SOHC.co.uk Forums > CB350/400
Changing fork oil.
McCabe-Thiele (Ted):
I can't see your figures in the Honda Manual P 51 shows 105/125 cc in the Honda manual do you have a page number that shows the higher volume?
My Haynes manual 1990 version shows 145-150 cc
My Cycleserve manual P101 shows 145-150 cc.
honda-san:
As I suggested, the manual does need to be read carefully as it covers both the 350/4 and 400/4.
Data specific to the 400/4 starts on page 87 in the "CB400F supplement" part of the manual.
Page 111 contains the relevant specifications. The Haynes manual is also correct in this respect as it covers only the 400/4.
K2-K6:
Interesting job honda-san, I'm fascinated by suspension and how it can best work.
A question though with "Still best practice though to fit the close coil end of the spring into the fork leg first." Isnt that the end that's moving with input and directly linked to the unsprung mass of wheel etc ? Therefore should be the other way up, with close coils and hence mass best placed at the sprung mass supported "static" end in top fork leg and under the cap.
Interested in views, as I've got the design of forks having damper rod bolted to fork lower casting and moving with the wheel, the top of the rod acting on the spring against the fork cap nut, or is the fork on 400 different in layout.
Agree that in this instance the variation in mass at either end is unlikely to be felt in much meaningful way.
McCabe-Thiele (Ted):
Thanks Chris, I'll check that out, when I drained my 400 forks there was hardly any oil in one side so I felt the benefit when I put 105ml in, I might add another 40 odd ml over this winter. That will be a 38% increase so worth the effort.
These were the answers I received in December 2023?
.http://www.sohc.co.uk/index.php/topic,30113.0.html
Laverda Dave:
--- Quote from: K2-K6 on December 19, 2024, 08:11:09 PM ---Interesting job honda-san, I'm fascinated by suspension and how it can best work.
A question though with "Still best practice though to fit the close coil end of the spring into the fork leg first." Isnt that the end that's moving with input and directly linked to the unsprung mass of wheel etc ? Therefore should be the other way up, with close coils and hence mass best placed at the sprung mass supported "static" end in top fork leg and under the cap.
Interested in views, as I've got the design of forks having damper rod bolted to fork lower casting and moving with the wheel, the top of the rod acting on the spring against the fork cap nut, or is the fork on 400 different in layout.
Agree that in this instance the variation in mass at either end is unlikely to be felt in much meaningful way.
--- End quote ---
Interesting point Nigel. How would that same logic apply to a valve spring where the closed end of the spring fits closest to the cylinder head? Would you therefore say the rocker is the 'moving' unsprung end just as the front wheel would be on the front suspension in which case I see your logic. Very odd when you think about it if the closed end in the front suspension goes in first and therefore being closer would take more force to compress whereas on a valve the closed end being closest to the cylinder head is designed to reduce valve bounce.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version