Page 2 of 3
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:08 pm
by ulyssescale
Minority wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:38 pm
The Protech rear shock is available in two lengths, are you sure you haven’t got the longer one?
I am using the 300mm Protech rear shock.
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:11 pm
by ulyssescale
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:58 pm
In the interests of sharing information, is the "carbon fiber tin" an issue because:
a) no way will any head cowling fit even with some modification?
b) you do not want to modify the cowling in such a manner?
If we know the reason, we all learn & those of us trying to help will avoid making the same 'mistake' in our attempts.
The carbon fiber tin I’m using is purposefully made for my reed-tuned RT225 kit by Mark Broadhurst. It fits flawlessly and appears to fit no differently than the stock tin.
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:50 am
by Warkton Tornado No.1
ulyssescale wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:11 pm
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:58 pm
In the interests of sharing information, is the "carbon fiber tin" an issue because:
a) no way will any head cowling fit even with some modification?
b) you do not want to modify the cowling in such a manner?
If we know the reason, we all learn & those of us trying to help will avoid making the same 'mistake' in our attempts.
The carbon fiber tin I’m using is purposefully made for my reed-tuned RT225 kit by Mark Broadhurst. It fits flawlessly and appears to fit no differently than the stock tin.
OKeh.
So, regardless of the cowling, does the head hit the frame without one fitted?
I fully understand your reluctance to cut the carbon cowling, but if a kit is sold that will only fit with the cowling modified, it would be good for the rest of us to know, surely?
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:50 am
by ulyssescale
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:50 am
OKeh.
So, regardless of the cowling, does the head hit the frame without one fitted?
I fully understand your reluctance to cut the carbon cowling, but if a kit is sold that will only fit with the cowling modified, it would be good for the rest of us to know, surely?
If I remove the carbon fiber cylinder cover and compress the rear of scooter and then let go, the cylinder head fins will hit the frame. I guess I could adjust the damping, but that isn’t a good strategy.
I put in a Casa flat-sided bolt with offset cones. Not what I wanted, but its the most effective way without any permanent modifications. Now I’ll move on to the Trail Tech Vapor install.
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:07 pm
by Warkton Tornado No.1
ulyssescale wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:50 am
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:50 am
OKeh.
So, regardless of the cowling, does the head hit the frame without one fitted?
I fully understand your reluctance to cut the carbon cowling, but if a kit is sold that will only fit with the cowling modified, it would be good for the rest of us to know, surely?
If I remove the carbon fiber cylinder cover and compress the rear of scooter and then let go, the cylinder head fins will hit the frame. I guess I could adjust the damping, but that isn’t a good strategy.
I put in a Casa flat-sided bolt with offset cones. Not what I wanted, but its the most effective way without any permanent modifications. Now I’ll move on to the Trail Tech Vapor install.
I gave up reading MB's (self) promotional technical pages years ago because of derisory comments about other competitors products, as well as so many claims of his pioneering ways & speeds achieved.
Perhaps there is a warning about the kit you acquired & the chosen geometry.
If not, then you should make him aware that yet another of his products is not fit for purpose. The head hits the frame (easily modified, but HE should do it) & the head cowlings need to be modified as well, even the "carbon fiber tin" items that he sells happily alongside the kit.
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:54 pm
by ulyssescale
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:07 pm
I gave up reading MB's (self) promotional technical pages years ago because of derisory comments about other competitors products, as well as so many claims of his pioneering ways & speeds achieved.
I’m guessing you really needed to get that off your chest. I’m on the “I don’t really care” side of the fence. I’ve never had any issues with MB products, but I am sure that no one makes flawless gear. But I’m glad you had opportunity to get that off your chest.
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:07 pm
Perhaps there is a warning about the kit you acquired & the chosen geometry.
I’ve not heard of this before. It helps that I am using all late-Serveta Jet frames with these, so it might be that. Serveta seemed silly-billy in later years.
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:07 pm
If not, then you should make him aware that yet another of his products is not fit for purpose. The head hits the frame (easily modified, but HE should do it) & the head cowlings need to be modified as well, even the "carbon fiber tin" items that he sells happily alongside the kit.
I’m willing to figure out other solutions. I’m grateful there is an active forum such as this to ask questions (in the USA there is none). Because I don’t know any of the people on here I all of your opinions are valuable in one way or another.
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:06 pm
by Warkton Tornado No.1
ulyssescale wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:54 pm
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:07 pm
I gave up reading MB's (self) promotional technical pages years ago because of derisory comments about other competitors products, as well as so many claims of his pioneering ways & speeds achieved.
I’m guessing you really needed to get that off your chest. I’m on the “I don’t really care” side of the fence. I’ve never had any issues with MB products, but I am sure that no one makes flawless gear. But I’m glad you had opportunity to get that off your chest.
Nothing on my chest, but off the top of my head, one MB product that springs to my mind that has been troublesome or even a downright potential death trap, is the rear hub bearing with a plastic bearing cage. The ones that I have removed from machines even have the word 'INNOCENTI' etched upon them.
So now, you too are aware & can make your choice. Even if you "don't care" I do & with luck, our exchange may be read by others that do & prompt them to remove such a rear hub bearing.
Front sprocket bolts that are too long & bottom out. A sneaky one as they allow proper torquing but the cams can over-ride each other.
Watch out for that one which can wreck cams, sprockets, chains & crankcases. Once again, your choice.....
The later Clubman exhausts can gas up so easily on an otherwise sorted engine causing overheating & top end failure.
Hey! Guess what! Your choice.....
My point is that whilst MB has been quite prolific & opinionated in the analysis of competitors products, you reap as you sow.
I doubt Ray Kemp sends Mark Broadhurst a card every Christmas anymore after the slating of the Rapido cylinder kits, but @ least they fitted the frame in any crank combination.
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:48 pm
by ulyssescale
[quote="Warkton Tornado No.1" post_id=318917 time=1599137918 user_id=2282
In the interests of sharing information, is the "carbon fiber tin" an issue because:
a) no way will any head cowling fit even with some modification?
b) you do not want to modify the cowling in such a manner?
If we know the reason, we all learn & those of us trying to help will avoid making the same 'mistake' in our attempts.
[/quote]
The MB carbon fiber tin fits great. I never said that is doesn't fit.
The problem lies in the raised barrel. I was wondering if anyone had ever had such a problem. It is apparent that this is a unique problem to the scooters I have built using the RT225 kits, a GT 60/110 crankshaft, and a 2.5mm packer.
I solved it using the Casa Performance flat-sided engine mount bolt with offset cones.
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:50 pm
by ulyssescale
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:06 pm
ulyssescale wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:54 pm
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:07 pm
I gave up reading MB's (self) promotional technical pages years ago because of derisory comments about other competitors products, as well as so many claims of his pioneering ways & speeds achieved.
I’m guessing you really needed to get that off your chest. I’m on the “I don’t really care” side of the fence. I’ve never had any issues with MB products, but I am sure that no one makes flawless gear. But I’m glad you had opportunity to get that off your chest.
Nothing on my chest, but off the top of my head, one MB product that springs to my mind that has been troublesome or even a downright potential death trap, is the rear hub bearing with a plastic bearing cage. The ones that I have removed from machines even have the word 'INNOCENTI' etched upon them.
So now, you too are aware & can make your choice. Even if you "don't care" I do & with luck, our exchange may be read by others that do & prompt them to remove such a rear hub bearing.
Front sprocket bolts that are too long & bottom out. A sneaky one as they allow proper torquing but the cams can over-ride each other.
Watch out for that one which can wreck cams, sprockets, chains & crankcases. Once again, your choice.....
The later Clubman exhausts can gas up so easily on an otherwise sorted engine causing overheating & top end failure.
Hey! Guess what! Your choice.....
My point is that whilst MB has been quite prolific & opinionated in the analysis of competitors products, you reap as you sow.
I doubt Ray Kemp sends Mark Broadhurst a card every Christmas anymore after the slating of the Rapido cylinder kits, but @ least they fitted the frame in any crank combination.
You should make a spreadsheet.
Re: Frame modification necessary for S3 when using 60/110 crank and RT225?
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:30 pm
by Warkton Tornado No.1
ulyssescale wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:50 pm
Warkton Tornado No.1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:06 pm
ulyssescale wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:54 pm
I’m guessing you really needed to get that off your chest. I’m on the “I don’t really care” side of the fence. I’ve never had any issues with MB products, but I am sure that no one makes flawless gear. But I’m glad you had opportunity to get that off your chest.
Nothing on my chest, but off the top of my head, one MB product that springs to my mind that has been troublesome or even a downright potential death trap, is the rear hub bearing with a plastic bearing cage. The ones that I have removed from machines even have the word 'INNOCENTI' etched upon them.
So now, you too are aware & can make your choice. Even if you "don't care" I do & with luck, our exchange may be read by others that do & prompt them to remove such a rear hub bearing.
Front sprocket bolts that are too long & bottom out. A sneaky one as they allow proper torquing but the cams can over-ride each other.
Watch out for that one which can wreck cams, sprockets, chains & crankcases. Once again, your choice.....
The later Clubman exhausts can gas up so easily on an otherwise sorted engine causing overheating & top end failure.
Hey! Guess what! Your choice.....
My point is that whilst MB has been quite prolific & opinionated in the analysis of competitors products, you reap as you sow.
I doubt Ray Kemp sends Mark Broadhurst a card every Christmas anymore after the slating of the Rapido cylinder kits, but @ least they fitted the frame in any crank combination.
You should make a spreadsheet.
Should I?
Given your advice, here's some for you:
You should question the Manufacturer of products you have an issue with & if need be, complain to them, rather than request advice from A N Other without them being able to suggest a solution.
My interpretation of Forums such as this, is that it is a platform for the sharing of knowledge in the endeavour to help & support one another.
So when I read glowing references for a product such as "carbon fiber tin" whilst attempting to suggest solutions to enable a product from the same source to fit, then I think it appropriate to expand on the advice given.
Whether you choose to take mine, or anybody else's advice is up to you, or anybody else reading this.
To me, that seems good etiquette. All the better if it can be delivered with an element of goodwill.