horsepower, etc
Messages
1a
Re: Cb1100
Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:37 pm (PST) . Posted by:
msutv
The laws of physics are sometimes counterintuitive … but never weird and always constant … Unfortunately advertisers (and snake oil salesmen) rarely pay much attention to the laws of physics. Internal combustion engines are basically air pumps. The more air in and out … the more power produced. Failing a “new” law of physics there are 3 ways to make more power (more air in & out). Make the engine bigger, rev it higher or force the air in (as in a variety of methods of supercharging including nitrous). Sometimes I think people are way too gullible when looking at impressive dyno charts and all the rest …
The fact is, there is only one thing that creates power in an engine and that’s the fuel (it’s the only thing that brings BTU’s to the table. If you make more power, you use more fuel … BTU’s) … The air part comes in when you understand that to release those BTU’s you have to combine the fuel with oxygen. It’s easy to get fuel into the engine (it’s very dense), it’s hard to get air (carries the oxygen) into to the engine because it’s so bulky. The point is, the challenge is getting air into and out of the engine (of course fuel has to be mixed accordingly because that’s what carries the BTU’s … but that’s the easy part) … Getting the bulky air in and out is the hard part. So … we’re back to the beginning, if you make the engine bigger (at any given rpm) you move more air in and out … if you rev the engine higher you move more air in and out per unit of time. More power … if you force the air in with a compressor or do it chemically as in nitrous oxide you can use more fuel … more power.
I’m always surprised to learn that some people think adding nitrous oxide to an engine adds power … it does not … It merely allows more fuel to be burned because of the oxygen it carries. Nitrous oxide systems are done two ways. Before there were electronic engine management systems the nitrous oxide systems included an auxiliary fuel system. When you hit the nitrous button, it opened both the nitrous oxide system and an extra fuel system. (The fuel is where the power comes from) … Modern electronic engine management systems usually don’t need the extra fuel system because they have the capability of “reading” the presence of additional oxygen and automatically adding fuel … within reasonable limits (again … the power comes from the fuel … nitrous oxide has no BTU’s) … By the way, for those wondering why they don’t just use oxygen instead of nitrous oxide … the answer is, it’s been done many times … but … adding pure oxygen and fuel is too volatile to work with as a practical matter. The nitrous component of nitrous oxides serves to cool the combustion chamber temperature. Perhaps, one day, in the future, we will have pistons capable of handling heavier loads and higher temperatures … but … for now … nitrous oxide is the practical way of chemically adding oxygen so you can burn more fuel …
The point of all this is to try to get people to read motorcycle road tests and advertisements with a grain of salt. It’s still all physics. Yes you can take an engine like our wonderful “G” and get it to make more power but if you do it by revving it higher (cams, bigger carbs, proper exhaust … perhaps larger valves) you surrender it’s awesome low end torque characteristics … If you do it by making the engine bigger you really don’t have the 1127 cc “G” engine anymore … if you supercharge, you bring in a whole host of problems you really don’t want to deal with … When you see an ad for a machine that has roughly the same size engine as the “G” but much more horsepower … it comes at a higher rpm with the loss of low end … I think there was talk of pondering whether there were “free lunches” … when it comes to engines … I haven’t found one yet. You always give up something to get something … The beauty of the big “G” is, somehow, Suzuki got it just right. They made all the right compromises. It has tons of torque, plenty of power, excellent reliability … For my purposes, they got it right. I’d sure like to find a newer machine that has everything to offer that the big “G” has … but, I haven’t found it yet. While it’s fun to read the tests and compare the opinions … I’d have to ride one first to see how much is hype, opinion … or reality … I’d advise others to do the same. Ride one first, then form an opinion …
In the case of a 750 producing 100 horsepower (the same as an 1100) it’s fairly easily accomplished. Assuming the information is true, it’s done with rpm. Some of you may remember the 750cc 4 cylinder 2-stroke Yamaha road raced in the mid-70’s. This is the engine Kenny Roberts won the Indy mile dirt track oval with. It produced 150 horsepower at 11,000 rpm but if not revved violently didn’t make enough horsepower, at low rpm, to even get under way. It made spectacular horsepower at very high rpm but it’s powerband was less than 200 rpm … While he won the race (after figuring out he had to hold the throttle wide open the entire time and clipped nearly every haybale in the place) … his statement in the winners circle was … “They don’t pay me enough to ride that thing” … a few days later the AMA banned the engine. The point I’m trying to make is, you give up something to get something. In the case of Kenny Roberts win on the the Indy mile there was no question of the outrageous power Yamaha was pulling from the 750 but when someone with the talent of Kenny Roberts says … its not really rideable you can believe … it isn’t rideable … 4-strokes respond the same way (it’s about getting air into and out of the engine). It isn’t hard to get 100 horsepower out of a 750 … but you sacrifice so much low end they become difficult to ride … Once again, there are no free lunches … think of engine power as a stack of coins … if you want more at the top, you have to take it off the bottom (the reverse is also true … if you want more at the bottom, you take it from the top) …
Once again, ride them first before forming an opinion. You may very well prefer a machine with less horsepower but more low end torque … or … you may prefer having the power hit you like a rocket thruster at 5,000 or 6,000 rpm …. It’s not just about power, characteristics count too …
Chicago Bill
But, I’m not sure why they put out 100 HP from a 750 the same as from an 1100? There must be some weird law about that somewhere
—–Original Message—–
From: Lee [email protected]>
To: gsx1100g [email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Jan 13, 2013 8:59 am
Subject: Re: [GSX1100G] Re: Cb1100
That’s cool. You Have it all professionally done. My mechanic says the bandit pulls the same power band as the G. Obviously, the bigger engine is more. But, I’m not sure why they put out 100 HP from a 750 the same as from an 1100? There must be some weird law about that somewhere. I miss the cool power helpers. Like Yamaha YICS. Or insulated ram air horns for the air box. Back when I was a kid power was everything. Guys would spend their entire paychecks to get a few more horsepower from their muscle car. Come cruise night it was all about respect. And girls liked it. Not sure why they came out with anti cruise laws later. If you drove by more then a couple times it was a ticket! I was in Yakima Washington about 6 months ago and they still cruise on the weekends. Just with civics. Lol!
Of course these bikes will beat any of those expensive muscle cars (or Civics). That’s always a good thing to know. Should be good riding this week but the temp is just above freezing. Wish I had a snowmobile helmet again for brain freeze.
Lee, Prof. In WA
https://sites.google.com/site/inventionrd/
On Jan 13, 2013, at 4:26, “rich55barrett” [email protected]> wrote:
> Just had another look at this bike and comparing it with my ’07 bandit. max Torque is quite a bit down at 69 ft-lbs compared to the bandit at 85. I rather like the leap the bandit has and wouldn’t want to give that up… it’s the bike I would consider trading in.
>
> http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/honda/2013-honda-cb1100-review-quick-ride-91464.html
>
> http://www.holeshot.com/dynocharts/dyno_bandit1250.html
>
> Dale has done a pretty good job of uncorking the new bandit as well and has a stage 3 in the works also, making even more power and torque. He’s getting 147hp & 99ft lbs with I think head flowing, new cams and either an ECU re-flash or just a rev limit increase. All on his dyno at 4000 feet.
>
> I guess water cooling and a 100cc’s do make a difference
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (24) . Top ^
1b
Re: Cb1100
Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:19 pm (PST) . Posted by:
“John Struthers” jstruthers82
Bill,
Generally, I agree with you on pretty much most of what you say, and this … over time, not just this specific thread.
However, having experienced my son’s1997 GSXR 750, and more recently, his 2011 GSXR 1000 I will have this to say.
Horsepower is horsepower.
You can argue torque, rpm, carbs/injectors, Turbo/S/C, cams/valve size & timing, engine/fuel management systems, exhaust,
what-have you but if you are stuck looking at this from a 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, early 90’s point of view then you will never fully appreciate
what has happened in terms of HP and Modern vs Classic motorcyles and motorcycling.
My son’s, 1997 750 GSXR was carbed, red lined at 13,500 rpm and the ergonomics were much better tha na 70’s Cafe racer.
While you might point to the 118 HP as limited in torque down low you would not be anywhere near 30% correct. Though perhaps not as wide
as our torque band on the G that little 750 had several other things going for it… like having five, later 6, spot on gears designed for that bike and its great engine.
The fact that the engineers pared the weight down to 347 lbs or so also affected how that power/torque band was applied along with the band width.
As a chain driven machine one could also play with sprockets and tire heigth & width which affect not only ratios but handling, application of torque and suspension/ride.
If you don’t believe me get outand try one. That bike was, at my age and weight -over 250lbs at that time- would stand straight up on simple throttle commands
in all but the top gear and if desired wheelies could be very easily attained, maintained at any desired heigth … controlled by simply twisting the throttle.
Unlike the old days this was neither difficult or violent in any respect …just smooth. Point of fact, for those of us who still goose our G’s …a lot,
there was little ‘noticeable' torque band width difference between the 750 Gixxer and the mighty G when speed shifting from a dead stop, or roll ons’ even through 2nd/3rd gears.
Of course the 750 lost out on fuel economy on average by about 3-4 mpg up to about 85 where the G BLED fuel comparitively from there on. Comparing our G’s to any year
GSXR 1000 is just unfair unless you are considering over 300 mile trips for comfort, in every other area the Gixxer wins… even if you mounted luggage on the 1000 -and you can-.
To be striaght up with you …yes, there are laws of physics that remain imuteable. But those laws are affected by application or modification of the base example or it’s intended purpose. A GSXR 750/1000 are not G’s, nor were they intended to be but on the other hand nearly anyone who has ridden a Gixxer of any size a couple of times will tell you as far as torque/hp/ride the engine sacrificed nothing and the rider will be pleased to tell you that other than that f’ked up bent over riding position the ride was primo.
THESE AREN’T THOSE RACE BIKE FROM BACK IN THE DAY, THEY AREN’T BUZZY, TRAPPED IN A POWER BAND TO OPERATE. They run just as quiet as our G’s, powerband/torque is not an issue at all. I never made it past 174 mph on my sons 1000 Gixxer -ran out of guts not power- but the ride was smoother and sounder(?) than my G at 125mph yet that 1000 could cruise in 4thof 6 gears all day quietly at 80 mph and at a reasonable rpm.
So again, while you are on track in almost everything you say … the constant commenting about losing rideability or for that matter rider preference for a stronger wider low end pull is ,at least with todays 750 -and even smaller engines- not vadid…the pysics IS the opinon isn’t.
There is no arguement here Bill it’s a fact. Put your old engine building, race experience, kenny roberts stuff in a strongbox and borrow a 750 1000 GSXR for a couple days/weeks.
I promise you other than bending old knees and back to ride them you will see my point particularly on the 750.
Years ago a beautiful, raven haired woman on a 400/440(?) Kawasaki demonstrated and demaned i ride the demon to shut my big opinionated, 750 Honda riding mouth -no reflection on you…but physics aside Bill you have to ride one and not just for the speed. OK?
later, soon to be a North Western Pennsylvanian …AGAIN! attn Christian…
John Struthers
________________________________
From: “[email protected]” [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [GSX1100G] Re: Cb1100
The laws of physics are sometimes counterintuitive … but never weird and always constant … Unfortunately advertisers (and snake oil salesmen) rarely pay much attention to the laws of physics. Internal combustion engines are basically air pumps. The more air in and out … the more power produced. Failing a “new” law of physics there are 3 ways to make more power (more air in & out). Make the engine bigger, rev it higher or force the air in (as in a variety of methods of supercharging including nitrous). Sometimes I think people are way too gullible when looking at impressive dyno charts and all the rest …
The fact is, there is only one thing that creates power in an engine and that’s the fuel (it’s the only thing that brings BTU’s to the table. If you make more power, you use more fuel … BTU’s) … The air part comes in when you understand that to release those BTU’s you have to combine the fuel with oxygen. It’s easy to get fuel into the engine (it’s very dense), it’s hard to get air (carries the oxygen) into to the engine because it’s so bulky. The point is, the challenge is getting air into and out of the engine (of course fuel has to be mixed accordingly because that’s what carries the BTU’s … but that’s the easy part) … Getting the bulky air in and out is the hard part. So … we’re back to the beginning, if you make the engine bigger (at any given rpm) you move more air in and out … if you rev the engine higher you move more air in and out per unit of time. More power … if you force the air in with a compressor or do it chemically as in
nitrous oxide you can use more fuel … more power.
I’m always surprised to learn that some people think adding nitrous oxide to an engine adds power … it does not … It merely allows more fuel to be burned because of the oxygen it carries. Nitrous oxide systems are done two ways. Before there were electronic engine management systems the nitrous oxide systems included an auxiliary fuel system. When you hit the nitrous button, it opened both the nitrous oxide system and an extra fuel system. (The fuel is where the power comes from) … Modern electronic engine management systems usually don’t need the extra fuel system because they have the capability of “reading” the presence of additional oxygen and automatically adding fuel … within reasonable limits (again … the power comes from the fuel … nitrous oxide has no BTU’s) … By the way, for those wondering why they don’t just use oxygen instead of nitrous oxide … the answer is, it’s been done many times … but … adding pure oxygen
and fuel is too volatile to work with as a practical matter. The nitrous component of nitrous oxides serves to cool the combustion chamber temperature. Perhaps, one day, in the future, we will have pistons capable of handling heavier loads and higher temperatures … but … for now … nitrous oxide is the practical way of chemically adding oxygen so you can burn more fuel …
The point of all this is to try to get people to read motorcycle road tests and advertisements with a grain of salt. It’s still all physics. Yes you can take an engine like our wonderful “G” and get it to make more power but if you do it by revving it higher (cams, bigger carbs, proper exhaust … perhaps larger valves) you surrender it’s awesome low end torque characteristics … If you do it by making the engine bigger you really don’t have the 1127 cc “G” engine anymore … if you supercharge, you bring in a whole host of problems you really don’t want to deal with … When you see an ad for a machine that has roughly the same size engine as the “G” but much more horsepower … it comes at a higher rpm with the loss of low end … I think there was talk of pondering whether there were “free lunches” … when it comes to engines … I haven’t found one yet. You always give up something to get something … The beauty of the big “G” is,
somehow, Suzuki got it just right. They made all the right compromises. It has tons of torque, plenty of power, excellent reliability … For my purposes, they got it right. I’d sure like to find a newer machine that has everything to offer that the big “G” has … but, I haven’t found it yet. While it’s fun to read the tests and compare the opinions … I’d have to ride one first to see how much is hype, opinion … or reality … I’d advise others to do the same. Ride one first, then form an opinion …
In the case of a 750 producing 100 horsepower (the same as an 1100) it’s fairly easily accomplished. Assuming the information is true, it’s done with rpm. Some of you may remember the 750cc 4 cylinder 2-stroke Yamaha road raced in the mid-70’s. This is the engine Kenny Roberts won the Indy mile dirt track oval with. It produced 150 horsepower at 11,000 rpm but if not revved violently didn’t make enough horsepower, at low rpm, to even get under way. It made spectacular horsepower at very high rpm but it’s powerband was less than 200 rpm … While he won the race (after figuring out he had to hold the throttle wide open the entire time and clipped nearly every haybale in the place) … his statement in the winners circle was … “They don’t pay me enough to ride that thing” … a few days later the AMA banned the engine. The point I’m trying to make is, you give up something to get something. In the case of Kenny Roberts win on the the Indy
mile there was no question of the outrageous power Yamaha was pulling from the 750 but when someone with the talent of Kenny Roberts says … its not really rideable you can believe … it isn’t rideable … 4-strokes respond the same way (it’s about getting air into and out of the engine). It isn’t hard to get 100 horsepower out of a 750 … but you sacrifice so much low end they become difficult to ride … Once again, there are no free lunches … think of engine power as a stack of coins … if you want more at the top, you have to take it off the bottom (the reverse is also true … if you want more at the bottom, you take it from the top) …
Once again, ride them first before forming an opinion. You may very well prefer a machine with less horsepower but more low end torque … or … you may prefer having the power hit you like a rocket thruster at 5,000 or 6,000 rpm …. It’s not just about power, characteristics count too …
Chicago Bill
But, I’m not sure why they put out 100 HP from a 750 the same as from an 1100? There must be some weird law about that somewhere
—–Original Message—-
That’s cool. You Have it all professionally done. My mechanic says the bandit pulls the same power band as the G. Obviously, the bigger engine is more. But, I’m not sure why they put out 100 HP from a 750 the same as from an 1100? There must be some weird law about that somewhere. I miss the cool power helpers. Like Yamaha YICS. Or insulated ram air horns for the air box. Back when I was a kid power was everything. Guys would spend their entire paychecks to get a few more horsepower from their muscle car. Come cruise night it was all about respect. And girls liked it. Not sure why they came out with anti cruise laws later. If you drove by more then a couple times it was a ticket! I was in Yakima Washington about 6 months ago and they still cruise on the weekends. Just with civics. Lol!
Of course these bikes will beat any of those expensive muscle cars (or Civics). That’s always a good thing to know. Should be good riding this week but the temp is just above freezing. Wish I had a snowmobile helmet again for brain freeze.
Lee, Prof. In WA
https://sites.google.com/site/inventionrd/
On Jan 13, 2013, at 4:26, “rich55barrett” mailto:rich55barrett%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just had another look at this bike and comparing it with my ’07 bandit. max Torque is quite a bit down at 69 ft-lbs compared to the bandit at 85. I rather like the leap the bandit has and wouldn’t want to give that up… it’s the bike I would consider trading in.
>
> http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/honda/2013-honda-cb1100-review-quick-ride-91464.html
>
> http://www.holeshot.com/dynocharts/dyno_bandit1250.html
>
> Dale has done a pretty good job of uncorking the new bandit as well and has a stage 3 in the works also, making even more power and torque. He’s getting 147hp & 99ft lbs with I think head flowing, new cams and either an ECU re-flash or just a rev limit increase. All on his dyno at 4000 feet.
>
> I guess water cooling and a 100cc’s do make a difference
>
>
Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:51 pm (PST) . Posted by:
“rich55barrett” rich55barrett
Well, I must have stuffed something up.
It ran great in the garage on saturday for 5 minutes, but when I pulled it out to go to work today, it ran awful – sounded like it was flooding again – but drove it to work anyway (in -3C / 28F temps to boot)
Coming home it had the same issue, but did seem to get a bit better after the freeway blast, but something is definately wrong.
So I got the allen key out and opened up the drains – first into a cap to see if there was water – nope! then tucked the little tubes back up against the carbs. #3 was in the flooding range again – and this one has the new float.
Wonder what I’ll be doing this weekend again
Parked it and pulled the bandit out again for the rest of the weeks commute
— In [email protected], “rich55barrett” wrote:
>
> If you are stuck inside due to the cold, here’s another one of those little stories from the riverbank… this time about a carb float that went bad and a method to see if the carbs are flooding, that just about anyone can do with a minimum of tools.
>
> Here’s the pdf file link
> http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4NzxUPR8lYIYb5R8OAyjono3eqnhv8FGYBuvuE8ZO984nqwY2OJy1_xE-cgAgYMVmH0L8mFJAmTLMZBavuvvQ5M-qiqg1DGl2rYc/RichB%20in%20AZ%27s%20Blog/Fuel%20Level%20in%20Carbs.pdf
>
> Failing that, it’s in the Files section on the left, RichBinAZ blog, scroll down to fuel level in carbs.pdf
>
> I’ll post it up on photobucket also – have to fill that space somehow.
>Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (5) . Top ^
2b
Re: More carb flooding
Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:40 pm (PST) . Posted by:
“John Struthers” jstruthers82
Hang in there.
________________________________
From: rich55barrett [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 5:51 PM
Subject: [GSX1100G] Re: More carb flooding
Well, I must have stuffed something up.
It ran great in the garage on saturday for 5 minutes, but when I pulled it out to go to work today, it ran awful – sounded like it was flooding again – but drove it to work anyway (in -3C / 28F temps to boot)
Coming home it had the same issue, but did seem to get a bit better after the freeway blast, but something is definately wrong.
So I got the allen key out and opened up the drains – first into a cap to see if there was water – nope! then tucked the little tubes back up against the carbs. #3 was in the flooding range again – and this one has the new float.
Wonder what I’ll be doing this weekend again
Parked it and pulled the bandit out again for the rest of the weeks commute
— In mailto:gsx1100g%40yahoogroups.com, “rich55barrett” wrote:
>
> If you are stuck inside due to the cold, here’s another one of those little stories from the riverbank… this time about a carb float that went bad and a method to see if the carbs are flooding, that just about anyone can do with a minimum of tools.
>
> Here’s the pdf file link
> http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4NzxUPR8lYIYb5R8OAyjono3eqnhv8FGYBuvuE8ZO984nqwY2OJy1_xE-cgAgYMVmH0L8mFJAmTLMZBavuvvQ5M-qiqg1DGl2rYc/RichB%20in%20AZ%27s%20Blog/Fuel%20Level%20in%20Carbs.pdf
>
> Failing that, it’s in the Files section on the left, RichBinAZ blog, scroll down to fuel level in carbs.pdf
>
> I’ll post it up on photobucket also – have to fill that space somehow.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (5) . Top ^
2c
Re: More carb flooding
Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:59 pm (PST) . Posted by:
“Lee” bonsaicatto
The cold makes everything stiff and hard to move.
Lee, Prof. In WA
https://sites.google.com/site/inventionrd/
On Jan 14, 2013, at 15:51, “rich55barrett” [email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I must have stuffed something up.
>
> It ran great in the garage on saturday for 5 minutes, but when I pulled it out to go to work today, it ran awful – sounded like it was flooding again – but drove it to work anyway (in -3C / 28F temps to boot)
>
> Coming home it had the same issue, but did seem to get a bit better after the freeway blast, but something is definately wrong.
>
> So I got the allen key out and opened up the drains – first into a cap to see if there was water – nope! then tucked the little tubes back up against the carbs. #3 was in the flooding range again – and this one has the new float.
>
> Wonder what I’ll be doing this weekend again
>
> Parked it and pulled the bandit out again for the rest of the weeks commute
>
> — In [email protected], “rich55barrett” wrote:
> >
> > If you are stuck inside due to the cold, here’s another one of those little stories from the riverbank… this time about a carb float that went bad and a method to see if the carbs are flooding, that just about anyone can do with a minimum of tools.
> >
> > Here’s the pdf file link
> > http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4NzxUPR8lYIYb5R8OAyjono3eqnhv8FGYBuvuE8ZO984nqwY2OJy1_xE-cgAgYMVmH0L8mFJAmTLMZBavuvvQ5M-qiqg1DGl2rYc/RichB%20in%20AZ%27s%20Blog/Fuel%20Level%20in%20Carbs.pdf
> >
> > Failing that, it’s in the Files section on the left, RichBinAZ blog, scroll down to fuel level in carbs.pdf
> >
> > I’ll post it up on photobucket also – have to fill that space somehow.
> >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (5) . Top ^
2d
Re: More carb flooding
Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:09 pm (PST) . Posted by:
msutv
It sounds like you have isolated the problem to flooding in the #3 carburetor. I know you know what your doing so I hesitate to ask a couple of obvious questions … but I can’t get past this if I don’t ask. I assume you checked the needle & seat(?). Of course, I’m sure you are aware if the needle seat are leaking there is no way the float can shut off the fuel entering the bowl (I know it’s obvious… but I had to ask). I think I’d also double check the mixture enricner to make sure it’s seating properly. This shouldn’t effect float level but I think I’d check it … If you are unable to control the float level in the #3 carburetor there has to be a reason … I’d certainly be interested in knowing what you find … I’m sure you’ll find it …
Chicago Bill
#3 was in the flooding range again – and this one has the new float.
—–Original Message—–
From: rich55barrett [email protected]>
To: gsx1100g [email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Jan 14, 2013 5:51 pm
Subject: [GSX1100G] Re: More carb flooding
Well, I must have stuffed something up.
It ran great in the garage on saturday for 5 minutes, but when I pulled it out to go to work today, it ran awful – sounded like it was flooding again – but drove it to work anyway (in -3C / 28F temps to boot)
Coming home it had the same issue, but did seem to get a bit better after the freeway blast, but something is definately wrong.
So I got the allen key out and opened up the drains – first into a cap to see if there was water – nope! then tucked the little tubes back up against the carbs. #3 was in the flooding range again – and this one has the new float.
Wonder what I’ll be doing this weekend again
Parked it and pulled the bandit out again for the rest of the weeks commute
— In [email protected], “rich55barrett” wrote:
>
> If you are stuck inside due to the cold, here’s another one of those little stories from the riverbank… this time about a carb float that went bad and a method to see if the carbs are flooding, that just about anyone can do with a minimum of tools.
>
> Here’s the pdf file link
> http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4NzxUPR8lYIYb5R8OAyjono3eqnhv8FGYBuvuE8ZO984nqwY2OJy1_xE-cgAgYMVmH0L8mFJAmTLMZBavuvvQ5M-qiqg1DGl2rYc/RichB%20in%20AZ%27s%20Blog/Fuel%20Level%20in%20Carbs.pdf
>
> Failing that, it’s in the Files section on the left, RichBinAZ blog, scroll down to fuel level in carbs.pdf
>
> I’ll post it up on photobucket also – have to fill that space somehow.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (5) . Top ^
We are making changes based on your feedback, Thank you !
The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog
http://2wheelwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/