This is a discussion on 1983 V45 Sabre Cafe Racer within the Project Builds forums, part of the Caferacer.net Forums category; Originally Posted by XB33BSA are you a goddam mexican, dumb as a day old canadian LOL. You are such a fucking hilbilly....
Anyways to bring things back on topic. Here is what i managed to do so far with the carbs. LINK
Now i do plan on getting a rebuild kit for the carbs and replacing the bolts, o-ring, gaskets and so on. My question for the more experienced people here is:
I plan on putting pod filters or some other more direct method of getting clean air into the carbs. I've read/heard that when doing such a setup it is a good idea to step the jets up in size as well. More air needs more fuel, makes sense. So how much bigger is the question? I've heard that doing +15 in size is a good number to aim for. Is there any truth to that? What would you recommend? Is there a difference in how much of a jump should be done for the main jet and the slow jet, or they should be increased by roughly the same amount?
Last edited by BalkanMoto; 10-24-2018 at 06:13 PM.
Thank you, read through it, lots of good info. Will stick with current jets, and get things working as is, then start change one factor at a time to achieve the desired performance.
hey i was making fun fer fuks sake
of course i knew he is a godam gypsie,but that is ok in my book
ffs people dry up and recognize obvious funny shit when youi read it
anyway i have posessed at least 50 sets of early honda vfour carbs many of them still mounted to the airbox bottom
and i always marvelled at the beautiful design and engineering that honda applies to intake tune
those velocity stacks are very important as is the airbox resinant volume
it is a fools road to travel trying to improve what honda has done
in fact it is impossible to improve anything about it with pods
not only is the intake port optimized for a certain target rpm range via the rubber velocity stacks whose job is to lengthen the intake port so as to catch the 3rd sonic wave pulse
and at the same time the resinant volume of the airbox allows sound energy to be an enhancement between 2 cylinders
the stock cv carbs work so well, very close to fi once warmed up, yes they are air-dernsity sensitive and compensate for altitude /weather ...that it is very unwise to fuck with them ...pods completely yank all of that wonderfull engineering tune out of the engine
put your time and energy into making the suspension work and if you really want to improve modify the way the fd is and make it so that it no longer limits handling
Appreciate the wise words from both @dirkchecken and @XB33BSA. I knew there had to be more to the design of the air box, especially since they changed its design almost immediately. Now it makes sense why the 1982 V45 Sabre has air coming in from the sides into the air box. But the 1983 V45 Sabre has it coming in through the top. You guys are totally right. I'll re-evaluate my options with the airbox, will need to figure out a better spot for the electronics that need to be relocated. Again thanks for the expert advice.
If you don't change your approach it's going to turn out to be piece of shit to ride. When are you going to deal with things that make a bike worth riding. The first thing on the budget should be repairing the front suspension you fucked up.
I have one bike on which I cut two inches off the springs and used them as rebound springs with >2" longer spacers to drop the bike for drag racing. I have another with solid spacers in place or rebound springs with super long spacers - again on a drag bike. Both work but not really suitable for the street.
It will be interesting to see the revised rake and trail numbers on this project when it's assembled. I suspect that rake might be OK but trail may be lacking - along with cornering clearance.
For now I don't have a designated spot for the project bike in my garage where i can walk around and work on the project, so i need it to be in a rolling state. So until engine, frame, and electronic relocation are handled i'll keep it as is. I will come back to dealing with both the front and the rear suspension later on.
Now on the topic of fucking it up. Maybe someone can enlighten me on where my mistake was. This is what i have done:
|--3" 1/4--|-------21"-------|||--------1"------------| Total Depth to cover: 25" 1/4
|--spacer--|--main spring--|||--rebound spring--|
|--4" 2/4--|-------18"----|||-----------3"------------| Total Depth to cover: 25" 2/4
|--spacer--|--main spring--|||--rebound spring--|
My thought process was that by having the rebound spring enlarged, and the spacer increased by 1" (aka what used to be the rebound spring), and adding an 1/4" extra for preload I would achieve the exact same travel characteristics. Main difference being the fork tube sits 2" lower into the bottom piece, compression travel is more or less the same (this is where i know im probably wrong and its actually less). So ye if someone could shed some light on this it be great.
Last edited by BalkanMoto; 10-25-2018 at 11:02 AM.