Weaving In The High Speed Sweepers

Mike Barone #123 · Post by **Mike Barone #123** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:33 am

Dave....I would like to understand this ...maybe a few minutes at Brookville if you would not mind

I do think all this is giving Honda production processes alot more credit for accuracy in 1979 and 1980 than was possible....after all if the 79 was that precise in total and in the pivot bolt area of the frame specifically.... why was there a need for the 80 to be upgraded with an adjuster in this same area.

My wild guess for this change is some of the 79 rear ends on assembly line were simply not sliding up and in without some adjustments.

Bill
I hope with all this information you understand that in the end this is not all that difficult and with the data on prior handling fixes presented plus help from Dave and others you now have a clear path to move forward and solve your handling issue.

All I ask you to consider is what I stated earlier.....do the front and back 1100f install at the same time or the front first....do not do the back first and think the handling will be fixed or safe.

See you in Brookville

Mike

bdento59 · Post by **bdento59** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:00 am

Mike Barone #123 wrote:Bill
I hope with all this information you understand that in the end this is not all that difficult and with the data on prior handling fixes presented plus help from Dave and others you now have a clear path to move forward and solve your handling issue. Mike

Yes, it helps a lot. BTW, I do have an entire rear SA, including axle, adjusters, brake hangar, etc... all I'm misiing is the pivot bolt, collar and dust caps. However, after all of the informative posts, especially Dave's, I think I'd like to discuss it, and see it, in person at Brookville before I proceed.

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:39 am

A nice little video of the install would be very helpful

EMS · Post by **EMS** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:34 am

Mike Barone #123 wrote: ... why was there a need for the 80 to be upgraded with an adjuster in this same area.

Mike

For one thing, the 80 has pivot bearings instead of the plastic bushings. That's why there is a need for a screw-in collar.

Mike Barone #123 · Post by **Mike Barone #123** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:00 am

EMS wrote:
Mike Barone #123 wrote: ... why was there a need for the 80 to be upgraded with an adjuster in this same area.

Mike
For one thing, the 80 has pivot bearings instead of the plastic bushings. That's why there is a need for a screw-in collar.

Dont think so...but lets talk about this at Brookville....but only after we get at least 2 rides in for a total of 300 miles or so.

Ride first...talk about stuff like this second

EMS · Post by **EMS** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:11 am

Mike Barone #123 wrote:
Dont think so...but lets talk about this at Brookville.... :

Well....

The right side bearing is a pair of tapered roller bearings, if I am not mistaken. They need to be loaded axially in order to work as designed. Any other method than a screw-type collar?

Mike Barone #123 · Post by **Mike Barone #123** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:53 am

EMS wrote:
Mike Barone #123 wrote:
Dont think so...but lets talk about this at Brookville.... :
Well.... The right side bearing is a pair of tapered roller bearings, if I am not mistaken. They need to be loaded axially in order to work as designed. Any other method than a screw-type collar?

You are right.

I was wrong.

Mike Barone #123 · Post by **Mike Barone #123** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:19 pm

EMS wrote: Well.... The right side bearing is a pair of tapered roller bearings, if I am not mistaken. They need to be loaded axially in order to work as designed. Any other method than a screw-type collar?

Mike Barone #123 wrote:[You are right.

I was wrong.

Actually I want to say a bit more on all this.

I should never let myself get pulled into the technical things (finite... or those obvious to everyone except me) like I did on this because I am always wrong -or- can never remember exactly how I actually did the few things I did right way back then. I will not repeat this again and appreciate your patience.

What I should done in this case was to simply state the results of the handling fixes I did way back then (which I did).... buttttttt then..... ask people like Dave, Mike and others that are experts in the technical aspects of these same fixes to take it from there -or- just let them answer and stay out of it. Lesson learned and I apologize.

Mike

EMS · Post by **EMS** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:30 pm

Mike, I don't think it is a matter of being "right" or "wrong". This is not the Congress with two parties arguing who is wrong and who is right. It is about understanding issues we are discussing correctly and recognizing things that one overlooked and another person didn't.
Don't get upset now!

alimey4u2 · Post by **alimey4u2** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:58 pm

At the end of the day, it's not who's right or who's wrong but it is a matter of accuracy.

Open discussion is good as long as the truth prevails. On this forum it always has ..

Don · Post by **Don** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:55 am

Terry wrote:Sheesh, after reading all this, one might think that CBXs are all too dangerous to ride So, after personally riding about 30,000 miles on my 79 (50,000 total) and nearly 40,000 miles on my 82 (96,000 miles total) I guess I...shouldn't have

Terry,

The following is an excerpt from an article about a Moto Martin CBX

The six-cylinder, 24-valve, CBX powerplant is a large landmark on the road of Honda engineering, and the bike has become one of the few Japanese collectibles. Surprisingly, this beloved machine was a thorn in Honda's side during its production life.

The bike didn't sell. It didn't sell in 1979 and 1980 as a twin-shock, unfaired standard, so Honda added bodywork and a mono-shock in 1981 and pointed the CBX to the touring market. It still didn't sell. After the 1982 model year, Honda was out of ideas for its six, and Honda warehouses were full of unsold CBXs. They pulled the plug.

Honda inadvertently insured the CBX's future cult status by giving the leftover bikes to mechanics' schools. The 100+ horsepower, 1,047cc six imprinted itself into the brains of scores of young wrench-spinners, and the schools' CBXs were unregisterable--brand new parts bikes.

One of the reasons for the CBX's dismal sales was its handling characteristics. It weighed in excess of 580 pounds with fuel and sported a frame that, if ridden hard, allowed the engine and wheels to go in three directions at once.

Not saying they aren't safe to ride - Just that the handling is a dismal disappointment when compared to the Swiss watch of an engne the bike came with. If you ride it to anywhere near the limits of the engine, the rest of the bike is . . . . scary. If you use the bike as a commuter or a tourer, then the handling shortcomings aren't so noticeable, but if you bought it to really ride it then several improvements should be considered . . . . or at least thought about and discussed

This thread is about a number of things you can do to make your stock CBX handle more like a Moto Martin framed CBX . . . . but still have it look like a period CBX - The best of both worlds in other words

Don

pav · Post by **pav** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:13 pm

In my experience the biggest contributors to weaving have been fork "stiction" from the early model unbushed 35mm forks (later models have teflon bushes to reduce stiction) and certain tyre combinations. The only tyre combination that has ever proved stable for me at all speeds has been the METZELER ME99 rear coupled with the ME33 Laser front. The front tyre being the most significant of this tyre factor. Any later model fork will be an improvement. I replaced my stock forks with 37mm 1981 CB900FB forks. All the above comments assume that basic issues like wheel bearings, swingarm bushes,fork oil etc are in good order. My CBX is very stable. It still feels like a thirty year old chassis in many other respects, but it is stable......

Mike Barone #123 · Post by **Mike Barone #123** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:29 pm

Hi Don

Thanks for all your contribution and indepth perspectives based on your personal experiences.

Related to the Moto Martin frames.... my view and experience has been that the CBX frame is plenty good as is for most of us, most of the time.

Way back in 1981 I was in the very early throws of into trying to figure out this weaving and making my 80 handle and I decided to have the frame reinforced with gussets and bracing at the steering head and backbone, plus bridged the stock swing arm. I think Dave has the bridged stock swing arm......maybe he can post a pix of it for us.

The choice to try this was based on a few frame flexing experiences that I attributed mostly to my weight and riding....heck...why not give it a try....no one had any answers back then and in the pre-internet days

Result: It still weaved and wobbled.

Infact.... I will go out on a limb here and say if one has an early model that weaves and wobbles.........then.....putting this entire oem stock front and rear as is on a Moto Martin CBX........this bike will still weave and wobble because frame stiffness based on my personal experiences is not primary problem.

Of the ten chassis, frame, front and rear changes I made during this time as stated in the thread earlier....only one item finally cured the weaving and wobbling..... replacing the 35mm forks with 1100f 39mm using 1100f triple trees.

>>>>>>

Pix: Stock CBX frame reinforced with gussets and bracing at the steering head and backbone

alimey4u2 · Post by **alimey4u2** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:27 am

Had s great discussion with Stefan Jung about CBX Moto Martins & the Germans tested them at high speed before they gave it a certificate of road worthiness. They found that it wobbled at about 125mph. Moto Martin welded two gussets in the frame to rectify this problem. Only Moto Martins sold in Germany had this mod it seems...

Mike Barone #123 · Post by **Mike Barone #123** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:15 am

alimey4u2 wrote:Had s great discussion with Stefan Jung about CBX Moto Martins & the Germans tested them at high speed before they gave it a certificate of road worthiness. They found that it wobbled at about 125mph. Moto Martin welded two gussets in the frame to rectify this problem. Only Moto Martins sold in Germany had this mod it seems...

Very interesting............and good to know this since I never heard about any Martins wobbling at any speed nor did any of the Brit members that attended Marlinton and other rallies here ever say theirs wobbled since it seems they would have had the frames without the two gussets.

In any event...I can still say this based on my personal experiences.... bracing and putting gussets in the Dawgie stock frame along with bridging the stock swing arm did not cure my CBX wobbles way back in 1981.

I can still say based on my personal experiences that of the ten chassis, frame, front and rear changes I made during this time as stated in the thread earlier....only one item finally cured the weaving and wobbling..... replacing the 35mm forks with 1100f 39mm using 1100f triple trees.

I can also say based on my personal experiences that those very few...two or three..... frame flex issues I had (off center landings if I recall) that I attributed to my weight and riding when the frame was stock....never happened again after the Dawgie frame had the gussets and bracing.

I would be interested in any research you can come up with Larry on the wobbling/no wobbling results of when a stock CBX early model that wobbled had this front and back fitted to a Martin or Harris frame. If the Harris or Martin then also wobbled ..it was not the CBX or Martin/Harris frame in this case. If it did not wobble the frame fixed it in this case ...I would say

Thx for your research and input as always