xxtraspec99

I had this type of work done professionally once (on a Yamaha) and the painter used a gray woven cloth -- the kind used for Bondo work. He put a 1.5 inch strip over the crack on the under side, but he first saturated the strip with epoxy. He then epoxied the crack first before applying the strip. The result is a very strong repair. The saturated cloth works better than plastic pieces soldered on as the strip can adhere to any shape or curve. You should be able to get these items at your local auto repair shop. :wink:

I went the 900RR route and got a Racetech spring that was so heavy I had to exchange it. Racetech makes a variety of springs -- you choose the weight. I believe there was a thread on here which provided spring stock numbers to order according to your weight. Anyway, if riders are opting out of the 900RR upgrade because all Racetech springs are too light -- hmm... that would be something. Are you sure about that? ...not trying to doubt this but just asking for clarification. Thanks.

What ever happened to the advice of using the CBR900RR shock and adding a Racetech spring? This alternative runs about $150. That is, $50 for a used shock and $100 for the spring, which - by the way - can be had in a variety of weights. The 900RR shock is fully adjustable, preload and all. Are you'll not going this route anymore for some reason? $150 compared to $750... hmn? Hyperpro, Penske, Ohlins... Save $600 and just go used Honda with Racetech upgrade. Why not?

Two Brothers used to make a shotgun header that was 4-2, but no longer; however, you might get lucky and find one somewhere. Check local ad lists, such as Craigslist.org (they run MC lists in 20 or more cities). Also, thought you'd like to know why aftermarket headers look different from stock. The XX exhaust was designed to include a bow so as to create more back pressure for mid-range performance. When you go to straight pipes you lose this. Witness, Yamaha's Exup value and Honda's titanium mid-exhaust value (on the CBR 954RR). These are attempts to combat the mid-range pressure loss of a straight pipe. Further, the VFR's 2valve-4valve VTech is also an attempt to combat the pressure loss. Basically, all these things are trying to make two engine types into one, a high rev'r and a midrange torquer. As you might guess, some work better than others. Here's a schematic of the XX exhaust so you can see what I mean. I mention all this so you might try and design your custom to keep some of the back pressure which produces good mid-range grunt. Basically it's a bottleneck where the 4 splits down into two. Aftermarket headers do away with this bottleneck as the pipe is designed for track use where you want to get into the high RPMs as soon as possible. Okay, so think about whether you want to lose this or not when you design your custom system. Cheers!

Here's the site for the steering damper mount. http://www.brgracing.com/cb11dampnermount.html BRG also makes rearsets specifically for the XX, and a few other Honda specific products. I have no further info on Hyperpro, but I don't like the idea of cutting into the vinyl shelf of the inner fairing. Cheers!

BRG Racing makes an adaptor kit for the XX for the Scott and/or Ohlins dampers and it should also work with the GPR which is similar. All of these have on-the-fly adjusting knobs. The BRG adaptor fits okay, but you have to make sure that the piece that goes next to the tank -- has a step in it for the steel brake pipe (which is directly rearward of the steering head). If you go this route try to buy the Scott damper without any adaptor and they should knock off $150 to $200; that is, the damper body only should be around $300 or so at a discount shop. As to the Hyperpro, I believe that there are two models of this damper and both are the plunger type; one fits on the side and has to be attached by cutting into the inner fairing vinyl shelf so the damper arm can be anchored there. The second is for later XXs and fits parallel to the triple clamp. You may have been given the wrong type for your year of XX. As to needing a damper at all, a mechanic friend told me, "that's like asking a stripper whether she needs bigger bazoomas... And they always need bigger ones..."

Yeah! Physics and math and school stuff is what I'm trying to get away from when riding. But, it is fun to try and justify those expensive mods... at least for the wife's sake when she sees the credit card bill. "...it's not just looks, honey, it handles way better... and safer..." Okay, so I wasn't a physics or math major in college. But, I swear the following is try and can be found in any high school science text that covers rotation and mechanics. A wheel that is turning even at a constant speed is ALWAYS ACCELERATING or decelerating, as the case maybe. Why? Because it is always changing direction. The force vector of acceleration points NOT TOWARD the direction of spin as you would expect, BUT TOWARD THE AXIS of the wheel. This actually means that the material on the rim is always being thrown inward toward the axis, that is, if it wasn't attached. Example, an orbiting satellite will be thrown toward the earth when it falls out of orbit, and it's not just gravity that throws it, it's the mechanics of rotation. You can think of it as a ball on a string that is being rotated in the air, the string is constantly pulling the ball toward you at each moment. While the velocity vector may be tangent to the circumference of the orbit, the acceleration vector is toward the center. In fact, this is the very principle that allows objects to stay in orbit. Now, you must be pulling your hair out and asking -- how did we get to this baffling stuff?. It seems so counter intuitive. And what does it have to do with motorcycles? If nothing else it shows that a MOI of the rear tire is always present as long as the tire is rotating, whether that means anything in practical terms is another matter. But, I think it means that the unsprung mass of the rear wheel is always important even when at a constant speed -- as with less mass then the less horsepower need to keep up that speed. Grrrrrhhh, I feel like I'm studying for a high school science test. Help, someone let me off this thread!!!

Yes, I like fancy wheels as much as the next guy; it's only too bad that they cost so darn much. When you can find a bargain -- go for it. Yes, also, I read the Sport Rider Mag article about the 14 light wheels they tested; and yes, there was an aftermarket wheel which weighed around the same as the stock Suzuki but had much less MOI -- because, exactly as you said, the weight was near the axle and the rim was lighter than stock. Here's a very funny thing about MOI. I could hardly believe this when I first read it. Moment of inertia is not just the measure of the energy to start an object off from rest, MOI is also the energy to turn an object in motion to another direction. In theory, the object in motion is "at rest" in relation to the new direction (at least in a two dimensional model). Now, here's the weirder part. Any of a wheel's vector which is tangent to a wheel's surface is always changing directions because, as we all know, the wheel is constantly turning. Can you imagine that? It means simply that the tire's surface that contacts the road is constantly changing. That means that there is "in theory" a constant MOI in regard to a turning wheel. That is, since the rim is constantly changing directions there is inertia need at every moment to keep it changing constantly. So, the member who replied that weight loss and MOI only were significant during accelleration is correct, but incomplete. Why? Yes, because a turning wheel is constantly changing directions in relation to the axis, and therefore constantly creating a new MOI. Whew!!! I hope I got that right. Man, this is tough stuff.

Okay, okay, okay... I get it. You know what is so confusing is the two terms horsepower and "bhp" or brake horse power. In fact, there should not be a term called brake horse power or wheel horse power. Why? 'Cause horsepower is meant to measure the power output of the engine, period. As for dyno and what they measure and computations of torque and horsepower -- think of Spock telling Cpt. Kirk -- "remember your basic physics..." Horsepower is defined as RPMs times Torque. To get the numbers right you then divide by the conversion factor of 5252 (this converts feet and lbs to power measurements). What then is torque? You ask. Torque is a measure of work. Work is moving a weight a certain distance. Moving the same distance over time equals POWER. So, a dyno that measures resistence or the strength of a load is a very useful tool. Why? Well, you then only need to know the RPMs the engine is turning at to derive HP. No way? Go figure? Yes, Captain, that's how it's done. But not always. Example, a top fuel dragster can do a 3.xx quarter mile and has over 3,000 horsepower but getting those horses to all push the rear wheel at the same time is problematic and the name of the game; these dragsters have big problems trying to produce 3,000 hp on a dyno's rolling road. 'Cause the power starts leaking everywhere. So, measurements of top engines are generally restricted to the crank. When you start measuring at the wheel then things get very sticky. Is it with a rider on the bike? How heavy is the bike... etc., etc. BHP is actually trying to measure performance of the bike, and not so much the engine's raw power. You might say BHP is measuring how effectively the engine's power is being transferred to the rear wheel. In any case, I still stand by the original post at the top of this thread. That is, engine horsepower is lost by about 10% to 15% as the power is delivered to the back wheel from the engine. That loss of power comes from the engine carryiing the added load of the parts that come after it, namely, the tranny, clutch, sprockets, chain, wheel, tire, rotor. THEREFORE, the most that could ever be gained (or re-grained) from reducing these parts is that 10-15% loss. And since you need these parts to be strong you can only reduce their weight by a realitively small fraction -- so you'll ever only gain a few percentage of the hp back -- even with big money spent. As for crapizeria wheels, if you read my whole openning remarks you could see I was advocating against spending money on wheels unless you are a serious racer who needs every advantage possible. [Note, however, Carrozzeria (or how ever you spell it) is actually about the best deal out there if you can find them at auction cheaply. Why? The company make the mistake of using a name that was already taken by an existing company, and hence they were taken to court over it. Their original name was HI POINT. Since this conflicted with Hi Point Racing, the wheel company had to change it. That is how the name Carrozzeria came to be. Luckily for a few smart buyers, some of the older wheels in stock could not be remachined with the new name. These mis-named wheels were then dumped on the market at 30 cents on the dollar. Why? Probably by court order. A court will usually give a company a short time to sell out its old stock before the ban on the name begins -- the legal principal here is called "Preventing Economic Waste." And that's a very good argument to use. Consequently, anyone buying those wheels sold by court order would be getting a very sweet deal, indeed. Specifically, wheels that once sold for $2k went for only $600.] Lastly, forged aluminum wheels are 80% stronger than stock cast aluminum wheels. So if you are in PA you'd be much, much better off with the lighter wheels if they are forged.

If you are correct, then answer this, on a dyno, WHAT ELSE IS THE ENGINE DOING??? Or, more specifiically what is the engine pulling after the crank shaft??? Answer: the engine is moving an added load. That load is composed of the resistence offered by the transmission, clutch, sprockets, chain, wheel and tire. These combined forces are measured by mechanisms which brake the rolling road of the dyno. The force detected by the rolling road is how the dyno works. The rolling road measures how much force the rear tire is putting out. It does so by measuring resistence. You can think of the resistence in terms of braking force, or braking resistence. This is why it is called bhp, or brake horsepower. Now, if the engine's crank shaft could act on the braking/measuring instrument directly and not have to carry the additional load then you would be measuring pure crank horsepower or engine horsepower. But, there is one fudge factor in all this, that is, adding resistence is not purely a matter of adding weight -- such as unsprung weight -- the added resistence is scientifically measured by MOI, moment of inertia. MOI depends on where the weight is located, what speed it is going at and how efficient the barings are and so forth. This is important in practical terms, for example, some aftermarket wheels have five sets of barings in the rear axle, while the stock Honda has only 3 sets. Moreover, a well designed aftermarket wheel will have more weight in the center and less around the rim, which reduces the MOI because the rim weight is moving much faster than the axle weight. However, for purposes of judging horsepower gains or losses, and assuming everything else is equal, looking at a decrease in unsprung weight as proportional to a decrease in resistence is fair on this scale of things. That is, the method presented in the beginning of this thread -- of estimating horsepower changes -- is a fair one given the over all circumstances.

Here's a potentially potent final answer to the much debated issue of -- just what effect, if any, reducing unsprung weight has on increasing horse power. A machinist with nothing more than a high school education told me recently that there is a simple solution, and I believe him as he has proved to me many times that he knows more than most engineers that I've met. You simply look at the difference between horsepower ratings at the crank and at the rear wheel. The difference is due to the weight of the unsprung mass and some small loss due to the drag of the gears and clutch (but not much). So, on the XX, you can add up the stock unsprung mass and assume this is 90% responsible for the difference in horse power. Lowering the mass will regain the horsepower in proportion. Example, add the weight of the stock rear wheel (22 lb) tire (17 lb) rotor (3) sprocket (3) and chain (5) that's about 50 lbs of unsprung mass. The crank horsepower numbers for the XX are all over the board depending on the source, etc. But Ride Magazine from England had the 1997 XX at the crank at 165 hp and the rear at 142. So, unsprung mass causes 90% of the 23 hp loss which is about 20 hp. [Note, loaner bikes given to magazine writers notoriously have been lent in a state of high tune, and probably lacked all emissions controls and restrictions, and then there is good ole payola, if you get my drift...] If you reduce the rear by 10 lbs you will regain about 4 horsepower. Reducing the rear by that much means aftermarket and very expensive wheels, race tires, brakes, chain and sprocket -- at least $1,000 and up to $2,000 -- all for 4 or even 5 horsepower. Well, there it is. If you're a privateer shooting for an AFM win -- this may mean everything, but for the average rider... That's $200 per horsepower. Man, that's expensive, to say the least. *************************************************

I believe 16% is way too much of an error. To find the error you compare the stock final gear ratio to your new gear ratio. On the XX, stock is 17 front and 45 rear. Now you are going to 16 front and still 45 rear. So, the math goes like this: Compare 45/17 to 45/16 which is: 2.65 and 2.81. There is then a 0.16 difference, but it is this difference compared to stock of 2.65, so the error is only 6 percent, not 16%. That is 0.16 is only 6% of 2.65. And that would be the speedo error, 6% difference in speed, example, the speedo would now read 100 mph when the bike was actually going 94 mph. *************************************** This statement legally disavows any notion that this reply is accurate in anyway, or even remotely correct, as this post is on the Internet and therefore anything written must be independently scrutinized and, as Rockmeup stated, there is no test or fee or credentials needed to post here. So, use this knowledge at your own risk.

Here's one potentially easy fix that you might experiment with. This will allow your kickstand to be effectively shorter for lowering the bike. You just interpose a stack of quarter size washers between the kickstand and the frame mount. Now, I don't know whether this will work on the XX 'cause I haven't played around with it, but I've seen it done on other bikes at the track, bikes that had adjustable rear lowering links. The stack of washers places the kickstand a few mm away from the frame with increases it's angle and effectively allows the bike to lean over more before the kickstand hits the ground. This will maintain the same lean angle as stock when you lower the rear; and best of all the washers can be stacked a lot or a little depending on how much you lower, and then the washers can simply be removed when you raise the rear back up. So, again, I have not tried this myself, so please experiment in the safety of your own garage before hand.

Hmm... Rockmeup: your message has a feeling that you are not putting your best effort into the reply, as if you are just half heartedly responding -- you don't pay much attention to detail. For example: 1. You say I should sell the louvers to Ford, but the title of the thread and the first entry show that the louvers were invented by Harley for the V-Rod. So how could I sell the louvers to Ford? Your sarcasm just doesn't follow. It sounds like you wrote that reply half asleep. 2. You also describe special constructions of radiators as if that were really an option for an average rider without race team money. On the other hand, we can budget it or my name isn't Steve Jobs. 3. You say you don't argue on the Internet but your replies show the rhetorical skills of a college linguist major. 4. You believe the XX doesn't have a heating problem but you want to sweep under the rug -- the fact that inside the fairing pieces there is heavy insulation. As far as I'm concerned that's a smoking gun that shows the Honda engineers knew about the overheating from the beginning. Those engineers didn't put that insulation in for nothing. It's expensive. 5. Further, the overheating comes from the speed king design spec. itself which the engineers were targeting. [To achieve the fastest bike speed in 1997, Honda had to reduce drag coefficient drastically. As you must know, horse power and speed do not increase at the same rate. For example, if a Harley goes 100 mph with 50 hp, it will not go 200 mph with 100 hp. With 100 hp a Harley will go about 135 mph (a V-Rod with 115 hp has a top speed of around 135-140). To overcome this drawback, Honda reduced drag so that it would not take even 50 hp to go 100. With the XX's fairing, an engine with 35 hp could get the vehicle going about 100 mph or so the theory goes; and therefore, getting up to speed king speeds need take far less horse power, or only 125 hp or so..] 6. The XX has a coefficient of drag of 0.0085, which as you know, is extremely low. This low drag is achieved by creating a slip stream where the nose fairing and fender split the air like a knife through butter. But this is at the expense of lessening the amount of air that hits the radiator. Thus the radiator was enlarged and the insulation put inside the fairing to make up for this. That fact means the engine DOES routinely overheat but the rider is protected from it most of the time, the insulation. And no amount of your rhetoric can pretend otherwise. 7. Lastly, you also state without sufficient foundation that the instrument on my dash which measures air temperature -- that you are familiar with it and that it is faulty. But you don't say why, nor do you name the product. Again, you are trying too hard . We all have bad hair days.

Tweety, what shade of yellow is your XX? What did it set you back if you don't mind saying? Yes, there's lots of tickets given in California and, can you believe, that's with the Gov-i-nator who made the Fat Boy Harley's biggest seller. Sheesh, you would-da thunk different??? In jolly old Eng., the cry is to restrict bikes 'cause of 660 rider deaths in 2002 (last year with complete stats). It seems that a large percentage of those 660 were single vehicle accidents. Read this as meaning that the rider was probably going into corners too hot and... Trying to use track manuevers on country roads... Well, stay away from that trap anyway. Okay, so for the rest, how are all you chaps getting out of tickets? What are you all saying to the cop when he stops you? With an XX, I can't imagine what you'll say except, "sorry, I didn't know this baby would do 175 mph." And try to keep a straight face.