C10 Canyon Cage Build Thread!

[tweeter55]

How did you go about justifying all that other stuff you put on the bike?

[datsaxman@hotmail.com]

Thanks for the cheap shot, Tweeter...but here is the straight answer:

FUNCTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, along with determined shopping

I shop around.  The more I "need" something, the closer to retail it is worth.
If you have a lot of $$$ to throw around, then good for you.  I do not.  If I decide
to buy expensive stuff, I have to do without something else.  Like the ZG1000 itself,
I can only buy neat stuff if I get a great deal.  The Kawasaki replaced driving the truck,
so it is an investment that saves money.  It sort of has to at my house.


SPOOFAK was the only thing I paid full retail for.  I deliberated for months because of the price.   I think is was a good purchase.  Despite the fact that the advertised "included FREE filter" was NOT included. 

PIAA driving lights?  Essential, and bought cheap second hand.  Made the mounts from $3 brackets.
Corbin?  Yep...bought second hand and cheap, on this forum.
GIVI trunk along with all hardware?  Got a great price.  I think on this forum.
HID lights are a car kit, so it came with a spare set.  Got a good, almost-great price from DDM.
Fork mod I did myself.  Cost about $5 for screws and washers.  Took a couple of tries before I got it so it wouldn't leak.
Fork Brace?  Cheap buy from a forum member here.
Bar Risers and lowered pegs came on the bike, or I probably wouldn't have them.
etc. 

Canyon Cages?  Is that a super-premium showoff brand?  If so, I may have to do without.
And I should probably stay out of the thread, as I am already not the intended customer.

But the OP was inviting comment, so I commented.  And obviously I buy the occasional accessory.

[tweeter55]

Not meant to be a cheap shot. Just voiced an observation is all. Didn't mean to raise the ire of a fellow farkler of the brand.

[datsaxman@hotmail.com]

No worries...I DO like the ZG1000.  Never had a bike that got so many modifications.

Still not perfect, but it keeps the mileage on the truck low!


saxman

[kzz1king]

The estimated cost of these is just as crucial as the design and function itself in my opinion. To high and I just continue to take my chances. I feel the options available now are too steep for myself. Maybe not if I was riding a 14 or a higher dollar bike.
Wayne

[RyanMCEnterprises]

Thank you guys for continuing to offer good feedback and opinions on this build! Your help is really what allows us to come up with a stellar product. That said, I can tell you that although the aesthetics may be slightly similar, our bars are a larger diameter (1", to allow for the easy addition of highway pegs or auxiliary lights using a generic 1" clamp), closer to the bike, and we're also working on altering the design to make it a bit more sporty. So don't judge too harshly as of yet as we're still tweaking the aesthetics. Also, our bracketry isn't just "barely improved", I believe it's vastly improved. Not only are our brackets much heavier duty (to avoid the bending experienced by folks who have Murphs bars) but our bracket design also allows for extremely easy and quick removal and reinstallation of the guards.

Regarding fairing removal: Due to our innovative bracket design, the guards can be removed within literally a minute or two should you have the tools handy to do so (this is the main reason I believe the added cost of going the "quick-release" route is a waste. An extra $40-$50 just isn't worth the minute or so you'd save, especially because price point seems to be more important for this guard than others we've made for the C14 and FJR1300). There are a few interior brackets that get installed initially then never have to be fussed with again and the fairings can be removed and reinstalled with these interior brackets in place. Due to the design of these interior brackets, the mounting hardware for the guard itself is closer to the exterior of the fairing where it's very easy to get to allowing for quick and simple removal.

As far as price goes, we're going to do everything we can to keep the price down for you guys as I know that's a very important factor. We won't know precisely what the cost will be until the design phase is finished but I can tell you this, based on the other Canyon Cages we've built, this one will certainly be the least expensive and by a decent margin it seems. Our other Canyon Cages have more intricate bracketry (they had to, just due to the design of the guard and the specific bike itself), much more material, more bends/welds, and much more labor involved in making them. So, I believe the pricing will be very reasonable but whether others believe that or not is really up to them. Keep in mind as well, we'll be having a Group Buy once these guards are finished so that would really be the time to order (if you plan on ordering, that is) as that'll save you an extra 10-20% depending on participation.

Pricing and what's affordable or not is really a personal thing and no matter how low the price is, there will always be people out there that believe it's too expensive for them. So, all we can really do is design the best product possible while attempting to keep the price as low as possible. However, based on the current design of the front and rear guards, I believe our set will end up a bit less expensive than Murphs but we'll have to wait to see exactly how much less.

We'll be attempting to incorporate a few of the suggested aesthetic changes today so I'll be sure to snap some photos and update you guys once I have something worth sharing. I do like the idea of altering the angle of the guards a little bit to match the angles of the fairings vents, though. Small changes like that really don't add much to the cost but really improve the looks so I think it's a smart move. I'm excited to see how it comes out! Stay tuned!

[RyanMCEnterprises]

There is a recessed slot on the existing engine mounting brackets where the hex bolt is inserted.  The mounting brackets offered on a competitor's product utilizes appropriate spacers at the four mounting points.  Will this design incorporate spacers to fill the recessed slot(s) at the mounting points?

Just a small update: I just had an opportunity to look more into this and our design does call for and include the spacers required at those mounting spots. I've attached a picture illustrating this below:

[RyanMCEnterprises]

Specifically, if a tab from the guard is connected to another tab, which then connects to the engine mount, it might twist backwards in a fall, causing potential damage to the fairing.  Slipping the guard tab over the engine bolt might help prevent this in a simple fashion.  You could also 'fold' the engine mount tab to 'lock' the guard tab into place, as another way to arrest motion. 

Well, I think we've come up with a way to arrest that bracket to stop it from twisting backwards (or forwards, for that matter) that works well with our current bracket design and allows us to keep everything else as is. If you look at the picture below, we added a sort of leg to the U bracket (pointed at by the yellow arrow) that keeps that bracket from moving at all during a tip-over. This was essentially the easiest and least expensive way (while still being effective) of arresting that bracket

Also, just to help people understand who currently may not, I threw in some red arrows pointing to where we have nuts welded. So, basically, you hold that U bracket in place and insert the top bolt which automatically threads into that nut. Then all you have to do is put the fairing back on, line the guard up, and install a second bolt into that lower hole which, again, automatically threads into the associated nut. All of this can be done without having to fish your fingers back in there in an attempt to line up and hold the nuts in place while you install the bolts. This makes installation much easier, less frustrating, and much quicker.

We're still working on a way to improve the aesthetics. We mocked up a few different versions today but they came out so awkward, it wasn't even worth spending the time to upload photos and get opinions. They were hideous. Hopefully we can get something acceptable mocked up tomorrow, though.

[Two Skies]

Well, I think we've come up with a way to arrest that bracket to stop it from twisting backwards (or forwards, for that matter) that works well with our current bracket design and allows us to keep everything else as is. If you look at the picture below, we added a sort of leg to the U bracket (pointed at by the yellow arrow) that keeps that bracket from moving at all during a tip-over. This was essentially the easiest and least expensive way (while still being effective) of arresting that bracket

Also, just to help people understand who currently may not, I threw in some red arrows pointing to where we have nuts welded. So, basically, you hold that U bracket in place and insert the top bolt which automatically threads into that nut. Then all you have to do is put the fairing back on, line the guard up, and install a second bolt into that lower hole which, again, automatically threads into the associated nut. All of this can be done without having to fish your fingers back in there in an attempt to line up and hold the nuts in place while you install the bolts. This makes installation much easier, less frustrating, and much quicker.

We're still working on a way to improve the aesthetics. We mocked up a few different versions today but they came out so awkward, it wasn't even worth spending the time to upload photos and get opinions. They were hideous. Hopefully we can get something acceptable mocked up tomorrow, though.

Thank you for putting on the table the idea of adding that rear nut bracket for the engine mount.  While it is possible to fish a wrench back there, it isn't the easiest thing to do, so this should make it just a little easier to add your guard mount.

My only nitpick would be getting the clearance exactly right on that span.  Hopefully the guard mount has a little give, to allow adjustment for variances in the frame (i.e. for those of us that end up inserting a washer between the mount and engine to help reduce vibration/buzz).  Most guys have reported this 'gap' being on the right side - for me my bike had it on the left side, and we are talking a single washer width here, not much.

That being said, this arrangement looks like it should add a fair amount of strength to the mount, so I like it!

[RyanMCEnterprises]

My only nitpick would be getting the clearance exactly right on that span.  Hopefully the guard mount has a little give, to allow adjustment for variances in the frame (i.e. for those of us that end up inserting a washer between the mount and engine to help reduce vibration/buzz).  Most guys have reported this 'gap' being on the right side - for me my bike had it on the left side, and we are talking a single washer width here, not much.

Thanks!

Well, unfortunately there's not much room between the U-bracket and where it mounts on the engine. We basically have to design it to fit tightly as these guards are designed to fit a stock bike unless we include the washer with the kit thus making it a required modification. Although, it sounds like the gap is on the right for some people and on the left for others. So, I'm not sure how we'd be able to handle that. However, there is quite a bit of room to add a washer (or a few, actually) between the U-bracket and the bracket that's welded onto the guard, if one feels like it (the bracket that's welded to the guard simply gets bolted to that lower hole so you can easily add some washers between the two brackets). Adding a rubber washer to that spot may still reduce vibration a bit.

[Two Skies]

Thanks!

Well, unfortunately there's not much room between the U-bracket and where it mounts on the engine. We basically have to design it to fit tightly as these guards are designed to fit a stock bike unless we include the washer with the kit thus making it a required modification. Although, it sounds like the gap is on the right for some people and on the left for others. So, I'm not sure how we'd be able to handle that. However, there is quite a bit of room to add a washer (or a few, actually) between the U-bracket and the bracket that's welded onto the guard, if one feels like it (the bracket that's welded to the guard simply gets bolted to that lower hole so you can easily add some washers between the two brackets). Adding a rubber washer to that spot may still reduce vibration a bit.

The washer suggestion is one that appears to have went by the wayside.  I'm not a COG member, so I can't currently access David Murrow's article on Debuzzing The Concours.  It was one of these tech guides where I found the suggestion of adding the washer between the frame mount and the upper engine mount.  Some say it helps, others say it made no difference.  In my case, I did a LOT of things incrementally, which together help a fair amount.

Also, I may have my understanding backwards.  I just read an article from another site where the writer noted the gap generally being on the left side.  I thought it was the right side, and I as I recall at the time I did this (back on '09), my gap was the opposite of what others were reporting.

All in all, it's a minor point at best.  Just felt I should mention it at least - if other C-10 owners have thoughts on this I'm sure they will share.

I'm thinking, though, that the added surface area of the tubular guards will give the engine another 'route' to transmit and dissapate vibrations, which may help reduce the handlebar buzz a bit.  Also, I figure that if the installer can gently pry the front attachment on your design outward on whichever side you determine has the gap, that would be sufficient for those worried about this.  In my case, we are talking a very small amount here (maybe a millimeter or three), and I don't think this gap ever is very big to begin with.  Again, other C-10ers can share what they've seen r.e. this potential issue.

[RyanMCEnterprises]

Ahhhh okay. So it sounds like something we shouldn't worry too much about although I'd like to hear others' opinions on this as well. I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention, though. Knowledge is power!

[Silverado]

Just a small update: I just had an opportunity to look more into this and our design does call for and include the spacers required at those mounting spots. I've attached a picture illustrating this below:

Looking good.....

[Jwh360]

So this is what I understand about the washer/shim deal on the left side mount: When you install the upper mount bolts, you install the RH side first (as seen from sitting on the bike).  IF there is a gap between the frame and the LH mounting tab, you need to insert a shim (washer) to fill in the gap.  Some bikes need the shim, others don't.  Kawasaki lists the shim as 1.5mm thick (P/N 92025-1616).  I am assuming the shim is needed due to variations in frame production.

[Two Skies]

So this is what I understand about the washer/shim deal on the left side mount: When you install the upper mount bolts, you install the RH side first (as seen from sitting on the bike).  IF there is a gap between the frame and the LH mounting tab, you need to insert a shim (washer) to fill in the gap.  Some bikes need the shim, others don't.  Kawasaki lists the shim as 1.5mm thick (P/N 92025-1616).  I am assuming the shim is needed due to variations in frame production.

OK, since this seems to be an 'official' fix, might I suggest adding 1.5 MM to the span between the front of the guard mounting bracket and the back, to accomodate a 1.5 MM washer.  You could even include a 1.5 MM washer with the package.  This way, if you need the washer between the engine and frame mount, you use it there, otherwise you can add it to the end of the engine mount, next to the tab for the guard mount.  Hence you can kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

You could do this for both sides, or just to the left side.  Also, I'd imagine that when you tighten the frame bolt, any additional play in the guard mounting bracket would be cinched up in any case, as long as it is a minor gap.

[RFH87_Connie]

I would think that if a shim is already used by the rider, then the same size shim would need to be added to the bracket at the head mounting point so the inner mounting hole lines up (can't recall/visualize what the inner hole is connecting to)?  Would you then also need to shim the leg facing forward to keep everything saquare?  From the manual (I think this is what is being talked about)...

I would think that all of the milled head tolerances are the same for all bikes but the tubular frame is where the random width tolerances are coming from.

[RyanMCEnterprises]

It sounds like this shim/washer will be left up to the individual to get if they require it. It sounds like the size and location varies too much to include it with our kit. The bike we're currently working on has the aforementioned shim on the left and my Tech mentioned that our design does not require another washer for the bracket at the head mounting point as the mounting holes already line up fine.

Anyway, we're still working on tweaking the design a bit and I think we've come up with something you guys will like. It's a sportier design and flows much better with the angles of the fairings vents. Also, this new design makes the need for a third mounting point (normally used to stop the bar from bending backward in a rolling crash) obsolete. The shape of the new guard we're working on will be inherently more difficult to bend backwards because of it's forward-angled design. It's a bit tough to describe but I'll certainly post pictures once it's tacked in place.

[RyanMCEnterprises]

I have a design update for you guys! Here is the revised design we came up with and I like it a hell of a lot better than our original C-shaped design. This design is also stronger and less likely to bend backwards thus reducing the need for a third mounting point. Just a few things about the front-view photo with the red and white lines: The white line is a support we're considering adding to this guard to further stop the bar from bending backwards during a rolling crash (although the bar, as is, is quite sturdy and won't bend during a simple tip-over but we like to prepare for the worst if at all possible). This support would likely be a 1/2" bar instead of the 1" but we're open to suggestions. The red line is a design we were also considering instead of having that outer bar parallel to the fairing. We were debating between angling that outer bar in towards the bike or having it parallel to the fairing. One pro to having it parallel is for people considering adding highway pegs. If the bar angles in towards the bike, the pegs would most likely angle up slightly. With the bar parallel to the fairing of the bike, the pegs would stick straight out. Also, with the bar parallel to the fairing, the guard will better protect the bike should the bike roll over that initial hit point (which is tough to do usually only happens during rolling crashes. During a still tip-over, the bike will contact the bottom corner of the guard and come to rest there).

Also, don't judge the square brackets, tack welds, and sectioned (i.e. cut) bars too harshly as that will all be cleaned up once the design is finalized. Although parts of the bar will be welded sectionals that get sanded down, the bar will appear as a single piece when it's finished.

What do you guys think? Any opinions? If any of you guys decide to modify any of these pictures in paint or photoshop to showcase any changes you'd make, just keep in mind that the lower bend that bends towards the rear of the bike must be in that position (and that far away from the bike) to properly protect the bike.

[Jwh360]

I think the red line bar would be better for mounting things on (lights, pegs, machine guns, rocket launchers, etc.)  I would think that placing the bar as you have it shown would help with strength, transferring any forces into the upper mount.  The new design looks really good, much better than the original "C". 

[tweeter55]