Kawasaki Concours Forum
The C10, aka Kawasaki Concours - The Original => Accessories and Modifications - C10 => Topic started by: RyanMCEnterprises on October 28, 2013, 11:53:13 AM
-
Morning, guys! So, we've started design on the Saddle Bag Guards and I need your help with a quick measurement! The bike we're working on has aftermarket exhaust and we want to be sure our guards will work with the stock exhaust as well. If anyone has the stock exhaust laying around or still mounted on the bike, I could really use the stock exhausts diameter as well as the distance from the top of the mounted stock exhaust to the bottom of the Saddle Bag both at the front and rear of the Saddle Bag itself (I heard the stock exhaust doesn't run parallel to the bottom of the Saddle Bag so I'd like both measurements if at all possible). If anyone has these handy or can quickly measure for me, I'd be very appreciative!
I'll be posting photos here of our progress as we continue the design/prototyping process for this bike. So, be sure to check back frequently and post your comments/opinions on the design and watch the guards take shape! Cheers!
-
Diameter of stock exhaust looks to be 5", distance from top of exhaust to lowest point of bag at back of exhaust is aprox. 1 3/4", distance from exhaust to lowest point of bag at the front of the bag is aprox. 1 1/4".
HTH
-
Diameter of stock exhaust looks to be 5", distance from top of exhaust to lowest point of bag at back of exhaust is aprox. 1 3/4", distance from exhaust to lowest point of bag at the front of the bag is aprox. 1 1/4".
HTH
Much appreciated! I'll be sure to upload some photos once I have something substantial to show you guys.
-
Just to throw something else out there. Don't forget that some of us (maybe most of us) run either the foot "Scoops" or the hockey stick shaped "fairing extenders" air deflectors, if that has any impact on the design. There could also be lowered foot peg assemblies also.
-
Just to throw something else out there. Don't forget that some of us (maybe most of us) run either the foot "Scoops" or the hockey stick shaped "fairing extenders" air deflectors, if that has any impact on the design. There could also be lowered foot peg assemblies also.
That's definitely good information to know. Thank you!
-
We have some progress to show you guys!
Current Saddle Bag Guard:
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0646_zps1000b828.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0646_zps1000b828.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0651_zps6531e1c1.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0651_zps6531e1c1.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0649_zps78c129fa.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0649_zps78c129fa.jpg.html)
The Saddle Bag Guard isn't quite finished yet. We'll be adding a support bar towards the center of the horseshoe similar to our Saddle Bag Guards for the 2013 FJR1300. Also, the brackets won't look like this on the finished product. We'll be sure to radius the bracket around the bar and clean it up all nice once the design is set but, so far, this is the position and basic design. Any thoughts?
Current Canyon Cage:
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0654_zps753a4d6e.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0654_zps753a4d6e.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0652_zps69ad70f5.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0652_zps69ad70f5.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0653_zps95aca60f.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0653_zps95aca60f.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0655_zps0bcbcae3.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0655_zps0bcbcae3.jpg.html)
Don't judge the Canyon Cage too harshly quite yet. We're still doing a bit of tweaking but this is what we have so far. Of course, the finished bar won't have that seam at the middle of the exterior bar, it'll be a solid piece. I did want to give you guys an idea of the bracket work, though. We're thinking of going with a "two point" mount system similar to Murphs bars for the C10 although we're seriously beefing up the bracket work and adding a 1/2 mounting point to that lower mounting spot to help give it some strength.
We were initially considering going with a 3-point system but there's very limited space to tie in a 3rd mounting point further back on the bike. Most of the points are too close to the riders foot/shifter/brake for our comfort and I truly think a 2.5-point guard will work fine on this bike as long as the brackets are substantial enough and the design of the guard is correct.
I really like the aesthetic of the guard so far, though. It's similar to Murphs bars but has a bit more oomph to it. Instead of being a square "C" shape, our guard is further out at the top and angles in towards the bike as it goes down. It looks much better with the fairing on and doesn't appear to stick so far out. Once they have a chance to put the fairing on, I'll snap some more photos for you guys. What do you think of the basic design so far, though? Anything changes you guys would recommend?
-
Here are a few shots with the fairing on the bike. From a few angles it looks like the guard is further out than it should be but if you look at the view from the rear, you can see that the guard is about as close in to the bike as it can be while still protecting everything it needs to.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0660_zps754625f8.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0660_zps754625f8.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0657_zps180a6e3e.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0657_zps180a6e3e.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0659_zps0a992596.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0659_zps0a992596.jpg.html)
-
Looking good so far. It'll look better in black (I'm not a big chrome fan).
My initial thought on the rear guard is please make sure to leave adequate room for access to the saddlebag side latch. I can't quite make out in the pic how much room there is for the latch, plus some people have big hands, so a little extra clearance there to access the keyhole might be helpful if it is 'tight'.
I think there may be some slight angle tweaks that can be made on the front bar to make it look more sporty, but I'm not sure what those would be. If the bike lies 'flat'/tires leave the ground and go parallel, then your bar angle makes sense, otherwise I think some offset from vertical to complement the fairing might look nice. As you pointed out, though, with the air wings and pedals, you kinda have to get the lower extension out as far as you have it, so really it'll come down to what happens after that lower bend/what makes sense.
Looking at your pic, and referencing the upper front mounting screws for the side fairing (not the lower two with the triangle cover, the upper two), there may not be enough 'heft' to the mount there to give adequate reinforcement for a three point mount I tried to explain in the other post. I see your lower support, and it makes sense, the mounting holes I'm thinking of are higher, and aren't looking beefy enough for a support, but I've never removed the radiator on mine so I'm not sure what is there frame wise.
Finally, and this might add too much to the price, but it might be nice to have the front bar 'slide over' some smaller diameter bars with some sort of spring pins to secure it in place (i.e. push in on pin, bar slides off), for those of us that remove the side fairings regularly for maintenance. The pins would have to be beefy enough to hold the bar in place in the event of a spill, but not look dorky in the process. I suppose you could use bolts too, but that might not look as classy.
Hope this helps with your brainstorming!
;)
-
I appreciate the feedback, Two Skies! The bar will definitely look better in black and that's what we're going to finish it with, same as our other Canyon Cages. I do agree, though. I'd kinda like the front bar to look a bit sportier as well. That's actually why we gave it that angle as opposed to Murphs "square C" shape. I'm going to try and work on streamlining the design a bit so it does look a tad more aggressive.
Also, I'll be sure there is enough room to access those side latches on the saddle bags. That's going to be a very important aspect. We like when people can open/remove the bags without tinkering with the guards.
As for that quick-release type system you're describing, it might be doable but as you said it will definitely add cost. It seems to me like price point is going to be very important, especially with an older bike like this. With the current mounting points, the guard goes on quite easy so I'm not sure the loss in strength is worth the 10-15 minutes you'll save but it's something we can definitely look into. We have the bike for another couple weeks so we definitely have time to test different ideas out.
-
I was just out back and checked that side latch on the saddle bag, there's definitely plenty of room to toggle it between the guard.
Anyway, I just wanted to post another update on the Saddle Bag Guards! We changed one of the mounting points because the last design was a bit weaker than we'd like it to be. This design is quite a bit stronger. However, we may end up adding a small, 3rd mounting point that stems off of that upper point and reaches forward to that black mounting point directly above that silver-looking piece that holds the passenger peg. That would make it slightly less likely that that bracket on the upper mount would bend towards the bike during a drop.
Also, once we get the design set, we'll be adding a round support bar between the horseshoe portion of the rear guard.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0662_zpsd6494a6b.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0662_zpsd6494a6b.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0661_zps6cc6def8.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0661_zps6cc6def8.jpg.html)
-
My main concern r.e. the front guard is unbolting it. With the fairing on, there is no easy way to access the nut on the other side of the front engine mount (where the top of your bar attaches to), and even then it can be a pain to try to snake a wrench in there. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but I'm guessing you might have one already in mind?
Another thing to keep in mind is that some of us end up inserting a washer between the engine mount and the frame mount, as the frame naturally seems to have a slight gap on one side. This helps slightly with the handlebar buzz. I mention this, as it might be slightly annoying to unthread the bolt and here that washer go 'plink' and disappear somewhere...
I hope this feedback is helping. Kinda surprised our veteran C-10'ers haven't commented yet...
-
My main concern r.e. the front guard is unbolting it. With the fairing on, there is no easy way to access the nut on the other side of the front engine mount (where the top of your bar attaches to), and even then it can be a pain to try to snake a wrench in there. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but I'm guessing you might have one already in mind?
Another thing to keep in mind is that some of us end up inserting a washer between the engine mount and the frame mount, as the frame naturally seems to have a slight gap on one side. This helps slightly with the handlebar buzz. I mention this, as it might be slightly annoying to unthread the bolt and here that washer go 'plink' and disappear somewhere...
I hope this feedback is helping. Kinda surprised our veteran C-10'ers haven't commented yet...
All feedback certainly helps!
The fairing will have to be loosened a bit to install this guard but I agree that accessing that nut behind that upper mounting point is a pain. I do have a rough solution, though. What we've done is weld a bracket or "handle" onto that nut which will allow you to hold the nut in place back there from the exterior of the bike. It's basically an L bracket with the nut welded just above that 90 degree turn. I've thrown together a rough visual of what I mean. It's not the best solution but it definitely makes it easier to handle that nut and the bracket/handle will be hidden once the bar and fairing is completely installed.
Yea, I wish we could get a few other people offering ideas/comments on the design!
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/IMG_0653_zps71e95cc3.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/IMG_0653_zps71e95cc3.jpg.html)
-
Looking at your lower mount, is the 'L/Z' bracket that attaches to the frame threaded on the bar end? I see the hex head bolt there, which if it threaded into the mount would be easy to remove with a socket and extension.
If so, similar treatment on top (introducing a similar bracket with a threaded receptacle) would allow you to just unbolt the bar without messing with the engine mount. Also, if you are using a nut on the other side instead of threading the step bracket, spot welding the nut to the step bracket would be a piece of cake. That way, no worries about falling nuts, etc.
The removable feature I mentioned I personally would pay extra for, if strength could be maintained (perhaps a solid steel rod that the tubular bar slips over would do the trick), but I'm not sure how much expense we'd be talking, and C-10ers are known for being frugal.
Also, I'm sure you were clear on this already, but here is an example of those double button locking pins I was mentioning earlier... this would work with a double tube design (insert these inside the inner tube).
http://www.valcocleve.com/products.asp?subcategory=Double%20End%20%28D%20Series%29&cat=snap (http://www.valcocleve.com/products.asp?subcategory=Double%20End%20%28D%20Series%29&cat=snap)
I'm kinda liking the solid steel shaft idea though (Connies are heavy) with the outer tubular sleeve. You could use a cap screw that threads through the shaft and out the other side (head at the top, excess length at the bottom, so tube is secured on both sides of the shaft). Tapping the steel shaft with threads would be manpower intensive, however unless you could find some shafts with pre-threaded holes in them. Its a fun idea anyways...
-
Looking at your lower mount, is the 'L/Z' bracket that attaches to the frame threaded on the bar end? I see the hex head bolt there, which if it threaded into the mount would be easy to remove with a socket and extension.
If so, similar treatment on top (introducing a similar bracket with a threaded receptacle) would allow you to just unbolt the bar without messing with the engine mount. Also, if you are using a nut on the other side instead of threading the step bracket, spot welding the nut to the step bracket would be a piece of cake. That way, no worries about falling nuts, etc.
The removable feature I mentioned I personally would pay extra for, if strength could be maintained (perhaps a solid steel rod that the tubular bar slips over would do the trick), but I'm not sure how much expense we'd be talking, and C-10ers are known for being frugal.
Also, I'm sure you were clear on this already, but here is an example of those double button locking pins I was mentioning earlier... this would work with a double tube design (insert these inside the inner tube).
http://www.valcocleve.com/products.asp?subcategory=Double%20End%20%28D%20Series%29&cat=snap (http://www.valcocleve.com/products.asp?subcategory=Double%20End%20%28D%20Series%29&cat=snap)
I'm kinda liking the solid steel shaft idea though (Connies are heavy) with the outer tubular sleeve. You could use a cap screw that threads through the shaft and out the other side (head at the top, excess length at the bottom, so tube is secured on both sides of the shaft). Tapping the steel shaft with threads would be manpower intensive, however unless you could find some shafts with pre-threaded holes in them. Its a fun idea anyways...
Those are some great suggestions that I'll work on getting implemented today! That "L/Z" bracket isn't threaded but there is a nut back there that's already spot welded so you can remove the bar using that outer bolt and leave the inner one installed for when you reinstall the bar after maintenance. I'll see if we can work something similar on the top.
Also, I'll see if I can discuss the implementation of some sort of quick-release system with my Tech today. It's something we've never done before so it may take some tinkering but I'm sure we could do it if we put our minds to it!
I really appreciate all the feed back, TwoSkies!
-
Just so you realize, there are probably quite few people interested in the ease of removability for this product for maintenance. Otherwise, what you're making is already on the market. We're just sitting here and listening. Also, in the grand scheme of things, some users would probably need to purchase replacement parts for when the rider has a mishap. I modular product is a big plus to that.
Another cool "option" for the front bars would be to request (at order time) a generic bracket or tab to be welded on for aux lights if a generic sized tab is available. That way, you wouldn’t need to buy extra brackets for lights. Maybe this is not possible due to the wide range of light sizes, although if welded out towards the outer edge, almost anything would fit and still be protected by the bar.
I won’t even mention pre-welded foot peg brackets or complete assemblies that riders might want.
-
Just so you realize, there are probably quite few people interested in the ease of removability for this product for maintenance. Otherwise, what you're making is already on the market. We're just sitting here and listening. Also, in the grand scheme of things, some users would probably need to purchase replacement parts for when the rider has a mishap. I modular product is a big plus to that.
Another cool "option" for the front bars would be to request (at order time) a generic bracket or tab to be welded on for aux lights if a generic sized tab is available. That way, you wouldn’t need to buy extra brackets for lights. Maybe this is not possible due to the wide range of light sizes, although if welded out towards the outer edge, almost anything would fit and still be protected by the bar.
I won’t even mention pre-welded foot peg brackets or complete assemblies that riders might want.
Even if we don't go with a "quick-release" type system (which we're looking into), this guard will be extremely easy to remove for maintenance. With the "multi-bracket" design, it'll be very easy to remove the cage as the two bolts are easily accessible from the exterior of the bike which will allow you to remove this guard within minutes. It may not be 30 seconds but I believe the added strength is worth spending an extra few minutes removing the guard. Although, we're still looking into the possibility of a quick-release system.
There is a similar product on the market but from what I've heard it's very unpopular due to uninspired design and a wicked tendency to bend under very light pressure. So, although the product is similar, we're doing what we can to create a guard that will actually protect the bike instead of folding immediately under the pressure of a drop and look a bit better. I mean, if the guard is going to give way anyway, what's the point of spending money on a guard at all? Even though there may be a similar product on the market, I assumed people would enjoy offering opinions/ideas while watching us incorporate those ideas. When we did this for the C14, the thread page count was in the 50s if I remember correctly but I understand that's a newer bike with a larger following. However, I did post a heads-up thread in the C14 section for people who want to participate.
We could do that special-order bracket thing for the lights but the customer would have to wait a good 4-6 weeks to receive it as that sort of modification would have to be added while we're manufacturing the guard and most people don't want to wait that long. Normally, people just buy a generic 1" clamp and simply clamp auxiliary lighting to the guard if they so desire.
-
I hope I didn't come across wrong. What I meant was we are all hoping and giving input into this to have a better choice and to ultimately have a better product available. Sturdy brackets and quick removal (or lack of) are at the top of the list from most of the posts in the past. We are definitely hoping yours is a better and can do more than just protect the bike from a "garage drop" as the other product does.
I have a nice all black debadged C-10 that I would never put the other brackets on simply because of their looks. I'm hoping yours look "cool" or at least blend in well. For me, matte black would be a better choice than gloss black.
-
I hope I didn't come across wrong. What I meant was we are all hoping and giving input into this to have a better choice and to ultimately have a better product available. Sturdy brackets and quick removal (or lack of) are at the top of the list from most of the posts in the past. We are definitely hoping yours is a better and can do more than just protect the bike from a "garage drop" as the other product does.
I have a nice all black debadged C-10 that I would never put the other brackets on simply because of their looks. I'm hoping yours look "cool" or at least blend in well. For me, matte black would be a better choice than gloss black.
That certainly makes sense. We're doing everything we can to make the removal as easy as possible (as well as making the guard look as "cool") as I know that's very important. With that being said, we're currently working on a way to modify the top mounting point. What we're thinking is incorporating a U bracket that bends around that top mounting point with a nut welded to the backside that the guard itself then bolts to. So, basically, you install that U bracket the first time you install the guard and then never have to touch it again (the U bracket stays installed even when you remove the guard itself for maintenance). The guard itself will then bolt to that U bracket via an external bolt that's much more accessible. It'd be very similar to how the lower front mounting point is now. It's not quite a "quick-release" system but this would allow you to remove or reinstall the guard within 2 or 3 minutes.
We'll definitely be going with a matte black powder coat finish. It's a tougher finish than a gloss black paint and tends to "disappear" into background colors easier than a gloss finish as well.
-
Sounds like things are moving right along Ryan! I think your upper bracket idea may be the winner. Removing the bar easily for maintenance is a big deal. The plastic has to come off for just about any type of work, so that means it comes off often. I also like the revised rear bar mounts. The first design looked like it may have interfered with the passengers feet. BTW - That's a good looking bike you have there. ;)
-
Sounds like things are moving right along Ryan! I think your upper bracket idea may be the winner. Removing the bar easily for maintenance is a big deal. The plastic has to come off for just about any type of work, so that means it comes off often. I also like the revised rear bar mounts. The first design looked like it may have interfered with the passengers feet. BTW - That's a good looking bike you have there. ;)
It is a gorgeous bike, for sure! I appreciate the feedback on the upper mount, though. I also just spoke to a gentleman on the phone that had a great idea regarding how to incorporate a "quick-release" type system that we're going to work on designing that would allow you to remove the guards using two small allen bolts within about a minute.
-
Alrighty, guys, I've spent some time looking more into this quick-release type of system. I was using the guard for the BMW 1200LT as a model (pictured below) because they have a pretty nice quick-release system on their guard. Now, this is something we could certainly incorporate but I'm just not sure that it's totally necessary due to how easy our guard is to remove already but I want to get your guys opinions. Doing a quick-release system like the BMW will definitely drive up the cost of the guards (by probably about $20-$30) because of the added steps involved. Also, the material cost will go up slightly because we'd have to use slightly thicker-walled material than we're currently using.
If you look at the picture of our current guard, the two bolts are easily accessible and would only take a few minutes to remove. If we were to change over to the quick-release system, the guard would probably come off a bit quicker but we're talking about a savings of maybe a minute or two per side. So, it's a question of whether an extra $20-$30 is worth saving a minute or two. What do you guys think?
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/BMW_zpse3077078.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/BMW_zpse3077078.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/BMWExternal_zps8073edd2.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/BMWExternal_zps8073edd2.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0664_zps6692d717.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0664_zps6692d717.jpg.html)
-
Don't need a quick release as long as we can remove the bar quickly without having to deal with that motor mount nut.
-
Don't need a quick release as long as we can remove the bar quickly without having to deal with that motor mount nut.
What he said!
-
I was thinking about my spring tab idea, and realized it might not be the easiest thing to try to pinch both mounts simultaneously and try to wiggle the bar off at the same time.
As long as you can separate the top bracket mount bolt from the motor mount bolt (i.e. insert a bracket that bolts to both the motor mount and to the bar mount), and looking at the bolt placement, if both used the same 'hex head' or whatever to remove, I think that would be sufficiently easy to get to (as long as you spot welded both nuts to the brackets, which you said you were planning to). So cap screws or whatever might be the better option.
The other issue with a quick release would be that both the top and bottom would have to be perfectly parallel, in order to be able to yank them. Or perhaps just have the quick release at the top, and still unbolt the bottom, although if you are undoing one bolt, then you might as well have two similarly sized bolts...
Looking at the above pic, I think if you lowered the mounting hole for the top of the bar down and to the back slightly (say 2 inches), there would still be plenty of room for the bars to fit inside the fairing vents. You could also 'invert' the mounting hole at the top, with the mounting hole below the bracket instead of above. Putting it below would hide the bolt from easy view a bit, which might be better for aesthetic reasons.
I might also recommend using an allen head bolt similar to the sizes found elsewhere on the bike for the top and bottom mounts. Many of us carry a set of allen wrenches with us (and indeed, if you still have the OEM kit under the seat it has allen wrenches), so that might be more convenient. In my case, I carry a decent set of sockets as well, but my allen wrenches are easier to get to...
That being said, allen versus regular bolts is not that big of a deal. The bike uses allen heads in most other places though (except where it uses phillips head bolts), so it might match better. If I'm undoing the fairings, though, I already have the socket set out for the oil change though, so really this is a minor issue at best.
And yes, many of us remove our fairings a lot. I generally take them all off every oil change, so I can clean the inside of the fairings. And as these bikes are high mileage bikes, putting 3000-7000 miles on between oil changes can happen fairly quickly - in past years I've changed my oil three times in a riding season.
-
As long as you can separate the top bracket mount bolt from the motor mount bolt (i.e. insert a bracket that bolts to both the motor mount and to the bar mount), and looking at the bolt placement, if both used the same 'hex head' or whatever to remove, I think that would be sufficiently easy to get to (as long as you spot welded both nuts to the brackets, which you said you were planning to). So cap screws or whatever might be the better option.
The other issue with a quick release would be that both the top and bottom would have to be perfectly parallel, in order to be able to yank them. Or perhaps just have the quick release at the top, and still unbolt the bottom, although if you are undoing one bolt, then you might as well have two similarly sized bolts...
Looking at the above pic, I think if you lowered the mounting hole for the top of the bar down and to the back slightly (say 2 inches), there would still be plenty of room for the bars to fit inside the fairing vents. You could also 'invert' the mounting hole at the top, with the mounting hole below the bracket instead of above. Putting it below would hide the bolt from easy view a bit, which might be better for aesthetic reasons.
I might also recommend using an allen head bolt similar to the sizes found elsewhere on the bike for the top and bottom mounts. Many of us carry a set of allen wrenches with us (and indeed, if you still have the OEM kit under the seat it has allen wrenches), so that might be more convenient. In my case, I carry a decent set of sockets as well, but my allen wrenches are easier to get to...
That being said, allen versus regular bolts is not that big of a deal. The bike uses allen heads in most other places though (except where it uses phillips head bolts), so it might match better. If I'm undoing the fairings, though, I already have the socket set out for the oil change though, so really this is a minor issue at best.
Very good points! As it is currently, there are indeed two separate motor mount brackets and guard mount brackets. So, once you install the U-shaped motor mount bracket, you never have to fuss with it again. All you have to do is bolt the guard mount bracket to the 2nd, lower hole in the motor mount bracket and viola! Also, two bracket do indeed have nuts tacked to the back so there's no need to fuss with those.
I believe there's a reason we used two different bolts but I'll have to double check that with Armando (the Tech). I'll see what we can do about using the same hardware for both mounts so it all matches.
Also, as far as inverting the bracket, we could certainly look into that but the bolt heads are really only viewable from that specific angle that I took the shot. If you're standing up next to the bike, they're tucked into the fairing enough to where you can't see them except for maybe the lower one. We'll see what we can do, though!
I think we normally like to use those heftier hex heads because they come in grade 9 which is extremely tough stuff and it's hardware we already keep in stock. We do have a few allen head bolts but not near as many sizes and variations as the hex heads we carry. I'll look into swapping over to allen, though and see what it might cost. The allen bolts are probably cheaper but we buy those hex heads in such high quantity that we get a pretty steep discount.
-
Idea for the look and feel of this bracket...
What if you changed up the angles, like this (see attached image)... probably with a stronger front angle though (I didn't want to cover up the lower bolt in the pic, but so the angle matches the vent angles on the fairing).
Note I flipped the upper mount bolt hole underneath in the attached image as well.
-
Idea for the look and feel of this bracket...
What if you changed up the angles, like this (see attached image)... probably with a stronger front angle though (I didn't want to cover up the lower bolt in the pic, but so the angle matches the vent angles on the fairing).
Note I flipped the upper mount bolt hole underneath in the attached image as well.
Ohhhh so you're talking about changing the angle of the guard itself, not just the bracket. As it is now, the bracket does match the angle of the vent but I see what you're talking about in your photo. We had the bar below the top mounting point just so the guard would remain as little as possible but there's no reason we can't flip it and see how it looks.
Also, I like the look of the guard how you have it in the photo. Perhaps we'll try and mock up something similar on Monday (we're closed Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) and see how it looks.
-
I knew using the modified pic would be be the best way to explain! My photochopping skillz are not going to waste...
It just kinda hit me, looking at those Beemer guards.
Mainly, I'm looking for ways to make the guards look more sporty!
-
I like where 2skies is going. If the tip overs are not better looking AND more stout, you are just reinventing the wheel we already have. Most of the newer bikes have very well integrated appearing protection. That's what would sell me on adding bars to my bike.
-
I too like the front design mod suggested by Two Skies....and dido on insuring both brackets are stout. I really like how this is progressing. 8)
-
OK, pardon my quick imagebashing here, but this should convey something I was thinking about.
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.
I'm illustrating the 'guard over the engine mount bolt' in the attached image, not the 'folded tab' option.
-
I'm on a Photoshop kick.
Here's another view, where I have modified the bracket using the pics posted earlier...
The forward angle on the guard might be just about close enough for angled running boards to prop your feet on, but then it wouldn't be a sport touring bike...
-
And here's using the above image as a baseline to show a crazy crossbar idea, to help prevent the guard from bending backwards in a spill.
(again, don't mind the quick photshop job here)
Essentially, there would be a flat piece of steel that bolts to the two front fairing screw holes, and a third leg on the guard would bolt to the front mounting hole in the fairing, on top of the crossbar mounts. I'm thinking the crossbar would add strength, and really this mount wouldn't be bearing the brunt of the force, just holding the guard in place to prevent it from bending.
The crossbar/third leg might not be necessary, but that is where I was thinking of adding the third leg for the guard I never got around to making.. If nothing else, might be worth a look at least.
-
Idea for the look and feel of this bracket...
What if you changed up the angles, like this (see attached image)... probably with a stronger front angle though (I didn't want to cover up the lower bolt in the pic, but so the angle matches the vent angles on the fairing).
Note I flipped the upper mount bolt hole underneath in the attached image as well.
That's what i'm talking about! Looking cool! And of course still being strong as its intended purpose. This is getting very interesting.
-
I'm glad to see we have more people commenting! I definitely dig the small change in design but sometimes things are more difficult in practice. I can tell you now that the bends you have showcased are quite difficult to pull off and can sometimes weaken the bar but I'll certainly do what I can to copy your image since people seem to dig it. I also like the idea of arresting the bracket so it doesn't twist if/when the bike goes over. I'm not sure we'd have that problem as it's currently designed but it's always nice to be sure. I'll try and incorporate a few of these changes Monday and post more pictures! I do agree the bar needs to be a bit more sporty-looking, though.
-
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?
-
I'm glad to see we have more people commenting! I definitely dig the small change in design but sometimes things are more difficult in practice. I can tell you now that the bends you have showcased are quite difficult to pull off and can sometimes weaken the bar but I'll certainly do what I can to copy your image since people seem to dig it. I also like the idea of arresting the bracket so it doesn't twist if/when the bike goes over. I'm not sure we'd have that problem as it's currently designed but it's always nice to be sure. I'll try and incorporate a few of these changes Monday and post more pictures! I do agree the bar needs to be a bit more sporty-looking, though.
I'm guessing that you'd probably need to have a wider bend than I'm showing in my images/the middle bend, to accomodate your bending apparatus. The main idea here is to have the lower portion of the bar match the vent angle. Mainly, I was just trying to illustrate it for the masses here.
If the middle bend was mated with a weld, it might be a little stronger. I hear welds are often stronger anyways... but I'm not sure if you'll be using one piece of pipe in the final design or not. Either way it's good.
I did think about 'shortening' the length at the top a bit (imagine the first bend starting about an inch from the end, and bending at a forward angle to meet the center bend, essentially 2 45-55 degree or so angles at different orientations), but I'd imagine that everyone would prefer the extra length to the current top 90 degree bend, as that would be a great place to attach lights... it would look sportier with an 'immediate' bend, but the extra 3-4 inches of length I think would be more useful to the Connie crowd.
As for the third leg, I'm envisioning a bend at both ends of the tube, which depending on your bending apparatus shouldn't be a big deal. The front bend would terminate/be welded to an 'L' bracket perhaps, or something similar, to mate up with the front fairing bolt. The other bend, of course, would need to mate with the guard in some fashion. I'm thinking that both bends would be less than 90 degrees (perhaps a 45 in the rear, and an 80 in the front). Assuming you feel like mocking up a third leg version. That third leg would add to cost, of course, so I'd be interested in hearing how many other people would be interested in a third leg version, if it adds sufficient strength to justify the expense.
You could actually keep the front section of the third leg straight, and weld a longer tab (essentially a 'step' tab) to offset the front of the bar away from the fairing, but I'm not sure how that would look aesthetically. A front bend that terminates at the front of the fairing looks better in my mind's eye, but until you actually see the actual prototype on the bike, it's hard to judge which would complement the bike better.
The crossbar would help a lot in improving the strength, as any forces across the third leg would be distributed across the two front fairing bolts (instead of just one), as well as to a smaller degree the other two mounts on the opposite bar. This would reduce the chance of tweaking the frame if the bike went down hard, and of course would help hold the main guard in place/keep it from bending backwards. This is a canyon cage, after all...
Plus, if done right, I think it would look sportier IMHO, plus it gives more bar to attach things to... dunno what you'd attach though! Bumper stickers maybe?
I'm sure more C-10ers will be commenting shortly. I'm looking forward to what you guys MC Enterprises guys finally come up with!
-
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?
I don't believe our current design requires spacers so the spacers inclusion with the competitors set may be linked their their specific design. That I'm not quite sure of, though. I can tell you this, if our design requires spacers they will certainly be included with the guard at no extra cost. I'll have to look into these recessed slots you mentioned and see if they effect our guard at all on Monday when I'm back at the office so I'll have to get back to you on this.
I'm guessing that you'd probably need to have a wider bend than I'm showing in my images/the middle bend, to accomodate your bending apparatus. The main idea here is to have the lower portion of the bar match the vent angle. Mainly, I was just trying to illustrate it for the masses here.
If the middle bend was mated with a weld, it might be a little stronger. I hear welds are often stronger anyways... but I'm not sure if you'll be using one piece of pipe in the final design or not. Either way it's good.
I did think about 'shortening' the length at the top a bit (imagine the first bend starting about an inch from the end, and bending at a forward angle to meet the center bend, essentially 2 45-55 degree or so angles at different orientations), but I'd imagine that everyone would prefer the extra length to the current top 90 degree bend, as that would be a great place to attach lights... it would look sportier with an 'immediate' bend, but the extra 3-4 inches of length I think would be more useful to the Connie crowd.
As for the third leg, I'm envisioning a bend at both ends of the tube, which depending on your bending apparatus shouldn't be a big deal. The front bend would terminate/be welded to an 'L' bracket perhaps, or something similar, to mate up with the front fairing bolt. The other bend, of course, would need to mate with the guard in some fashion. I'm thinking that both bends would be less than 90 degrees (perhaps a 45 in the rear, and an 80 in the front). Assuming you feel like mocking up a third leg version. That third leg would add to cost, of course, so I'd be interested in hearing how many other people would be interested in a third leg version, if it adds sufficient strength to justify the expense.
You could actually keep the front section of the third leg straight, and weld a longer tab (essentially a 'step' tab) to offset the front of the bar away from the fairing, but I'm not sure how that would look aesthetically. A front bend that terminates at the front of the fairing looks better in my mind's eye, but until you actually see the actual prototype on the bike, it's hard to judge which would complement the bike better.
The crossbar would help a lot in improving the strength, as any forces across the third leg would be distributed across the two front fairing bolts (instead of just one), as well as to a smaller degree the other two mounts on the opposite bar. This would reduce the chance of tweaking the frame if the bike went down hard, and of course would help hold the main guard in place/keep it from bending backwards. This is a canyon cage, after all...
Plus, if done right, I think it would look sportier IMHO, plus it gives more bar to attach things to... dunno what you'd attach though! Bumper stickers maybe?
I'm sure more C-10ers will be commenting shortly. I'm looking forward to what you guys MC Enterprises guys finally come up with!
I appreciate the extra description, Two Skies. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of what you're suggesting so I'll do what I can to get it implemented on Monday. I do think those suggestions will certainly make the guard a bit sportier though. As of now, the guard comes in contact with the ground on the corner of the lower bend so as long as that part stays where it is, we can modify the upper part of the bar as we like.
-
I don't believe our current design requires spacers so the spacers inclusion with the competitors set may be linked their their specific design. That I'm not quite sure of, though. I can tell you this, if our design requires spacers they will certainly be included with the guard at no extra cost. I'll have to look into these recessed slots you mentioned and see if they effect our guard at all on Monday when I'm back at the office so I'll have to get back to you on this.
I appreciate the extra description, Two Skies. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of what you're suggesting so I'll do what I can to get it implemented on Monday. I do think those suggestions will certainly make the guard a bit sportier though. As of now, the guard comes in contact with the ground on the corner of the lower bend so as long as that part stays where it is, we can modify the upper part of the bar as we like.
Hey Ryan!
Yeah, the only change I made to the lower bend was to twist it forward a bit - that bend angle would essentially stay the same (you could just pop the weld, twist it forward a few degrees, and reweld your prototype). It might contact the ground a fraction of an inch sooner with the change in orientation, so not really much of a change there. Of course, I'm sure you are being mindful of lean angles for the braver types around here...
;D
-
Hey There MCE...
Another country heard from here. Put another 800 miles on the GTR the last two days.
Went 300 miles to pick up cute friend, then rode her around for another 100 twisty, fast miles.
Took the very twisty, long way home yesterday. 45,000 miles in 2 1/2 years, and I have a half
dozen other bikes in the garage. But the GTR is the one I ride the most. 300-400 miles is easy
and comfortable any day. Days over 1000 miles make me wish for someplace else to put my feet,
if only for a while.
Here is a list. No photoshop, though.
PRICE
Pretty simple: I don't have a lot to spend. Period. $340 for that other set is a price I don't even
have to think about. No. Can. Do. If you want to sell me a set, you will have to do better. Before
TwoSkies started bending the bars, your look nearly identical. $190 for the front set? Not me.
You can decide where the price makes the many frugal owners go look elsewhere, or just do
without, but if you are making a barely improved mounting arrangement and aesthetically rather
identical product, I expect you will be splitting the existing market with basically adding ZERO new
customers.
I made set of mirror mount headlight brackets. $73. from the popular supplier. I saved about $70. Next project was some forward light and footpeg mounts, then I saw this thread.
Maybe I will wait and see what you do here.
FUNCTION
Also pretty simple. I don't care about the rear bars much. Not $150 worth. I don't drop the bike.
If and when I do, I can fab up a set of mounts AND get some Pelican cases. Passenger space is
limited already.
I want to mount a set of lights, and have a seldom-used place for feet. Those really long days can
be rough on the lower back, etc. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. I wouldn't mind a set of clamp-on pegs that would sit in a box most of the time.
FAIRING REMOVAL, ETC.
Yes, they will take some time to work around. Ten minutes or so is fine. More than that is too long.
Less than that becomes expensive, since you will be designing around the removal instead of the
intended function.
You lose at least one potential sale (mine) by adding a fiddly quick release setup. Extra crap to me.
All the swoopy bends, too. I do not want to pay for all that, and I won't. Having a captured
mount, as discussed above, sounds like good design, though.
I do not expect MY GTR to look like something it isn't. Mine is a daily driver, high mileage hauler.
Comfort and utility and cost are way more important to me than looking like the latest product
from BMW or KTM. My GTR is a sturdy draft horse, not a pretend racer or runway model. But not
a mule, either. So the wraparound guard just looks silly to me. No sale for sure.
But that's just me, right?
And good for you for even considering this product. Yes, there are lots of GTRs out there, and they
do get ridden.
-
How did you go about justifying all that other stuff you put on the bike?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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:
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0668_zps06c90abe.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0668_zps06c90abe.jpg.html)
-
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.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0671new_zpsc96c071d.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0671new_zpsc96c071d.jpg.html)
-
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.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0671new_zpsc96c071d.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0671new_zpsc96c071d.jpg.html)
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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:
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0668_zps06c90abe.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0668_zps06c90abe.jpg.html)
Looking good..... 8)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0675_zps5ab65ae3.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0675_zps5ab65ae3.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0678_zpsfc58d893.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0678_zpsfc58d893.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0677_zps635f00ce.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0677_zps635f00ce.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0676_zpsd0dfdcf2.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0676_zpsd0dfdcf2.jpg.html)
-
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".
-
:popcorn:
-
I like the latest look, but I would like to see the top mount like Two Skies suggested with the top bracket engine bolt hidden in the tube as his picture on page 3 of this thread reply #30.
-
Nice! I'm glad to hear most of you guys like the new design, for the most part. I'll see what we can do about altering that top mount so the hardware is a bit more hidden. Keep in mind though, the bar will have to be lengthened for that making it slightly larger. We'll try to give it a shot, though! Anyone have any opinions on the white line support bar we're considering? Yay or nay?
-
I don't care about hiding the hardware. It is a motorcycle, and there are nuts and bolts sticking out all over. I don't have chrome covers over the brakes for the same reason.
I would probably want my feet inside the lower part of the bars, and driving lights mounted to the top part. Highway pegs farther outboard than that? I don't find that relaxing at all. But that's just me from all the folks I see riding down the road looking like they are getting an OB GYN exam.
One vote for the bars pretty much as seen. No heroic measures to make it look like there are no bolts holding it in there, not the red line shape, no extra white bar - you say it is not needed? - no shim that I don't need, etc.
saxman
-
I'm sure the mounts will be "hidden" when they are black.
-
I like the latest look, but I would like to see the top mount like Two Skies suggested with the top bracket engine bolt hidden in the tube as his picture on page 3 of this thread reply #30.
I think it would look good like that too but unfortunately it's just not possible due to the location of the vents in the fairing. I snapped a quick picture with the fairings installed so you can see what I mean. There's just not enough room there to flip that bracket around and have the bar coming out from above the mounting hardware because the hardware has to be in the position it currently is.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0679_zps1089a33e.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0679_zps1089a33e.jpg.html)
I don't care about hiding the hardware. It is a motorcycle, and there are nuts and bolts sticking out all over. I don't have chrome covers over the brakes for the same reason.
I would probably want my feet inside the lower part of the bars, and driving lights mounted to the top part. Highway pegs farther outboard than that? I don't find that relaxing at all. But that's just me from all the folks I see riding down the road looking like they are getting an OB GYN exam.
One vote for the bars pretty much as seen. No heroic measures to make it look like there are no bolts holding it in there, not the red line shape, no extra white bar - you say it is not needed? - no shim that I don't need, etc.
saxman
Yea, flipping that bracket around and having the bar come out from above the mounting hardware isn't possible anyhow (see above). As for that support bar, it isn't necessary but it would certainly add resistance to the bar bending backwards and wouldn't cost much to implement. So, as long as it looks okay I think it would be a worthy addition. We're going to tack one in place so we can see how it looks and I'll upload a picture for you guys.
Regarding peg position, if they were mounted any further in, your knees would probably constantly rub or bump against that black plastic wind-deflecting piece. I think pegs mounted to that outer bar would actually be an ideal position because the bar appears farther out that it really is. The next time we take the bike off the lift, I'll snap a picture from the rider point of view so you can get an idea of what position your legs would be in if there were highway pegs mounted to the outer bar.
I'm sure the mounts will be "hidden" when they are black.
You're correct. The mounts will surely hide much better once they're black but I think the purpose of flipping that bracket and having the bar come out from atop would be to hide the chrome hardware, not so much the brackets. That was just my understanding so I may be mistaken but I believe that was the intention. I personally like the look of the nice, chrome hardware against the black bars. It looks snazzy and adds some nice contrast, I think but that's just me.
-
You're correct. The mounts will surely hide much better once they're black but I think the purpose of flipping that bracket and having the bar come out from atop would be to hide the chrome hardware, not so much the brackets. That was just my understanding so I may be mistaken but I believe that was the intention. I personally like the look of the nice, chrome hardware against the black bars. It looks snazzy and adds some nice contrast, I think but that's just me.
I agree, the chrome hardware looks good on the black bars.
-
I would probably want my feet inside the lower part of the bars, and driving lights mounted to the top part. Highway pegs farther outboard than that? I don't find that relaxing at all. But that's just me from all the folks I see riding down the road looking like they are getting an OB GYN exam.
Here's a view from the riders position. I don't think you'd even be able to get your feet on the pegs unless they were mounted to the exterior bar, or so it seems. However, peg position is very personal as everyone is a different height, has different leg length, etc. so if you still think this position would be uncomfortable for you, you're probably right. Nobody knows your body and what's comfortable for you better than you do!
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0680_zpsfea61427.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0680_zpsfea61427.jpg.html)
Here are a few shots of that cross brace piece being held in place. Now that I see it held there, I'm not as much of a fan of the look as I thought I'd be. However, your opinions are the ones that matter so what do you guys think?
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0686_zps199da6d7.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0686_zps199da6d7.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0687_zps4e5087d5.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0687_zps4e5087d5.jpg.html)
-
Here's a view from the _____ position. I don't think you'd even be able to get your ____ on the ___ unless they were mounted to the _______, or so it seems. However, ___ position is very personal as everyone is a different height, has different leg length, etc. so if you still think this position would be uncomfortable for you, you're probably right. Nobody knows your body and what's comfortable for you better than you do!
.....well there was this one girl.... :)
sorry, too easy
-
:offtopic: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :chugbeer:
-
I like that design on the bar.....looks solid and retro. I even like the vertical support brace (red line), too! However, I think extending the bar out an additional 1/2 to 1 inch from the fairing could provide a little more clearance in a tip over.
For those who like the cruiser style, I'm sure someone could fabricate a bracket for highway pegs that would provide clearance around the fairing. I ride my Connie as a sporty tourer and personally would not use highway pegs...FWIW.
I also like the look of the round piece welded between the horseshoe on the rear bars vs the flat pieces evident on the rear bars for some of your other models. I'm excited...looking forward to the finish product. :thumbs:
-
I like that design on the bar.....looks solid and retro. I even like the vertical support brace (red line), too! However, I think extending the bar out an additional 1/2 to 1 inch from the fairing could provide a little more clearance in a tip over.
For those who like the cruiser style, I'm sure someone could fabricate a bracket for highway pegs that would provide clearance around the fairing. I ride my Connie as a sporty tourer and personally would not use highway pegs...FWIW.
I also like the look of the round piece welded between the horseshoe on the rear bars vs the flat pieces evident on the reclamrs for some of your other models. I'm excited...looking forward to the finish product. :thumbs:
Nice! Actually, the white line is the one that's the support brace (that runs from the upper bracket to about the middle of the vertical bar) and the red line was an example of another way we were considering designing the vertical bar. Instead of being parallel to the fairing, we were considering an exterior vertical bar that angled inward. I think we're going to stay with what we have, though.
Based on how the bike looks on its side with the guards installed, I'm not sure moving the guard out is necessary. Additionally, extending it further out may make it look a little odd. I snapped some photos at the end of the day when we gently laid the bike on its side to make sure the front and rear guards contact the ground at the same time (and that nothing else contacts the ground aside from the hero peg) so I'll post those photos first thing tomorrow morning.
As far as highway peg clamps go, any generic 1" clamp should work just fine without any modification to either the guard or the clamp. Yea, I think the round bar looks a bit better on the rear guards than the flat plate as well. That was a change we made when we designed the guards for the 2013 FJR some time ago so we design all our our saddle bag guards that way now.
Hopefully a few more people will comment on the look of the guard with that added support brace. We're still deciding whether or not to keep it. The more I look at it, the more it grows on me, though. I'll take a few additional photos of it tomorrow morning from some different angles once it's tacked in place so theres not an arm in the photo.
-
I like the look of the brace. Makes it look even more heavy-duty.
-
I like the look of the brace. Makes it look even more heavy-duty.
Thanks, Jeff! I wish we could get a few more opinions on this as we're still deciding whether or not to keep the brace. I personally like it as well but the other forum I have this thread going on is about 50/50 on it.
To those of you who think it looks better without the cross brace: Do you think it'd look even better if we were to angle the outer vertical bar inward to meet at the upper bracket instead of going up parallel to the bike and having the 90° inward bend? I attached a photo to help illustrate. Although, there wouldn't be as sharp of an angle at the bottom as the red line appears to indicate (ignore the white line). We'd make that a nice, smooth radius. What do you guys think about that? Or should we keep it as is? If you guys think it may look better with an inward-angled outer bar, I'll have a set mocked up and snap some photos.
Just so you guys are aware, this is our last full day to work on the bike as the owner has a ride coming up this weekend and needs the bike back. So, it's crunch time! The design is pretty much set but, obviously, we have a few small things left to get ironed out.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/IMG_0676_zps0783cad1.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/IMG_0676_zps0783cad1.jpg.html)
-
I would think if you angled in too much it might not work as well as a light mounting location (not that everyone would want to mount lights anyway. I like the cross brace.
-
I would think if you angled in too much it might not work as well as a light mounting location (not that everyone would want to mount lights anyway. I like the cross brace.
I think it'd still work as a light mounting position if the outer bar was angled in as long as the light is round and it's mounted properly but I think we're going to end up keeping the guard as is anyhow. It's just a tough decision regarding that cross brace, though. Seems like it's about 50/50 between both the forums I have this thread going on. Someone else suggested maybe altering the cross brace to meet at the bottom corner of the outer vertical bar instead of half way like it is now but unfortunately I don't think that's possible. If we were to have the brace meet the outer vertical bar at the bottom corner, the brace would be touching part of the fairing (it would rub against the portion of the fairing circled in black in the photo below). So, if the bike were to go over and the bar happened to bend it would likely mess that part of the fairing up. With the brace in the position it is now (half way down the outer vertical bar) there's about a 1/4" gap which gives you a little space should the bar bend when the bike is dropped.
-
Here are a few shots of that cross brace piece being held in place. Now that I see it held there, I'm not as much of a fan of the look as I thought I'd be. However, your opinions are the ones that matter so what do you guys think?
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0686_zps199da6d7.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0686_zps199da6d7.jpg.html)
I think this is the better design for strength; as well as, aesthetics. I was thinking the red line support brace depicted in a previous post would extend down from the upper mounting bracket to just aft of the bend to the rear. But, I think the location of the support brace depicted above would actually be a better fit.
-
I think this is the better design for strength; as well as, aesthetics. I was thinking the red line support brace depicted in a previous post would extend down from the upper mounting bracket to just aft of the bend to the rear. But, I think the location of the support brace depicted above would actually be a better fit.
Yea, it seems like most people think the braceless design looks a bit cleaner but I think it'd be smart to keep the brace there. The design of the guard itself is inherently difficult to bend backwards so there's not much need to triangulate a third point but without the brace, that bottom corner may be apt to bend in slightly during a tip-over. The brace would certainly help make it more rigid in that respect, which is nice.
We were considering changing the brace slightly so it went from the upper mount bracket to the bottom corner of the guard but unfortunately that's not possible. If we were to move it like that, it would hit the portion of the fairing circled in black pictured below. As it is currently, there's about a 1/4" space between the inside wall of the brace and that part of the fairing so there's a bit of room in case the bar should bend slightly during a drop.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0678_zps6914c80a.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0678_zps6914c80a.jpg.html)
-
Yep, I see what you are talking about it hitting the fairing. I believe the photo of the project bike tipped over on it's side will reinforce the idea of having a support brace. The lower you can get the anchor point on the outer guard, without compromising the angle, the better. BTW, I think the current design of the guard would even look good on a bike without the lower fairing installed.
-
Yep, I see what you are talking about it hitting the fairing. I believe the photo of the project bike tipped over on it's side will reinforce the idea of having a support brace. The lower you can get the anchor point on the outer guard, without compromising the angle, the better. BTW, I think the current design of the guard would even look good on a bike without the lower fairing installed.
Oh! I totally forgot to post the pictures of the bike on it's side. They're attached below for you guys. Now that I know how close that brace is to the fairing already, I don't think I'd feel comfortable moving it much further down than it is already. It's about 1/4" away from that portion of the fairing and the further down we move it, the closer to the fairing it gets. Although, I do agree that the lower it is, the better it'd would be but I think it looks best in the position it is now.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0683_zps64efa21e.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0683_zps64efa21e.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0685_zpseffe29a5.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0685_zpseffe29a5.jpg.html)
-
I like the latest look, but I would like to see the top mount like Two Skies suggested with the top bracket engine bolt hidden in the tube as his picture on page 3 of this thread reply #30.
I think it would look good like that too but unfortunately it's just not possible due to the location of the vents in the fairing. I snapped a quick picture with the fairings installed so you can see what I mean. There's just not enough room there to flip that bracket around and have the bar coming out from above the mounting hardware because the hardware has to be in the position it currently is.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0679_zps1089a33e.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0679_zps1089a33e.jpg.html)
Yea, flipping that bracket around and having the bar come out from above the mounting hardware isn't possible anyhow (see above). As for that support bar, it isn't necessary but it would certainly add resistance to the bar bending backwards and wouldn't cost much to implement. So, as long as it looks okay I think it would be a worthy addition. We're going to tack one in place so we can see how it looks and I'll upload a picture for you guys.
Regarding peg position, if they were mounted any further in, your knees would probably constantly rub or bump against that black plastic wind-deflecting piece. I think pegs mounted to that outer bar would actually be an ideal position because the bar appears farther out that it really is. The next time we take the bike off the lift, I'll snap a picture from the rider point of view so you can get an idea of what position your legs would be in if there were highway pegs mounted to the outer bar.
You're correct. The mounts will surely hide much better once they're black but I think the purpose of flipping that bracket and having the bar come out from atop would be to hide the chrome hardware, not so much the brackets. That was just my understanding so I may be mistaken but I believe that was the intention. I personally like the look of the nice, chrome hardware against the black bars. It looks snazzy and adds some nice contrast, I think but that's just me.
I'm going to have to disagree strongly with you here. It is indeed possible to flip the bracket (and lengthen the guard in the process), and still clear the fairing. I've attached two photos below, showing how you'd design the guard bracket (note the slight rotation clockwise), by either using a spacer to clear the engine mount bolt, or perhaps using a step bracket design (not shown).
I used transparency so that you that could visualize where the guard tube would overlay the engine mount bolt if this were done.
I also attached another photochopped photo showing the guard at the full length, from the side, to help people visualize it.
I get that the angle of the engine mount bracket tab may be 'set', hence my suggestion of twisting the guard bracket tab slightly to compensate.
The REASON that I'm guessing a few of us here (myself included) are looking for more height out of the guard is to provide a more ideal height for a driving light mount, one that is closer to the height of the headlight.
http://www.tirerack.com/accessories/lighting_tech/techpage.jsp?techid=130 (http://www.tirerack.com/accessories/lighting_tech/techpage.jsp?techid=130)
of course, lengthening the guard will require more material, adding a small amount to the total cost. I'm guessing that labor will be the much more significant cost to factor in here.
-
Ryan, this is something that I'd like you to comment on... when looking at the guards, I keep thinking that there should be something to discourage the bike from laying further flat/rotating on the contact points on the pavement. In a drop, this probably isn't a big issue, but in a slide, I keep thinking that a 'plane' for the bike to settle on might be preferable, to prevent damage to the mirrors, brake handles and such.
The other goal here is to increase the height of the upper contact point for the bars higher off the ground, to get closer/above if possible to the bike's center of gravity in a fall.
I've had this happen with my Millerized pegs, where the bike was laying flat on the pegs after a fall, with the tires well off the ground. The Millerized pegs attach where you have your lower attachment for your guard. I've ended up replacing my mirrors and brake handles (and have a damaged brake handle currently) due to this (bike rotating on the pegs/coming down harder on the mirrors and handebars).
I've attached a modified photo to show what I was thinking r.e. adding a 'skid plane' to the bars. I'd like your thoughts on this, and your experience with other bikes with guards r.e. something along these lines.
-
I'm going to have to disagree strongly with you here. It is indeed possible to flip the bracket (and lengthen the guard in the process), and still clear the fairing. I've attached two photos below, showing how you'd design the guard bracket (note the slight rotation clockwise), by either using a spacer to clear the engine mount bolt, or perhaps using a step bracket design (not shown).
I suppose you're right, it is possible I just don't think it's necessarily worth it. If we were to go that route, the bracket would be sticking out of the fairing and might look a tad goofy from the front because of how far it would have to be spaced in order to clear the engine mount bolt. It'd also be a very tight fit. Also, not only would the lengthened bar be a tad more expensive (although not by much) the extra bracket work, bends, and welds are what would primarily drive up the cost. Is having the auxiliary lighting an extra 3" higher really worth it? Couldn't you always angle the light up very slightly to achieve the same effect without any additional cost? I can't seem to find the photo but a lot of people are fond of those lights that mount to the front axle and those things are way lower than what you could potentially mount to this guard and seem to work okay. Besides, only a small percentage of people who purchase our Canyon Cages add auxiliary lighting. So we'd be punishing a bunch (by having a higher cost) for the benefit of few.
I totally understand where you're coming from and don't mean to argue with you (because I do appreciate all opinions!) but we're also on a very strict time constraint and I don't think spending the time making that change to the top mount is a good way to spend the last few hours we have with the bike. There are other, more important factors we can fine tune in that time I think.
Ryan, this is something that I'd like you to comment on... when looking at the guards, I keep thinking that there should be something to discourage the bike from laying further flat/rotating on the contact points on the pavement. In a drop, this probably isn't a big issue, but in a slide, I keep thinking that a 'plane' for the bike to settle on might be preferable, to prevent damage to the mirrors, brake handles and such.
The other goal here is to increase the height of the upper contact point for the bars higher off the ground, to get closer/above if possible to the bike's center of gravity in a fall.
I've had this happen with my Millerized pegs, where the bike was laying flat on the pegs after a fall, with the tires well off the ground. The Millerized pegs attach where you have your lower attachment for your guard. I've ended up replacing my mirrors and brake handles (and have a damaged brake handle currently) due to this (bike rotating on the pegs/coming down harder on the mirrors and handebars).
I've attached a modified photo to show what I was thinking r.e. adding a 'skid plane' to the bars. I'd like your thoughts on this, and your experience with other bikes with guards r.e. something along these lines.
Honestly, we've never had that issue with any of our other Canyon Cage designs and they all use the same size tubing and a relatively similar shape that ends up contacting the ground. You'd be surprised the amount of force it takes to get the bike to roll over that initial contact point. Even people that go over at speed usually don't end up hitting their mirrors, exhaust, etc. The guard usually does a fantastic job of protecting the bike. I do agree that those skid plates would certainly make it tougher for the bike to roll over the initial contact point but I think there are more cons than pros with an addition like that. Additionally, I think something like those skid plates might look a tad weird and take away from the aesthetics of the guard.
I know this is a different bike (C14) but the guards are similar in their shape and the way the contact point hits the ground. Check out the video below of how much the bike wants to rest on that guard. The video is showing a guy pushing the bike slightly over the rocking point and the bike springs right back up to resting on the guard. Like I said, it's much more difficult to get the bike to rock over that initial point and more secure than people assume which is understandable based on the look of the guard.
Concours Canyon Cage Contact Point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DsCd6I6iGU#)
Anyway, we pretty much have the design set and it's looking pretty darn good I think. We decided to keep the brace because the added strength will certainly come in handy for the people who end up dropping their bike. Also, we were required to move the brace up slightly (3/8", I believe) so it would match the right hand side and I think it actually looks a bit better that way. The right side fairing is slightly different than the left and when we started building the bar for the right side, we realized the brace as we had it on the left wouldn't work unless we moved it up a bit. So, we also moved it up on the left so both sides look identical. Also, we cleaned up a few things, polished the bar, rounded off a few brackets, etc. What do you guys think?
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0697_zps2e3bfc85.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0697_zps2e3bfc85.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0698_zpsa5f859e5.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0698_zpsa5f859e5.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0699_zps1c4d84b1.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0699_zps1c4d84b1.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0700_zps5de04124.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0700_zps5de04124.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0701_zps407c9a73.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0701_zps407c9a73.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0702_zps5f161520.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/IMG_0702_zps5f161520.jpg.html)
Also, as promised, here are links to a few videos showing the removal and reinstallation of the Canyon Cage once the interior brackets are installed. 25 seconds to remove and right around 45 seconds to reinstall. It doesn't get much quicker than that. That's why I was thinking that it wouldn't be worth another $50-$75 to implement a true "quick-release" feature, especially with our current price point around $225-$250.
Removal: Kawasaki C10 Canyon Cage Removal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXYMm_omfHg#ws)
Reinstall: Kawsaki C10 Canyon Cage Reinstall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IBLSv3nz9M#ws)
-
Ryan,
Keep in mind that the Concours (ZG1000) is top heavy, with the 7.5 Gallon fuel tank contributing to the top-heaviness, as well as the fairing. Add a trunk on the rear, and this makes them even more top heavy. The C-14, by comparison, has a lower center of gravity, and has a smaller tank to boot.
While I can appreciate you not wanting to damage the donor bike, I'd suggest you do a lift test to see if you are above the center of gravity or not, and report your findings.
-
Ryan,
Keep in mind that the Concours (ZG1000) is top heavy, with the 7.5 Gallon fuel tank contributing to the top-heaviness, as well as the fairing. Add a trunk on the rear, and this makes them even more top heavy. The C-14, by comparison, has a lower center of gravity, and has a smaller tank to boot.
While I can appreciate you not wanting to damage the donor bike, I'd suggest you do a lift test to see if you are above the center of gravity or not, and report your findings.
We actually took that into account while designing the guards. That's one reason we made the guard for the C10 further out than the C14. If you look at the photos below of both the C14 and C10 Canyon Cage, you'll notice the one for the 1000 is a good few inches further out which makes it harder for the bike to roll over it. However, we haven't done any serious testing as of yet aside from gently laying the bike over. Doing any testing further than that will require the permission of the owner which I'm not sure we'll get. Of course we'd lay down thick packing blanket and pay for any resulting damage (although damage is very rarely caused) but we'd still need to talk to the owner first which I'll be doing tomorrow morning. I'm guessing we won't be able to do a full-on drop test but a test similar to that of the YouTube video of the C14 to test the roll-over point would be an awesome idea. If we end up doing, I'll shoot some pictures as well as a video.
-
We actually took that into account while designing the guards. That's one reason we made the guard for the C10 further out than the C14. If you look at the photos below of both the C14 and C10 Canyon Cage, you'll notice the one for the 1000 is a good few inches further out which makes it harder for the bike to roll over it. However, we haven't done any serious testing as of yet aside from gently laying the bike over. Doing any testing further than that will require the permission of the owner which I'm not sure we'll get. Of course we'd lay down thick packing blanket and pay for any resulting damage (although damage is very rarely caused) but we'd still need to talk to the owner first which I'll be doing tomorrow morning. I'm guessing we won't be able to do a full-on drop test but a test similar to that of the YouTube video of the C14 to test the roll-over point would be an awesome idea. If we end up doing, I'll shoot some pictures as well as a video.
While a drop test would be awesome, I dont think you need to go that far. Simply grab a front or rear wheel after the bike is laying on the bars, and try lifting the wheel and note the force required. The bike has a 671 lb or so wet weight, so you may not be able to lift it at all. However, if the bike is mostly balanced on your bars at that point, and you ARE able to get the wheels off the ground, THEN there may be an issue. I'd recommend having a pillow on hand for the mirror/handlebar, and an assistant to keep the handlebar from touching the ground if it DOES look like it might go over...
Putting the bike in gear will prevent the rear from rotating of course, and an assistant could apply the front brakes to prevent the front wheel from rotating/make it easier for you to get a secure handhold on the front wheel.
Also, removing the side bag beforehand might not be a bad idea (to prevent damage), although that will lower the center of gravity slightly. Empty sidebags aren't that heavy, so effect should be minimal, but if you consider a loaded sidebag, that will raise the center of gravity a bit in a real world situation.
-
While a drop test would be awesome, I dont think you need to go that far. Simply grab a front or rear wheel after the bike is laying on the bars, and try lifting the wheel and note the force required. The bike has a 671 lb or so wet weight, so you may not be able to lift it at all. However, if the bike is mostly balanced on your bars at that point, and you ARE able to get the wheels off the ground, THEN there may be an issue. I'd recommend having a pillow on hand for the mirror/handlebar, and an assistant to keep the handlebar from touching the ground if it DOES look like it might go over...
Also, removing the side bag beforehand might not be a bad idea (to prevent damage), although that will reduce the center of gravity slightly. Empty sidebags aren't that heavy, so effect should be minimal, but if you consider a loaded sidebag, that will raise the center of gravity a bit in a real world situation.
All great points, Two Skies! We'll see if we can get that done tomorrow morning and I'll certainly report our findings.
-
I believe you have nailed the dilemma associated with removing and re-installing the guards....Great Job....Very Happy!! ;D
The design is also on target....however, the suggestion on flipping the upper bracket mounting orientation has merit. I recognize the timeline association with production and alterations definitely must be weighed against benefits, too! I do somewhat like Two Skies' suggestion.
I'm also very interested in test data.....the Connie is definitely a beast and determined in motion.
Accolades to the team at MCE for coming up with a good design in such a short time....Thanks also for listening to the customer! :thumbs:
-
I believe you have nailed the dilemma associated with removing and re-installing the guards....Great Job....Very Happy!! ;D
The design is also on target....however, the suggestion on flipping the upper bracket mounting orientation has merit. I recognize the timeline association with production and alterations definitely must be weighed against benefits, too! I do somewhat like Two Skies' suggestion.
I'm also very interested in test data.....the Connie is definitely a beast and determined in motion.
Accolades to the team at MCE for coming up with a good design in such a short time....Thanks also for listening to the customer! :thumbs:
Thanks, Silverado! We wouldn't have been able to come up with such a good design without all the input from those who participated. So, I sincerely thank you all!
Yea, I agree that Two Skies' suggestions certainly have merit. He's had some good ideas throughout the entire build. Unfortunately we just don't have time to mock a set up with the flipped bracket design. With that said, I don't believe keeping it the way we have it currently will be a deal-breaker for people. It's still a great design and flipping that bracket would really only benefit people who want to mount auxilary lighting and even then it'd be a minimal improvement.
-
Hey Ryan!
I appreciate your desire to rush this product to completion, so bear with me on this one more time.
This may seem like beating the dead horse on my part, but your statement r.e. the mounting of driving lights goes against the conventional sage wisdom.
I suppose you're right, it is possible I just don't think it's necessarily worth it. If we were to go that route, the bracket would be sticking out of the fairing and might look a tad goofy from the front because of how far it would have to be spaced in order to clear the engine mount bolt. It'd also be a very tight fit. Also, not only would the lengthened bar be a tad more expensive (although not by much) the extra bracket work, bends, and welds are what would primarily drive up the cost. Is having the auxiliary lighting an extra 3" higher really worth it? Couldn't you always angle the light up very slightly to achieve the same effect without any additional cost? I can't seem to find the photo but a lot of people are fond of those lights that mount to the front axle and those things are way lower than what you could potentially mount to this guard and seem to work okay. Besides, only a small percentage of people who purchase our Canyon Cages add auxiliary lighting. So we'd be punishing a bunch (by having a higher cost) for the benefit of few.
I totally understand where you're coming from and don't mean to argue with you (because I do appreciate all opinions!) but we're also on a very strict time constraint and I don't think spending the time making that change to the top mount is a good way to spend the last few hours we have with the bike. There are other, more important factors we can fine tune in that time I think.
(snip)
If you are mounting Fog Lighting, lower is better. However, for driving lights, higher is better. From the IBA page on the subject:
Mounting The Lights
The best position for driving lights is as high as possible to the eye level of the rider and as far forward as practical. So done, full utilization of light is possible and the lights' ability to provide discernible contrast is enhanced. On the BMW K1100LT series, for example, mount the lights to the fairing in proximity to the mirrors. The underside of the fairing is reinforced for police lights. This places the lights to the inside of the mirrors, and slightly higher than the mirrors themselves, out of harm's way. Placing the lights forward precludes reflections caused by the light striking motorcycle parts before continuing down the road.
http://www.ironbutt.com/tech/auxlights.cfm (http://www.ironbutt.com/tech/auxlights.cfm)
the other link I posted earlier mentioned 14 to 30 inches off of the ground for driving lights. Web Bike World also supports mounting driving lights as high as possible.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/lights/motorcycle-driving-lights/ (http://www.webbikeworld.com/lights/motorcycle-driving-lights/)
On the Connie, there are a couple of options, but these may involve undoing the mirrors (not the easiest thing to do) or improvising a bracket underneath the nose. Your tipover guards are the next highest attaching point, and one that is very convenient to boot, and easy to route wiring to. THIS is why a few of us keep asking for a higher mount.
I do recognize that with the angled guard support, you will probably need to lower the lower mounting hole a bit in order to clear the angled tube. I'm thinking that the now unutilized mounting hole on the bottom should be sufficiently clear for this, although without having the guards in hand, I can neither confirm or deny this for certain.
I also don't see where any additional welds would be needed for a longer guard. It's just a longer center section on the guard, with the same bends as before.
I'm just trying to make clear why there are those of us that want to see the top of the front guard as close as possible to the top of the vent. It's your product, of course, I'm just trying to suggest how to make it a little more appealing to the customer.
There is another option to clear the engine mounting bolt on the left. I'll have to look at the right side again to see what you are talking about r.e. the different situation on the right, but essentially you can notch the bracket tab to clear the engine mount bolt head. More work, admittedly, but not hard to do with a torch, angle grinder, or even a drill bit that is a little larger than the engine mount bolt head, if the tab bracket is placed in a vise, and then the hole is drilled in the appropriate place. The hole may extend slightly into the pipe depending on how thick the bracket tab is. Any 'notch' in the pipe due to the protruding engine bolt head would be almost completely invisible to anyone inspecting the pipe, due to it's location inside the fairing scoop. And, I am reasonably certain that the weld around the rest of the pipe/bracket tab would still be strong enough to hold the guard in place, depending on the strength of the guard tab metal. See attached image.
Your call, though. If most people like the guard as is, then it's a non issue. If more people want to see the upper mount placed higher, though, that should be something to consider r.e. marketability and utility of the product.
I suppose a customer could mount the driving lights on pogo sticks instead of directly to the guard, but that might look silly...
Also, you could market two versions of the product, so that those who are willing to pay extra can purchase the taller option. Admittedly, your market for this product is not that big to begin with, of course.
I've noted that a good number of the 'usual suspects', whom likely have Murphs' bars currently, have not commented so far.
-
I've noted that a good number of the 'usual suspects', whom likely have Murphs' bars currently, have not commented so far.
Maybe because we like how this is progressing without our input? ;D The few concerns I've had have been addressed by others comments, so far. The easy removal is the HUGE attraction for me thus far.
The only issue I'm seeing is that I have LARGE LED driving lights. (4" or so) And I don't see how I could mount them without an extremely long bracket off the front of the bars, which would probably make the lights shake a lot. But I'd probably solve that by putting smaller LED driving lights on.
The other concern I have is with adding highway pegs. With how much closer these bars are to the fairing, it doesn't look like highway pegs would be comfortable. (At least not for me.) Maybe bolt a set on (or tack weld a couple of mockups) and have someone sit on the bike and see if they work. Looks to me like the rider's legs would have to almost bend around the fairing to make highway pegs useful.
My other concern, though, is still with the frame/engine shimming. If the bracket that goes to the top engine bolt doesn't allow for this, it might cause fitment issues on some bikes and be fine on others. My bike needed a washer between the frame and the engine mount on the left side. (Without that shim, I was consistently breaking an upper engine mount bolt at least once a year.) If the "U" section of the upper mounts allowed space for this shim (on both sides) folks that need the shim could easily put it in place on whichever side they needed. Those that don't need the shim could easily put a washer in just inside the outer portion of the "U", between the spacer that you are providing and the bracket.
-
Hey Outback John! Good to see some more input for Ryan!
Ryan, I had one more thought, r.e. the design of the rear bar.
Currently, there is the straight piece that is welded between the upper and lower part of the bar. In a fall, if the rear bar should end up bending upwards, all that straight piece will likely do is keep the distance between the parts the same, but I don't think it will completely stop an upward bend from happening if sufficient force is applied.
SOOOO, I'm thinking that if this support bar was angled, from the lower outside to the upper inside of the bar, instead of being directly vertical, it might provide much more resistance against such a bend.
Admittedly, the only time I can see this being an issue is in a slide, but a 45 degree inward angle shouldn't be that hard to accomplish. Not a big deal, but if we are adding diagonal bars already to reinforce the front bars, complementing the angle on the rear bar might look more stylish, and add strength to boot.
On that note, I've said more than enough r.e. the height of the front bar. While I'm sure others will want to make their preferences known on this issue (i.e. would you pay more for a taller front bar, or is a lower cost more important?), I've said more than enough, and I'll leave well enough alone for now. I very much do like the 'bones'of the front mounts behind the fairing, those look very strong to me, and I think Ryan and his team have done an excellent job in making those two attachment points quite beefy.
If the donor bike already has the 1.5 MM washer on the front left motor mount (Ryan mentioned that it did), no doubt Ryan and his team have already provided enough space for a shim. I'd again recommend doing the same on the right side, in case anyone has a frame that is tweaked the other way, and also providing two 1.5 MM washers with the kit, to be located either as a shim or as a spacer at the end between the 'U' as Jon described it and the engine mount. Either way the gap ends up getting filled.
-
This may seem like beating the dead horse on my part, but your statement r.e. the mounting of driving lights goes against the conventional sage wisdom.
If you are mounting Fog Lighting, lower is better. However, for driving lights, higher is better. From the IBA page on the subject:
the other link I posted earlier mentioned 14 to 30 inches off of the ground for driving lights. Web Bike World also supports mounting driving lights as high as possible.
On the Connie, there are a couple of options, but these may involve undoing the mirrors (not the easiest thing to do) or improvising a bracket underneath the nose. Your tipover guards are the next highest attaching point, and one that is very convenient to boot, and easy to route wiring to. THIS is why a few of us keep asking for a higher mount.
I do recognize that with the angled guard support, you will probably need to lower the lower mounting hole a bit in order to clear the angled tube. I'm thinking that the now unutilized mounting hole on the bottom should be sufficiently clear for this, although without having the guards in hand, I can neither confirm or deny this for certain.
I also don't see where any additional welds would be needed for a longer guard. It's just a longer center section on the guard, with the same bends as before.
I'm just trying to make clear why there are those of us that want to see the top of the front guard as close as possible to the top of the vent. It's your product, of course, I'm just trying to suggest how to make it a little more appealing to the customer.
There is another option to clear the engine mounting bolt on the left. I'll have to look at the right side again to see what you are talking about r.e. the different situation on the right, but essentially you can notch the bracket tab to clear the engine mount bolt head. More work, admittedly, but not hard to do with a torch, angle grinder, or even a drill bit that is a little larger than the engine mount bolt head, if the tab bracket is placed in a vise, and then the hole is drilled in the appropriate place. The hole may extend slightly into the pipe depending on how thick the bracket tab is. Any 'notch' in the pipe due to the protruding engine bolt head would be almost completely invisible to anyone inspecting the pipe, due to it's location inside the fairing scoop. And, I am reasonably certain that the weld around the rest of the pipe/bracket tab would still be strong enough to hold the guard in place, depending on the strength of the guard tab metal. See attached image.
Your call, though. If most people like the guard as is, then it's a non issue. If more people want to see the upper mount placed higher, though, that should be something to consider r.e. marketability and utility of the product.
I suppose a customer could mount the driving lights on pogo sticks instead of directly to the guard, but that might look silly...
Also, you could market two versions of the product, so that those who are willing to pay extra can purchase the taller option. Admittedly, your market for this product is not that big to begin with, of course.
I've noted that a good number of the 'usual suspects', whom likely have Murphs' bars currently, have not commented so far.
I apologize, I didn't realize the mounting of fog lights as opposed to drivings lights differed in that fashion because I've personally never had the need for additional lighting but I respect that there are people out there that do require it. It seems as though most people really like the looks of the guards as is and I don't think the additional cost of lengthening that outer bar (or creating its required bracket, more accurately) is worth the extra few inches of height for the driving lights because lights mounted towards the top of the current guard will already be close to 2 feet off the ground (a solid 8 or so inches above the 14" minimum you mentioned for driving lights and already approaching the 30" maximum).
The additional cost wouldn't come from lengthening the bar itself as much as it would the extra labor involved in creating that additional exterior bracket you've come up with to allow the guard to mount over that upper mounting point, if I understand your design concept correctly. Due to our current price point most likely being on the upper end of what most would be willing to spend, I think the additional cost would deter more customers than the additional height would attract. I do appreciate the time you've taken to suggest these changes but this is just one of those "big-picture" decisions that need to be made.
I think making two different sets might be more trouble that it's worth just because, as you've mentioned, the market for such a product is already somewhat slim. I honestly believe the vast majority will be happy with the product we currently have designed, especially if we can keep the cost down as much as possible. Again, I really appreciate the time and effort you've put into making these suggestions and I have taken them to heart but there are a lot of factors I'm trying to keep in mind while doing my best to please the majority, which is never easy.
Maybe because we like how this is progressing without our input? ;D The few concerns I've had have been addressed by others comments, so far. The easy removal is the HUGE attraction for me thus far.
The only issue I'm seeing is that I have LARGE LED driving lights. (4" or so) And I don't see how I could mount them without an extremely long bracket off the front of the bars, which would probably make the lights shake a lot. But I'd probably solve that by putting smaller LED driving lights on.
The other concern I have is with adding highway pegs. With how much closer these bars are to the fairing, it doesn't look like highway pegs would be comfortable. (At least not for me.) Maybe bolt a set on (or tack weld a couple of mockups) and have someone sit on the bike and see if they work. Looks to me like the rider's legs would have to almost bend around the fairing to make highway pegs useful.
My other concern, though, is still with the frame/engine shimming. If the bracket that goes to the top engine bolt doesn't allow for this, it might cause fitment issues on some bikes and be fine on others. My bike needed a washer between the frame and the engine mount on the left side. (Without that shim, I was consistently breaking an upper engine mount bolt at least once a year.) If the "U" section of the upper mounts allowed space for this shim (on both sides) folks that need the shim could easily put it in place on whichever side they needed. Those that don't need the shim could easily put a washer in just inside the outer portion of the "U", between the spacer that you are providing and the bracket.
I'm glad you're liking the quick-removal feature we've come up with! I was worried that the people clamoring for an actual "quick-release" design (where one section of the bar is milled and slides into another section and is held in place with a smaller bolt) would not be pleased with anything less but it seems as though a big majority of the people really like what we've come up with.
I'm not sure what shape your lights are but perhaps you can mount them to the vertical bar sticking outward instead of up? Although, by looking at the guard, I'm sure you've considered that. However, if you can find the right clamp perhaps there's a way you can get them to work otherwise your only option may be to purchase smaller LED lights, as you mentioned.
I do agree that the guards appear a bit close in for highway pegs but it's difficult to tell for sure until we have a chance to clamp up a set and have someone sit on the bike. We'll probably be testing this out within the next few days so I'll be sure to get some pictures for you guys when we do. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that people will be able to comfortably use highway pegs with this guard because more people than I initially thought add them to our Canyon Cages and it's a pretty big selling point.
We have indeed taken that engine/frame shimming into account and there is sufficient space for those that need it. The bike we used to design the part had this shim in place and we designed the bracket so it would accommodate it. The people who do not currently require that shim piece merely need to insert a small washer when installing the upper bracket. Easy peasy!
Ryan, I had one more thought, r.e. the design of the rear bar.
Currently, there is the straight piece that is welded between the upper and lower part of the bar. In a fall, if the rear bar should end up bending upwards, all that straight piece will likely do is keep the distance between the parts the same, but I don't think it will completely stop an upward bend from happening if sufficient force is applied.
SOOOO, I'm thinking that if this support bar was angled, from the lower outside to the upper inside of the bar, instead of being directly vertical, it might provide much more resistance against such a bend.
Admittedly, the only time I can see this being an issue is in a slide, but a 45 degree inward angle shouldn't be that hard to accomplish. Not a big deal, but if we are adding diagonal bars already to reinforce the front bars, complementing the angle on the rear bar might look more stylish, and add strength to boot.
On that note, I've said more than enough r.e. the height of the front bar. While I'm sure others will want to make their preferences known on this issue (i.e. would you pay more for a taller front bar, or is a lower cost more important?), I've said more than enough, and I'll leave well enough alone for now. I very much do like the 'bones'of the front mounts behind the fairing, those look very strong to me, and I think Ryan and his team have done an excellent job in making those two attachment points quite beefy.
If the donor bike already has the 1.5 MM washer on the front left motor mount (Ryan mentioned that it did), no doubt Ryan and his team have already provided enough space for a shim. I'd again recommend doing the same on the right side, in case anyone has a frame that is tweaked the other way, and also providing two 1.5 MM washers with the kit, to be located either as a shim or as a spacer at the end between the 'U' as Jon described it and the engine mount. Either way the gap ends up getting filled.
The reason we have that support bar between the upper and lower bar of the horseshoe straight is because it looked a bit better that way than angled in (we actually tried going that route on a previous bike) and angling the bar in has surprisingly little effect on how that guard handles applied force. The main part of the rear guard that determines how strong it is the smooth radius of the outer edge and the brackets where it mounts to the bike. This is actually why we beefed up the upper mounting bracket from what we initially designed. The first bracket design was a little weak for our liking so we changed the design a bit and decided to use slightly thicker material. The rear guards we designed for the 2013 FJR1300 utilize very similar design concepts and out of the hundreds we've sold, we've heard nothing but good things about their performance. However, now that you mention it, an inward-angled bar might match a bit better with the support bar we added to the front guard. I'll see what we can do about mocking up a set so we can see how it looks when paired with the front guard.
Regarding the bracket for the right side, we have indeed also made room on that side to accommodate the shim should customers have that shim in place. So, regardless of what side the shim is on (or if there's no shim at all) these guards will still mount up just fine. Additionally, we'll be including a few washers so those that don't already have the shims can still mount up the brackets without having any gaps.
-
Like it - Keep us informed as to progress, prices and 1st production run date. Got a budget to work this into...
-
Like it - Keep us informed as to progress, prices and 1st production run date. Got a budget to work this into...
As soon as I get any new information, I'll be sure to post it here for you guys to keep you as up-to-date as possible.
-
We need an update!! :popcorn:
-
+1 :chugbeer: :popcorn:
-
I'll have an update for you guys VERY soon! We got an enormous flood of other orders so we've been a bit backed up as of late. We should be receiving a few sets of finished guards from our powder coaters within the next day or two at which point we have a gentleman loaning us TWO C10s in order to get some photos of the final product installed as well as do some legit drop testing. There's a local guy around here who has 3 C10s, one of which is a parts bike that's pretty beat up. He mentioned that we're more than welcome to install the guards and do some legit drop testing so once we get the bars back, we'll be working on that. I'll be sure to shoot a bunch of photos as well as a video of the drop testing and post it here once it's ready! Stay tuned!
-
Hey everyone! I apologize for the lengthy delay in getting these accessories available. We were closed down over Christmas/New Years and shortly after, there was a family tragedy that required much of my attention over the last few weeks. Anyway, I'm back and we're cranking on getting these guards finished. We finally got the prototypes back from our powder coaters and they really look killer. Check out the photos and let me know what you guys think. Once we get our professional photos finished, we're going to try and get the guards installed on an older C10 used for parts so we can do some legit drop testing. Also, we'll most likely be starting the Group Buy later on this week once everyone has a chance to check out the photos of the finished guards.
Here they are!
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/Side_zps7c55cf7e.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/Side_zps7c55cf7e.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/SideClose_zpsc944c0d8.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/SideClose_zpsc944c0d8.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/Front45_zps51bb8ede.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/Front45_zps51bb8ede.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/FrontLow_zps682b80ae.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/FrontLow_zps682b80ae.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/Top_zps36ab46cd.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/Top_zps36ab46cd.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/FrontClose_zpsafecf334.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/FrontClose_zpsafecf334.jpg.html)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/rnvanquish/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/Front_zps828e3efc.jpg) (http://s53.photobucket.com/user/rnvanquish/media/C10%20Canyon%20Cage%20Build/Front_zps828e3efc.jpg.html)
-
:popcorn: :chugbeer: :popcorn: :chugbeer:
Looks good so far. Will be anticipating drop test results. Video, I assume?
-
:popcorn: :chugbeer: :popcorn: :chugbeer:
Looks good so far. Will be anticipating drop test results. Video, I assume?
I'm definitely going to try and get a decent quality video of the tests for you guys! We'll absolutely take some photos but I'm hoping I can throw a quick video together as well.
-
Just saw this, I love love love the added coverage of the canyon cages versus the Murph's bars. I also loved that you used a Connie that looks exactly like mine for the finished shots!
How sturdy are you expecting the saddle bag bars to be when the bike has some forward momentum? The lack of bracing concerns me (same as the Murphs), but I understand that would block the passenger peg. We are taking two Connies across the Translab next year and will need plenty of protection to keep from breaking antlers 200 miles from the nearest town.
-
Tip over videos coming soon??
-
+1 :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Check out what the UPS dude dropped off at my place!! Canyon Cages!! Yeah, I'm special. Not really...MCE used my bike to do the prototypes, so I got the first set of bars. I've installed the front bars, and I'll do the rear bars next weekend.
The mounting brackets were very easy to install. I had to do some minor trimming on the lower heat guard with my Dremel to clear the lower mount. Everything lined up nicely, and the quality of all the parts and hardware is top shelf.
-
Front Canyon Cages.
-
Just talked to the folks at MC Enterprises - they will be posting details for a group buy in the next few days.
-
Rear bars now installed. Very easy installation. Had to remove the "tabs" that are on the bottom edge of the side covers, and make a notch on the RH cover to clear the upper mounts. See the picture. Bars are super solid and look good. I'll post pics with the bags mounted later.
-
More pics.
-
Any word on the tipover tests?
-
Group buy here....!
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=16532.0 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=16532.0)
-
In relation to the recently posted drop video in the other thread, you can see that, if the bike continues to go over, the mirrors WILL be taken out (Connie mirrors, particularly the elbow joint inside the rubber sleeve, break easily in falls). In at least one of your drops, you can see the bike fairing kissing the pavement, and note that the bike has no mirrors...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ1_KKSb18A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ1_KKSb18A)
I know this from personal experience, and several tipovers. I had millerized pegs on the bike, and this is exactly what happened to me. My left mirror was toast, and my nose fairing suffered damage. One of said drops popped my front turn signal reflector mount (it is taped to the bke now) when the fairing was damaged, and the other side's turn signal lens was punctured in the fall. Quite expensive overall, so I have a lot of gaff tape on the bike currently (gotta luv random drunk people knocking your bike over)...
Mirrors for this bike ARE fairly expensive, not to mention the nose fairing and turn signal lenses... which is why I now have 'customized' mirrors on my bike, which aren't nearly as big (in mirror surface/reflective area) as the regular Connie mirrors were.
I would recommend the following modification to your design (see pic below), to minimize the chance of this happening. The red lines show the angles needed to protect the mirrors, assuming that the top of the front cages is close enough/above's the bike's center of gravity in a tipover. It might not meet your aesthetic standards, but I think it looks quite stylish...
-
I don't mind the aesthetics of the design you show there. It actually looks pretty cool. The thing is, we actually tried a design like that and it still didn't work as intended. You need to go wider on the bottom of the bar to hold the bike up further, not the top of the bar. As you have it, if the guard were laying on the ground the mirror would be as well. If you look at my slightly revised photo of the one you posted, the mirror will still hit when you take the tires contact point with the ground into consideration. To get the effect you're shooting for, you'd basically have to invert your design and have the wide part on the bottom which wouldn't look nearly as good as it does in your photo.
We tried quite a wide array of different designs and this was a particularly hard bike to design a guard for, for some reason. We did our best to design a good-looking product that would still protect the majority of the fairings under most circumstances. Of course, we could have altered the bar to protect a bit better but the aesthetics would be shot which seems to be an extremely important factor for a lot of people. The guard we have designed here performed very well during our "real-world" drop tests with someone on the bike. This is because the rider generally eases the bike down a bit, whether meaning to or not. It's very rare that the bike is going to tip over uninhibited from a vertical stance like shown in the video. That's the absolute worst case tip-over scenario. I chose to upload these videos because they showcased the worst-case scenario and I figured people would make incorrect, negative assumptions if we just showed the other drop tests.
-
What I see happening in the drop video is that in a slower fall, when the bottom of the front guard and the rear guard touch the pavement it arrests the fall. Hence, I didn't see the need to push the lower contact point out further.
However, if the bike is going over at a higher speed, that lower contact point acts as a fulcrum, and the bike continues to roll over at speed allowing the fairing to kiss the pavement. I've seen the bike do the same thing with side cases attached (the bike uses the cases as a fulcrum, and continues to go over). The Millerized Pegs acted as a front fulcrum, which is about the same height as where your lower front bar bend is.
By moving that fulcrum point higher/closer to and maybe above the bike's center of gravity, it'll make it much harder for the bike to 'roll over' the top point of the bar, as it will need more fall velocity to do so.
Also, you are assuming that the owner of the bike will be on the bike when it goes over. Strong wind gusts and inattentive (or malicious) pedestrians can also cause a bike to go over, so there will be no one on the bike to slow it's fall. 670+ lbs of somewhat top heavy mass isn't doing the bike any favors in this situation.
I've had drunk people knock my bike over at least once, when I haven't been around to watch over it. Not to mention a couple of low speed falls due to adverse conditions, and my bike has the bruises to show for it. THIS is why this matters to me.
-
Earth to MC Enterprise! Any update on a possible shipping date? :popcorn:
-
Earth to MC Enterprise! Any update on a possible shipping date? :popcorn:
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=16532.15 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=16532.15)
See reply #20 ... he says first batch starts shipping early June.
-
Earth to MC Enterprise! Any update on a possible shipping date? :popcorn:
We're shooting for the first or second week of June.
-
The first week of June would be great! :thumbs: That would give me a weekend to install them before heading out to the National on the following weekend. 8)
-
:deadhorse:
Earth to Ryan???
Updates PLEASE!!!
-
:deadhorse:
Earth to Ryan???
Updates PLEASE!!!
The guards should be off to our powder coaters any day now. Once they're there, we should get them back within 3-7 days depending on how busy they are. I'll let you guys know as soon as we get them back and begin shipping them out.
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/c0f6268dce1a6fa2e56c53e179d44bfe/tumblr_inline_mrjyqdYSNe1qz4rgp.gif)
-
The guards should be off to our powder coaters any day now. Once they're there, we should get them back within 3-7 days depending on how busy they are. I'll let you guys know as soon as we get them back and begin shipping them out.
What's the news? Been 15 days since this post...no email, no card charge...
-
I completely understand if it's taking longer due to technical issues (it happens), but you guys should let your customers know what's going on. You guys said first week of June, and it's now July with absolutely zero correspondence from you guys except to say they were 3-7 days out from shipping 20 days ago.
-
Well, my credit card just got charged a day or two ago. So I guess these are shipping. Would be nice to have some contact, though. I like tracking my packages.
-
Well, my credit card just got charged a day or two ago. So I guess these are shipping. Would be nice to have some contact, though. I like tracking my packages.
Mine got charged today. Be nice if it got here by the weekend.
-
I got a voicemail today that they had included the wrong spacers in my package, so they were sending the correct ones out. Not that I would have noticed yet, since the first package hasn't shown up yet.
-
I got a voicemail today that they had included the wrong spacers in my package, so they were sending the correct ones out. Not that I would have noticed yet, since the first package hasn't shown up yet.
Same here, got the call yesterday.
-
I got a notification from UPS that I should get a delivery on Friday!
-
Big box sitting on the porch when I got home from Florida today. Work looks quality, gonna get them installed over the next couple of days. Despite the complete lack of communication, I'm looking forward to getting these things on.
-
OK guys, not good.
First off, the saddlebag guards hit the top of my stock exhaust. No amount of finagling or jostling could make this not happen.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y172/gregman_1/20140716_212818_zpsbf47b96a.jpg) (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/gregman_1/media/20140716_212818_zpsbf47b96a.jpg.html)
Fortunately, this isn't a huge deal for me, my bike is not a show queen, it's a 50,000 mile daily rider.
Which brings us to the Big Deal. Got to installing the right side Canyon Cage, and the upper bracket just doesn't fit. There is an oil feed line to the head nearby, and there is not enough room between this feed line and the motor mount for the bracket. No amount of twisting or turning will get it to go in.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y172/gregman_1/20140716_215843_zps0a0cfc16.jpg) (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/gregman_1/media/20140716_215843_zps0a0cfc16.jpg.html)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y172/gregman_1/20140716_215854_zps2d4dde82.jpg) (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/gregman_1/media/20140716_215854_zps2d4dde82.jpg.html)
I'm awfully disappointed. I understand there are variances bike to bike, stuff happens (I spent ten years running motorcycle parts and service departments), but between this, the complete lack of communication except the part where they took my money, and the additional spacers that came in the mail with absolutely no literature (except a packing list) and no Email or phone call to tell me where these go, I'm pretty pissed off that I spent $400 on these and took my bike apart on a Wednesday night to install them.
-
Which brings us to the Big Deal. Got to installing the right side Canyon Cage, and the upper bracket just doesn't fit. There is an oil feed line to the head nearby, and there is not enough room between this feed line and the motor mount for the bracket. No amount of twisting or turning will get it to go in.
I was planning to yank off my Murph's bars tomorrow and install the Canyon Cages in anticipation of a ride on Saturday. Now I think I'll wait until next week and just leave well enough alone. Hope my bike varies enough to report a better result.
-
EDIT-I did hear back from Ryan (finally), let's hope we can get this sorted out.
-
Has anybody actually managed to successfully mount these to a Concours yet? Problem after problem here. Both saddlebag guards contact the stock exhaust, the left guard had to be modified to even fit on the bike, and the left guard contacts the saddlebag latch making it impossible to mount the saddlebag (which defeats the purpose of saddlebag guards). Not to mention the upper canyon cage mounts, which don't fit due to the oil feed lines nearby, to which MCE replied, "Take a bench grinder to the mount until it fits."
I can understand one problem or two, but the fact is these just plain don't fit. The only parts I've managed to mount that didn't require modification are the lower canyon cage mounts.
-
Has anybody actually managed to successfully mount these to a Concours yet? Problem after problem here. Both saddlebag guards contact the stock exhaust, the left guard had to be modified to even fit on the bike, and the left guard contacts the saddlebag latch making it impossible to mount the saddlebag (which defeats the purpose of saddlebag guards). Not to mention the upper canyon cage mounts, which don't fit due to the oil feed lines nearby, to which MCE replied, "Take a bench grinder to the mount until it fits."
I can understand one problem or two, but the fact is these just plain don't fit. The only parts I've managed to mount that didn't require modification are the lower canyon cage mounts.
I haven't had time to work on the bike. Gotta make some time this week.
to which MCE replied, "Take a bench grinder to the mount until it fits."
In my opinion, that is NOT an acceptable response.
-
to which MCE replied, "Take a bench grinder to the mount until it fits."
I don't find this acceptable either, not for what I paid for them.
I've been waiting for some more people to comment on how their install went before trying to install them myself.
I may try to install them this weekend and if they won't mount without modifications I'll be looking at returning them.
-
Hey everyone. I apologize for not posting for quite some time. As some of you guys know, we're a family business here at MCE. We've had a few family tragedies recently which kept me (as well as a few other employees) out of the office for some time which is why communication was a bit lacking during the C10 build. However, we are all back at the office finally and hopefully fate will leave us be for a while. With that said, these circumstances should have very little effect on the production of these guards which have now been completed and shipped out to the participants of the Group Buy.
I know there were some posts regarding fitment issues but as of now, we've only heard of one individual having an issue which we're dealing directly with the customer to resolve. Based on what I've seen and heard, I'm confident that this was an isolated issue specific to this single guard or the bike itself (which we're still currently looking into). I just wanted to let you guys know that we're committed to providing a quality product to satisfied customers. If any issues arise for any of you during installation, please email or call me and I'll do absolutely everything I can to make sure the issue is handled promptly.
Happy riding and I hope those of you who participated in the Group Buy are happy with your cages!
-
so what is the general concensus on these? I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's purchased these....
-
so what is the general concensus on these? I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's purchased these....
Well, so far, they look really nice. Too bad they're still sitting in a box next to my desk. I hope to get around to installing them before putting the bike away for the winter.
-
so what is the general concensus on these? I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's purchased these....
John, this is not as I know it the general consensus but just my experience. Take from it what you will.
The following is a letter I wrote to Ryan at MCE about MY experience.
On 9/13/2014 4:32 PM, Joseph Callahan III wrote:
Ryan,
I’m writing to you to make you aware of some issues I had / have after installing the Canyon Cages and rear guards I purchased from MCE.
The rear guard’s went on with no interference problems to the exhaust cans or bags. I was however extremely disappointed when I came to the part of the instructions that told me I needed to cut up the back side of my side panels in order to put them back on the bike.
Maybe I missed it but I don’t remember there being any mention of needing to do any alterations, to any of the body work on the bike at all, in either of the build threads on the forums.
As it sits now the side cover is sitting right against the mounting bracket for the guard, and the bottom edge of the side cover at the back still needs to move in at least 1/8” for the edge to align with the body work behind it. This alignment will only happen if I grind or file back the mounting bracket on the guard where it meets the side cover. I can’t remove anymore plastic on the side cover as the point on the bottom back where it hits the bracket has been filed down to just the thickness of the plastic from the outside edge.
I can’t do anything more to my side cover to get it to align at the back and not be sitting right on the mounting bracket.
I don’t see anything fixing it, short of grinding or filing back the point on the bracket where it hits the side cover by at least 1/8”, and then re-painting that area. Any thoughts?
The front brackets for the cages also went on with no interference problems other than the head of the supplied 10mm bolt on the right side being larger than the stock bolt. (17mm supplied vs 14mm stock) This on my bike made it impossible to get a box wrench or socket on it to tighten it and needed to be done with an open end wrench.
I was also disappointed to read in the directions for the upper mounts that there may be an excessive gap in the mount, that would need to be taken up by flat washers, with indication that none were supplied. Sure will suck for the people who don’t happen to have them lying around. As it was, mine needed a thick one and an average one on the right side, and two average ones on the left. Four total.
After putting all the plastics back on the bike and mounting the Canyon Cages, I noticed that the angle of the cage on the right side looked different than the left. The left cage looked to be very square with the body work of the bike, but the right side looked to be angled out at the bottom. There is at least ¼” difference in the space from the bodywork to the cage at the bottom of the cage from the right side to the left side.
I'm attaching some pictures so you can see what I'm talking about. You can see in the picture of the front guards where they are side by side that there is a difference of at least a 1/4" in length from the outside of the guard to the point where it attaches to the mount. In the picture, the guard on the left is the right guard and the right one is the left.
You will also see in the pictures that I had to file the bottom of the side covers, all the way back to the back side of the outside edge of the front side.
Let me know if there is anything that you think could be done to make this a more positive experience for me.
Thank You
Joe Callahan
-
More Pic's
-
Ryan's reply:
Joseph,
I'm very sorry to hear you've had such issues with the guards thus far. We're certainly committed to doing whatever we can to rectify the issue, though. Instead of going through all of this via email, it may be easier if you call us directly and speak with our tech, Armando. He can certainly answer any questions you have regarding the guards themselves or installation. He's here during normal business hours from Monday - Thursday from 7am - 5pm.
When you have some time to talk, give us a call and ask for Armando. Like I said, we'll do whatever we can to make you happy with the product.
Ryan Nichols
MCE
866.886.2368
I did call Armando a couple of days later and he explained to me, that in regard to what I thought I saw with the front guards being at different angles from the body, that when they were building them their main concern was that the front and back guards would hit at the same time when the bike went over.
When I mentioned to him what I thought was a problem with the side covers hitting the mounting brackets for the rear guards, after cutting as much plastic as possible from the back side of the cover, and the bottom edge of the back of the side cover still not aligned with the body work behind it he said as long as the cover was staying in where it was placed it should be ok.
When I suggested that to get the back, bottom edge of the side cover to align with the bodywork behind it I would have to either cut more of the side cover away, going right into the front face of the cover or grind some of the mounting bracket away he said I should not cut more of the cover away because it would not look good and that I should also not grind any of the mounting bracket away as this could weaken it.
He said that the cover hitting the bracket where they meet would not be a problem, and that as long as it stayed in place it would be fine.
He said that when they were building them they had 3 different bikes there and they were finding differences between the bikes when they tested them for fit.
To there credit ... the guards do look very nice, and very sturdy.
Will I take them off my bike because of the small things that bother me? No.
Most people may not even notice the things I see, and I may not have even noticed these things on someone else's bike.
(I admit, I'm very anal about most everything I do, I like to make things perfect, or as close as I can get to it.)
This is just my experience, your results may vary.