1200 getting modded to accept ignition drive from cam gear

[backlander]

Well, as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained but doggone it, you get an A+ for a heck of an effort. Glad nothing got damaged. :good: I was following this closely having an 84 engine myself.

 

[Steve83]

That's enough to make a grown man cry, for sure! Glad the C5 circuitry is still good!

Any particular reason you don't want it on the right head? The FI right cam is already studded... The housing should mount on either side, so that's no problem - whichever way you go.

 

[dan filipi]

Steve83 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:36 pm[/url]":1y9fj0c2]
That's enough to make a grown man cry, for sure! Glad the C5 circuitry is still good!

Any particular reason you don't want it on the right head? The FI right cam is already studded... The housing should mount on either side, so that's no problem - whichever way you go.

I want to keep these cams to the engine.
The cams with the stud is from the FI model.
I suppose I could measure the cams for differences.....

 

[slabghost]

So it's now running on stock 1100 iggy? With vac and mechanical advance?

 

[joedrum]

:heat:

 

[dan filipi]

slabghost » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:21 pm[/url]":1081bi19]
So it's now running on stock 1100 iggy? With vac and mechanical advance?

Yes.
Which by the way I had to turn the idle speed screw up almost a full turn for it to idle not running on the C5.

 

[slabghost]

Using the entire fuel charge does make a difference.

 

[Ansimp]

The C5 must make a difference in fuel economy!

 

[mcgovern61]

Ansimp » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:50 am[/url]":1w74n4nc]
The C5 must make a difference in fuel economy!

Sure it can....unless, like most people I have heard about, they find the bike has so much more umph, they can't help but twist the throttle more and just have fun! (That is why we can never get a good gas mileage report form these guys converting to using the C5 system......they all have bugs in their teeth!!) :smilie_happy:

 

[brianinpa]

mcgovern61 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:56 am[/url]":1f6vjj5h]

Ansimp » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:50 am[/url]":1f6vjj5h]
The C5 must make a difference in fuel economy!

Sure it can....unless, like most people I have heard about, they find the bike has so much more umph, they can't help but twist the throttle more and just have fun! (That is why we can never get a good gas mileage report form these guys converting to using the C5 system......they all have bugs in their teeth!!) :smilie_happy:

This is why I haven't started my install yet. I wanted to get a tank or two through mine and see where I am at before and after. Now that the winter seems to have left for good, maybe that can happen, but I am not so sure I will get a second tank through it. The rear tire is probably on it's last 150 miles. :shock:

 

[dan filipi]

Oh you will hear and feel a definite change in the way it runs Brian.
Running now on the stock rear, mine is all lopey and poppy out the exhaust.

Well I'm bummed this mod won't work but I learned a few things.
Though there is lots of room for 'slop' in setting the C5 module center, there is a limit Lol.

Another is that when building the housing and center drive, making the stud as small as possible helps by way of allowing as much room for error as we can get.

 

[brianinpa]

dan filipi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:40 am[/url]":35go3fxt]
Oh you will hear and feel a definite change in the way it runs Brian.
Running now on the stock rear, mine is all lopey and poppy out the exhaust.

Well I'm bummed this mod won't work but I learned a few things.
Though there is lots of room for 'slop' in setting the C5 module center, there is a limit Lol.

Another is that when building the housing and center drive, making the stud as small as possible helps by way of allowing as much room for error as we can get.

That's what I was thinking... Any reason you couldn't make your drive stud thinner and put sleeve over it where it runs through the encoder so that no moving part comes in contact with it?

 

[dan filipi]

Ok I want to make sure this thread doesn't suggest that there is any concern for clearances of the c5 builds from Paul.
His machining is far superior to what I did, not even in the same class.
In reality his completed kits allow for plenty of space from the spinning center shaft.
All you really need is a micron of gap, his are machined for way more than that.

These pics are a start of what I have in mind for a rear cam drive.....

I may even have this same shaft machined to fit utilizing the aluminum spacer from the 1100 C5 kit.

 

[mcgovern61]

I still like the idea of using the left front cam location. (Easy access) The problem with using a bolt as a shaft is that it really is not machined and most likely not true. However, getting a shaft made that will work might not be too hard using the right materials.

 

[Steve83]

For what it's worth, according to the Honda Service Manual specs, the cams are identical between the standard 1200 and the FI - with the exception of the stud on the right cam. Lift, duration, lobe height, center and end journals are all the same. The left cam is the same part number for all '84 and '85 engines.

 

[brianinpa]

dan filipi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:47 am[/url]":32r3h5c0]
Ok I want to make sure this thread doesn't suggest that there is any concern for clearances of the c5 builds from Paul.
His machining is far superior to what I did, not even in the same class.
In reality his completed kits allow for plenty of space from the spinning center shaft.
All you really need is a micron of gap, his are machined for way more than that.

Dan I wasn't implying that. You are trying something different with it and I was just thinking through my fingertips.

Obviously a bolt with stacked nuts will never have the precision of a machined shaft, but I think there is still some merit in keeping it on the front of the cam like Gerry mentioned.

 

[AApple]

Imma havin a hard time believing that the small wear on the module was caused by the drive bolt wobbling.... :nea:
Lemmie 'splain why...IF that wear was caused by a wobbly drive, then the inside of that module would be worn all the way around....not just in one spot. Think aboot it...if the center of the shaft(bolt/stud thingy) is running out of round, it's running out of round the full 360 degrees of rotation. SO, if it hits in one spot, it has to hit all the way around. It can't be crooked at one point in the rotation, and straight the rest of the rotation. My thinking is that the wear was due to the housing/module being off center slightly. This would allow the shaft to rub on only one area of the module, and not all the way around. Of course, I ain't there, and since I'm at werk, and da boss has utube blocked, I can't see the last two vids.
I'm just throwing out a different scenario....I see all the time the results of round things that wear on one area/side of, say, a bushing, but not wear the bushing all the way round. It's ALWAYS because the two parts are not aligned. When I see a bushing that IS worn all the way around, it's because something is floppin around off-center, or one of the components is bent.
I think if you could get a shaft machined to screw into the cam, and provide attachment for the trigger wheel, the front drive design would be a winner, but you have to also be able to verify that the housing for the module is perfectly aligned with the centerline of the cam.
Is any of that making any sense at all? Or am I waaaaaaay off the beaten path? :blush: :whistling:

 

[joedrum]

dan wants to be able to program his c5 ... the front mount look like it might be the easiest way ... as it played out ...it not really easier and had additional discounts ... and dan and cercumstances allowed dan to make a super smart decision to stop and go to the rear of the head to finish this deal as it has fewer discounts ... failure only happens when one quits ...so let all who read this thread ... this is the middle of the book not the end ....kinda like my grab bar deal its not over yet ... failure happens even for non quitters as V me and a bagle know and it would probably be fix if it didn't get lost like it did ... I thank steve greatly for the cam info .. as this will be taken into account im sure ... this is how I see this... :builder: :mrgreen:

 

[dan filipi]

Cool, so using the FI cams might be easier, though I seem to remember the shaft will be too short.
Will check into this further.

Actually the reason for bailing on the front cam drive was not because of wobble, it was because the tolerances being so close that a small movement in the cover would make that clearance too small for comfort.
Try on your bike, if you hit the top or bottom outer end of the belt cover, it does move.
Now if the cover could be locked down from moving that's a possibility but I decided all things considered, rain for one, the rear mount is better.

 

[Joep]

Joel you thinking like the clown bikes that had spooks of various lengths so that riding it was like being on wavey road up and down.. ? ... thinking of Royston I tend to agree with you on that aspect.. but I am not there either.. no disrespect to you, Dan, just thinking out loud...