| Author |
Message |
    
Oldog
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2010 - 10:33 pm: | 
|
some other cool shiznit!
this was done by hand on manual machines
it requires painstaking work with the slightest slip ruining the work
it starts out as a block of aluminum the sphere is machined inside the cube!
James made the punch for me as a gift, its too pretty to use so it adorns my dinner table as ART the tip is tool steel so it will hold a point the body is mild steel,
notice how clean and uniform the knurles are, the punch is polished all over ( to pretty to hit with a hammer
1125R axle sliders billet aluminum, made to my design (I need to mount them now)
|
Jramsey
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 09:52 am: |
|
Jim, the point of the center punch is the core from a 7.62 AP round (Carbide).
The body is O1 drill rod non hardened. |
Oldog
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2010 - 04:10 pm: |
|
I stand corrected |
Jramsey
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 07:58 pm: |
|
Matt, you have a PM. |
Jos51700
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2010 - 08:39 pm: |
|
I hate to break it to you guys, but the engine-frame relationship didn't really change much from tube-frame to XB. The frames changed, obviously, but the "stressed member" vs. "not" is a moot point.
Tube-frame uses two "rear" engine mounts, XB uses one, but other than that, similar engine mounting locations, similar tie-bar mounting locations, etc.
Ever notice how the XB oil cooler hangs off of a handy "tube-frame" front tie bar mount?
There are multiple factors that contribute to better handling from XB's, but very little of it is engine mounting.
Now, tube-frame/XB to 1125...Yes. |
Jramsey
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 09:50 am: |
|
"moot point".........?
Comparing the XB with its push shock that mounts between the swing arm and frame and the tube frames pull shock mounted between the swing arm and the engine that is hung by front Iso to me is like comparing apples to oranges. |
Jos51700
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 02:22 pm: |
|
Stressed vs. Not is a moot point because the engine mounting and engine-frame relationship is near-identical on either model.
I honestly don't know if the shock mounting changes contribute to the positive handling of the XB, but I'll agree with you, the shock mounting is totally different between the two, and as I said, there are a lot of other changes between the two that contribute to the difference in handling. Namely: The extra stiffness of the XB frame allows it's absurdly short rake.
Shock mounts don't affect how the engine is mounted in the frame one bit, however. XB's and tube frame models BOTH hang the engine by the front isolator. All have tie-bars in very similar locations: Front of engine, top of engine, rear of engine (excepting X1's that have an additional tie-bar near the front isolator). Were the frame not in the way, the XB engine rotation procedure could be done on tube-frame models (and it can be done a little bit, just not much.)
Someone said they were different. They are not part-for-part identical, but the design is no different between the two, and neither is too far removed from an entire generation of HD Touring bikes, Dyna's, and FXR's.
XB's and tubies can both be thought of as a "drive unit" (rear wheel, swingarm, engine/trans, and belt), and "steering unit" (Front end, frame, everything else). |
Oldog
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2010 - 06:45 pm: |
|
The extra stiffness of the XB frame allows it's absurdly short rake.
that steel frame is quite stiff the "flex" is the three point rubber mount,
I am under the inpression that the XB swingarm is attached to the frame and the engine is rubber mounted with the pivot shaft passing thru that mount...
but I have never studied that layout in an XB fsm.} |
Jos51700
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2010 - 11:30 pm: |
|
that steel frame is quite stiff the "flex" is the three point rubber mount,
The tie-bars provide the rigidity in the necessary directions. Basically the tie-bars allow the motor to vibrate in the same plane as the wheels without allowing the rear wheel to move out of alignment with the front. This concept is identical in XB's and tube-frame. The XB frame is markedly stiffer in the necessary directions than the tube-frame. It's not that the tube-frame isn't stiff, it's just that the XB is much more so.
I am under the inpression that the XB swingarm is attached to the frame and the engine is rubber mounted with the pivot shaft passing thru that mount...
but I have never studied that layout in an XB fsm.
The XB swingarm mounts directly to the rear of the engine case, and the engine hangs from the front motor mount and a single mount in the rear that bolts to the engine case above the transmission. The rear engine mount and the swingarm pivot are probably about 4-5 inches apart on XB's... |
Ratbuell
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2010 - 12:47 am: |
|
Ever ride a tuber back to back on the same road with an XB?
I can *guarantee* you the tuber has chassis flex, and it's more than engine mounting.
Neither is dangerous or unsettling...but there IS a difference. The tuber likes to bend in the middle and you have to give it a little 'english' to get through...if you pay attention you can feel the flex from pegs, to seat, to engine, to bars. The XB, just pick a line and go.
And we won't even get into the Loki (1125) platform. That damn thing feels like a piece of solid billet it's so rigid.
(yes, I own all three and ride 'em regularly) |
|
