Dezza Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 Any idea what engine the frame was originally built for? I would have guessed a bloody great air cooled four so it's a little puzzling why putting a teensy-weensy little oil cooled engine in it results in such a lack of space at the sides . Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted September 5 Author Share Posted September 5 3 hours ago, Dezza said: Any idea what engine the frame was originally built for? Yes @jbasked Georges Martin and he sent him a letter saying it origanly had a GS1000 motor and I have the letter 3 Quote Link to comment
Dezza Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 Weird - a GS1000 engine is clearly much larger than a B12 engine so we'd expect more clearance all round not less when a physically smaller lump is fitted Maybe the orignal engine sat lower in the frame. Quote Link to comment
TonyGee Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 54 minutes ago, Dezza said: Weird - a GS1000 engine is clearly much larger than a B12 engine so we'd expect more clearance all round not less when a physically smaller lump is fitted Maybe the orignal engine sat lower in the frame. Ive just done some quick measurements of my GSX11 and B12 engines and theirs not a lot of difference really !!!! the only big difference is the GSX is about 3.5 inches wider along the crank plane because of the geny. Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted September 5 Author Share Posted September 5 2 hours ago, TonyGee said: Ive just done some quick measurements of my GSX11 and B12 engines and theirs not a lot of difference really !!!! the only big difference is the GSX is about 3.5 inches wider along the crank plane because of the geny. And that hangs below the frame rails. 1 Quote Link to comment
imago Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 4 hours ago, Dezza said: Weird - a GS1000 engine is clearly much larger than a B12 engine so we'd expect more clearance all round not less when a physically smaller lump is fitted Maybe the orignal engine sat lower in the frame. I had very similar carb fitting issues with the 16v 1100 in the Dresda which previously had a GS 1000 engine. A bit of head scratching and asking around came up with the answer as to why very similar engines had very different fitment issues. Smooth bore/round slide carbs fitted to the GS engines (tuned or not) are way narrower at the top where the flat slides or CV carbs are wide. It was as simple as that. I got a set of smooth bores and they fit with plenty of room. 3 Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted September 9 Author Share Posted September 9 Bought a couple more of these flip plates, obviously for show use only. 5 Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 Few little turbo bits turned up to plumb the carbs. Made a temporary bearing sleeve up out of mild steel for the swingarm arm pivot which is 17mm, new arm is 16mm and the bearings are different sizes to the bearings sleeves won't swap over. Nipped all the engine mounts up as well. 2 Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted September 12 Author Share Posted September 12 (edited) I did make another swinging arm bearing sleeve out of mild steel for mockup last night and fitted the swinging arm to see what was what. Today some needle roller inner rings made of carbon chromium steel arrived from Simply Bearings. I couldn't get the size I wanted so after some head scratching I ordered 2 different sizes 4 in total so one set slides inside the other which overcomes the difference between the swingarm arm and frame spindle size. Fitted it all together and made some temporary wheel spacers to get the back wheel to fit the 20mm spindle and centered it up. Not a lot of room for the sprocket carrier . Edited September 12 by clivegto 1 Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted Monday at 05:48 PM Author Share Posted Monday at 05:48 PM Removed the suds from the R1 sprocket carrier useing 2 nuts locked together and heated the carrier up with a heat gun to soften the thread lock. Got 5 of the 6 out alright but had to use a snap-on stuud extractor tool to get the 6th out . Done a few calculations and have take 21mm of the sprocket surface, that's as far as I've got this evening. 3 Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted Tuesday at 06:32 PM Author Share Posted Tuesday at 06:32 PM Took a load of material out of the hub to sink the carrier bearing further in and chopped the outside housing down. Trial fit shows the chain run to be out by 1mm because I left 1mm of material on the sprocket carrier incase my calculations were a little out. 530 chain just to say touches the frame and has 1.5mm clearance to the 190 tyre with the wheel in the middle, so will run a 525 chain which was my origanl plan anyway. Left enough material to fit a dust seal on the carrier but will remove that as it touches the swingarm arm, just run a sealed bearing like it already has. Am pleased with this evenings results as I knew it would be a tight fit. 7 Quote Link to comment
Svsam Posted Tuesday at 07:14 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:14 PM Looks snug Clive. Snug is good Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted Tuesday at 08:27 PM Author Share Posted Tuesday at 08:27 PM 1 hour ago, Svsam said: Looks snug Clive. Snug is good Tis snuger than a snug thing indeed mate. 525 chain will work well with this after a little fine tuning 1 Quote Link to comment
clivegto Posted 7 hours ago Author Share Posted 7 hours ago Took some more material off the sprocket carrier then cut down the bearing carrier to 35mm, this is as hard as hell so I cut it down in the lathe with a slitting disc in the grinder then ground it to size with a flap wheel in the grinder. Worked a treat 5 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.