cam wear in honda magna 45
Harvey Rounce
camshaft wear on a 1982 magna 45?
Charlie Gary
> Are there any oils, motor modifications and or techniques to prevent
> camshaft wear on a 1982 magna 45?
Get some cams that are properly case-hardened. This was a known defect, but
good luck getting anything out of Honda without a payment from you.
The Older Gentleman
> Are there any oils, motor modifications and or techniques to prevent
> camshaft wear on a 1982 magna 45?
Hang on....
<Looks in crystal ball>
No chance. It's a lemon.
--
Trophy 1200 (Doctored) 750SS CB400F CD200 ST70 DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 http://www.chateau.murray.dsl.pipex.com/
John Johnson
"Harvey Rounce" <h.ro...@sasktel.net> wrote:
> Are there any oils, motor modifications and or techniques to prevent
> camshaft wear on a 1982 magna 45?
>
>
If you've not been to:
http://www.sabmag.org
You should head over there. They've got comprehensive information about
these (and other Honda V-four) machines.
The short answer to your question is no. The 'real' cause of this issue
(early VF cam problems) has been the subject of much discussion, rumor,
etc. both online and in print for many years. I've read of at least 3
different 'real' causes so far, but it doesn't really matter what the
cause is, because there is no 'known to work'solution to the problem
available now, not from Honda, not from anyone else.
Ride the bike. If yours eats cams, you'll enjoy it in the meantime. If
it doesn't eat cams then you'll enjoy it longer.
--
Later.
joha...@indianahoosiers.edu
Let 'indiana' be a 'noln', and 'hoosiers' be a 'solkk'.
Leave only the 'noln' and .edu after the @ to reply .
The Older Gentleman
> If yours eats cams, you'll enjoy it in the meantime.
Really? Evil-handling ugly pile of shite, IMHO.
Jack Hunt
Yes, you can get full information at www.sabmag.org . If someone
comes along with a crock about how the oil mods don't work or a load
of tripe about mis-machined cam holders, ignore him. He's
misinformed.
--
Jack
Charlie Gary
> John Johnson <nu...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> If yours eats cams, you'll enjoy it in the meantime.
>
>
> Really? Evil-handling ugly pile of shite, IMHO.
Therein lies the fun of riding one. Especially when you beat the sport bike
behind you. ;-)
When I was done living that lie, I bought a Concours. :-)
--
Later,
Charlie
The Older Gentleman
Sheesh!
I remember riding the V65 Magna in the US. Probabl the worst-handling
big bike I have ever ridden.
Not the worst per se - I think my H1 was that - but the worst over
750cc, no question.
Jack Hunt
wrote:
>The short answer to your question is no.
The short reply to that would be that you do not have complete
information.
> The 'real' cause of this issue (early VF cam problems) has been
>the subject of much discussion, rumor, >etc. both online and in
>print for many years.
The real, and *proven* problem was insufficient oil flow to the upper
engine area. A *result* of this problem was worn cam bearings, which
further dropped the available oil pressure to the valve train. The
only working fix was to increase the upper engine oil supply without
starving the main bearings. There are some people who think it cannot
be done and for sure, they can't do it. But it can and has been done
on hundreds if not thousands of bikes.
I attended a rally at the Blue Ridge Motorcycle Campground in Cruso,
NC a few years ago. There were over 200 Honda V-4 motorcycles there
and most of them had some form of the oil mod and they were all
running well with no cam damage other than what they had before the
modification was installed. I have never heard of an engine
developing cam damage after the oil mod was installed. There's no way
to repair damage already done before the installation, but the
modification will halt any further damage.
Even pitted or scored cams will run for thousands more miles if they
start getting enough oil.
>I've read of at least 3 different 'real' causes so far,
There's one guy (I don't know if he's still around or not, he's in the
same killfile with Henry Hansteen and other morons) who swears the
problem was faulty machine work. It was NOT. And it can and has been
fixed with a simple oil system modification.
> but it doesn't really matter what the
>cause is, because there is no 'known to work'solution to the problem
>available now, not from Honda, not from anyone else.
That's just not correct. Several sources are listed at www.sabmag.org
There's even one you can build yourself. I don't care whether you use
it or not, but it's the cheapest way out and coincidentally, I
designed and built the first working model of the Poor Man's Oil Mod.
Pictures and instructions are available linked from www.sabmag.org
(aside to gloom and doom prophets: Just because you can't do it
doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means that *you* can't do it)
--
Jack
OH-
"Harvey Rounce" <h.ro...@sasktel.net> wrote in
news:10ntcf5...@corp.supernews.com...
> Are there any oils, motor modifications and or techniques to prevent
> camshaft wear on a 1982 magna 45?
I had the same problem on a Yamaha XV1000 TR1.
Even if it not a true cure, far from it, I slowed down the wear by
using fully synthetic oil. It's not magic in any way, just a little bit
better than mineral oil and you need all the help you can get.
But I think you already got the good advice to take a look at
a site dedicated to your bike and its problems.
--
Ole Holmblad - Göteborgs Prima MCK
TDM850 / TT600R FL#44 OTC#489 UKRMSBC#08
SGFPTH#00 Remove hat to answer by mail
Bruce Farley
oil is circulated. Take note of where the oil pick up is and where the
oil goes after it goes through the oil pump. Look at where the oil
filter is in the circulation system. I think you will see the problem
and know why frequent oil changes are recommended!
Bruce
John Johnson
<1gmabgx.1i9m69pheskjjN%chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com>,
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> John Johnson <nu...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > If yours eats cams, you'll enjoy it in the meantime.
>
>
> Really? Evil-handling ugly pile of shite, IMHO.
I wrote that assuming that the OP liked the bike. I've never been on
one, and don't really care one way or another. People have different
tastes in motorcycles, and if someone says 'it's crap' there's sure to
be someone else who says 'it's a gem'.
John Johnson
Jack Hunt <jhu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:19:59 GMT, John Johnson <nu...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The short answer to your question is no.
>
> The short reply to that would be that you do not have complete
> information.
>
> > The 'real' cause of this issue (early VF cam problems) has been
> >the subject of much discussion, rumor, >etc. both online and in
> >print for many years.
>
> The real, and *proven* problem was insufficient oil flow to the upper
> engine area.
Show me the proof, and pointing to bikes that don't eat cams after
performing an oil mod does not constitute proof. I've heard that there
are plenty of these bikes that don't eat cams even without having had
the oil mod done. Maybe I just heard wrong. I don't doubt that there's
plenty of anecdotal evidence that the oil-mod works, and even lots of
bikes that halted cam wear because of doing an oil-mod, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that the only cause of the wear is insufficient oil.
Other factors may well be involved. Mind, I don't know. I'm not an
engineer. I don't even own one of these bikes. I have read just about
everything over at Sabmag, however.
I will quote from a file found at Sabmag. You can disagree with the
author if you like.
>
> But there's no guarantee your bike really needs an oil mod--and likewise
> there's no assurance that you won't wear through your cams (or even a
> replacement set) even *if* you install an oil mod.
Phil Ross, from "Don't freak on the Cam Stuff!"
> >I've read of at least 3 different 'real' causes so far,
>
Just to be specific, I've heard the following:
-design flaw: not enough oil to the cams
-badly manufactured cams
-machining problems (out-of-true bearings) in the engines
> There's one guy (I don't know if he's still around or not, he's in the
> same killfile with Henry Hansteen and other morons) who swears the
> problem was faulty machine work. It was NOT. And it can and has been
> fixed with a simple oil system modification.
Being able to fix the problem with an oil-mod does not prove that the
problem isn't caused by faulty machine work.
I will quote from an article in Bike (UK) magazine:
> Robin Homewood: ...It wasn't a design fault it was a production problem. the
> normal way of making sure you get holes lined up in a straight line for
> crankshafts or camshafts is to line-bore them. You actually have a boring bar
> witha cutting tool that goes from one end to the other. Honda took a
> short-cut. They had a set of gang-mills that came down and cut out the cam
> bearing facing simultaneously. If the cutters weren't all set at exactly the
> same height you wouldn't have a true row of holes. The tolerances weren't
> close enough and the camshaft was flapping around. Because the camshafts were
> moving they were getting really strange acceleration forces and breaking down
> the oil film between the cams and the followers.
end quote. Article is from Jan. 2002. Robin Homewood was "boss of
Balderstone's, a Cambridgeshire dealership. He sold and serviced Honda
VF550's"
Now, maybe he's just making something up and the magazine didn't check.
That happens plenty. However, His claim about the gang-mills seems about
right. These engines don't have the half-moon cutouts that indicate the
use of a line-boring tool. If this is the manufacturing method,
misalignment of bearing surfaces can result. I quote now from an article
on sabmag, Mike Nixon's "Early V4 History":
> "...Honda even addressed the '82 model's loose-as-a-goose cam bearings. A
> special 315 series cam kit was put together for these bikes which consisted
> of cams hand-matched to bearings."
hand-matching bearings to cams? How is this supposed to address an
oil-starvation design flaw? Maybe this is just another of Honda's
infamous cover-ups or non-solutions.
As to the oil-mod, if the problem is a production/tolerance problem, and
if your motorcycle isn't too far out of tolerance on the alignment of
the bearing surfaces, adding extra oil could very well prevent breaking
of the oil film by the cams. If the bearings are too far out though, it
won't solve the problem (though it may very well slow things down quite
a bit), and if the bearings are just right, or close enough, adding
extra oil may not be doing anything for you.
Now, this is all speculation on my part, but it is backed up by a fair
bit of research. I don't know how reliable Mr Nixon, Mr Homewood, or Mr
Ross are, but they appear to have more information that I do, and their
stories seem to line up in some crucial points. I don't know (I said
this originally).
What I do know is that even if the oil-mod 'solves' the problem, that
does NOT mean that the cause of the problem had to be insufficient oil
flow to the cams. Adding extra oil may simply reduce the effects of the
true cause (should there be only one true cause).
>
> > but it doesn't really matter what the
> >cause is, because there is no 'known to work'solution to the problem
> >available now, not from Honda, not from anyone else.
>
> That's just not correct. Several sources are listed at www.sabmag.org
Several sources of oil-mods are listed. Perhaps I should have been more
clear and said something like "doing an oil-mod may, or may not, affect
the life of your cams. Your bike may not have any cam problems at all,
or it may continue eating cams even after performing some modification."
I'm sure that you will disagree with what I've (re-)written just as much
as with the original, but at least my intentions are more clear.
[snip]
> (aside to gloom and doom prophets: Just because you can't do it
> doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means that *you* can't do it)
Did I say that I couldn't solve the problem? I wrote that I don't know
what causes the problem, and meant to write that none of the proposed
solutions are guaranteed to work.
I never even said that the bike was guaranteed to have problems, or that
the solutions to the problem that are out there don't work, unless you
interpret "no 'known to work'" as "none work". That seems a stretch to
me, but I'm biased.
To the OP: you have a fine (or crappy) bike. It might (or might not) eat
cams if you do any or all of the following:
nothing, oil-mod, replace the cams, sacrifice a small goat, buy a
different bike. Doing an oil mod does stack the odds in your favor
(which, for the people who like to keep track of such things, does not
contradict anything in my original post). I had thought to leave most of
this minutia to the OP-he reads up at sabmag and makes his choice-but
that didn't happen.
RonKZ650
I thought our FJ1200 conversation was over :-). I'd have to call that bike
garbage, yes garbage.
Now the V45-V65 although not the most reliable bike on the planet can at least
be ridden. Here in CO we have our 1000 in 24 hr ride, (not a race of course)
and every year I'd *win*. Of course it's not a race, but one year a V65 Sabre
beat me by an entire hour. The bike made it 1000 miles and quickly. I also saw
a 1983 V45 Interceptor that was one year old that had covered 30,000 miles.
Must not have been a terrible model, at least to the owner. I'd put a magna,
sabre or any other bike miles ahead of a FJ, that's for sure. That *IS* the
biggest piece of shite ever built since man has been riding on wheels.
Ron
Jack Hunt
wrote:
>Show me the proof, and pointing to bikes that don't eat cams after
>performing an oil mod does not constitute proof.
I can't prove it to you because you have already closed your mind and
you're not going to listen to someone who has many thousands of miles
on several bikes like these.
> I've heard that there
>are plenty of these bikes that don't eat cams even without having had
>the oil mod done. Maybe I just heard wrong.
No, there are some that took longer than others for the wear to show
up, but almost all of them had wear sooner or later. The ones that
were ridden hard usually lasted longer because they kept the revs up
and had more oil pressure to work with. Phil Ross has one with
130,000 miles on it and has never had any cam damage. It also uses a
quart of oil every 500 miles because it has been ridden very hard.
That's what saved the cams. Read on.
> I don't doubt that there's
>plenty of anecdotal evidence that the oil-mod works, and even lots of
>bikes that halted cam wear because of doing an oil-mod, but that doesn't
>necessarily mean that the only cause of the wear is insufficient oil.
I tell you what. Tap into the banjo connection at the oil line coming
off the transmission port and stick a pressure gauge in there. I'll
kiss your ass on the White House lawn on election day at noon if you
have over 5psi at idle. If that's not insufficient oil flow, I don't
know what is. People who ride the snot out of the bikes kept their
cams longer. People who let them idle for long periods stuck in
traffic or warming up too long lost their cams earlier. People who
killed their engines at stop lights and restarted them when it turned
green kept their cams even longer. But that doesn't prove anything.
>Other factors may well be involved.
It's George Bush's fault. I should have known. Elect John Kerry* and
your cams will last longer but he'll throw your ignition keys over the
White House fence. Or somebody else's keys. Or maybe just the key
ring.
>I have read just about
>everything over at Sabmag, however.
Good for you. I wrote some of it, coded a lot more of it, and helped
others write some of the rest.
>I will quote from a file found at Sabmag. You can disagree with the
>author if you like.
>
>>
>> But there's no guarantee your bike really needs an oil mod--and likewise
>> there's no assurance that you won't wear through your cams (or even a
>> replacement set) even *if* you install an oil mod.
>Phil Ross, from "Don't freak on the Cam Stuff!"
That's not the first time I've seen that. He sent it to me for
proofreading before publication. He's right. There are no
guarantees. Some oil mods are better than others. Some are harder to
install than others. Some people went too far and enlarged the oil
delivery holes in the cam bearings, thereby lowering the oil pressure
available on down the line and causing wear further away from the oil
source. Some waited until the cam bearings were so worn that the oil
mod couldn't supply enough volume to keep the pressure up at the top
of the engine. I've been fooling with these bikes for over 10 years,
there's not much I haven't seen.
You may not need an oil mod. The only way to find out for sure is to
pull off the valve covers and look. It needs a valve adjustment
anyway. When you give up on getting the rear valve cover off, contact
me and I'll tell you how to do it.
>Just to be specific, I've heard the following:
>-design flaw: not enough oil to the cams
They tapped into the oil system at the worst possible place to supply
oil to eight camshaft bearings and eight cam followers. You can't
supply all that on 5psi.
>-badly manufactured cams
Wouldn't have been an issue with sufficient oil supply.
>-machining problems (out-of-true bearings) in the engines
Ditto. Whatever slight misalignment there may have been would have
been negated with sufficient oil flow. Any misalignment was made even
worse by poor oil supply.
>Being able to fix the problem with an oil-mod does not prove that the
>problem isn't caused by faulty machine work.
So what? It's fixable. What more do you want? Honda to go back and
retrofit a 22 year old bike? Hold your breath.
>end quote. Article is from Jan. 2002. Robin Homewood was "boss of
>Balderstone's, a Cambridgeshire dealership. He sold and serviced Honda
>VF550's"
VF550s were never imported to the US. Cam bearings in '86 700 V4
engines were line bored. Guess what? They failed too. Starting in
'87 and continuing until the line was shut down in '88, they got the
oil from a different source closer to the oil pump. No '87 or '88 has
ever had a cam failure that I've heard of. That's about as much proof
as you're ever going to get. You can get as many opinions as there
are owners. That doesn't mean they're right.
>These engines don't have the half-moon cutouts that indicate the
>use of a line-boring tool.
Look at an '86 or '87 700, or an '88 750 and rethink that. They never
line bored any of the 1100s.
>> "...Honda even addressed the '82 model's loose-as-a-goose cam bearings. A
>> special 315 series cam kit was put together for these bikes which consisted
>> of cams hand-matched to bearings."
>
>hand-matching bearings to cams? How is this supposed to address an
>oil-starvation design flaw? Maybe this is just another of Honda's
>infamous cover-ups or non-solutions.
Exactly. They failed too. I know one guy who had two sets of Honda
replacement cams. They all failed. He installed an oil mod and ran
with a set of stock cams for almost 100,000 miles. But that doesn't
prove anything.
>As to the oil-mod, if the problem is a production/tolerance problem, and
>if your motorcycle isn't too far out of tolerance on the alignment of
>the bearing surfaces, adding extra oil could very well prevent breaking
>of the oil film by the cams. If the bearings are too far out though, it
>won't solve the problem (though it may very well slow things down quite
>a bit), and if the bearings are just right, or close enough, adding
>extra oil may not be doing anything for you.
So what you're saying is that if you have cam wear, you can install an
oil mod and it will arrest or very greatly slow down the cam wear so
you can get several good years of riding out of the bike? And if you
have no cam wear, you may not need an oil mod? Hello? Is there an
echo in here?
>Now, this is all speculation on my part, but it is backed up by a fair
>bit of research. I don't know how reliable Mr Nixon, Mr Homewood, or Mr
>Ross are, but they appear to have more information that I do, and their
>stories seem to line up in some crucial points. I don't know (I said
>this originally).
I have known Mr. Ross for 10 years and have ridden thousands of miles
with him. He has stayed at my house, I have stayed at his. For a
while there I thought he was going to be my brother-in-law. He
attended my wedding this past May and my bride and I had our pictures
taken after the reception sitting on his fully faired V65 Sabre, one
of seven that he owns. I have run off and left him, and he has done
the same to me. There's no speculation on my part, and none on
Phil's. We're talking from years of experience, both ours and
collective experience of Sabmag list members. The mailing list has
been active since 1995 on the MIT server and prior to that it was a
subset of the VFR list. There is no V4 problem that hasn't come up,
been discussed, and a consensus reached on how to deal with it.
That's why there are so many of them still running. You may never
find the scientific proof you seek, but you'll never prove any of our
"work arounds" wrong, either. They work, and as one of our greatest
Presidents said, "You can't argue with results."
You're read through the Sabmag pages, right? Do you remember seeing a
page about the COPs? Veteran riders with many years of wisdom on
Sabmags and other machines and well qualified to give advice? Check
that list again and see who #15 is.
You can accept the accumulated wisdom of close to 1,000 people who
have put millions of miles on these bikes, or you can re-invent the
wheel. It's up to you.
>What I do know is that even if the oil-mod 'solves' the problem, that
>does NOT mean that the cause of the problem had to be insufficient oil
>flow to the cams. Adding extra oil may simply reduce the effects of the
>true cause (should there be only one true cause).
I have to ask: Who cares? Use it, or don't use it. I don't care.
Listen or don't listen. I don't care. I know what I'd do if I still
rode a first generation Sabmag. I'd stick an oil mod on it tomorrow
and ride the snot out of it as long as it would last - which would
probably be several years. But there are no guarantees. Never were.
>I wrote that I don't know
>what causes the problem, and meant to write that none of the proposed
>solutions are guaranteed to work.
Look carefully back over this entire thread and see if anybody ever
guaranteed anything. I don't think you'll find it.
*My spell checker wants me to change Kerry to Sorry. This thing is
smarter than I thought.
If anybody wants straight-forward Honda V4 advice without all the hype
and glory, take the smaller planet out of my email address and contact
me. If you want theory and conjecture, you're already in the right
place.
--
Jack Hunt IBA#12795 COP#15 FoJ#34 DoD#208x5A
'99 ST1100
'95 Suzuki DR250SE, Dr. Zook
The International SabMag help file:
http://sabmag.rockdalenet.com/welcome/
http://www.2sabres.com/sabmag/Welcome.html
http://www.marsh.de.eu.org/sabmag/Welcome.html
Jack Hunt
wrote:
>People have different
>tastes in motorcycles, and if someone says 'it's crap' there's sure to
>be someone else who says 'it's a gem'.
I've owned a V45 and a V65 Magna, and a V65 Sabre. My wife was riding
a V65 Magna when we met and married. Now she's riding a new
generation V45 Magna (94). I've had plenty of people call my bikes
ugly, top-heavy, slow, and old. They usually did it as they watched
my tail light grow smaller and disappear ahead of them. IMO the
700/750 models handled better than the 1100s in tight twisties, but
the big boys ruled on the open roads.
--
Jack
The Older Gentleman
> If you have the Honda shop manual look on the page that shows how the
> oil is circulated. Take note of where the oil pick up is and where the
> oil goes after it goes through the oil pump. Look at where the oil
> filter is in the circulation system. I think you will see the problem
> and know why frequent oil changes are recommended!
I don't think this is correct. Nor even logical. But ICBW.
The Older Gentleman
> I've had plenty of people call my bikes
> ugly, top-heavy, slow, and old. They usually did it as they watched
> my tail light grow smaller and disappear ahead of them.
This sort of statement, frequently made, tends to assume much about the
"qualities" of a bike and very little about the riding ability of
someone else.
The Older Gentleman
> I wrote that assuming that the OP liked the bike. I've never been on
> one, and don't really care one way or another. People have different
> tastes in motorcycles, and if someone says 'it's crap' there's sure to
> be someone else who says 'it's a gem'.
Do you know what the abbreviation "IMHO" stands for?
The Older Gentleman
<snip argument>
At this stage, can I just add that I was present at a special technical
briefing (given by Honda) on the problem in (IIRC) 1984?
The oil film question was, indeed, cited by Honda and they produced a
new tool for setting the valve clearances which took account of th
thickness of the oil film. They deemed this critical.
As for manufacturing tolerances and/or insufficient oil supply, AFAIR
(this was 20 years ago) the answer was: "A bit of both". Some engines,
even after modded for extra oil flow to the head, ate their cams.
In the UK, the problem was really limited the the VF750, called the
Interceptor in the US, because they didn't sell the Magnas and the very
first VF750S was dropped with startling speed.
Other V4s had problems - camchain tensioners on the 400, bottom end
gremlins on the 500. The 1000s were pretty solid. But the 750 became a
byword for unreliability, and it was very interesting to be right in the
middle of it while it was happening.
The Older Gentleman
> Of course it's not a race, but one year a V65 Sabre
> beat me by an entire hour. The bike made it 1000 miles and quickly.
Oh, never said they wern't reasonably quick (sixth is an overdrive on
them, though - the one I rode for a fortnight was faster in fifth). The
bigger V4 engines were always more solid than the 750.
But a V65 Magna doesn't handle. Period. On US roads, where I rode it,
with perfectly smooth, long, open, sweeping bends, it coped. Just.
In straight lines it was magnificent. Asolutely wonderful tourer,
especially when kitted out with screen and panniers.
But here in Europe, and especially Britain where we have some of the
most sinuous roads you'll find outside a mountain section, we tend to
know a thing or two about how a bike corners and steers because ones
that don't make their deficiencies apparent very quickly.
I really, really wouldn't care to ride a V65 Magna on British roads.
which is probably why Honda never sold them here.
As a general rule, the British market is for sports bikes (though that
is changing). Again as a generality, the US buys cruisers.
Jack Hunt
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>This sort of statement, frequently made, tends to assume much about the
>"qualities" of a bike and very little about the riding ability of
>someone else.
If I had been riding a Vespa, I doubt if I could have made the same
statement.
--
Jack
Jack Hunt
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Jack Hunt <jhu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
><snip argument>
>
>At this stage, can I just add that I was present at a special technical
>briefing (given by Honda) on the problem in (IIRC) 1984?
Aaah, another factory fairy-tale believer.
>The oil film question was, indeed, cited by Honda and they produced a
>new tool for setting the valve clearances which took account of th
>thickness of the oil film. They deemed this critical.
It was later shown to be snake-oil and of no effect. The knowledge
base on this problem has grown exponentially since 1984.
>As for manufacturing tolerances and/or insufficient oil supply, AFAIR
>(this was 20 years ago) the answer was: "A bit of both". Some engines,
>even after modded for extra oil flow to the head, ate their cams.
Before you snipped the argument, you should have read the part about
enlarging the oil supply holes.
>In the UK, the problem was really limited the the VF750, called the
>Interceptor in the US, because they didn't sell the Magnas and the very
>first VF750S was dropped with startling speed.
If you had studied these engines a little closer, you'd know that
there is not a single interchangeable part between the Interceptor
engine and the Sabre/Magna engine. Not even the spark plugs. Two
completely different engines that only looked similar on the outside
to the untrained observer. Nothing you have observed about an
Interceptor applies to the Magna/Sabre engine. Nothing. They don't
even rotate in the same direction.
>Other V4s had problems - camchain tensioners on the 400,
Never imported to the US.
>bottom end gremlins on the 500.
More oil starvation problems. It would have been solved with a higher
capacity oil pump.
>The 1000s were pretty solid.
The 1000F or the 1000R? Again, two completely different engines. But
you knew that, right? Or did Honda fail to mention that in 1984?
>But the 750 became a byword for unreliability
Only on your side of the puddle. Maybe your guys got the rejects.
>and it was very interesting to be right in the
>middle of it while it was happening.
Pity you didn't keep on top of it during the following 20 years, when
the workable answers were found. And it's unfortunate that you've
given advice to someone asking about a Magna engine by citing problems
on a completely unrelated engine. It's like a Shadow owner saying his
bike is "just like a Harley".
You surprise me, TOG. You're usually much better informed.
--
Jack
John Johnson
<1gmb3nd.1i00ft514hc4t6N%chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com>,
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> John Johnson <nu...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > I wrote that assuming that the OP liked the bike. I've never been on
> > one, and don't really care one way or another. People have different
> > tastes in motorcycles, and if someone says 'it's crap' there's sure to
> > be someone else who says 'it's a gem'.
>
>
> Do you know what the abbreviation "IMHO" stands for?
Sorry TOG. I missed it originally.
M. J. Freeman
> In article <10ntcf5...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Harvey Rounce" <h.ro...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>> Are there any oils, motor modifications and or techniques to
>> prevent camshaft wear on a 1982 magna 45?
>
> If you've not been to:
> http://www.sabmag.org
>
> You should head over there. They've got comprehensive information
> about these (and other Honda V-four) machines.
>
> The short answer to your question is no.
Eh? Have *you* been to www.sabmag.org?
Lots of folks have had lots of success preventing camshaft wear on
V45s using a number of different modifications to the oil system.
Doesn't really matter what you think the cause it, the empirical
evidence is that oil-mods prevent further wear.
Though, personally, the Leper doesn't have one. Indeed, I keep
telling myself I'm going to stop doing maintenance on the thing, and
just run it into the ground, but somehow I found myself swapping in a
new engine last winter....
Love can be a horrible thing.
--
Michael J. Freeman mike_f...@SPMBLOKmac.com
'85 VF700S (The Leper) Cincinnati, OH, USA
'83 VF750S (The Shiny Sabre) "Insanity runs in the family
'99 GSF1200S (The Evil Bandit) ...it practically gallops"
Bruce Farley
page and follow the flow. The oil is picked up and sent TWO ways. One
path goes to the oil filter and the other.........to the cyl head to
lube the cams. The cams are getting unfiltered oil!
Run 20/50 and change ofter and save up for a different bike!
Bruce
The Older Gentleman
The Older Gentleman
> In article
> <1gmb3nd.1i00ft514hc4t6N%chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com>,
> chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> > John Johnson <nu...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I wrote that assuming that the OP liked the bike. I've never been on
> > > one, and don't really care one way or another. People have different
> > > tastes in motorcycles, and if someone says 'it's crap' there's sure to
> > > be someone else who says 'it's a gem'.
> >
> >
> > Do you know what the abbreviation "IMHO" stands for?
>
> Sorry TOG. I missed it originally.
Who said that?
The Older Gentleman
> >At this stage, can I just add that I was present at a special technical
> >briefing (given by Honda) on the problem in (IIRC) 1984?
>
> Aaah, another factory fairy-tale believer.
>
> >The oil film question was, indeed, cited by Honda and they produced a
> >new tool for setting the valve clearances which took account of th
> >thickness of the oil film. They deemed this critical.
>
> It was later shown to be snake-oil and of no effect. The knowledge
> base on this problem has grown exponentially since 1984.
Fair enough. I haven't kept up, I agree.
>
<snip>
>
> If you had studied these engines a little closer, you'd know that
> there is not a single interchangeable part between the Interceptor
> engine and the Sabre/Magna engine. Not even the spark plugs. Two
> completely different engines that only looked similar on the outside
> to the untrained observer. Nothing you have observed about an
> Interceptor applies to the Magna/Sabre engine. Nothing. They don't
> even rotate in the same direction.
I knew all this, actually. Just didn't consider it relevant to the
discussion.
>
<snip>
> >The 1000s were pretty solid.
>
> The 1000F or the 1000R?
Both, really.
>Again, two completely different engines. But
> you knew that, right? Or did Honda fail to mention that in 1984?
Come on, Jack - you're not usually this viperish. Yes, of *course* I
know that.
>
<snip>
> Pity you didn't keep on top of it during the following 20 years, when
> the workable answers were found. And it's unfortunate that you've
> given advice to someone asking about a Magna engine by citing problems
> on a completely unrelated engine. It's like a Shadow owner saying his
> bike is "just like a Harley".
Well, over here the early S model suffered as well. I'd be interested to
know if the VF750S engine was exactly the same as the VF750 Magna lump.
>
> You surprise me, TOG. You're usually much better informed.
The only bit where I have not been well informed I've fessed up to,
above. For the rest - you have assumed that not mentioning something
implies ignorance of the subject.
Interestingly, I've come across three (count 'em, three) S model owners
who have had the main frame tube snap, under the tank. Now that is scary
shit - puts top end problems in the shade entirely.
The Older Gentleman
> As Sgt. Friday would say, just the facts. Look at the oil circulation
> page and follow the flow. The oil is picked up and sent TWO ways. One
> path goes to the oil filter and the other.........to the cyl head to
> lube the cams. The cams are getting unfiltered oil!
But all oil is returned to the sump sooner or later and then passed
through the filter. I must be dim, because I can't see that it makes any
difference if some is sent to the cams before going through the filter.
Unless it picks up an impurity in the sump first....
I dunno.
M. J. Freeman
rec.motorcycles.tech:
> Well, over here the early S model suffered as well. I'd be
> interested to know if the VF750S engine was exactly the same as
> the VF750 Magna lump.
Almost identical.
> Interestingly, I've come across three (count 'em, three) S model
> owners who have had the main frame tube snap, under the tank. Now
> that is scary shit - puts top end problems in the shade entirely.
Odd. I don't think I've heard of that happening over here, and I
know quite a few other Sabre owners. Many of who push their bikes as
hard as anyone.
I find it interesting that the Sabre didn't fair well on the island.
It was the most practical of the VFs, and my impression is that many
folks over there have a much more utilitarian view of riding.
Of course, the early Sabres did have *way* too many doo-hickeys on
them, IMO.
Mark Olson
> Bruce Farley <afakea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> As Sgt. Friday would say, just the facts. Look at the oil circulation
>> page and follow the flow. The oil is picked up and sent TWO ways. One
>> path goes to the oil filter and the other.........to the cyl head to
>> lube the cams. The cams are getting unfiltered oil!
>
> But all oil is returned to the sump sooner or later and then passed
> through the filter. I must be dim, because I can't see that it makes any
> difference if some is sent to the cams before going through the filter.
>
> Unless it picks up an impurity in the sump first....
*DING*
In the real world though, I'd have to agree- I doubt it makes a whole
lot of difference whether you get filtered or unfiltered oil to the cams.
Assuming that normal practice is to deliver filtered oil to the cams,
it almost makes you think Honda knew they were going to have low oil
pressure at the cams from the get-go, so they tried to alleviate it by
using the slightly higher pressure supply upstream of the oil filter.
Hmmm...
--
Mark '01 SV650S '99 EX250-F13 '81 CM400T
Bob Scott
[]
>
>I find it interesting that the Sabre didn't fair well on the island.
>It was the most practical of the VFs, and my impression is that many
>folks over there have a much more utilitarian view of riding.
>
- sure it had a shaft drive rather than a chain, but it had worse
weather protection, wasn't any easier to stick luggage on & handled in a
truly interesting manner that really wasn't suited to the roads round
here. IMS it had a riding position that wasn't best suited to either
twisty roads or motorway speeds.
To be fair I've only ridden 2 examples of the S for a grand total of
about 30 miles but the handling sticks in my mind as something to behold
- stayed on the dual carriageway at Kinning Park & went to Govan because
I really didn't trust it to cope with the (uphill, tightening radius,
reverse camber, uneven surface) slip for the M77 at 70 mph. The CB900 I
owned at the time would do it without a glitch at 90, although it was a
safe bet that the CB900 would expire for some reason during the journey.
--
Bob Scott SFC1000 Pegaso 650 RD350LC
"I was at the lowest point in my life - my house left me, the bank
reposessed my wife, my dog made me redundant, my boss was leaking oil and my
bike died - then I found the word of Sochiro..."
The Older Gentleman
Yes, it's interesting, isn't it? Made me think a bit, as well.
The Older Gentleman
> I find it interesting that the Sabre didn't fair well on the island.
> It was the most practical of the VFs,
As Bob says, dreadful handling, poor riding position for high speed and
no weather protection, and it was slower than many other (far cheaper)
750s of the day. Which were also more reliable....
> and my impression is that many
> folks over there have a much more utilitarian view of riding.
Well, yes, insofar as people use their bikes for commuting and all sorts
of day-to-day stuff rather than simply recreation, but given our road
and weather conditions, things like handling and roadholding are rated
very, very highly, and a bike that gets a reputation as a poor handler
tends not to sell well.
Exceptions, of course, are things which go like utter stink and who
cares about the corners? Ah, I remember my old H1.....
M. J. Freeman
> I'm not sure that I would rate the 750S as more practical than the
> 750F - sure it had a shaft drive rather than a chain, but it had
> worse weather protection, wasn't any easier to stick luggage on &
> handled in a truly interesting manner that really wasn't suited to
> the roads round here. IMS it had a riding position that wasn't
> best suited to either twisty roads or motorway speeds.
Exactly, Sabres aren't the best suited to any one thing, but they're
competent at most things, IME.
Annoyingly enough, this is why standards, at least in the US, seem to
suffer. A standard isn't the best at anything, but it's good at lots
of things.
I'm amazed that the Suzuki Bandit has done as well as it has in the
U.S. It's not the fastest, most comfortable, or best handling bike
out there. But it's fast enough, comfortable enough and handles well
enough to be useable in a great variety of roles.
> To be fair I've only ridden 2 examples of the S for a grand total
> of about 30 miles but the handling sticks in my mind as something
> to behold - stayed on the dual carriageway at Kinning Park & went
> to Govan because I really didn't trust it to cope with the
> (uphill, tightening radius, reverse camber, uneven surface) slip
> for the M77 at 70 mph. The CB900 I owned at the time would do it
> without a glitch at 90, although it was a safe bet that the CB900
> would expire for some reason during the journey.
As a friend and former Sabre rider explained it:
"You're coming into a turn, so you tell the bike to turn, and it
says: 'Fuck you! I'm going straight.'
"No, no, really, we need to turn now.
"'Fuck you! I'm going straight.'
"No, we're going to start turning RIGHT NOW.
"'Well, okay, if you insist, but I don't like it.'"
Once you establish the proper relationship with your Sabre--that you
are a bloody-minded bastard--you can have some fun with it. But it's
not for the weak-willed or faint of heart. The bike really can
corner, you just have to force it to try.
And yet, the bike is still strangely loveable. Seriously, spend a
month or two hacking about the Midwest of the U.S. on one and you'll
feel it.
BTW, anyone wanna buy one?
Jack Hunt
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Well, over here the early S model suffered as well. I'd be interested to
>know if the VF750S engine was exactly the same as the VF750 Magna lump.
The only differences between the S and the C engine was an additional
engine mount (the engine was a stressed frame member on the S but not
the C), the S also got hotter carbs and a more aggressive ignition
advance curve. An S engine will bolt right into a C frame, but not
vice versa.
>Interestingly, I've come across three (count 'em, three) S model owners
>who have had the main frame tube snap, under the tank. Now that is scary
>shit - puts top end problems in the shade entirely.
I've never seen that. Are you sure your guys didn't get the rejects?
--
Jack
Jack Hunt
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>dreadful handling, poor riding position for high speed and
>no weather protection
Besides getting the rejects, apparently your guys didn't get any of
the fully faired models with complete hard luggage. That's what he's
talking about when he mentions weather protection. I rode a touring
model 750 Sabre and got rained on. I was impressed by the way it
channeled water around me, and the luggage was very useful and solid.
I don't argue that it was or wasn't suited for your area, but it was
well suited for this area, which includes some very twisty roads as
well as freeways.
Now if you were riding on the stock Bridgestone Qualifier tires, then
I agree with everything you said about handling. But it wasn't the
bike's fault, it was the tires. A Sabre or Magna with radial tires is
a very different animal and cannot be compared to one with the stock
hard tires.
--
Jack
The Older Gentleman
> Are you sure your guys didn't get the rejects?
Quite possibly. After some US test pilot had finished with them. ;-)
The Older Gentleman
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:34 +0100,
> chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >dreadful handling, poor riding position for high speed and
> >no weather protection
>
> Besides getting the rejects, apparently your guys didn't get any of
> the fully faired models with complete hard luggage. That's what he's
> talking about when he mentions weather protection.
Ah, no, we never got this model.
> I rode a touring
> model 750 Sabre and got rained on. I was impressed by the way it
> channeled water around me, and the luggage was very useful and solid.
>
> I don't argue that it was or wasn't suited for your area, but it was
> well suited for this area, which includes some very twisty roads as
> well as freeways.
>
> Now if you were riding on the stock Bridgestone Qualifier tires, then
> I agree with everything you said about handling. But it wasn't the
> bike's fault, it was the tires. A Sabre or Magna with radial tires is
> a very different animal and cannot be compared to one with the stock
> hard tires.
>
Can't remember what the 65 I rode was wearing, but MJ Freeman describes
its handling *perfectly* in his posting.
Bob Scott
>
>"You're coming into a turn, so you tell the bike to turn, and it
>says: 'Fuck you! I'm going straight.'
>
>"No, no, really, we need to turn now.
>
>"'Fuck you! I'm going straight.'
>
>"No, we're going to start turning RIGHT NOW.
>
>"'Well, okay, if you insist, but I don't like it.'"
>
happily enough & then it would shimmy, weave & bounce it's way towards
the nearest bit of scenery. It remains, with no exaggeration, the worst
handling motorcycle I've ever ridden. I felt quite sorry for the owner
as he'd chucked a fair bit of money at it in an attempt to make it work
better (BT45 tyres, forks rebuilt & shock rebuilt by a local
specialist...) and it still was only fit for making big holes in the
scenery.
>Once you establish the proper relationship with your Sabre--that you
>are a bloody-minded bastard--you can have some fun with it. But it's
>not for the weak-willed or faint of heart. The bike really can
>corner, you just have to force it to try.
>
>And yet, the bike is still strangely loveable. Seriously, spend a
>month or two hacking about the Midwest of the U.S. on one and you'll
>feel it.
>
Oddly enough, I can understand that feeling - my favoured style of bike
is a wobbling twin shocked monstrosity.
>BTW, anyone wanna buy one?
>
No ta
Bob Scott
>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:34 +0100,
>chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>>dreadful handling, poor riding position for high speed and
>>no weather protection
>
>Besides getting the rejects, apparently your guys didn't get any of
>the fully faired models with complete hard luggage. That's what he's
>talking about when he mentions weather protection. I rode a touring
>model 750 Sabre and got rained on. I was impressed by the way it
>channeled water around me, and the luggage was very useful and solid.
>
>I don't argue that it was or wasn't suited for your area, but it was
>well suited for this area, which includes some very twisty roads as
>well as freeways.
>
>Now if you were riding on the stock Bridgestone Qualifier tires, then
>I agree with everything you said about handling. But it wasn't the
>bike's fault, it was the tires. A Sabre or Magna with radial tires is
>a very different animal and cannot be compared to one with the stock
>hard tires.
>
Both of the examples I rode had BT45 tyres on them - the same tyres I
had on the CB9 I owned at the time and the same tyres I've put on both
the SFC & the Peg. I can't blame the tyres for the VFs reluctance to
handle.
Not sure what I would blame, right enough, as one bloke replaced his
VF750S (Sabre?) with a VF750C (Magna?) & reckoned the C handled the way
the S should have,,,
The Older Gentleman
> Now that, with flat bars, might have made a really nice bike.
Perzackly.
John Johnson
"M. J. Freeman" <mjf_new...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Johnson <nu...@invalid.com> posted in rec.motorcycles.tech:
>
> > In article <10ntcf5...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Harvey Rounce" <h.ro...@sasktel.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Are there any oils, motor modifications and or techniques to
> >> prevent camshaft wear on a 1982 magna 45?
> >
> > If you've not been to:
> > http://www.sabmag.org
> >
> > You should head over there. They've got comprehensive information
> > about these (and other Honda V-four) machines.
> >
> > The short answer to your question is no.
>
> Eh? Have *you* been to www.sabmag.org?
Check the argument that I just quit with Jack Hunt. I've been there, and
read the stuff. I read up on these machines when I was thinking about
buying one of them. I ended up going with a later VFR and just avoided
the whole issue.
> Lots of folks have had lots of success preventing camshaft wear on
> V45s using a number of different modifications to the oil system.
>
> Doesn't really matter what you think the cause it, the empirical
> evidence is that oil-mods prevent further wear.
>
You will notice that I never said that oil mods didn't or couldn't help,
and in my reply to Mr. Hunt I attempted to clarify what I meant. I was
trying to give a very short answer to the OP's question, an answer that
left out lots of things. I never should have tried to do such a thing,
as has been made quite clear. Even my very slightly longer answer to the
question has apparently been interpreted as a flat: "your cams will
grenade, and there's nothing to be done" claim, which is not what I
wrote, nor intended.
Intended or not, the interpretation stands, and that's all that matters
here. My failure to accept low oil pressue as the real cause of the
problems apparently was more inflammatory than I realized. As you point
out, what I think the cause is doesn't matter.
The only bits of the original post that I stand by are:
go to sabmag and read up
ride the bike
I'll happily retract the rest, with apologies all around.
Jack Hunt
wrote:
>the VF750S I rode in Glasgow - it would start to turn
>happily enough & then it would shimmy, weave & bounce it's way towards
>the nearest bit of scenery.
You've described perfectly the symptoms of notched steering head
bearings. The stock bearings were notorious for notching. There is a
retrofit to install roller instead of ball (or the other way around, I
forget) to fix that. The funky monoshock setup on the back could also
cause handling like that if the bushings got worn.
Of all the V4 bikes I've owned or ridden, the best handling one was an
'83 V45 750 Magna. The best running one was an 1100 Magna, but it
didn't handle like the 750. I was never confident thrashing the V65
Sabre, but it was no pig and I did drag the pegs from time to time.
With the 750, I had sportbike riders asking how a "fookin' old man can
make a cruiser two lanes wide" and some much higher powered bike
riders were left shaking their heads. I don't think the 750 was the
all-powerful end-all squid killer, but I do think a 750 Magna ridden
at or near its absolute capacity was more than a match for a higher
power bike that was not fully exploited.
My favorite line was delivered when I arrived at a V-4 meet. I had
just dusted a couple of SV 650s that were doing OK on the straights
but were stopping to walk around turns. As I was getting my gear off,
somebody asked if I'd come across the Cherohala Skyway at high speed.
I said "No, but I passed a couple of guys who thought they were."
--
Jack
Bob Scott
>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:11:45 +0100, Bob Scott <b...@bobandaileen.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>the VF750S I rode in Glasgow - it would start to turn
>>happily enough & then it would shimmy, weave & bounce it's way towards
>>the nearest bit of scenery.
>
>You've described perfectly the symptoms of notched steering head
>bearings. The stock bearings were notorious for notching. There is a
>retrofit to install roller instead of ball (or the other way around, I
>forget) to fix that. The funky monoshock setup on the back could also
>cause handling like that if the bushings got worn.
>
shot on it - he'd spent more than the purchase price of this monstrosity
on trying to cure the handling & while he claimed it was an improvement
I don't think any one else that rode it liked the handling.
When I got off it I told him I thought something was seriously amiss
with his suspension & his reaction was that I should have ridden it
before it had been fettled. Mind you, I'd love to have heard the
comments on it from the bloke that had done the suspension work for him
- one week he's setting up the suspension on a Harris racebike, the next
he's trying to get a VF750 to go round corners.
Jack Hunt
wrote:
>he'd spent more than the purchase price of this monstrosity
>on trying to cure the handling & while he claimed it was an improvement
>I don't think any one else that rode it liked the handling.
Well there was definitely something wrong with it other than the name
on the side cover. I've ridden several of those things and none of
them handled like that. A single bike in need of repair is not a
condemnation of an entire product line.
The big Sabre that I owned cornered like it was on rails with no
unexpected twitches mid-corner. I've owned one Sabre, ridden several,
and seen hundreds. Yours was an exception.
I once rode my big Sabre over 30 miles without touching the bars. If
it had been prone to sudden and unexplained thrashing about in turns,
I wouldn't have survived that.
--
Jack
SAMMMMM
add more oiling to the top end.
i believe the later ones (also the v65s) had oiling changes to
mitigate the problem.
good luck.
sammmm
"Harvey Rounce" <h.ro...@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:10ntcf5...@corp.supernews.com...
The Older Gentleman
> Of all the V4 bikes I've owned or ridden, the best handling one was an
> '83 V45 750 Magna.
I find this so hard to believe - or I assume you've not read many made
after, say, 1984.
VF500 - fantastic handling. Shame about the bottom end. VFR750 -
excellent, and of course the thing is still with us today in 800cc form.
(Yeah, I know it's not got a single common component with the 1986 VFR,
but still). Pan European - astonishingly nimble for such a big machine.
Even the VF750F (Interceptor) handled damned well. Good enough to win,
or get highly placed in, races.
I don't think anyone ever raced a Magna. Wonder why that was.....
(Actually, I bet some looney tried)
>
> With the 750, I had sportbike riders asking how a "fookin' old man can
> make a cruiser two lanes wide"
That'll be the weave, that will ;-)
>and some much higher powered bike
> riders were left shaking their heads. I don't think the 750 was the
> all-powerful end-all squid killer, but I do think a 750 Magna ridden
> at or near its absolute capacity was more than a match for a higher
> power bike that was not fully exploited.
Well, that holds true of any bike. Someone who can't outrun a Magna,
when mounted on a proper sports bike, is probably a useless rider.
I mean, I've managed to out-corner sports bikes on my old CB400 Four,
but that's not because the bike is brilliant or I'm a hero - it just
means the other riders were crap.
Bob Scott
>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:55:35 +0100, Bob Scott <b...@bobandaileen.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>he'd spent more than the purchase price of this monstrosity
>>on trying to cure the handling & while he claimed it was an improvement
>>I don't think any one else that rode it liked the handling.
>
>Well there was definitely something wrong with it other than the name
>on the side cover. I've ridden several of those things and none of
>them handled like that. A single bike in need of repair is not a
>condemnation of an entire product line.
>
I've seen & they both handled like that. If there was something badly
adrift with the original set up for the UK then that might explain why
no bugger bought them here. This one was not in need of repair
(replacement maybe) - it had been checked over by a renowned chassis
specialist & he'd done as much as he could...
>The big Sabre that I owned cornered like it was on rails with no
>unexpected twitches mid-corner. I've owned one Sabre, ridden several,
>and seen hundreds. Yours was an exception.
>
Quite possibly - but I've only ever seen 2 in the UK & they were both
evil handling contraptions.
>I once rode my big Sabre over 30 miles without touching the bars.
30 miles without touching the bars? I can't think of any bike that you
could do that on around here without crashing...
> If
>it had been prone to sudden and unexplained thrashing about in turns,
>I wouldn't have survived that.
>
Granted. Wonder if there were any set up differences between US & UK
market bikes.
Jack Hunt
wrote:
>Wonder if there were any set up differences between US & UK
>market bikes.
Didn't you say that the UK bikes were later found to have broken
frames?
--
Jack
Bob Scott
if there was a problem causing the frames to break that might explain
why the damn things moved around so much.
TOG, can you remember why the frames were breaking?
Bob
[1] If you've spent the purchase price of the bike (& then some) on
getting a professional to sort the handling then I'd bloody hope said
professional would notice a broken frame. It apparently had improved the
handling but I suspect any 10 year old bike would have a noticeable
improvement in handling if you renewed all the chassis bearings, rebuilt
the suspension at both ends, checked the frame was straight & checked
the wheels were in line.
Jack Hunt
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>I find this so hard to believe - or I assume you've not read many made
>after, say, 1984.
I don't ride sport bikes. Well, I did ride a GSXR 1000 at Deals Gap
on Monday, but I didn't enjoy it.
>VF500
It was a VF500 rider who couldn't get around me on an uphill set of
hairpin turns. It was a situation where the extra 250cc advantage was
the deciding factor. He could put a wheel alongside, he just didn't
have the ponies to do anything with it after that.
>Pan European - astonishingly nimble for such a big machine.
heheheh, what do you think I ride now? My 91 Pan had 108,000 miles on
it when it was killed by a drunk driver. My current ride is a '99
Pan. The '83 Magna I had would still out corner it, IMO. But it
would probably suffer the same fate as the VF500, the extra power
would make up the difference everywhere except mid-corner.
>I don't think anyone ever raced a Magna. Wonder why that was.....
>
>(Actually, I bet some looney tried)
There's more than one kind of race. A V65 Magna came in 3rd in the
1997 Iron Butt rally*. I was a small part of his support crew.
*10,000 miles in 10 days. Very few people are able to do that. Lots
of people have ridden 1000 miles in 24 hours, but very few have done
ten in a row.
V-65 Magnas do very well in drag races, but I don't think you guys do
much of that.
>That'll be the weave, that will ;-)
No, that'll be the difference in riders and horsepower, not frame
styles.
>Someone who can't outrun a Magna,
>when mounted on a proper sports bike, is probably a useless rider.
I've found no shortage of them.
>it just
>means the other riders were crap.
Exactly. A polished turd is still turd.
--
Jack
Jack Hunt
wrote:
>reduce revs.
>add more oiling to the top end.
>i believe the later ones (also the v65s) had oiling changes to
>mitigate the problem.
>good luck.
>sammmm
Proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
--
Jack
The Older Gentleman
> >I find this so hard to believe - or I assume you've not read many made
> >after, say, 1984.
>
> I don't ride sport bikes.
Well, there you are. Your frames of reference are a little bit
constrained.
>
<snip>
>
> >Pan European - astonishingly nimble for such a big machine.
>
> heheheh, what do you think I ride now? My 91 Pan had 108,000 miles on
> it when it was killed by a drunk driver. My current ride is a '99
> Pan. The '83 Magna I had would still out corner it, IMO. But it
> would probably suffer the same fate as the VF500, the extra power
> would make up the difference everywhere except mid-corner.
I likes Pans, I does.
>
<snip>
> *10,000 miles in 10 days. Very few people are able to do that. Lots
> of people have ridden 1000 miles in 24 hours, but very few have done
> ten in a row.
>
Yes, I have enormous respect for people who manage the Iron Butt, but
it's not exactly a test of handling.
> V-65 Magnas do very well in drag races, but I don't think you guys do
> much of that.
I can believe they would: lots of grunt in that lump. No, we don't go in
for it much here: you're right.
<snip>
>
> >Someone who can't outrun a Magna,
> >when mounted on a proper sports bike, is probably a useless rider.
>
> I've found no shortage of them.
>
Well, you're in the US of A. Ipso facto ;-)
The Older Gentleman
> TOG, can you remember why the frames were breaking?
No idea. It was just extraordinary - maybe five years ago I came across
three people who'd all had the same thing.
One belonged to our bike club, one was the bloke I bought my H1 from[1],
and the other I forget.
Corrosion? Stress? Who knows? Obviously, not the sort of thing that
happened out of the crate but after 15-20 years, but even so: it's not
something you want to happen.
[1] Even "conditioned" by H1 handling, he spotted that there was
something awry....
M. J. Freeman
rec.motorcycles.tech:
> Jack Hunt <jhu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >Someone who can't outrun a Magna,
>> >when mounted on a proper sports bike, is probably a useless
>> >rider.
>>
>> I've found no shortage of them.
>>
> Well, you're in the US of A. Ipso facto ;-)
No smiley needed. The majority of US'n riders can't ride for shit.
Jack Hunt
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Well, there you are. Your frames of reference are a little bit
>constrained.
I would suggest that my frames of reference are no more constrained
than yours. You prefer sport bikes, and I detest them.
For a standard, the Sabre handled very well but it was not a sport
bike. A sport bike handles very well but nobody can convince me that
a sport bike would be more suited for long distance touring. I've had
people try to tell me that you have to let the wind hold you up and
keep your weight off your wrists if you ride a sport bike. They never
come up with an answer when I ask how to keep the wind under my chest
when stuck in 20mph traffic for miles during rush hour, or how to get
my aging frame straightened out after staying in a pretzel shape for
hours on the road.
Yes, the Iron Butt has been done by sport bikes. It's also been done
with scooters. That doesn't mean either of them are best suited.
>I have enormous respect for people who manage the Iron Butt, but
>it's not exactly a test of handling.
In a way, it is. You won't be able to accomplish 1000 miles in 24
hours if you're fighting the bike in every turn. I did my Iron Butt
on my first Pan, and I had only put 100 miles on it when I started.
I got the first 1000 miles in well under 24 hours and was shooting for
1500 but ran into traffic issues that put me over the time limit. I
still managed 1600 miles in less than 36 hours, qualifying for the Bun
Burner 1500.
The V65 Magna that came in third in the 97 Iron Butt Rally had been
assembled from three boxes of parts bought at a garage sale. In other
words, someone else (was he a professional?) had already given up on
it, but in the hands of a competent mechanic and rider, it was still a
contender.
I never said the Sabres and Magnas would out-handle sport bikes ounce
for ounce, but for what they were, they handled very well. The Magna
was a grossly overpowered cruiser that handled better than most
cruisers. The Sabre was a grossly overpowered standard that handled
as well as any other standard of the day. Radial tires helped the
handling of both bikes immensely. And while neither was a sport bike,
they dusted plenty of sport bikes.
I've ridden, and ridden with, too many Sabres to let anyone convince
me that they are ill-handling. Your examples were prepared by a
professional, but apparently in this case the professional dropped the
ball somewhere. Your professional should have tried some Dunlop D205
radial tires.
--
Jack
The Older Gentleman
>I would suggest that my frames of reference are no more constrained
>than yours. You prefer sport bikes, and I detest them.
Heh. Have you looked at my sig lately? The only true sports bike is the
Ducati. And over the years I have ridden, and owned, a helluva lot of
bikes. My tastes are catholic.
> I never said the Sabres and Magnas would out-handle sport bikes ounce
> for ounce, but for what they were, they handled very well.
Ah, well, there I'd not disagree. Cruisers as a breed don't handle as
well as standard bikes, let alone sports bikes. I'll make an exception
for the Guzzi California.
Charlie Gary
<<Snip>>
>
> I never said the Sabres and Magnas would out-handle sport bikes ounce
> for ounce, but for what they were, they handled very well. The Magna
> was a grossly overpowered cruiser that handled better than most
> cruisers. The Sabre was a grossly overpowered standard that handled
> as well as any other standard of the day. Radial tires helped the
> handling of both bikes immensely. And while neither was a sport bike,
> they dusted plenty of sport bikes.
>
<<Snip>>
At this point I feel compelled to comment on something no one's put much
emphasis on (that I've noticed), and that's long-term comfort. At the end
of a 650 mile day on an '82 V45 Magna, I wasn't very tired. Before the end
of the same ride on a '04 Concours, I'm fighting to keep my eyes open
because I'm tired. There's a lot to be said for an upright seating position
if you're going to do long rides.
--
Later,
Charlie
The Older Gentleman
> At this point I feel compelled to comment on something no one's put much
> emphasis on (that I've noticed), and that's long-term comfort. At the end
> of a 650 mile day on an '82 V45 Magna, I wasn't very tired. Before the end
> of the same ride on a '04 Concours, I'm fighting to keep my eyes open
> because I'm tired. There's a lot to be said for an upright seating position
> if you're going to do long rides.
Not always. An upright riding position places a lot of weight on your
bum, and so you've got to have a good seat as well.
Magnas are comfy, no question. So's my Triumph. So, amazingly, is my
Ducati. The old pre-injection SSs were blessed with a superb seat and a
riding position that achieved a lovely balance between feet, hands and
arse (a bit like old airhead boxer BMWs). I've done over 600 miles in a
day on my Duke, and still felt compos mentis at the end of it.
When I bought it, long-distance comfort was the last thing I expected!
Jack Hunt
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>My tastes are catholic.
Well there's the problem. My tastes are baptist. Complete immersion
is always more thorough than sprinkling. :)
--
Jack
The Older Gentleman
> Well there's the problem. My tastes are baptist. Complete immersion
> is always more thorough than sprinkling. :)
I *like* that. Immensely. :-))
Harvey Rounce
started to save....
H.
"Jack Hunt" <jhu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uqj1o01no5vbbce00...@4ax.com...
The Older Gentleman
> Thanks gentlemen for the great thread.
Funnily enough, I enjoyed it as well.
It's not often you get this sort of informed technical debate without a
slanging match.
(Jack, you're a prick.....)
Jack Hunt
chateauSPAM...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>(Jack, you're a prick.....)
Thank you. For some people it's a natural trait. I have to work at
it. :)
--
Jack