Cafe Racer Forum banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,778 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I decided to create a new place for responses to Witworth, rather than trashing up the CX500 thread, since it is turning out to be one of the better CX projects.

So, lets look at a recent posting, shall we?

This page sums up the reptilian brain comments: Archetype Discoveries Worldwide . It's not pop-anything, it's well founded science fact. We haven't left Dino behind, just got a few more lumps on our brains, an ego, and told ourselves we are clever.

The Vincent designer and engineer Phil Irving stated many times that he calculated and designed the Vincent to handle a maximum of 150BHP without failure. That is not conjecture, it's a historical fact.

Builders like Bakker or Egli have sold complete road or race bikes for decades. Foale endeavoured to be a manufacturer and sold a small handful I believe, and wrote a book. If he did any serious design work for a major bike race team or motorcycle manufacturer, I've never heard a trace of which ones. The picture of Foale riding a research bike with the forks on "backwards" sums up many of his efforts to me. Anyone's reactions to the red bike pictured, please write on a postcard and send them to "BBC Audience Services,PO Box 1922,Darlington,DL3 0UR" .

View attachment 7243 View attachment 7244

As far as I can see there is no mention of any companies by name he has worked for on his website under "about" TONY FOALE DESIGNS - Home page .

Like the CX500, frames are built in all forms for different purposes. Production bikes of years gone by were over-engineered, and with controlled flex to be able to be used for hundreds of thousands of miles with out breaking, cracking or failure from thousands of duty cycles. If I want to look at a spare and delicate, good looking frame I'll go and look at the Moto Morini 500. The CX was designed as a tourer/commuter, it was never intended to be sport bike with glamor. The Shinto spirit of surviving CXes must be chuckling like Tanuki on madness mushrooms.
First, pointing us to a self serving .com by the marketing genius who is pushing a theory is like sending us to the Honda website to explain the point behind the Bold New Graphics on the CBR1000RR instead of why they have yet to introduce a VFR1000RR. It is marketing not science. Do you understand how evolution works? Have you considered why I asked you about the chicken and the egg? There is a point to it.
Clotaire Rapaille - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - this article is entertaining if you are truly considering the reptilian brain theory as true science. This guy is a true Barnum in the making.

I wonder if you have difficulties comprehending how the scientific method works. Perhaps Tony Foale riding a bike with backwards forks had something to do with testing a hypothesis and collecting data.

Trying to justify crappy frames of the past as " over-engineered, and with controlled flex to be able to be used for hundreds of thousands of miles with out breaking, cracking or failure from thousands of duty cycles." is a pretty far stretch to justify their use of inferior stampings, construction methods and cheap steel. Perhaps you will next justify Harleys use of cast Iron lugs in their frames. None of those justifications will be based on sound engineering, only on minimally acceptable standards of safety compromised by packaging, marketing, economics and styling.

The fly in the ointment of the anti-glamor-puss CX500 theory is it was it was faster, longer lived and far more reliable than many of it's four stroke four cylinder Jap contemporaries of the same period. I did many miles, two-up at very close to the ton on one of the old maggots.
I am afraid this entire statement distorts reality beyond belief.


Your pal,
Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,509 Posts
Maybe hack? I miss him...
or "norton guy" from DTT? Another epic person on the web.

i haven't been able to keep pace with the posts so I'm a little lost on this guy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,459 Posts
The CX was designed as a high rpm engine.
Keep it over 5,000 rpm and it lasts way longer than having it below that rpm.
Honda ran one at 10,000rpm for over a week without a break and didn't have any problems. (although the dual skin exhaust pipes did get red hot)
In my experience the issues were mainly because people think 'V-twin - Harley -low rpm torque' which just destroys 'everything'.
HD has the same problem with it's twin cam motors as Honda had in 1978, the low rpm load reversals trash the cam chain tensioners and various other parts
It wasn't as fast as Suzuki or Kawasaki 550 and just about even with the CB550 plus, being shaft drive, the handling could get a bit 'strange' if you shut off in a corner
Now I have to go find the thread and see what I'm talking about :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
What I find interesting is that Witworth says about the reptilian brain "its a well founded science fact". Yet when I go to the web site it states "the three brain THEORY". When did theory become well founded science fact? When I read shit like that whatever else is written after that becomes irrelevant.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,894 Posts
Harley used cast malleable iron lugs,tomahawks and headstocks in their frames for nearly a century, they never slowed Cal Rayborn down road racing, or prevented H-D dominating flat track racing with production based frames with cast tomahawk swingarm/motor mount lugs since about 1945. They probably only stopped using tomahawks in Sportster frames about ten years ago. Big Twin Harley frames were about the strongest and most rigid frames made anywhere in the world for probably half a century until the GoldWing frame appeared. H-D isn't smart, but it ain't dumb either.
It's a bit sad about Harley's latest aircooled motors, they have all kind of weird, poorly designed and cheaply made failures now. It seems they were at their peak with the Evo motor in about '95, and then it was all downhill from there. I wouldn't ride any recent Harley now if you gave me 5K to fix all the faults that should be solved at the factory, and paid me to ride it. A Victory, Indian or Bolt would be way better IMHO.

I've revved CX500's to close to 13K Rpm in top gear with no apparent wear or damage. In fact at those revs the pushrods may be flexing to the extent that they alter the duration of the cam timing, valve bounce and produce even more power by accident. CX's also have that old single or V-twin trick of being tractable and torquey and out accelerating multis, while they are revving like dentist drills and getting nowhere fast.

Science is all about theory. Established theories, until proven different. Science is all flux, and uncertainty. That Clotaire Rapaille - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fellow is entertaining, but here's someone with far greater scientific credentials and credibility: Triune brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why people waste time on Foale and his efforts, that never ended up in any production motorcycle (as far as I know), is beyond me. He wrote a book, and built a few specials. You can't point to his efforts in people's garages and say things like: that frame was made by Dick Mann, that swingarm was designed by Bimota's Tamburini, that complete bikes rolling chassis was designed and built from scratch by Fritz Egli. And furthermore, he sure hasn't got half a century of racing success and race chassis knowledge and modification like Mert Lawwill. He's a qualified nuclear scientist slide rule that probably spent the best years of his early life working at "Weapons Research base" down in Australia on how to destroy half the planet with nuclear devices and whip rockets to Russia: good vibes huh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,126 Posts
If he has a bike :rolleyes: , it has bandanas

You could always apply a bit of Pakistani street urchin initiative. Just bolt the airbox boots on as best you can. Then get a bit of rag like a bandana and soak it in oil. Fold it about five times and wrap it around to seal any leak point like a wound dressing and tie it tight. Leave a bit of rag hanging out like Keith Richards would do with a headband, to look cool or something RollingStonesesque. It's much like an Indian Brave wrapping a rag around his arm after a raging battle with "Son of He, Who Has Much Better Firepower". You may well be after a steam-punk, Indian wars, café theme bike. I don't know.

Bandanas tied on fork tubes, work great to soak up oil on nuked fork seals on rat bikes. Bandanas also work on Iron Butterfly fans heads.

If you are a Christian, pray to God and ask him about fitting pod airfilters. I'll save you the church: God says pods are the spawn of the devil. God knows these things: He's God after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
I've revved CX500's to close to 13K Rpm in top gear with no apparent wear or damage. In fact at those revs the pushrods may be flexing to the extent that they alter the duration of the cam timing, valve bounce and produce even more power by accident.
You've owned more than one CX500? You poor thing...
I doubt the valves were able to close at 13K rpm so producing more power is pretty much out of scope there.

Let's see more pics! Both of your CX500 and of other bikes you've had in the past. Like pics. No like words.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,894 Posts
Oh, yea of little faith.

If the valves on a CX500 would not close with a motor spinning at very close to 13K Rpm the motor would slow down, run rough or fail. It didn't do that at least six times of torture, so another casual theory is now redundant. Quite a few Jap motors will rev so high above the redline in use that you will simply not believe that it's possible without catastrophic failure.

Who on Earth takes photos of CXes? I ask you.

Yes we have no bandanas, we have no bandanas today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
CX500-Dyno-New-sm_zpsc4c615f7.jpg
^ from an apparently stock CX500. Not what i could call torquey or making gobs of power past 9000 rpm.
5610d1382696531-stock-cx500-dyno-wolfie-can-you-translate-graph-end-cx500-minor.jpg
^ this is more tuned and with an exhaust upgrade. Again, looks like things are starting to fall off above 9000 rpm.

Don't get me wrong, 10,000 rpm safely is very high for a vtwin but it is so oversquare that it isn't really fair to compare to most others. Another reason why it isn't considered a torquey motor.

My CB750 redline is 8500 rpm according to the tach. But with the valvetrain, rods, and rotor upgrades I shift it at 12,000 rpm. I also wouldn't call it torquey at all. Since it idles at 2,000 rpm and doesn't start to get fun until 7,000 rpm i don't expect it to be.

IDK, I just don't think that it is serving any purpose taking the mill that high according to the dyno graphs I've been able to locate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,015 Posts
Oh, yea of little faith.

If the valves on a CX500 would not close with a motor spinning at very close to 13K Rpm the motor would slow down, run rough or fail. It didn't do that at least six times of torture, so another casual theory is now redundant. Quite a few Jap motors will rev so high above the redline in use that you will simply not believe that it's possible without catastrophic failure.

Who on Earth takes photos of CXes? I ask you.

Yes we have no bandanas, we have no bandanas today.
And we are just suppose to believe you that it happened, 6 times? If there's no pics, it didn't happen. Your claim that your CX was making more power at 50% more rpm than a normal one quits making power is a bit far fetched.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,894 Posts
View attachment 7253
^ from an apparently stock CX500. Not what i could call torquey or making gobs of power past 9000 rpm.
View attachment 7254
^ this is more tuned and with an exhaust upgrade. Again, looks like things are starting to fall off above 9000 rpm.

Don't get me wrong, 10,000 rpm safely is very high for a vtwin but it is so oversquare that it isn't really fair to compare to most others. Another reason why it isn't considered a torquey motor.

My CB750 redline is 8500 rpm according to the tach. But with the valvetrain, rods, and rotor upgrades I shift it at 12,000 rpm. I also wouldn't call it torquey at all. Since it idles at 2,000 rpm and doesn't start to get fun until 7,000 rpm i don't expect it to be.

IDK, I just don't think that it is serving any purpose taking the mill that high according to the dyno graphs I've been able to locate.
The old theory that short stroke motors can only produce less torque than long stroke motors is about 40 years out of date. CBX's and XV1100's produce plenty of torque: they are very oversquare by road motor standards.

One of Hondas tricks in the 70's and 80's was to produce the first handful of bikes of a new model production run with slightly different cams, bigger carbs and higher states of tune. The part numbers were often identical to later parts, but the actual part spec was different. It was a cheap and easy way to impress magazine road testers back in the day.

Early production CX500's had higher performance cams (probably a little more duration), bigger carbs and CDI's with no rev limiter. I don't know if later models had rev limiters, granted, but the early ones would rev out only 100 RPM short of 13K RPM.

Honda did the same trick with the CB400T. The first ones went like hell on the highway through the first few gears. Obviously a hotter cam, the guy at Honda central said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
I think you mean oversquare, not undersquare. And i'm not sure the CBX1000's 52 lb/ft of torque was all that great either when you consider the 900F made 57 lb.ft. and the CB750 made 44.
It also wasn't very oversquare with 64.5 bore and 53.4 stroke. The CX on the other hand is with its 78 bore and 52 stroke.

And how dare you talk positive about the CB400T! Some wet behind the ear newb is liable to read that and think they are good performance based bikes only to get laughed out of the pit area.

Remind me again where all of your Honda knowledge came from? You seem to be able to give Getto a run for his money and he has actually owned a couple dozen of the old sleds. I'm super interested in your project because you aren't taking many shortcuts and its turning out much better than most others. But i am curious what your bike history is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,778 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I guess witworth is completely full of internet theory, with very little personal experience or fact to back any of this up. I highly doubt an unmodified CX will spin to 13K more than once without damage.

Witworth,
Do you have any credentials to back up anything you are spouting? Have you worked in any shops or dealerships? Have you raced or built any race bikes? Have you built any motors, modified any frames or upgraded any suspension or brakes? What have you done? So far from reading your posts I have yet to see anything that could be construed to you having done anything except spouting urban legend regarding manufacturers or speculation that if somebody did something for a long time it must have been good.

What do you have against Tony Foale? You claim he sucks because he never made any bikes and then tout Dick Mann and Mert Lawill as frame Gurus when they never manufactured any bikes either. Then you want to drag in nuclear proliferation as somehow supporting your point? That is as pointless as continuing to defend the lizard brain theory as anything more than irrelevant junk science. BTW, did you ever figure out the chicken and egg question I posed? Remember, I did ask it for a reason. Anybody else want a shot at what came first the chicken or the egg? It covers an interesting point in evolution that may have some part in the explanation in the evolution of motorcycle design. The idea that Harley's use of cast iron frame lugs is a great design because it was successful in racing is a spurious theory at best. It ignores several facts such as, they were all on crappy frames back then with crappy tires and crappy suspension(or hardtail). It ignores the fact that the AMA rules were very skewed in favor of the Harley's archaic architecture so they wanted to keep them competitive even when the rest of the world had moved on to such innovations as overhead valves or even overhead cams. On what basis do you even begin to make claims about frame strength of HD big twins and then tout the GL1000 as better? That isn't theory or empirical evidence, that is straight old pulling stuff out of your butt and seeing if anybody will believe it or call you on it.


So, carry on and ..........











Dance Monkey, dance

Still your pal,
Ken
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top