
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:47:47 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis F-USA and Questions to the List
> Second, the very rare hand-made Kerker reverse cone megaphone was crumpled
> pretty badly. If I recall correctly, Aircone doesn't deal in stainless.
> Is there another fabrication company which will produce a megaphone in
> stainless?
Hello Al,
I'd think that your local sheetmetal fab shop would have a set of
slip rolls that would allow them to do a megaphone for you.
Glad you came out of the prang OK.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:43:37 -0400
From: "Gary Beale"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
Jim Swiss wrote:
>In truth, the range of chain adjustment depends upon the radius of the
>circle that the axle center uses.
snip
Very well explained, Jim.
I suspect the realities of racing a production based bike intrude though.
When swapping sprockets, the mechanic probably needs to have an inch or so
of available adjustment without having to break the chain and install a new
one with a couple more or fewer links. And he (or she) probably doesn't
have a couple of extra swingarms available that allow for wheelbase changes
for a given track, yet keep the adjusters in the middle of their range.
It would seem that eccentric (concentric?) adjusters are very nice to use on
a non-competition bike, but might add too many variables for even good
tuners to be able to manage in a racing situation.
Gary Beale
'89 Hawk (with concentric adjuster on SSSA)
The "Hond-iva" AHRMA Supermono 2 #390
gbeale@atlanta.dg.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:23:11 -0400
From: jdahl@dvicomm.com (John Dahl)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis F-USA and Questions to the List
> Second, the very rare hand-made Kerker reverse cone megaphone
> was crumpled
> pretty badly. If I recall correctly, Aircone doesn't deal in
> stainless.
> Is there another fabrication company which will produce a
> megaphone in
> stainless?
>
> Al
> level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
Finish Line Products ( see Cycle News for ad) claims they can fix
any crumpled exhaust. You might want to check with them about
repair.
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:43:40 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis MicroProse GP 500 PC game
Posted: 07/30/98 Previous | Headlines | Next
GameSpot News
MicroProse Goes Back to the Grand
Prix... Sort Of
MicroProse has acquired the PC game rights for the
FIM Road Racing World Championship GP 500
motorcycle circuit, one of the most extensive Grand
Prix motorcycle racing circuits in the world.
In an agreement with Dorna Promocion del Deporte,
based in Madrid, Spain, MicroProse will produce a
GP 500 simulation based on the actual GP 500
racing circuit, to be released in the fall of 1999.
"By entering into a licensing agreement with
MicroProse for the development of an authentic
racing game, we are able to reach not only our GP
500 racing fan, but possibly a new market of
motorcycle hobbyists who may not have been
introduced to the circuit," said Jordi Pons, marketing
director for Dorna Promocion.
"Adding the GP 500 game license will give us a
foundation to develop and design the most authentic
motorcycle racing computer game available," said
Derek McLeish, senior vice president of business
development at MicroProse. "GP 500 is an important
brand to have in an increasingly global software
industry where great gameplay must be combined
with real-life statistics and actual sporting events."
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #755
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Sunday, September 13 1998 Volume 01 : Number 756
1. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Performance calcs.
2. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
3. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Hossack comments
4. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Frame CAD file
5. JBAKER1@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
6. Ray Engelhardt Subj: RE: MC-Chassis CAD Software
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 01:45:37 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Performance calcs.
Yousuf said:
<<
OK the current performance bench mark seems to be the R1 at about
400 lbs and 130 RW HP
Now a SOS racer at about 200 lbs and 65 hp should give equivilant power
to weight and hence acceleration.
>>
Yousuf, you've made a very common error.
You forget the rider, add say 160lbs for rider and gear, repeat the calcs.
and you'll find that you need 84 hp for the same power to mass ratio.
Tony Foale
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/Softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 02:00:06 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Chain adjustment
Jim said:
<<
With the larger bearings required for the
eccentric adjusters on SSSA bikes, the height variation AND the range of
travel when compared to a DSSA WITH eccentric adjusters (such as some of the
Kawasaki's) will be greater on the SSSA bikes.
>>
Not for the same available range of chain centres variation, it will be
exactly the same, because the degree of eccentricity required will be equal.
The outer diameter is irreleveant in this context.
Apart from that, many people build in excessive chain adjustment, strictly
for chain adjustment only there is little need to have much more than the
length of one chain link.
If one sticks with that then there will be a maximum rise and fall of half a
chain link. Hardly enough to get worked up about.
If you want variable wheelbase there are better ways of doing this.
Tony Foale
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/Softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:13:42 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Hossack comments
I thought you all might be interested in Miles' comment about the
Hossack Honda single that was raced by Miles and Vernon Glashier.
This appeared on the Thumper list today:
***************************************
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:16:28 +0100 (BST)
From: Miles McCallum
To: thumper@dorje.com
Subject: Re: suspension
>From my memory of thrashing the hossack around brands hatch, and a
discussion of front suspension afterwards, some dive was considered to
be a good thing, as it compressed the (front) shock to a higher spring
rate -better coping with nearly all the weight being transferred to
the front ... the problem with dive (on telescopic forks) is that it
reduces the trail, in turn reducing stability when you'de really like
to have some. However, it's not as simple as it appears -tele's do
bend considerably under heavy braking (my TZ had witness marks from
the front tyre on the chin of the fairing) which increases the trail
- -all of which goes to show that there's more than meets the eye when
it comes to sorting out handling problems.
Despite the usd Piaolis on the SZR -the best set of tele's I have
ridden- I still rate the hossack as the best front end I've used to
date. Simple, stiff, tunable, and very rider friendly.
M
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:50:16 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Frame CAD file
Near the bottom of the first graphics page, in the section for
chassis list files, is a zipped dxf of some ACAD frame doodling for
a GS450 Suzuki roadracer. There are drawings of 17" Astralite wheels
in it - about 135K. Maybe it will be of some interest/help.
I hope it opens in a useable form.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 19:19:05 EDT
From: JBAKER1@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Square vs Round tubing
In a message dated 9/9/98 12:47:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mmoore@sirius.com
writes:
<< Other than esthetics is there a compelling reason to use round tubing
>over square?
Yes, the round section is best for resisting torsional and
compressive loads, as well as bending loads that might be come from
any direction. Also, for tubes of equal weight and wall thickness
the round tube will have a larger second moment of area making it
stiffer in bending as well as better at the torsional and
compressive loads. (The preceding was lifted from Tony and Vic's
book - pages 146/147). It als says "the use of square-section
tubing is more difficult to understand and probably owes much to
fashion."
>>
There is of course another way of looking at this, and its that if you look at
fitting a tube into an equivalant OPENING , that is to so same height, the
square tube will be a stronger member (better able to resist bending, due to
increased moment of inertia). So it really all boils down to what your trying
to do.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:15:54 -0700
From: Ray Engelhardt
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis CAD Software
- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDDF00.58E61670
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My old company purchased Microstation and had many problems with it. It =
is very difficult to use. In fact all of the so called experts that =
came to "teach"o
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schneider [SMTP:swiss@netmdc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 6:43 PM
To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
Thanks for the information guys. As a returned College Student who used =
to
work as an Electronics Tech., I am fairly short on purchasing $4k =
systems.
I have heard the same comments about both AutoCad and AutoCad LT as far =
as
the difficulty in use. I have looked at 5 different programs so far and =
the
MicroStation seems to offer the most for the money. They have a Full
Version with Student pricing at about $250 vs. $3k+ for the std. over =
the
counter pricing. They just came out with a New Release (isn't =
everyone!!!)
but one interesting thing about their release that I checked out earlier
this year was that it was integrated with a 3D-Motion/Stress-Analysis
program. Since I would want to wait until the new Release will be =
available
to Students (something that I saw that AutoDesk does NOT do, 12 is their
Edu. version), I will have time to check out the Solid Works system. Do
they have a Web Site (sure they do) and do you know if they work with
Educational Programs?? It seems to be really tough to find someone with =
the
cross/program background that you show Chris as many seem to get stuck =
using
just one program and are reluctant to even try changing.
Jim
Swiss
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
>
>
>>I use AutoCad 14.01. Mechanical Desktop 3.0, and Genius Desktop 2.0
>>Software. >
>As a user of past Autodesk products and now Pro/Engineer and as one
>familiar with Solid Works, here is my opinion: check out Solid Works.
>My past experience with Autodesk products has been that there is more
>training material available for its products because they are so clumsy
>as to require a lot of training. Then again, I haven't seen the latest
>stuff. I used AutoCad 12 and hated it with a vengeance! Very poor =
user
>interface and lots of extra steps required to do simple things.
>
>The same is almost as true for Pro/Engineer, which has a stubborn user
>interface, albeit very high technical capability.
>
>Solid Works is one of the easiest to learn packages I've seen, and the
>capability of the package is nipping atthe heels of Pro/Engineer. =
These
>may be more expensive than the abive Autodesk products, but they are =
also
>more capable. Solid Works is about a $4k program with $1.3k annual
>maintenance.
>
>Chris (CJ) Johnson, Director of Engineering,
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #756
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Sunday, September 13 1998 Volume 01 : Number 757
1. Ray Engelhardt Subj: RE: MC-Chassis CAD Software
2. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis engine management systems
3. "Mike Fletcher" Subj: MC-Chassis JMC Swingarm
4. Les Sharp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
5. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
6. Les Sharp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
7. Les Sharp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
8. Alan Lapp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:44:53 -0700
From: Ray Engelhardt
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis CAD Software
- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDDF04.B1211340
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My old company purchased MicroStation and it proved to be a mistake. It =
is very hard to use and learn. We paid "experts" to come in a provide =
in house training. These so called experts could not successfully =
demonstrate most of the modeling features. Also, the program has many =
modules that each cost more money, so the cost ends up much more than =
initially quoted. MicroStation's iges and dxf translators are =
problematic. None of the rapid prototyping venders I used could read my =
files.
I have nearly 5 years on Pro-Engineer and until Solid Works it was the =
best, but very expensive and took 40 - 80 hours to learn completely. I =
have used Solid Works for just over a year and it is much easier to =
learn and is better then Pro/E in some things and a little behind Pro/E =
in other areas. For the money Solid Works is the best product on the =
market and is fairly priced for this sort of software.
I believe Parametric Technologies still has a student version of PT =
modeler (a reduced version of Pro/E). I have a student version and =
while not as good as the full version or Solid Works it is much better =
then AutoCad LT and MicroStation.
As far as FEA code, if you are on a budget try Algar. They may have a =
student version. Most FEA codes are around $5-10K full price.
If you would like contact me off line and we can discuss this further.
- -Ray
fzr1000@thevine.net=20
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schneider [SMTP:swiss@netmdc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 6:43 PM
To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
Thanks for the information guys. As a returned College Student who used =
to
work as an Electronics Tech., I am fairly short on purchasing $4k =
systems.
I have heard the same comments about both AutoCad and AutoCad LT as far =
as
the difficulty in use. I have looked at 5 different programs so far and =
the
MicroStation seems to offer the most for the money. They have a Full
Version with Student pricing at about $250 vs. $3k+ for the std. over =
the
counter pricing. They just came out with a New Release (isn't =
everyone!!!)
but one interesting thing about their release that I checked out earlier
this year was that it was integrated with a 3D-Motion/Stress-Analysis
program. Since I would want to wait until the new Release will be =
available
to Students (something that I saw that AutoDesk does NOT do, 12 is their
Edu. version), I will have time to check out the Solid Works system. Do
they have a Web Site (sure they do) and do you know if they work with
Educational Programs?? It seems to be really tough to find someone with =
the
cross/program background that you show Chris as many seem to get stuck =
using
just one program and are reluctant to even try changing.
Jim
Swiss
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis CAD Software
>
>
>>I use AutoCad 14.01. Mechanical Desktop 3.0, and Genius Desktop 2.0
>>Software. >
>As a user of past Autodesk products and now Pro/Engineer and as one
>familiar with Solid Works, here is my opinion: check out Solid Works.
>My past experience with Autodesk products has been that there is more
>training material available for its products because they are so clumsy
>as to require a lot of training. Then again, I haven't seen the latest
>stuff. I used AutoCad 12 and hated it with a vengeance! Very poor =
user
>interface and lots of extra steps required to do simple things.
>
>The same is almost as true for Pro/Engineer, which has a stubborn user
>interface, albeit very high technical capability.
>
>Solid Works is one of the easiest to learn packages I've seen, and the
>capability of the package is nipping atthe heels of Pro/Engineer. =
These
>may be more expensive than the abive Autodesk products, but they are =
also
>more capable. Solid Works is about a $4k program with $1.3k annual
>maintenance.
>
>Chris (CJ) Johnson, Director of Engineering,
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 13:00:52 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis engine management systems
I've had two people on the list write to me this weekend about engine
management computer systems that would control both EFI and ignition,
and be fully programmable (hopefully via laptop instead of having to
burn EEPROMs).
Does anyone have good websites or first hand knowledge of reasonably
priced (within typical m/c project range, not reasonable for $50K
race cars) systems?
Craig tells me that most aftermarket EFI seem to be designed to use
Bosch injectors, and that a 2D (throttle position and rpm) system as
per Ducati is probably all that is needed ( no air-flow sensor to add
another variable to the map).
I guess a nice barrel-valve/slide throttle body would be interesting to
find about too.
Of course, once we know about this stuff, we'll have to figure how to
hang all the pumps, alternators, hoses, batteries, and wiring onto
the chassis.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:32:26 -0400
From: "Mike Fletcher"
Subject: MC-Chassis JMC Swingarm
Does anyone know if there is a distrbutor for JMC swingarms in the USA.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:09:40 +0800
From: Les Sharp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
Mike,
Check out CB Performance. They have a nice simple simple set-up they say
will work on "any four-cylinder engine", with one or two twin choke
throttle bodies.
They use a simple controller adjustable "on-the-fly".
Note the usual disclaimers apply...
- --
Best regards, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
Planet Gearhead: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/conten~1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:24:29 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
> Check out CB Performance. They have a nice simple simple set-up they say
> will work on "any four-cylinder engine", with one or two twin choke
> throttle bodies.
Hello Les,
Do people actually have 4 cylinder motorcycles? I can't find any in
my garage.
I'll search for their website and take a look.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:03:01 +0800
From: Les Sharp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
Les Sharp wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Check out CB Performance.
Whoops, forgot the URL....
http://www.cbperformance.com
- --
Best regards, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
Planet Gearhead: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/conten~1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:08:12 +0800
From: Les Sharp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
Michael Moore wrote:
> Hello Les,
>
> Do people actually have 4 cylinder motorcycles? I can't find any in
> my garage.
>
Mike, I don't have any either, but I'm told such devices do exist.
There's also a good chance that CB's kits (being so simple) could be
re-worked for use on a twin (don't tell me you don't have any of those
in your garage!).
- --
Best regards, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
Planet Gearhead: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/conten~1.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 22:30:46 +0100
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
>Michael Moore wrote:
>
>> Hello Les,
>>
>> Do people actually have 4 cylinder motorcycles? I can't find any in
>> my garage.
>>
>
>Mike, I don't have any either, but I'm told such devices do exist.
>There's also a good chance that CB's kits (being so simple) could be
>re-worked for use on a twin (don't tell me you don't have any of those
>in your garage!).
I contacted Hahn Racecraft (located in Detroit) about their fuel injection
systems. I asked about a full-Monte system including an intercooled turbo
for a 4 cyl. bike. They had the system and would install it, to the tune
of $6500. I also asked about fuel injection for a 2 cyl. bike, as I race a
Hawk. They indicated that they did fully user-programable FI systems for
Ducatis, and could modify the 2D map to suit any twin, with a cost of
$2500, installed and tuned.
Not exactly in the budget, so I got a pair of used Keihin flat slides for
$500 instead.
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #757
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Monday, September 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 758
1. "Kelvin Blair" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Engine Management
2. Neil Collins Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Engine Management
3. Les Mulder Subj: RE: MC-Chassis engine management systems
4. "Joost Jochems" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
5. uranus Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Engine Management
6. Andy Overstreet Subj: Re: MC-Chassis JMC Swingarm
7. Les Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Engine Management
8. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis sa/frame retailer
9. Michael Andrusiewicz Subj: MC-Chassis elect. ign. check
10. Paul Kellner Subj: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
11. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
12. "Sam Stoney" Subj: MC-Chassis EFI systems
13. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis EFI systems
14. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: MC-Chassis List Support $
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:40:28 +0800
From: "Kelvin Blair"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Engine Management
>
> I've had two people on the list write to me this weekend about engine
> management computer systems that would control both EFI and ignition,
> and be fully programmable (hopefully via laptop instead of having to
> burn EEPROMs).
Only way to go!
>
> Does anyone have good websites or first hand knowledge of reasonably
> priced (within typical m/c project range, not reasonable for $50K
> race cars) systems?
Yes I do, I built a system for a CBR1000 Honda the ECU cost around $2500, I
made the throttle body myself. I brought 351 Bosch injectors these are a
very high flow injector as I am running Methanol (2.2 times more methanol
required than petrol). All the parts such as fuel pumps, TPS (Throttle
Position Sensor), MAP (Atmospheric Pressure Sensor), Hall effect sensor for
crank and cam positions are all readily available from your local car shop
and quite cheap. the advantage with the ECU I used is that it will take
inputs from any sensor and is 110% configureable.
>
> Craig tells me that most aftermarket EFI seem to be designed to use
> Bosch injectors, and that a 2D (throttle position and rpm) system as
> per Ducati is probably all that is needed ( no air-flow sensor to add
> another variable to the map).
Certain Ducati teams that will remain un-named actually throw away the
original ECU and slide the MoTeC ECU inside the old box. Simply because it
is so much easier to use. As an added bonus they get better results than
the factory team.
Throttle position and RPM actually gives you a 3D map. The third axis being
the amount of fuel (for a fuel map) or ignition advance (for an ignition
map). The ECU is a MoTeC unit and the main reason I went that way was for
the very good Data Logging capabilities. All of the other amazing
configurability was just a bonus. I am totally hooked on this type of
engine management and can totally recommend it to anyone who wants to have
total control over the tuning of their engine.
>
> I guess a nice barrel-valve/slide throttle body would be interesting to
> find about too.
I use a rotary carbon fibre disk throttle body of my own design. I was
told by a lot of the so called experts that it would not work, so it was
very satisfying when it worked exceptionally well. This stuff really is
fun!!
>
> Of course, once we know about this stuff, we'll have to figure how to
> hang all the pumps, alternators, hoses, batteries, and wiring onto
> the chassis.
Go for it! It is the only way to go!
I have not tried these myself but give it a go http://www.motec.com or
http://www.motec.com.au
I send the software if any one wishes to see how it all works.
Regards
Kelvin
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:22:59 +0930
From: Neil Collins
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Engine Management
Kevin wrote:
>I use a rotary carbon fibre disk throttle body of my own design. I was
>told by a lot of the so called experts that it would not work, so it was
>very satisfying when it worked exceptionally well. This stuff really is
>fun!!
>I send the software if any one wishes to see how it all works.
Not really motorcycles but the say anyway! my brother (Des) has a honda
civic rally car ad he is looking for a system to control the air flow before
the injectors. The existing honda throttle body is far too small in volume!
Tell me more about you rotary carbon fibre disk throttle body of your own
design. Any pictures available??? Des already has a full MOTEC system and
lap-top set-up so coupled with your idea it may work extremely well. tell me
more.
"Help me get and keep the Yamaha's racing."
View my bikes at: http://www.htb.com.au/htb10.html
thanks Neil Collins
South Australia
"Help me get and keep the Yamaha's racing." ---- View my bikes at:
http://www.htb.com.au/htb10.html
or Email me at: neil@beaker.htb.com.au
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:07:36 +1000
From: Les Mulder
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis engine management systems
For the financially challenged, there's always the DIY route (or should
that be for the adventurous at heart)
Check out the DIY EFI page at -
http://efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu/diy_efi/ (guff on EFI modifying)
or
http://efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu/efi332/ (building from scratch)
There's also mailing lists, etc via these pages
Cheers,
Les
Les Mulder
Technical Director
Mulder Communications
tel +61-2-9437-9144
fax +61-2-9437-9344
e les@mulcoms.com.au
www http://les.ozemail.com.au
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:55:28 +0200
From: "Joost Jochems"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
Micheal,
In the UK there is a compagny called DTA. They sell a EFI setup for a fair
price. They are on the Web, but I don't have the URL by hand. On their
website you can download the operating software for free.
In Holland some car racing people use it and I know of a GSXR750i that uses
it now in Superbike racing.
Joost
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:53:36
From: uranus
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Engine Management
A selection of EFI/EMS web sites:
http://www.webcon.co.uk/alpha/ - Weber Concessionaires (Alpha)
http://www.sdsefi.com - programmable EMS
http://www.fms-oem.com - programmable EMS
http://www.atiautomotive.com - programmable EMS
http://www.carelect.demon.co.uk/index.html - ECU repairs
http://www.autodiagnos.com/html/products.html - EFI diagnostics
- BTW, if any of you on the list have modern Ducatis or other
Weber/Marelli injected motors, I have a good contact for revised ECU
EPROMs, a guy who does a proper job of analysing and re-writing the maps -
contact me off-list if you're interested.
David Thurgate.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:40:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Andy Overstreet
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis JMC Swingarm
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Mike Fletcher wrote:
> Does anyone know if there is a distrbutor for JMC swingarms in the USA.
Yes, they're also selling Harris frames. I saw them on the web the other
day, but not sure who they were. Found it by doing a search for
Streetfighters.
Andy Overstreet
Albuquerque, NM USA
"All that glitters has a high refractive index."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:08:01 +0800
From: Les
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Engine Management
> Kevin wrote:
>
> Not really motorcycles but the say anyway! my brother (Des) has a honda
> civic rally car ad he is looking for a system to control the air flow before
> the injectors. The existing honda throttle body is far too small in volume!
> Tell me more about you rotary carbon fibre disk throttle body of your own
> design. Any pictures available??? Des already has a full MOTEC system and
> lap-top set-up so coupled with your idea it may work extremely well. tell me
> more.
>
Kevin,
There are a bunch of shops around boring these out and fitting larger,
laser-cut butterflies. Can't think of a URL off-hand though. Try some of
the auto mags (less fun I'll readily admit).
Les
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:36:28 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis sa/frame retailer
here is a retailer for frames etc
http://www.motoventure.com
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:43:32 -0400
From: Michael Andrusiewicz
Subject: MC-Chassis elect. ign. check
Not really chassis related....however.....
does anyone know how to check if a Boyer elec. ign. unit is triggering
properly? I can measure 12v at the coils (3cyl Triumph), but do not get
a spark when turning it over.....
BTW: I did get the new Foale book....Great Job (as always) Tony!!
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:53:00 -0400
From: Paul Kellner
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
Michael wrote:
>I've had two people on the list write to me this weekend about engine
>management computer systems that would control both EFI and ignition,
>and be fully programmable (hopefully via laptop instead of having to
>burn EEPROMs).
take a look at:
http://www.verlinden.com/indexwms.htm
They have a programmable motormanagementsystem system for 2 - 12 cil's.
(unfortunately
tech data in Dutch,so you'll have to email for info!)
Also there are some nice pics of a Yamaha TDM850 as build by Nico Bakker.
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:53:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis engine management systems
- -> Do people actually have 4 cylinder motorcycles? I can't find any in
- -> my garage.
Yeah, I love the CBX 1000 and KZ1300 too... somewhere I have an
article about an Egli-chassised KZ1300 with a big bore kit and twin
turbos; maybe it was an old issue of Super Bike?
==dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us======================================
I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you?
my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who?
=================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:08:41 -0700
From: "Sam Stoney"
Subject: MC-Chassis EFI systems
Michael wrote:
Does anyone have good websites or first hand knowledge of reasonably
priced (within typical m/c project range, not reasonable for $50K
race cars) systems?
There's a lot out there. I used to belong to a homebuilt EFI list server
but I can't seem to find the address. Haltech and Electromotive are two
people that make systems that can be used on bikes; RES in TX has a bit of
experience with using them on bikes. I think Electromotive has the best
product; unfortunatly they also have a reputation for poor service.
I built up an EFI system for my Ducati. What I can tell you is that you are
unlikely to gain power or drivability over a set of good carbs. The only
place EFI truly excells over carbs is in situations where vacuum based fuel
metering is widely variable, like turbocharged applications. Of course when
you have 8 throttle bodies to turn like Ian, there's another reason.
(though I wonder if you'd see much performance loss going to 4 carbs)
It's hard to put together a system for less than 2,500.00 in quantities of
one, even foraging through spare parts.
What are you thinking of injecting, and why? I've got a spare Electromotive
system I might sell....
Sam
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:20:06 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis EFI systems
> What are you thinking of injecting, and why? I've got a spare Electromotive
> system I might sell....
Hello Sam,
I'm not planning on injecting anything, but there are some other
people on the list who are.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:34:24 -0400
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: MC-Chassis List Support $
Michael,
I have thought of a neat money making idea to help pay for the list{s}.
Have some neat stickers made up that we could put on our race bikes.
Something about 1.5 inches high and about 10 inches long. White or black
letters on a clear background or just individual letters would be cool.
Ray
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #758
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Tuesday, September 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 759
1. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis List Support $
2. "Kelvin Blair" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Engine management
3. uranus Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Engine Management Systems
4. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: MC-Chassis 34mm flat slide wanted
5. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis Crazy thumpers
6. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis List Support $
7. "john.mead" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Engine Management Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:57:01 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis List Support $
> I have thought of a neat money making idea to help pay for the list{s}.
> Have some neat stickers made up that we could put on our race bikes.
> Something about 1.5 inches high and about 10 inches long. White or black
> letters on a clear background or just individual letters would be cool.
Hello Ray,
That sounds like a good idea, and probably a lot less involved than
the shirts (and less of an upfront cost too).
I guess people could start thinking of designs, and we could see
about doing some after the first batch of shirts.
With the stickers it might be possible to have a different version
for each list - www.eurospares.com, list name, and a short but snappy
catchphrase?
It looks like I've gotten about 28 shirt votes in, so I guess I'll
have to sit down and tabulate them and see which design to do.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:30:12 +0800
From: "Kelvin Blair"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Engine management
Sam Stoney wrote:
>
> I built up an EFI system for my Ducati. What I can tell you is that you
are
> unlikely to gain power or drivability over a set of good carbs. The only
> place EFI truly excells over carbs is in situations where vacuum based
fuel
> metering is widely variable, like turbocharged applications. Of course
when
> you have 8 throttle bodies to turn like Ian, there's another reason.
> (though I wonder if you'd see much performance loss going to 4 carbs)
>
In my experience with the injected Honda I have seen a marked improvement
in driveability, infact the "drivability" is tunable eg I have been able
from the data logging to see an area where I was encountering too much
wheel spin (dirt track), before the next race I increased fuel trim
slightly and reduced timing slightly in the affected area. This change
took about 5 mins to do from analysing to implementing, something you would
be hard pressed to do with a set of carbs. The next race I won. I
attribute that to the changes made. Playing with end of injection timing
has also produced some staggering differences in torque again to my
detriment breaking the wheel loose too easily. I will admit that injection
is not for everyone as the ease of adjustability often takes people
backwards. The range of control in a good system is staggering and often
too daunting for even the above average rider/racer. Power is actually
down but my track times are better. This is what I consider driveability.
To get any benefit from these engine management systems you need to be a
computer nut and have very good analytical skills and then know what
changes will bring the desired result. A big ask for most people and I
find the pressure of racing and looking after the injection along with
everything else difficult at times. This is when a good set of carbs can
be an advantage.
The other alternative is to have a team of mechanics helping you. In my
dreams.
Regards Kelvin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:33:03
From: uranus
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Engine Management Systems
>> I've had two people on the list write to me this weekend about engine
>> management computer systems that would control both EFI and ignition,
>> and be fully programmable (hopefully via laptop instead of having to
>> burn EEPROMs).
re: these $2,500 dollar for the ECU systems - you might wish to cost out
getting an EPROM burner, plus an entire engine management system, ECU, from
a car scrapyard - probably less than $800 total outlay. You would
probably still have to fabricate manifolds, and possibly a distributor
drive, but you can use a four-cylinder car system for a single or twin
quite easily, you just don't fit all the injectors (or spark plugs)! 120
deg. triples might be more problematic for sequential
injection.
Just a thought.
David Thurgate.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:27:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: MC-Chassis 34mm flat slide wanted
I'm looking for a carb for a friend. He needs a 34mm Mikuni "TMX" flat
slide. If you have one gathering dust, let me know.
==dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us======================================
I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you?
my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who?
=================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:18:37 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Crazy thumpers
In the pics section of the thumper page
(http://www.ionet.net/~jhanna/THUMPER.HTML)
There is a pic of a husky 510 in a aprillia rs125!
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:04:00 -0400
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis List Support $
Michael,
I was actually thinking of just the list name & address ie:
MC-chassis-design@li$t.sirius
Mostly it would alert others to the existence of our group { of idiots }. I
would also need one for the 2stroke list I belong to. While I was at TGPR
Sunday getting the first laps on the Goldberg 250 I had people asking
questions about the bike and many were not aware of the different lists
that exist, hence the idea for the stickers. I could imagine that some
bikes could end up with 6 or 8 list ID's. Would be a good way to identify
one another at the track.
Ray
- ----------
> From: Michael Moore
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis List Support $
> Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 11:57 PM
>
> > I have thought of a neat money making idea to help pay for the
list{s}.
> > Have some neat stickers made up that we could put on our race bikes.
> > Something about 1.5 inches high and about 10 inches long. White or
black
> > letters on a clear background or just individual letters would be cool.
>
> Hello Ray,
>
> That sounds like a good idea, and probably a lot less involved than
> the shirts (and less of an upfront cost too).
>
> I guess people could start thinking of designs, and we could see
> about doing some after the first batch of shirts.
>
> With the stickers it might be possible to have a different version
> for each list - www.eurospares.com, list name, and a short but snappy
> catchphrase?
>
> It looks like I've gotten about 28 shirt votes in, so I guess I'll
> have to sit down and tabulate them and see which design to do.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
> Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "john.mead"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Engine Management Systems
For a 120 degree three use a 6-cylinder ECU.
John Mead
- ----------
> >> I've had two people on the list write to me this weekend about engine
> >> management computer systems that would control both EFI and ignition,
> >> and be fully programmable (hopefully via laptop instead of having to
> >> burn EEPROMs).
>
> re: these $2,500 dollar for the ECU systems - you might wish to cost out
> getting an EPROM burner, plus an entire engine management system, ECU, from
> a car scrapyard - probably less than $800 total outlay. You would
> probably still have to fabricate manifolds, and possibly a distributor
> drive, but you can use a four-cylinder car system for a single or twin
> quite easily, you just don't fit all the injectors (or spark plugs)! 120
> deg. triples might be more problematic for sequential
> injection.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> David Thurgate.
>
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #759
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Thursday, September 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 760
1. uranus Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #759
2. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis 3 cylinder slice of F1
3. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis new cbr f4
4. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis new cbr f4
5. Johnayleng@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis new cbr f4
6. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis List stickers
7. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis More HCS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:16:37
From: uranus
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #759
At 20:10 15/09/98 -0700, you wrote:
>For a 120 degree three use a 6-cylinder ECU.
>
>John Mead
Sure enough!
David T.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:08:45 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis 3 cylinder slice of F1
Somebody a while ago mentioned that a 900 triple could be constructed
out of a 3 cyl slice of a v-10 F1 motor. Well I've read that Benelli is
working on a triple (two up one down) and is working with Ferrari, I'm
tempted to say the little side bar was by Kevin Cameron, but I'm not
sure. Anyhow, the same idea was brought up and it was mentioned that a
v-10 f1 motor makes about 70hp per cyl
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:05:20 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis new cbr f4
http://www.Hondamotorcycle.com/exclusive/cbr600f4/index.html
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:50:18 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis new cbr f4
yhakim@m5.sprynet.com wrote:
>
> http://www.Hondamotorcycle.com/exclusive/cbr600f4/index.html
So much for Honda's adherence to the notion of tuned flex...
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:41:17 EDT
From: Johnayleng@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis new cbr f4
In a message dated 9/16/98 3:57:14 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
mmaclean@ford.com writes:
>
> So much for Honda's adherence to the notion of tuned flex...
>
> Marty
>
Maybe it was just a bad translation, tuned flexable
powerband.....(hehehe....)
John Aylor NM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:48:05 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis List stickers
I got this note from Glenn Thomson today, and have put a link to the
sticker design right below all the shirt designs on the graphics page.
**************************
Hi Michael,
It occurred to me that Bruce Brown's T-shirt design would make a
passable sticker, as well. Here's my rework of it. Sign me up for a
few of whatever you come up with.
Cheers,
Glenn
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:19:23 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis More HCS
The new MCN also had a two-page spread on the Tryphonos HCS bike.
They say it outhandles every current road bike in production.
It looks to be a pretty standard Tesi-ish HCS and the steering gear
is hidden by the fairing so I can't see what has been done there.
I'm at a loss to say why it should be so much better than the Tesi,
ASP, or GTS (which they say it is).
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #760
******************************
Back to the home page
© 1997 Michael Moore, all rights reserved
Most recent update: 30 January 1998
For more information contact webmeister@eurospares.com