The Most Epic CB 500 EVER!

[Red Fthr]

Ok, took my first baby steps last night. I installed new gearing and chain.

I kept the stock size 17 front but went up 3 to 37 from 34 in the back.

According to online gearing ratios I've lost about 5 MPHs at the top but gained a little at the bottom.

Haven't tested anything past 3rd gear yet but I could tell an immediate difference in quickness and pull through each gear.

 

[Red Fthr]

Also, I've already completed a "top-end" rebuild, which consisted of new gasket/ o-rings, new piston rings, and new "high performance" valves (Black Diamond something or another).

And one last thing before I get back to work, I've noticed almost everyone that races a bike uses pods or velocity stacks. Yet it's almost unanimous on most forums that pods = loss of power/ performance. I have pods (currently running stock because I'm still tuning), but without starting another pods, velocity stack, v. stock thread, can someone explain to me what the logic is behind that?

 

[mlinder]

What peopel will say here about pods and stacks is no different than what they've said elsewhere.

 

[Red Fthr]

I wasn't condemning users of this site or referring directly to this forum, sorry if it came off that way. I was saying, and I agree with you, that generally people (everywhere) say pods or stacks = less performance/ power. Yet, most very powerful and high performance machines use pods or stacks. To me, it seems like there's a disconnect in logic there. It's my own ignorance and I'm asking for enlightenment.

I've researched the topic, but have never really found a definitive answer...and maybe that's because it's such a subjective question. From my observations, it seems that if you want a finally tuned machine (that requires mass amounts of attention) pods or stacks is the way. I could be totally wrong.

IDK

 

[SONICJK]

Properly designed stacks are going to get you the most power on the top end.
But are a terrible idea on the street for lack of filtration. Unless you want to rebuild your engine every thousand miles avoid this.

Pods can be tuned to work correctly, unless you have cv carbs, then don't bother.
My experience with pods is that tuned correctly the bike performs noticeably better up high and loses a bit of grunt down low. When you're racing you should never be down low so the performance gains up in the Rpms are well worth it.

 

[Red Fthr]

To put it in an idiom for my own understanding you're saying, "you're either racing or you're cruising." ?

and if you're gonna race, go pods or stacks (with the CV amendment to that rule). If you're just getting around town, then stock is the way to go?

 

[J-Rod10]

I run stacks on my 500, have put about 10,000 miles on her in the last two years. She's still roaring like a lion.

 

[teazer]

The best velocity stack design can add up to 4-5% air flow and a bad one will lose anything up to 10-15% and that is just flow. Changes to the Air:Fuel ratio mean that on many bikes, there's nothing but bad news. Loss of power, crap in the motor etc.

If you are looking for the last poofteenth of a HP for a race bike, take a bunch of different stacks to the dyno and test them and be prepared to be disappointed. Most of them are not very good.

For the street on most bikes, stock air box is best for rideability and performance.

 

[Red Fthr]

Where did you get your stacks from J-Rod?

 

[axeugene27]

alot of these old airboxes don't seem very restrictive. I think with emissions regulations nowadays airboxes really choke motors. My thruxton gained alot of power when i went to pods. ALOT.

 

[J-Rod10]

Where did you get your stacks from J-Rod?

Built them.

 

[teazer]

alot of these old airboxes don't seem very restrictive. ..................

You are right and since 99% of "builders" have no idea how to set up carbs, we can safely assume that most bikes with pods run slower than stock. I keep forgetting that Cafe Racers are a (life) style/fashion thing. Who knew there would be a market for making old bikes even slower and less safe than they were back in the day and they weren't so hot back then, in relative terms.

J-Rod, I love that you machined them from scratch. Max points for that. If you had added a radius to the open end, the flow difference would have been better. Something to think about for the next set. I guess that for buyers who don't care about performance, that would not be an issue.

 

[Red Fthr]

Building your own stacks = next level moto-wizard stuff. Nice job J-Rod.

Thoughts After Reading Thread:
Cafe Racer is a very loose term and can most definitely be adapted to a certain trend, and more times than not, it is only but an umbrella term for a fashion.

People who get a thrill out of making a 40+ year old machine perform better than they once did is not a fashion though. Might be a lifestyle, but not a fashion.

Yes, within the very difficult process of making a vintage machine go faster, people make mistakes and learn from them. Time to time their bike performs shittier once modifications are made. If they don't care that their bike performs like shit after they make changes, then odds are their here for the vanity of it all.

I don't think that defines everyone though.

 

[Red Fthr]

The current state of my on-going project:

 

[Red Fthr]

What do we think about this build?

Again not a CB500, but aesthetically very clean.

Side not: I'm not a fan of the Firestones, they just so happen to be on a lot of builds.

I really dig the idea of putting the electrical in a first-aid box.

And as promised some art-school-chicks?

 

[mlinder]

It's fucking junk.

Will handle like shit.

Almost everything about it is wrong.

If you're going for some 1930's-tired, ill handling douche-mobile, have at it.

I'm sure there are plenty here that will congratulate you on your turd-of-a 'bike.'

 

[mlinder]

If I were drunk enough to forget my morals, standards or limits, the girls might be interesting, though...

 

[HotPotato]

Whats up with people using these firestones? Im new to motorcycles but in cycling fatter tires = less power. Is that true on motorbikes too?

 

[teddpage]

Building your own stacks = next level moto-wizard stuff. Nice job J-Rod.

Thoughts After Reading Thread:
Cafe Racer is a very loose term and can most definitely be adapted to a certain trend, and more times than not, it is only but an umbrella term for a fashion.

People who get a thrill out of making a 40+ year old machine perform better than they once did is not a fashion though. Might be a lifestyle, but not a fashion.

Yes, within the very difficult process of making a vintage machine go faster, people make mistakes and learn from them. Time to time their bike performs shittier once modifications are made. If they don't care that their bike performs like shit after they make changes, then odds are their here for the vanity of it all.

I don't think that defines everyone though.

This is the mindset for most people around here. Café racer loosely defines the style of bike most of us build. And, as long as you make mistakes and LEARN from them...then its all good.

 

[teazer]

Whats up with people using these firestones? Im new to motorcycles but in cycling fatter tires = less power. Is that true on motorbikes too?

Yes.

There's an advantage - up to a point - to having more rubber on the ground when cornering at high speed, but those Firestones are a thowback to the days of 20HP cars. I understand why they look interesting but have no place on a street motorcycle. People see them on show bike builds and copy the style. We rationalize that they can't be so bad otherwise people wouldn't use them, but we'd be wrong and possibly dead wrong.

That CB360 does look nice but it's not a motorcycle. It's a semi mobile art piece.