Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
MotorcyclesHarleyYamahaSportbikesRacingOff-roadSnowmobilesTechnical
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK GroupClassic (UK Group)
Related Topics
CarsBoatsMore Topics ...

Motorcycle Forum / General / Technical / October 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Two spark plugs - One cylinder

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Fargen Bastage - 24 Oct 2007 02:12 GMT
Two spark plugs - One cylinder

I have a circa 1970 Yamaha 175 enduro motorcycle that has one
cylinder, but two spark plugs.  I've never had a spark plug wire on
the 'other' plug and it's run just fine.  Now, many many years later,
I'm trying to fix this bike up for my son and I'm wondering, "What the
heck is this other plug for???" I don't even think there is another
wire.
Thanks much for any help you can provide.
IRONDOG - 24 Oct 2007 03:38 GMT
> Two spark plugs - One cylinder
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> wire.
> Thanks much for any help you can provide.

Your CT1 came from the factory with one of the holes pugged. The spark
plug is supposed to be in the hole in the "top center" location. The
other hole was so owners could add an accessory compression release
mechanism. Here's a link that explains that for you...
http://www.dansmc.com/comp_release2.htm
Jerry
paul c - 24 Oct 2007 04:41 GMT
>> Two spark plugs - One cylinder
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> http://www.dansmc.com/comp_release2.htm
> Jerry

Interesting link.  Also I know there is at least one large two-cylinder
four-stroke "cruiser"-style bike that has a compression release, just
like a diesel earth-mover I guess (not sure whether it was a Suzuki or
Yamaha I saw but it was 1400 or 1500 cc's, the mechanic instructor was
trying to adjust the release because he couldn't jump start it but later
somebody noticed he had one of the booster cables shorted to the frame,
so either the little starter wasn't turning very fast or there wasn't
much of a spark).

I guess people are free to buy those big cruisers if they like them for
reasons I don't dig, but personally I would only want all that torque to
pull a sidecar or trailer.  I saw a webpage somewhere about big bikes in
Holland IIRC that tow collapsible trailers, speed through congestion to
auto accident scenes, unfold the trailer and haul the objectionable cage
away!  Big displacement for horsepower is another story and I don't have
any logical argument against that as I know people whose dna forces them
to ride at what to me are superhuman speeds, so no logical argument
could be involved.  Even though it scares me I applaud them as long as
they don't create too much danger for the rest of us.  But I just don't
"get" those big cruisers.  I'm presuming the big six-cylinder bikes
aren't considered typical "cruisers" by most afficionados, they remind
me a little of the twelve-cylinder Bugatti or its like with the ten
foot-long hood/bonnet.  Even though I've never ridden one I think a
Goldwing must be a very comfortable bike for the long straight N.A.
interstate highways.

Couldn't resist, sorry if I'm polluting a tech group with cultural
comments, likely that guy who thinks he owns the group will tell me off!
Albrecht - 24 Oct 2007 07:23 GMT
> But I just don't "get" those big cruisers.  I'm presuming the big six-cylinder bikes
>aren't considered typical "cruisers" by most afficionados, they remind
>me a little of the twelve-cylinder Bugatti or its like with the ten
>foot-long hood/bonnet.  Even though I've never ridden one I think a
>Goldwing must be a very comfortable bike for the long straight N.A.
>interstate highways.

Harley started building 74 cubic inch engines around 1932, as I recall.
That's 1213 cc, and British twins were only half that size. Harley grew their
engine to
88 cubic inches, or about 1440 cc in the late 1980's, and the gauntlet was
thrown down to see who could build the biggest cruiser.

I seem to have read about a cruiser that's bigger than Triumph's 2300cc
Rocket 3, and I can understand why somebody would want a bigger, slow turning
engine to reduce high frequency vibration.

When Japan INC first got into mass producing motorcycles, they pretty much
followed the FIM's road racing class displacement rules, and there really was
no good reason for doing that with motorcycles destined to be ridden on the
highway, especially American highways, where trips are longer and gasoline
was historically cheaper.

Whatever motorcycle Japan INC designed for any given FIM engine size, they
learned to leave room for expanding the engine, and motorcycle engines grew
and grew, and riders could relax and forget about continously shifting gears.

There is also the wheelbase factor. Motorcycles are suspended by springs, and
springs have a natural frequency at which they rebound. If the wheelbase is
too short, the front springs won't be done with rebounding when the rear
wheel hits the same bump, so the chassis will hobbyhorse on freeway expansion
strips.

An Italian rider once told me that American interstates were much rougher
than the Italian autostrada and that riding here made his butt hurt.

Other riders told me that each section of freeway concrete was intentionally
laid at a slightly differnt angle so truck tires would slap rainwater off the
pavement.

Nowadays, freeways are built by continuously pouring concrete. But the 80,000
pound trucks seem to be able to pound concrete into bumpy pavement.

A larger, longer, heavier motorcycle just works better on long interstate
trips.

Homebuilders used to amuse us with giant touring bikes like the Road Dog that
was 10 to 12 feet long and had a car four cylinder engine in it. We never
thought that Japan Inc would ever build anything like that.

But the Honda Valkyrie is damned close. I was looking at a Valkyrie parked in
front of a local convenience store. The owner had installed oversize tires
front and rear. They were the wrong profile and they made the machine sit
about
two inches higher and it leaned over too far on the kick stand.

What did the rider care? He stood about 6' 8" and weighed 300 pounds.

And there's the final reason for big cruisers: big motorcycles for big men

There have always been big riders who feel like a 750cc or 1000cc motorcycle
is too small for them. They need room to stretch out.
Jack Hunt - 24 Oct 2007 14:56 GMT
>Other riders told me that each section of freeway concrete was intentionally
>laid at a slightly differnt angle so truck tires would slap rainwater off the
>pavement.

You're giving a lot of credit to people who probably never finished high school.
Rain water runs off because of the slope of the road.  You think it just stacks
up and waits for a truck to come by?  Different sections are at different levels
because of the incompetence of the building crews.  I know of a bridge where the
building crews couldn't get the level of the bridge even with the level of the
roadway but they keep trying to even it out at each repaving.  It's been 35
years and they're still trying.

>Nowadays, freeways are built by continuously pouring concrete.

No they're not.  Maybe in your part of the country, but around here they're
built on multiple layers of compressed crushed rock.  It is logistically
impossible to pour one continuous slab of concrete the width of a highway and
several miles long.  It still comes in trucks, 10 cubic yards at a time.  At 12
inches deep, that covers an area roughly 16 feet square.

> But the 80,000
>pound trucks seem to be able to pound concrete into bumpy pavement.

Nothing lasts forever.  They're rebuilding a 4 lane near here that was built on
concrete several years ago.  What they didn't realize was that the substrata
keeps compacting and settling under the concrete and the road starts cracking
and turning into big whoops because the concrete slabs on which it's built
settle at uneven rates.  They don't do it like that any more.

--
Jack
Ron Seiden - 26 Oct 2007 03:28 GMT
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:23:01 GMT, "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com"
> <u33665@uwe>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> 35
> years and they're still trying.

In NYC, the old West Side Highway was infamous for being an elevated road
that flooded every time it rained...
Dave - 24 Oct 2007 15:45 GMT
> Other riders told me that each section of freeway concrete was
> intentionally
> laid at a slightly differnt angle so truck tires would slap rainwater off
> the
> pavement.

That's not true.  Freeways are built with either a) crown, b) crossfall or
c) superelevation.  It would be technically unfeasable to change grades at
each section, and holy sh.t would it be expensive to do!

> Nowadays, freeways are built by continuously pouring concrete. But the
> 80,000
> pound trucks seem to be able to pound concrete into bumpy pavement.

No, they are not.  They are poured in sections, just like they always were.
concrete cannot be poured continuously, it needs expansion joints because it
will crack due to expansion from temperature fluctuations, no matter how
well reinforced.  Modern road construction takes into account the makeup of
the underlying substrate.  Forty or fifty years ago when the interstate
system was being built they didn't have the advanced geotechnical
investigative or design techniques nor did they have the various grades of
geotextiles, geogrids, or other soil stabilization products/techniques to
draw on.  Hence you get the ba-dump ba-dump ba-dump ba-dump concrete
highways (I think ALL highways in Ohio and Indiana are like this according
to my butt) underneath which the ground has gradually settled or risen
differently from one slab to another.

Also, roads are designed and built to have a certain lifespan.  No road is
going to feel new when it's 50+ years old.

Dave S.
Rob Kleinschmidt - 25 Oct 2007 01:35 GMT
On Oct 23, 11:23 pm, "Albrecht via MotorcycleKB.com" <u33665@uwe>
wrote:

> Harley started building 74 cubic inch engines around 1932, as I recall.
> That's 1213 cc, and British twins were only half that size.

Uhh.. maybe if you excluded the Brit V twins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brough_Superior#Model_history
Albrecht - 25 Oct 2007 01:56 GMT
>Uhh.. maybe if you excluded the Brit V twins.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brough_Superior#Model_history

Approximately 3048 of 19 models were made in 21 years of production. How many
made it
across the pond?

How many Vincent Black Shadows and Rapides? I dunno, and it doesn't matter to
me.

When I generalize about motorcycles, I think of the typical mass-produced
motorcycle
readily available to American riders. Things like Harley knuckleheads and
panheads and
shovelhead that were around 74 cubic inches and Triumphs and BSA's were about
40
cubic inches.

The Brit bikes were more nimble, but the Harley riders rode probably longer
distances.
OH- - 25 Oct 2007 21:54 GMT
>>> Two spark plugs - One cylinder
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> four-stroke "cruiser"-style bike that has a compression release, just like
> a diesel earth-mover I guess  ....................

Two smoke compression release is a totally different animal than
on big four strokes.
On old time two stroke off road bikes (at least I have never seen or
heard about one in modern times) the compression release is actually
an air valve to increase engine braking.

On four strokes the compression release is what you expect it to be
and used to make starting easier. I've had 3 generations of these,
the manual, the starter actuated (mechanically linked to kick starter)
and the automatic RPM dependant one). Personally I think the first
and last work well and the one actuated by the kick starter was a
bit problematic.
And I'll kick start a lukewarm thumper any day rather than hand
crank start a fair sized diesel truck engine (used to power a
generator) inside a cramped corrugated iron shed. Talk about
impossible without compression release. And loud. And dangerous.

Signature

Ole Holmblad - Göteborgs Prima MCK / MK Pionjär
TDM850 / WR450F  FL#44  OTC#489  UKRMSBC#08
SGFPTH#00   Remove hat to answer by mail

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.