|
An observer posted:Holy crap, now it looks like (real) maple syrup or caramel or something. Fixed that.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I guess it's just what happens to a decent-sized quantity of the stuff if you let it sit, undisturbed, under static environmental conditions for three decades. You know, like, what happens to dead plankton?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
KARMA! posted:You know, like, what happens to dead plankton? Clever. But no, I think what's happening here is a very slow natural cross-linking, or some kind of polymerization reaction. Give it enough time and the end product wouldn't be tar, but something similar to amber.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:It dissolved in xylene after 36 hours of soaking, so I assume it's at least tangentially related to gasoline. I guess it's just what happens to a decent-sized quantity of the stuff if you let it sit, undisturbed, under static environmental conditions for three decades. wow to be honest those don't really look THAT bad. A lot of the ones I've cleaned up have had the floats and float towers break off stuck to the bottom of the bowl in what I can only describe as a black jolly rancher. Sagebrush posted:Clever. But no, I think what's happening here is a very slow natural cross-linking, or some kind of polymerization reaction. Give it enough time and the end product wouldn't be tar, but something similar to amber. actually this is pretty spot on. edit: I found some pictures of XS carbs. Not nearly the worst I've seen, but you get the idea... http://gnarlywrench.blogspot.com/2011/05/cleaning-bs-34-carbs-from-81-xs650.html  
GnarlyCharlie4u fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Mar 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Found a bike that I am going to go with a friend to look at on Saturday. 1986 Yamaha Radian for $2295 with 7,000 miles.  Going to try for 2k.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:wow to be honest those don't really look THAT bad. I wasn't dickwaving...I just posted that as an example of why a bike that was stored for years can be worse than one that was running the whole time, and some people were impressed. And for what it's worth, even after soaking in xylene for three days I still had to pound the jets out with a steel bucking bar and a hammer, so I think that probably counts as "pretty bad". Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:wow to be honest those don't really look THAT bad. Actually I think that kind of gunk is protecting them. Notice that there's no aluminum oxide in those bowls. Looks like some homemade Cosmoline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
That was exactly the case, actually. Once I got the goo off, the parts were surprisingly shiny underneath. A little bit of pitting, but nowhere near the damage to an identical set of spare carbs that had been sitting empty on a shelf. The issue was just the tremendous force required to get out the press-fitted parts that were glued in place with the stuff. Not as waxy as cosmoline -- stickier and more fluid, like resin. Same effect though I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I wasn't dickwaving... I'm not saying you were, I'm not either. I'm just saying you got relatively lucky considering the amount of gas that was left to rot in those. In my experience, that tar can get pretty hard and wind up taking other parts with it then the bowl comes off, like your floats or emulsion tube. And it's a sad, sad thing. It gets worse when you throw ethanol into the mix too. The problem with ethanol is that it's hydroscopic, so you can wind up with a whole heap of problems from just a little bit of modern gas. Like this: Sir Cornelius posted:aluminum oxide  Satan's dicklube. Gasoline containing ethanol can be rendered useless in as little as a month and start causing issues in just 2 weeks 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:I'm just saying you got relatively lucky considering the amount of gas that was left to rot in those. Ah, I see...yeah, it actually wasn't *too* bad considering where it could have gone. Like I said, I had 2 spare carbs, but those had a lot of that aluminum corrosion inside, whereas the ones off the bike were in decent shape beyond the goo. From the original four I got 2 complete carbs that I expect will work well, one that's nearly complete except for some busted jets, and one pile of corroded junk. GnarlyCharlie4u posted:It gets worse when you throw ethanol into the mix too. The problem with ethanol is that it's hydroscopic, so you can wind up with a whole heap of problems from just a little bit of modern gas. That was probably what saved them, then -- the last time this bike was on the road was 1980, so the leftover gas was undoubtedly 100% petroleum all-american texas tea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Goddammit why didn't the Honda CBR400 ever make it outside of Japan? Seems like such a sweet compromise for a new rider. My dad really likes the '78 we picked up and it's kinda too biggish for me. Every bike looks a lot smaller in pictures to me. I thought I would get used to it but everytime I see it, it looks huge. So we're thinking maybe a smallerish more modern bike for me while he takes the KZ. Does anyone have any experience with the Honda CBR250? FI seems nice after having messed with the carbs on this thing. They say the cbr is a tad smaller/lighter than the Ninjas which is a big plus for me because I'm pretty scrawny. Would any week-end warrior trips (4+ hours) be awful on it? My extended family lives all spread out around Texas. And is it possible to get rid of the horrible hound's tooth for the rear fairing? Was also looking at SuperMotards but a lot of them come with dirt tires(?) and can only find them new at dealers. Don't think I can pay retail on a bike and drop a bunch of money streeterizing it. I really can't make up my mind, this is a totally new market for me, all my dad's knowledge of these is from the the 70s. Sorry for being a wishy-washy babby 
darkhand fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 10:39
|
|
|
darkhand posted:Goddammit why didn't the Honda CBR400 ever make it outside of Japan? Seems like such a sweet compromise for a new rider. Actually they did. Like all over Europe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 12:07
|
|
|
darkhand posted:Goddammit why didn't the Honda CBR400 ever make it outside of Japan? Seems like such a sweet compromise for a new rider. Frankly, this is how I feel about the entire 250-400cc range (especially standards) and it sucks that Americans don't get/want bikes that size. The CB350 was the best-selling bike in American history -- surely there was a reason for that. Yet today, if you want a small-displacement street bike in the USA your choices are basically 1. scooter 2. a few small dual-sports 3. a tiny sportbike 4. something thirty years old If Honda would just bring back the CB350 with modernized features and at a decent price point I bet they'd sell the crap out of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Frankly, this is how I feel about the entire 250-400cc range (especially standards) and it sucks that Americans don't get/want bikes that size. The CB350 was the best-selling bike in American history -- surely there was a reason for that. Yet today, if you want a small-displacement street bike in the USA your choices are basically Nighthawk 250? Plenty on the used market, and as far as it not being a current production bike (wiki says 2008), I'd take that with a grain of salt. Until recently, some Japanese manufacturer line-ups/websites hadn't been touched in years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
The Nighthawk is just a slow evolution of the '78-'79 185 Twinstar; front drum brake in 2008!  If I'm reading Sagebrush right, I think he's lamenting the US market's lack of a 400 Hornet/Bandit/whatever, and I couldn't agree more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
I'm right on the edge of buying a 1981 Goldwing for $350 delivered to my door. It isn't running but supposedly needs only a new solenoid, plugs, battery, gas, and fuse to get it working. Nothing really works on the bike (suspension, brakes, etc) but cosmetically it's in pretty good shape aside from being covered in 10 years of dirt and horse manure. It also has a terrible exhaust and floorboard setup that I'd have to replace. What say you Cycle Asylym, should I do it, or will I hate myself at the expense of having to buy new parts and working on it? The last time I tried to restore a bike (early 90s KLR650) I spent $1000 in parts, hated it, and sold it for a $1000 loss.
hayden. fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
You will hate it/yourself. Buying a bike with the intentions of fixing it up and riding it requires a healthy mechanical aptitude and a deep pocketbook (the lesson you learned with the KLR). Being in the middle of a GL1200 project myself, I can't think of a more difficult bike to try to quickly whip into shape for the riding season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Thanks, I needed to verify the stupidity of it all. I think the memory of how much I hated working on the KLR has faded over the years but would be vividly refreshed as soon as I started on this one (which needs even more work than the KLR did).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
Buying it as a "winter project" while you have something else to ride would be fine if you were into that sort of thing (I can tell you're not) and understood that you would probably be sinking a couple grand into it when it was all said & done.hayden. posted:It isn't running but supposedly needs only a new solenoid, plugs, battery, gas, and fuse to get it working. You forgot carb overhaul (x4), water pump, thermostat, radiator hoses, timing belts, probably a stator, and every gasket/seal/o-ring on the engine. E: Then get it all back together only to find out the clutch is bad, so out comes the engine again. Dagen H fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
hayden. posted:I'm right on the edge of buying a 1981 Goldwing for $350 delivered to my door. It isn't running but supposedly needs only a new solenoid, plugs, battery, gas, and fuse to get it working. Let's run this through the PO translator: New solenoid - blown starter and starter sprag gear Plugs - no spark, probably needs new coils, maybe a ECU or wiring harness. Battery - charging system? hosed! Gas - carbs are solid blocks of rot and fossilized fuel Fuse - 2/3rds of the wiring harness has been appropriated for a mouse's home. and that's just the stuff he told you about
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Bucephalus posted:The Nighthawk is just a slow evolution of the '78-'79 185 Twinstar; front drum brake in 2008! Right, I think this is applicable to the entire range, really. I don't know who makes Honda's strategy and marketing decisions for the US. Carrot Top, maybe? Introducing a chopper at the tail end of the chopper craze? An automatic sport/cruiser/scooter crossover? I won't defend a marketplace that begat a 2053cc Vulcan, but it seems to me that the roadways of the late 60s/early 70s were more low-displacement friendly than the Death Race 2000 environment we have now. I think they have to account for occasional highway use, where even a midsize can feel suicidal at times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Haha, thanks Z3n. I went ahead and turned the guy down, now just to wait until I can get a ER-6N/Honda 599 or something similar in good shape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Z3n posted:Let's run this through the PO translator: AND he's apparently out of flash bulbs for his Kodak Instamatic X15 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Marv Hushman posted:I think they have to account for occasional highway use, where even a midsize can feel suicidal at times. Good point, I have a bad habit of looking at things through rural-farmland-tinted glasses, where "traffic" means "Amish horse-and-buggy". I don't realize how good I've got it as far as scenic, twisty, uncongested roads to ride on. My Twinstar is too small to haul my fat rear end, a 600SS would be wasted by not seeing anything past third gear, and my 1500 Intruder is like driving a truck. A 400 standard would be the perfect "slow bike to ride fast", but some random hick in Ohio =/= the entire US market. Dagen H fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Marv Hushman posted:it seems to me that the roadways of the late 60s/early 70s were more low-displacement friendly than the Death Race 2000 environment we have now. I think they have to account for occasional highway use, where even a midsize can feel suicidal at times. I think this is definitely true. But at the same time, it seems to me that there would be a good market for people who only occasionally go on the interstates, spend most of their time in the city or on two-lane highways, and want something a little smaller, lighter and more fuel-efficient than a 600 or 750. Basically the European commuter use pattern, as I understand it. [e] actually this is pretty much the perfect description quote:A 400 standard would be the perfect "slow bike to ride fast", Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Dear Suzuki: SV400N. Do it NOW. E: a square SV motor (62.6mm x 62.6mm) would yield 385.3cc and gobs of torque. E2: Oh goddamnit, the SV400 already exists. USDM 
Dagen H fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
Bucephalus posted:Dear Suzuki: SV400N. Do it NOW. You just missed out on your chance to buy my sv 500 engine 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Marv Hushman posted:I won't defend a marketplace that begat a 2053cc Vulcan, but it seems to me that the roadways of the late 60s/early 70s were more low-displacement friendly than the Death Race 2000 environment we have now. I think they have to account for occasional highway use, where even a midsize can feel suicidal at times. I agree with you, but CA routinely recommends 250s as starters even with highway riding, and even tame 600s will blow past 100MPH without effort. A modern 400 would have way more performance than a 30-year old CB, they'd allow two-up and luggage capability over a 250, and they seem to work fine for Euro riders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I agree with you, but CA routinely recommends 250s as starters even with highway riding, and even tame 600s will blow past 100MPH without effort. A modern 400 would have way more performance than a 30-year old CB, they'd allow two-up and luggage capability over a 250, and they seem to work fine for Euro riders. Seemingly relevant. I take my wife for small rides on the DRZ is it an issue for the suspension? It seriously sags but our weight is still within spec for the bike. It shouldn't break anything right? I'm a lot more careful with road choice when we're both riding and I avoid big bumps as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I agree with you, but CA routinely recommends 250s as starters even with highway riding, and even tame 600s will blow past 100MPH without effort. A modern 400 would have way more performance than a 30-year old CB, they'd allow two-up and luggage capability over a 250, and they seem to work fine for Euro riders. Agree, the Displacement Debate winds up becoming a UN meeting without fail, and it's been that way from the beginning. Ironically, it was even being argued in the moto press when the CBs were first introduced. It's our equivalent of the "ideal caliber" discussion in a gun forum. Actually, I feel exactly the same way about the disappearance of the small pickup. How was it that millions managed to get by and take care of business with them in the 80s? Was everyone secretly wishing these were four times larger? 90% of us need to occasionally pick up a load of bathroom tiles, not 16 bales of hay. In terms of a tame 600 blowing past 100 without effort, I can only say my mileage varied. A VLX 600 will get past 100, but you will be cursing Soichiro's ghost through chattering teeth for its lack of a fifth gear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Displacement != horse power. Personally I think people should be looking at horse power versus weight of the bike. If you want or be more anal, try to look at dyno charts to see if the power curve is linear. My Kawasaki Police 1000 had 998 CC's of displacement but it only had 98 peak horse power and the bike weighed over 600 lbs. My R6 has supposedly 125 horse power and weighs half as much. It's a completely different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Crayvex posted:Displacement != horse power. Personally I think people should be looking at horse power versus weight of the bike. If you want or be more anal, try to look at dyno charts to see if the power curve is linear. Fuel trucks used to be marked "inflammable," but due to the stupidity of the general public, they invented the synonym "flammable." Displacement, whether we like it or not, became a marketing tool to reach people that barely grasp the number line, never mind ratios. Proper calculations notwithstanding and all snake oil aside, I think we can agree that a 250cc anything (and likewise a 1500cc anything) could rightly be rejected out of hand for a given riding situation armed only with what we know about the marketplace. The same could be said for bikes where the displacement is intertwined with the bike's identity--675, 690, 920, 1150--do I really need a slide rule to know what I'm getting into here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
No honest rider needs more than a ninja 250. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
I weigh 265, I could sprint 0-60 faster than a Ninja 250 could carry me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
No honest rider would ever be caught dead riding around the aesthetic equivalent of an Oreck
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Xovaan posted:No honest rider would ever be caught dead riding around the aesthetic equivalent of an Oreck Honesty isn't flattering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
I've had people in the next lane point at my bike and laugh. Admittedly, it's because I had to lay er down and the exhaust is pretty hosed. It's not a nice feeling, having people laugh at your bike. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
Z3n posted:No honest rider needs more than a ninja 250. Define "need".
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
Z3n posted:No honest rider needs more than a ninja 250. You may be right. What I was trying to say, clumsily maybe, was--if I need a flickable bike to dart in and out of NYC traffic, I can fall back on Kentucky windage and rule out liter+ bikes without a great deal of further analysis. Maybe I miss 1-2 good candidates. And while the Ninja 250 would be ideal for the above, I wouldn't take it or anything else in its class onto I696 where the most merciful outcome would be a crosswind picking it up and dropping it in the opposite lane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
With my limited experience with 250 bikes ... Going over this bridge here: If there are strong winds and I'm going up it, the engine just sucks. The speed limit on that bridge is 80 but most people go 80-100, and I have to drop down from 5th to 4th/3rd gear just to keep up with traffic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 09:28
|
|