Author Topic: Bronze Swing Arm Bushings For C5?  (Read 25942 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Karma: 0
Reply #30 on: July 04, 2010, 12:33:56 am
     OK, the swing arm is out, pretty simple affair as you could imagine. The flex in the swing arm becomes apparent as soon as you remove the axle nut.It's a simple Japanese arch type design,without any reinforcement. The swing arm springs open about 3-4 mm.The bushings are made of a white plastic material. The exposed ends of which,on either side appear to have been reamed with hamster teeth, where the spacer slides through. The spacer has no movement, the swing arm pivots on the pivot bolt inside the spacer, metal to metal, bone dry. There is a .5-1.0 mm 's worth of slop inside the spacer/pivot bolt. Yikes!!!  No wonder my high speed highway jaunts are a scary affair. It's like a Ducks ass after he gets out of the pond. :D. Time for a redesign Boys? 
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.


enfield freddy

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
  • Karma: 0
  • old man riding an old bike
Reply #31 on: July 04, 2010, 12:38:04 am
     OK, the swing arm is out, pretty simple affair as you could imagine. The flex in the swing arm becomes apparent as soon as you remove the axle nut.It's a simple Japanese arch type design,without any reinforcement. The swing arm springs open about 3-4 mm.The bushings are made of a white plastic material. The exposed ends of which,on either side appear to have been reamed with hamster teeth, where the spacer slides through. The spacer has no movement, the swing arm pivots on the pivot bolt inside the spacer, metal to metal, bone dry. There is a .5-1.0 mm 's worth of slop inside the spacer/pivot bolt. Yikes!!!  No wonder my high speed highway jaunts are a scary affair. It's like a Ducks ass after he gets out of the pond. :D. Time for a redesign Boys? 

 look back in history , (as posted above) when enfield (great britain) made proper frames , rather than "photocopied" frames?
look at the old phosper bronze settup , seemed to work for over 50 yrs?
arthritis hurts at my age!


gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Karma: 0
Reply #32 on: July 04, 2010, 01:25:32 am
look back in history , (as posted above) when enfield (great britain) made proper frames , rather than "photocopied" frames?
look at the old phosper bronze settup , seemed to work for over 50 yrs?
  Agreed Freddy. hard to beat an old Brit bike for there exquisite handling.Look at the Feather Bed and how versatile  it is.Oh well I think I can get this sorted. 
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.


chinoy

  • Bulleteer
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
  • Karma: 0
Reply #33 on: July 05, 2010, 06:41:38 am
glad to see your making progress.
Like I said in the PM its not the front end.

In 1971 Yamaha Introduced the Poly Urathane Bushes on the RD in 1972 people had shifted to Bronze bushings. We have been making and exporting these for over a decade.

Fixing the bronze swing arm bushings or the rollers I mentioned is a band aid fix at best.
Its not going to cure your stability issues. Instead of becoming unsafe at 100 kmph it now do it at 105 kmph.

For that your going to need a new swing arm.
Since you have it off.
Can you post the measurements i.e. how wide is the head stock.
I can then see what other more modern bikes we have here which have better swing arms can be bolted on.
Most of the other bikes here are mopeds i.e. 100-150 cc but they have better build swing arms. Which hold up even on 50 BHP RDs.


gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Karma: 0
Reply #34 on: July 05, 2010, 07:20:49 pm
glad to see your making progress.
Like I said in the PM its not the front end.

In 1971 Yamaha Introduced the Poly Urathane Bushes on the RD in 1972 people had shifted to Bronze bushings. We have been making and exporting these for over a decade.

Fixing the bronze swing arm bushings or the rollers I mentioned is a band aid fix at best.
Its not going to cure your stability issues. Instead of becoming unsafe at 100 kmph it now do it at 105 kmph.

For that your going to need a new swing arm.
Since you have it off.
Can you post the measurements i.e. how wide is the head stock.
I can then see what other more modern bikes we have here which have better swing arms can be bolted on.
Most of the other bikes here are mopeds i.e. 100-150 cc but they have better build swing arms. Which hold up even on 50 HP RDs.

OK, here's some pics. I want all to realize that I started this thread with the honest intention of making a very good and affordable product better. One witch is more stable at Highway speeds. I enjoy this bike very much, and it's below highway speed stability and handling is excellent. It's fit and finish, overall quality of manufacture is pretty good. So please lets knock our heads together and come up with a solution. And please lets not get defensive,and stay positive. I do not believe this is an issue with just my Bike. I personally believe it is a week swing arm design, One witch can not handle the The new UCE , very torquey engine, witch can achieve speeds of around 80 mph in it's stock configuration. The instability of my Bike starts at around 55-60 mph, and progressively get worse as the speed increases. I have been through all of the usual suspects , alignment, stearing headplay , Tire balancing . rim trueing, wheel bearings' etc, etc,etc. The Problem with my bike is in the rear.
 You can see in the pic, I have a comparison of a 72' Honda cb350 verses the 09' c5 swing arms. Notice the extra support on the cb's swing arm near the pivot area. I am using this example,because it is what I have handy, and for no other reason. I believe this is where the problem lye's.
 So come on guy's lets all of find a solution. May be I'm wrong? Maybe it's just my Bike or swing arm? But I don't think so. Go out to your c5, strattle the bike with both feet on the ground, both hands on the bars, look over your shoulder and give the handlebars a shake, see if there is any excessive side to side flex. Now try it with one of your other bikes.
 Thanks,Dan.
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.


gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Karma: 0
Reply #35 on: July 05, 2010, 07:34:51 pm
Sorry Guys other pics are not uploading, I guess I have to make them smaller?
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.


ace.cafe

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,457
  • Karma: 1
  • World leaders in performance/racing Bullets
Reply #36 on: July 05, 2010, 08:18:08 pm
Well, the swing arm on the UCE bikes is longer than the older Bullets.
Perhaps that's an issue.

If there's room for some gusseting or bracing, that might help.

I know that on the older Bullets, they are stable at over 100mph, even with rubber bushes in there. And they can carve a turn quite well, too.

Maybe the longer arm is showing some flex?
Home of the Fireball 535 !


gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Karma: 0
Reply #37 on: July 05, 2010, 09:06:59 pm
Well, the swing arm on the UCE bikes is longer than the older Bullets.
Perhaps that's an issue.

If there's room for some gusseting or bracing, that might help.

I know that on the older Bullets, they are stable at over 100mph, even with rubber bushes in there. And they can carve a turn quite well, too.

Maybe the longer arm is showing some flex?
Yea Ace, that may be the issue,you can push in on the swing arm at the end like Susan sommers on her exercise machine ::) The c5 measures about 18 1/8 inch along side tube,from it's connection to the cross tube(pivot Tube),to the end, on the inside. Sorry but I have a great pic ,but can't figure out how to post it. And yes there is room for bracing, Which is not a big deal. But What size and exactly where is what I"m contemplating. Don't want to screw it up, I only have one to mess with.
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.


Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,038
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Reply #38 on: July 05, 2010, 09:31:55 pm
Let's back up just a bit.  I'm of the opinion that improving the swingarm and the pivot point for it would both be good, but maybe there's a simpler solution.

It's been noted here many times that the G5 is a little more stable at speed than the C5 because all of the geometry between the two models is the same EXCEPT the wheel size.  The G5 runs 19" wheels front and back and the C5 has 18" wheels front and back.  This gives the C5 slightly less trail.  Recently there was a note in a thread from Ace or Scooter Bob (can't remember which) that they had put a 19" wheel on the front of a C5 and it made it noticeably more stable at speed. 

You could probably try this out in an afternoon if there's someone nearby with a G5 that would loan you their front wheel for a few hours.  Or, if you've got your rear shocks cranked up on preload just set them to the lowest setting.  That will dip the rear a little lower which will also give you a little more trail (also more rake).  Heck, even leaning back might make a difference, though maybe not the best idea when getting to the upper limits of speed ;)

While the C5 is a really cool bike the 18" wheels on that frame make it less suitable for the speeds the engine will deliver.

Thoughts?

Scott


gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Karma: 0
Reply #39 on: July 05, 2010, 10:58:28 pm
I agree Scott that this bike is in need of a nineteen inch wheel, but in the thread you are speaking of, it was really never tested for any extent.  My bike flexes excessively in the rear at highway speeds. It's readily apparent. A nineteen will help, but I think it only will mask the problem a bit. I am certainly willing to try, is there any G-5 owners out there in the NY/ NJ area who can help out?  As for my dealer? He is no longer a Dealer for reasons unrelated. I'm hesitant to drop the coin and go through the labor of the conversion, only to be frustrated.
 As for the suspension adjustments you mention, they have been tried. The bike only stabilizes when tucking in, leaning forward, and reducing speed . In other words, holding the front end steady, while the rear end  stabilizes. This is can be brought on  by any turbulence, the higher the speed, the less turbulence it takes to induce.  A  small bump in the road, a gust of wind, a passing truck,etc. At speeds below say 50mph, it's not an issue. And think about it, a  couple of minor suspension adjustments or 1" wheel size difference should not make a drastic effect at 55-60 mph. If it does.............
  Stability on a bike should increase with straight line speed, unless the geometry is way off, or there is another factor upsetting the straightness if you will. I don't think the geometry is that far off.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 11:09:14 pm by gashousegorilla »
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.


r80rt

  • C5 Pilot
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,986
  • Karma: 0
  • R.I.P Papa Juan, Uncle Ernie
Reply #40 on: July 05, 2010, 11:10:54 pm
I ride my C5 55-60 all the time, I've never had any problem like this. Try a 4.00x18 on the rear and a 3.25x18 on the front, they are quite a bit taller than the stock C5 tires and might give you what you need.
On the eighth day God created the C5, and it was better looking than anything on the planet.
Iron Butt Association


gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Karma: 0
Reply #41 on: July 05, 2010, 11:54:18 pm
Thanks r80rt, it's something to think about. Have you tried this tire swap and if so why? The Avon road riders that come stock on the c5 are an excellent tire. Maybe you used one with a higher side wall?  Witch brand and metric size did you use?
 Thanks ,Dan
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.


r80rt

  • C5 Pilot
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,986
  • Karma: 0
  • R.I.P Papa Juan, Uncle Ernie
Reply #42 on: July 06, 2010, 12:04:17 am
I haven't worn the original tires out yet, when I replace the front I'll try a 3.00 or 3.25 they should be nearly as tall as a 19, I'll keep the low profile rear because I'm short. But to be honest my bike handles fine I just don't care for low profile front tires. I'm looking at the pirelli MT66 3.00x18 for the front.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 12:08:09 am by r80rt »
On the eighth day God created the C5, and it was better looking than anything on the planet.
Iron Butt Association


gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Karma: 0
Reply #43 on: July 06, 2010, 12:10:37 am
I haven't worn the original tires out yet, when I replace the front I'll try a 3.00 or 3.25 they should be nearly as tall as a 19, I'll keep the low profile rear because I'm short. But to be honest my bike handles fine I just don't care for low profile front tires. I'm looking at the pirelli MT66 3.00x18 for the front.
Gotcha, certainly cheaper and easier than a 19" conversion.
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.


r80rt

  • C5 Pilot
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,986
  • Karma: 0
  • R.I.P Papa Juan, Uncle Ernie
Reply #44 on: July 06, 2010, 12:12:56 am
Well, it's something to think about, I know a taller front tire would be good.
On the eighth day God created the C5, and it was better looking than anything on the planet.
Iron Butt Association