| Author |
Message |
    
Roadrash1
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 09:33 am: | 
|
Bandit,
I hear what you're saying. I would be most excited about getting all the tech I can, but I do think the '08 setup is a real fix. (with or without the elusive magic oil jet)
I've got my bike on the lift in my garage. Started taking it apart last night. Will probably pull the old stator today.
My bike runs so awesome now, with the FMF Apex & EBR ECM, I just want to get the charging thing resolved so I can take it on some nice long road trips w/o thinking of rushing home in a rental car for work. (& leaving my bike somewhere far from my garage,)
I'm 50 & been wrenching on stuff since I was 12. Motorcycles, cars, airplanes, etc. The one thing all machines have in common, is sooner or later they all break down. I'm just trying to push the equation to "later".  |
Crustyxpunk
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 01:43 pm: |
|
2008 owners are not having their stators fail. 2009/10 owners are having theirs fail. So it seems to me stIcking in an '08 setup fixes the issue. |
Timebandit
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 03:03 pm: |
|
well, 2009/10 charging systems may fail, but the real question that we should be asking is WHY they are failing, and how is their failure mode different from the 2008 failure mode. then we need to use good engineering science to fix the problem(s).
the nice feature of the 2009/10 charging systems is that they have high output and effectively charge the battery. as a side effect of being burdened by the shunt regulator, they are forced to work at 100% output and the excess power output is dissipated as heat. being forced to work at 100% output causes heat accumulation and thermal derating of the windings.
hook up a 2008 setup to a shunt regulator and it will also be forced to work at 100% output, and it will retain heat as well. the difference is that less heat accumulates because the charging system produces an lesser amount of power.
if 2008 stators produced the same power output as 09-10, then they would produce a similar amount of heat under shunt regulation. that's the simple thermodynamics of shunt regulation. the fact that they don't produce the same amount of heat tells us that they have lower output. of course, we already knew that, but the decreased heat confirms something that we're trying to overlook: inferior charging output.
decreased output may be a good solution for some people. it may not be such a good solution for others. i don't think it's a good idea to tell everyone to go out and get a 2008 kit. it's not as if the 2008 kit is a universal solution for everyone. there are plenty of people with 2008 bikes who have complained about charging problems with a charging system that tests to spec. if they add on some additional load and you're asking for trouble. there is no shortage of people around here who insist that they bought a road bike not a racing bike, and that that they should be able to utilize it as if it were a goldwing. so they add on some heated gear, the charging system output is overwhelmed, voltages sag, and they end up wondering why their 2008 bike eats batteries. go figure.
yes, the 08 kit is attractive because it can be bolted on without a lot of thinking and it won't burn up. that's good. but you have to trade off effective charging power and accept battery sulfation and shortened battery life if the power output is marginal. i've bench-tested a 2008 charging system, and the numbers don't lie.
my only point is to say that thinking about approaching the problem from every way possible may yield another helpful solution. having multiple ways to approach the problem is always a good thing.
time for my afternoon ride...
(Message edited by TimeBandit on November 12, 2011)
(Message edited by TimeBandit on November 12, 2011) |
Roadrash1
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 07:49 pm: |
|
I got all the stock parts pulled off my '10 1125R today.
There are a few things that just don't go according to the shop manual. The channel to pull the stator wires thru just has too sharp of a bend near the top to pull thru cleanly (at least for me) without loosening the air box base plate.
The crankcase tool lined up well by following the instructions to line up the concentric edge of the balancer shaft to the rotor teeth. I used an inspection mirror and flashlight to confirm what I was looking at thru the hole in the bottom of the crankcase before I put the special tool in.
The rotor nut had more lock tite on it than my prom date's bra clasp.
Thanks to Al & others who warned about the sharpness of that edge inside the rotor. Seriously razor like!
Now I wait for my dealer to get a cover gasket in, and EBR to return my email, voicemail.
If you're thinking of doing this yourself, be warned that it isn't the easiest bit of maintenance, & the potential to break expensive things is very real. |
Timebandit
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2011 - 11:51 am: |
|
> "The rotor nut had more lock tite on it than my prom date's bra clasp."
LOL. Did you ever establish contact with EBR about your kit? Inquiring minds want to know! |
Roadrash1
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 09:44 am: |
|
Bandit, I sent you a PM about it, but if you change ISP's as often as I do (think socks) maybe you didn't get it.
I got an email back from them, confirming what I suspected, mine was sent out before they decided to do the cooling oil hole. They said to send it back and they would send me one that did have the hole.
My first part got back there Friday, so I bet the new one will be on it's way here tomorrow.
Can't wait to get my bike back together this week.
Just in time for Winter.  |
Buellhusker
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 11:12 am: |
|
One thing to consider is the build design of the 2008 compared to the 2009 the 2008 has 18 poles where the 2009 has 12 poles. Having 18 poles may dissipate the heat better into the oil than the 12 pole design, just a thought. |
Dannybuell
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 11:14 am: |
|
I would like to see an 09 rotor with the oil jet. |
Zac4mac
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 12:15 pm: |
|
The picture that was shown didn't look like a complex machining job.
The oil passage is already in the crank, you just need to bore to that spot in the rotor at the right angle.
A small hole at the hub shouldn't really affect the balance either.
@Roadrash - that's great news.
No problems with my 08, but if/when the motor is down to that point, I may visit a local machine shop.
Z |
Timebandit
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 12:33 pm: |
|
RoadRash -- Sorry, I didn't get the PM. It may have gotten eaten my the spamfilter.
I'm thinking just like Zac. The machine work looks like you could have it done at a local shop.
It would be really interesting to do what Dannybuell suggested -- add similar oil ports to a 2009 stator. That could be a huge benefit, and it has the potential to be THE CHEAP FIX for the problem.
It would be great if EBR could offer the machining service on 2009 rotors. I think they would get a LOT of business. But then maybe EBR doesn't do the machine work in-house. Maybe the new rotors come from the supplier with the new oil passages. Maybe EBR would just rather sell the new package.
It would be great if someone could blueprint the oil jet mod. Like Zac said, once you know the right angle, the machine work wouldn't be that hard. I'd be willing to take my 2009 rotor to a machine shop if I had a blueprint.
(Message edited by timebandit on November 20, 2011) |
C818919
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 01:12 pm: |
|
Im not sure if oil is the key to it all. A 12 pole stator should have never been used. Its way too inefficient. It shows that HD was taking cost cutting shortcut. I think the only real fix is to go with an 18 pole stator. Oil will just prolong the inevitable. |
Timebandit
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 03:47 pm: |
|
> "Im not sure if oil is the key to it all."
Several people have been saying that, and they've been taking a lot of flack for their ideas.
There are those threads where Nightsky has shown how shunt-regulation dumps an incredible and unnecessary amount of heat into the stator; heat that's on the order of kilowatts, even for a 2008 system. That excessive heat puts a strain on the system. I haven't seen the 2009 numbers yet. I can only assume that they are worse. It would be really interesting to see 2009 numbers for comparison.
I think that the best solution might involve attacking the problem from both angles. Specifically, get rid of the shunt regulator in favor of a series or a switching regulator, and add oil cooling to help circumvent the original "hotbox" design. |
Timebandit
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 03:53 pm: |
|
> "A 12 pole stator should have never been used. Its way too inefficient."
It would be interesting in seeing some of Maxwell's Equations that prove these assertions with math. |
C818919
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 05:03 pm: |
|
"circumvent the original "hotbox" design"
are you thinking "oil jet" or an easier route like adding "stirers" like the 08? |
C818919
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 05:05 pm: |
|
"get rid of the shunt regulator in favor of a series or a switching regulator"
id be shocked if EBR didnt start marketing an upgrade for this as well
the answer might be in all three.
What does the 1190 use for a VR? |
Timebandit
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 05:16 pm: |
|
So I'm still not clear on why EBR pulled the photos of the rotors that have the oiling holes, so that the web site now advertises rotors without oiling holes. If they have the new-style rotors available, why'd they pull the pictures?
Do they have a bunch of old-style rotors that they want to sell through before they advertise the new-style rotors?
Now that the word is out on the oiling mods, I think those old-styles are going to be a tough sell. |
Roadrash1
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 06:25 pm: |
|
It looks like they just took the photos down. The text still talks about the oil orifice.
I will probably call it good, after I get the EBR kit installed. The FH0012A would be a nice upgrade.
They seem to work well everywhere else. I'll have to take a close look @ my street triple r, it was a replacement item for the stock VR on up to early '10 bikes. The one I have now looks just like the pictures on roadstercycle. Triumph also turned it around with a new bracket so the fins face rearward. It had been positioned right behind the engine before they did that. It still doesn't seem like a very good place for it, but you can touch it in the Summertime, so I guess they know what they're doing.
I would buy one from EBR, especially if it had a bracket & was plug & play.
(Message edited by roadrash1 on November 20, 2011) |
Sprintst
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 06:46 pm: |
|
I would pull the photos to keep others from copying it |
Timebandit
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 - 07:18 pm: |
|
why delete the pictures? it's not as if this is some sort of uber-secret. Yamaha solved the same problem the same way a long time ago. The only reason it took so long for us to get a solution is because there was a 2-year clock that had to tick out. |
Nattyx1
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2011 - 06:35 pm: |
|
Well we won't know anything till someone either bores 09/10 parts in some way to create/increase oil flow... and/or changes the vr... and/or?
obviously for us street riders the "holy grail" is merely to arrive at a place of parity with every other modern bike sold in the USA: A motorcycle that charges the battery while riding, allows the use of an electric vest and high beams at the same time, and MAYBE EVEN doesn't burn itself to death in the process. Crazy demands, right? ha ha... |
Ratsmc
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2011 - 04:09 pm: |
|
It should be clear that this problem, while the particulars may be specific to the 1125, is not exclusive. If you do a little searching you'll find a bunch of other bikes of all makes have the same problem. That doesn't make it okay but at least we aren't alone. |
Sparky
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2011 - 08:13 pm: |
|
I've been wondering if the inclusion of one additional oil jet in the rotor would change the already complicated difficult-to-repeat cold/hot oil level check procedure?
I mean if there is going to be more oil squirting on parts that weren't considered in the original configuration of this engine, the drain-down time for oil returning to the dip stick might possibly be altered. Waddya think? |
Ratbuell
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2011 - 09:37 am: |
|
The stator/rotor have always been in an oil BATH.
The "jet" is simply a hole (holes?) machined in the rotor (note the word MACHINED - don't just go drilling holes in your rotor!!). As the rotor rotates, those holes cause turbulence in the oil bath and make it "spray" on the stator.
Think bathtub versus whirlpool tub. Same amount of water, just one has it "moving" where the other one has it kinda sitting there.
Shouldn't affect dipstick readings at all. |
Zac4mac
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2011 - 02:31 pm: |
|
Joe - the "oil jet" appears to be just that - a small hole in the hub of the rotor that connects to a pressurized hole in the crankshaft.
It sprays oil-under-pressure onto the stator.
Looks fairly simple for a machine shop, don't grab your Makita and a drill bit tho.
The rotor is slinging a good bit of oil too but I'm sure this new hole is the fix Steve A. referenced.
This fix is from EBR, not HD, so I wouldn't worry about volume of oil...
Z |
Sparky
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2011 - 03:23 pm: |
|
If I'm not mistaken, the rotor is fixed to the crankshaft on an indexing spline slot which gets fed pressurized oil (coming from the main bearings?). This slot is also where the rotor jet is located.
So it stands to reason then that the rotor jet will get fed pressurized oil from the crankshaft and squirt directly onto the stator coils.
How much oil? I don't know but, I agree, it's probably a moot point because it shouldn't take any longer than the 3 to 4 mins waiting time called out for hot oil to drain down to make an oil level check.
Thanks for the thoughts. |
Ratbuell
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2011 - 07:35 pm: |
|
Cool info, Zac. Thanks. I stand (as usual) corrected  |
|
