Author |
Message |
S1owner
| Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 02:09 pm: |
|
Cool i will keep an eye out for one if i can find one cheap enough i will pick it up! If it is ok with you your help would be awesome i could use your fab work on the swing arm and fitting the wheel i can handle the mounting of the shock. I am picking ip a frame but have misplaced his contact info so jopefully he gets ahold of me! Post a pic of your blast would love to see it |
Hootowl
| Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 02:20 pm: |
|
It isn't the frame I would be concerned about, it is the new lateral load on the front mount. The front mount assembly was designed to take the weight of the engine hanging from it. The rear isolators were designed to take the weight of the frame and rider pushing down on them. This new rear shock configuration puts loads on those points that are outside of their design parameters. I'm just wondering if anyone who has done this modification has had issues with snapping front engine mount bolts. Has this been discussed before? It's probably fine, I'm just thinking out loud. |
Kc_zombie
| Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 03:41 pm: |
|
I am just curios, isn't "mass centralization" the main contributing factor to the handling characteristics of the so called uniplar frame design and therefore by moving weight up above the center line of the frame ends up defeating the very purpose of the design? |
S1owner
| Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 04:48 pm: |
|
Well um sure but the weight if the shock goes up the oil comes down i am sure that we can engineer every thought but i cruise not race so not worried about it but if you were driving the snot out of it there may be a change i bet fox could chim in on alot of this but i me i tend to have issues like fox i must modify and change things or i feel wrong!!!! |
Loose1
| Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 05:17 pm: |
|
Hootowl, the way a stock tuber is all the weight from the rear of the bike is on the motor/mounts, because the swing arm and shock are attached to it. If you change it to a xb swing arm you will split up the forces/weight. Some on the motor and some on the frame. On the weight question. The xb swing arm and shock is lighter than the tuber parts, assuming a steel swing arm, and like S1 said you would be moving the oil from under the seat to the swing arm. It should have no ill affects, and it's been done before and on bikes that get rode. Matt |
Kc_zombie
| Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Ken, I get it the need for change in all things mechanical is hard to resist. Either way the aesthetics are nice, and it makes for a good looking machine. I was just posing the question. Have a great New Year! |
Hootowl
| Posted on Tuesday, January 01, 2013 - 10:03 am: |
|
I get that. But where does the force go that is exerted on the frame? Where does it meet the force being exerted on the swingarm and motor cases? The rubber mounts. And in a direction they were not designed to have force applied to them. I'm not saying it isn't safe, or that it won't work. It obviously does. Just wondering about the stresses involved. |
Purpony
| Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 12:50 pm: |
|
I have been going to do this mod for three years now... had an 03 swingarm but didnt want to mod my frame so i sold it... Now I have a spare frame, 06 swingarm, and shock... ready to roll... and i think i decided again not to do it... lol... just dont have time and dont feel like taking my bike all apart again.... |
Onespeedpaul
| Posted on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 01:35 pm: |
|
@hootowl, the XB bikes use nearly the same front isolator/engine mount design as the tuber bikes. so i can't seem to figure out what "force" and "load" problems you're going on about?? if anything the cases are less stressed because the shock isn't connected to them anymore. @everyone else, the least painful way to get XB swingarm/shock on a tuber is to use an XB engine with a rear shock and engine mount welded into the frame where the oil tank used to be, and up front use the NHRS XB head/tuber frame mount. (Message edited by onespeedpaul on February 09, 2013) |
Coxster
| Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 07:54 am: |
|
can't remember where I found this, UKBEG maybe?
|
Pontlee77
| Posted on Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 10:26 am: |
|
if the reason for the conversion is related to the rear pull suspension why not get this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rear-suspension-linkage-ki t-for-BUELL-X1-S1-by-RBT-MADE-IN-ITALY-/3210532751 17?item=321053275117&ViewItem=&vxp=mtr&nma=true&si =ageZG5D%252FICFbHq06Fm28XIKmmxI%253D&orig_cvip=tr ue&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 sure it's not cheap but you change from a pull shock to a compresion one |
Hootowl
| Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 09:13 am: |
|
@Onespeedpaul The rear isolator on the XB frame is quite different than the ones on the tubers. And, I hesitate to point out, it was designed to take the load whereas the tuber isolators were not. They were only designed to take the weight of the frame and rider. |
Onespeedpaul
| Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 10:01 am: |
|
but if you're using a XB motor/swingarm (which is what we're still talking about here right?) with the XB rear isolator and the tuber frame braced accordingly to accept the XB rear isolator and shock where's the problem? hahah, either way, i am going to do it, and i'll post up pics when done.... |
Hootowl
| Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 10:36 am: |
|
"with the XB rear isolator and the tuber frame braced accordingly to accept the XB rear isolator" I completely missed that. Thought you were using the stock tuber isolators. Carry on |
Onespeedpaul
| Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 11:09 am: |
|
Hahah, no problemo!! Getting rid of the tuber isolators and having the swing arm pivot so much closer to the sprocket are two HUGE advantages I see to doing it this way....just adapting the Xb swing arm to a tuber motor is neat, but it isn't the way to get the most advantage available... |
S1owner
| Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 08:38 pm: |
|
Paul i like your thoughts! |