[Arizoni]

Speaking of the new front fork, another difference besides moving the axle is the tube diameter was changed.
I noticed that Keven didn't mention this but I would be very surprised if the Indian factory was going to make a new fork for the USA that was different from the one they have designed for the new Indian 500 Classic.

According to the Indian Royal Enfield website the new fork with the centered axle has 41mm (1.614") tubes instead of the current forks 35mm (1.378") tubes.

This increase should increase the stiffness of the fork tubes by 65% assuming the wall thickness remains the same.

As I don't have access to one of the new bikes I don't know if the widened the distance between the forks to maintain the same clearance with the front wheel and tire but if they did, a new triple clamp wound have to be part of the package.

[Ducati Scotty]

Well then, no mounting those on the existing C5 uppers.  You;d need a new nacelle too probably to screw them into and lower triple.  It's a whole new front end.  I always thought the forks were pretty spindley, but it is a small bike and my last bike was a Ducati with inverted forks.  Different world.

Thanks Arizoni

Scott

[ace.cafe]

Update!

The G5 has been purchased, and Chumma is going to pick it up as soon as he can. Probably by the end of the month.

I have been getting some help from my friends on the street in India, and have gotten some figures on the cam lift and timing, and some more info on the crank and the innards.
This allowed me to do some preliminary concept work on some ideas that I have for the power improvements on the bike.
There isn't much published info about this engine, as far as the internals are concerned.I had to pull some teeth to find out some pretty basic info. It's almost as if they don't want people to know about it.

[nigelogston@gmail.com]

In our earlier round of discussions many months ago, ACE, I raised the question (which I am tossing in to the ring again now) as to whether , once a production head has been hand  ported, it could be translated into a CNC template to simplify future head work:   Even if a rough gouge out could be done by robot it seems to me there may be economies possible by doing that and fine tuning by hand to smooth out surfaces and perhaps even some  bench test refining of the partially CNC carved heads.    I am not sure who owns the guinea pig bike and whether they see their's as a labour of love for the commuity.   Maybe , they could receive a small "royalty" for subsequent buyers that benefit from their groundbreaking costs.   Possibly even could be a head port option A and B   :  Hand ported vs Machine copy without further refinement offered as two different levels of cost.  If you remember, we discussed the possibility of a head exchange program where you send in your stock head and receive in return a ported and revalved head.  If the project flies, you would need an inventory of at least one head to get it rolling. 

[ace.cafe]

In our earlier round of discussions many months ago, ACE, I raised the question (which I am tossing in to the ring again now) as to whether , once a production head has been hand  ported, it could be translated into a CNC template to simplify future head work:   Even if a rough gouge out could be done by robot it seems to me there may be economies possible by doing that and fine tuning by hand to smooth out surfaces and perhaps even some  bench test refining of the partially CNC carved heads.    I am not sure who owns the guinea pig bike and whether they see their's as a labour of love for the commuity.   Maybe , they could receive a small "royalty" for subsequent buyers that benefit from their groundbreaking costs.   Possibly even could be a head port option A and B   :  Hand ported vs Machine copy without further refinement offered as two different levels of cost.  If you remember, we discussed the possibility of a head exchange program where you send in your stock head and receive in return a ported and revalved head.  If the project flies, you would need an inventory of at least one head to get it rolling. 

Hi Nigel.
We have all the facilities to do all that. There are CNC machines at our command. And casting facilities.
It's a bit premature to discuss production at this point. If there is ever enough demand to warrant some sort of mass production by CNC, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. CNC is for mass production, not one at a time.

We need to start  off walking, and then if things seem optimistic enough, we can learn to run.

[nigelogston@gmail.com]

Here is a link on the new "C 5 special" as it is called here in NA. (or will be)   . The prose of the article is very dense , and the author doesnt use the words "c 5 special" anywhere, but it is quite clear that he is talking about the same thing.  The gist of it seems to be that trail on the new fork/wheel aassembly is  up from 72.49mm to 101.54 (I think the G5 trail is 75mm)  and the front wheel is 19, back 18/120 up from 110. 
72 mm is exceptionally short trail. 

Here is the link
http://www.royalenfield.com/motorcycles/motor-cycle-media-reviews-details.aspx?mid=141&model=25

http://www.royalenfield.com/motorcycles/motor-cycle-media-reviews-details.aspx?mid=141&model=25

Dont know why that doesn't come up "blue"   as an active link-  I just copied and pasted

Nigel

[Ducati Scotty]

72 is short, but 75 doesn't sound like much more, yet all G5s I know of are rock solid.  There's got to be more to it on the C5.   Though if they're making the special it seems RE hasn't figured out exactly what the issue is.  If they had I would have expected a more minor tweak to the existing bike.

Scott

[nigelogston@gmail.com]

Scot  :Sorry if this shows up twice: A post I just did seems to have vanished in cyperspace.
 This idea may be really stupid, but , if it were possible to spin the existing fork lowers on C5 to point the offsets backward instead of forward (KIDS DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME WITHOUT THE ADVICE OF A QUALIFIED MECHANIC AND THIS AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL RESPONIBILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMMAGES RESULTING FROM ATTEMPTING THIS )   then that would increase the trail from 72 to 132  or 6.378 inches (since neutralizing the offset added 30 mm trail, reversing it should add 60 mm) which, if lack of trail were the problem, oughta fix the wobble.  I have no idea if it is possible or safe to do this.  Just thinking out loud and I mention it only because you were contemplating the feesibility of changing out your fork lowers for the new ones but concluded they were different diameter so couldn't..

[GreenRE]

72 is short, but 75 doesn't sound like much more, yet all G5s I know of are rock solid.  There's got to be more to it on the C5.   Though if they're making the special it seems RE hasn't figured out exactly what the issue is.  If they had I would have expected a more minor tweak to the existing bike.

Scott

I thought the new model introduced in India had a longer swingarm as well. Is that not the case for the US version.

[nigelogston@gmail.com]

Prabably had to increase the length of the swingarm to get back the wheelbase that would be lost by neutralizing the forward axle offset.  Nigel

[GreenRE]

Scot  :Sorry if this shows up twice: A post I just did seems to have vanished in cyperspace.
 This idea may be really stupid, but , if it were possible to spin the existing fork lowers on C5 to point the offsets backward instead of forward (KIDS DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME WITHOUT THE ADVICE OF A QUALIFIED MECHANIC AND THIS AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL RESPONIBILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMMAGES RESULTING FROM ATTEMPTING THIS )   then that would increase the trail from 72 to 132  or 6.378 inches (since neutralizing the offset added 30 mm trail, reversing it should add 60 mm) which, if lack of trail were the problem, oughta fix the wobble.  I have no idea if it is possible or safe to do this.  Just thinking out loud and I mention it only because you were contemplating the feesibility of changing out your fork lowers for the new ones but concluded they were different diameter so couldn't..

I would think that unless the steering neck angle is changed, any offset change would not amount to anything. It is that angle that decides the rake, or so me thinks.

[Ducati Scotty]

Nigel, I thought the same thing  I think it's possible but you'd have to swap left and right fork lowers so the brake and mounting hardware would still line up.  Easy enough.  You might also need to make up some new fender mounts since those would be out of alignment.  Oh, and your bike would look TOTALLY dorky.  Good for an experiment, terrible for aesthetics.  And if you don't own a C5 because it's beautiful there's something wrong with you

Scott

[Ducati Scotty]

I would think that unless the steering neck angle is changed, any offset change would not amount to anything. It is that angle that decides the rake, or so me thinks.

Rake would be the same, trail would increase as noted.  You might be putting the axlequite near the steering tube axis and that could make things a little weird, not sure.

Scott

[nigelogston@gmail.com]

Which makes me wonder why the forks on this and G5 were done with forward offset in the first place.   The only conclusion I can draw is that on a short frame bike, its a quick and dirty way to pick up a little wheelbase.   So it must be the slightly greater rake on the G5 that saves it from the trail gobbling forward offset.     I still like G5s better, but I think the new C5 special might be moving up.     Also, if you think about it, the whole weight distribution of the bike/rider would be changed, since your derriere is in the same place byt the axles have both moved one inche or so backward under you in the new special 9longer swingarm and dropp the offest.  )  This would shift weight forward. I think.  Nigel

[nigelogston@gmail.com]

"Nigel, I thought the same thing  ".........................GREAT(ly disturbed) MINDS THINK ALIKE!       Nigel