My initial thoughts
 

My initial Thoughts on my new CSC Cyclone RX-3 after about 300 miles.


I really like the bike, no glaring problems.

Seat is mediocre ...... not the best stock bike seat I've had...not the worst one either, like most bikes, a better seat would be a nice upgrade, but it's "OK" for a stock seat.

Power is good for a 250 single, but is a peaky motor, and makes its power at 6000 rpm and up, is a bit weak in the torque department (just the opposite of my NC700X which is all torque, and little top end) both are fine, just require different riding techniques...no real complaints here

Transmission - Shifts smooth, is a bit hard to find neutral, but may get better as it breaks in. clutch releases further out from the grip than I prefer, I believe a a slightly shorter arm at the lower end of the clutch cable would change the geometry to make it disengage closer to the grip and still allow the proper amount of slack in the cable adjustment.


Guards and Luggage-- The guards seem to be very sturdy, and provide lots of protection, and give good places to mount extra lights, pegs ect.. the luggage is pretty good, I'm carrying my rain suit and some tools in the muffler side bag, and reserve the left side for my jacket...I installed a 40 liter trunk instead of the stock truck so I could store my helmet in it.

Lighting-- I haven't really had the need to ride in the dark yet, so I can't speak for the lighting yet


Handling __ is good on pavement, and on gravel roads, I haven't really had it on any really rough stuff yet, will post more when I do.

I know some of this sounds like complaints, but it's not, I really love the bike, just giving some constructive criticism ..looking forward to many miles on it :)

That's an interesting thought. I've definitely seen Honda clone motors with dissimilar length arms on them, but never wondered why. I can certainly see where a longer arm would provide for less effort, but also more lever travel at the hand.

It's the length of the push rod which determines the location of the clutch friction zone. Some bikes have an adjustment for this length, but our RX3 motorcycles do not. ;)

The lever arm that activates the push rod is a good place to modify the "engagement" of the clutch plates, a shorter arm will make it slightly harder to pull the clutch, but would shorten the distance needed to engage/release the plates.

I'm a structural Draftsmen that works on many problems of this sort on conveyors, I only mentioned it in hopes that maybe CSC would check with Zong about making a shorter actuator arm for the clutch. ;)

That's how I'm visualizing it as well. It would be an interesting experiment to fabricate a shorter arm and test it.

I agree, modifying the length of the lever arm will change the effort required to actuate the clutch, and it will change the length of the friction zone. Changing the location where the friction zone engages during clutch lever travel is possible on many motorcycles, including the Yamaha TW200, and my Zongshen ZS200GY-2. It is described in the Yamaha maintenance manual on pages 3-16 and 4-58. You can download the TW200 Service Manual from our website at the following link. :)

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...0Manual%20(PDF)

Unfortunately, neither of my Honda motorcycles, nor the Zongshen RX3, have the mechanism on the end of the push rod assembly which allows for adjustment of the location where the friction zone engages during clutch lever travel. Therefore, unless someone modifies the length of the clutch push rod, the RX3 clutch will continue to engage at the end of clutch lever travel. My Honda XR650L clutch lever engages at the same location. ;)

I'm not trying to change the actual Clutch mechanism, but only change the range needed at the Clutch lever to activate it, which can be done by only changing the lever where it enters the case, a replacement lever there would be a 15 minute job, and would allow the clutch to engage closer to the grip, while still moving the actual clutch mechanism the same amount...would make the clutch pull a little stiffer, but currently it is so easy to pull, a little stiffer would be fine with me.

That is definitely an interesting project. :) Do you plan to have someone fabricate a new lever? If so, one could certainly change the cam placement on the lever as well. ;)

The lever is separate from the cam, it slides onto the splined shaft that turns the cam, I may try to get one made, but there is probably already one for another bike that would work, which would be cheaper than custom built ones....I need to pull some measurements off mine when I'm feeling froggy :)

On the Chinese engines I've seen the clutch lever at the engine is made from flat stock with a pin mounted swivel where the cable attaches. Drilling another hole for the pin about 10mm farther in and moving the cable attachment there would increase the movement at the engine. May have to slightly change the angle of the cable housing holder too.

I see the clutch lever, part #20, is separate from the clutch cam, part #25. This should make your task easier. :)

http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/q...psan3vogit.jpg

The clutch lever and cam are combined in one unit for my Zongshen ZS200GY-2, and the Yamaha TW200. ;)

http://images.powersportsnetwork.com...271_CLUTCH.gif

Thanks for the diagram, I had seen that the arm was a separate piece, when looking over the bike....shouldn't be to difficult to make a modified arm....

You're welcome. :) Please keep us updated, and please consider starting a new thread dedicated to this topic once you begin the project.

took the RX-3 for a loop by Wolfe Creek Dam, around Lake Cumberland Saturday, and got 79 MPG out of it, was running 45-55 mph most of the day...191 miles on 2.39 gallons ...my best MPG so far, all other fill-ups have been in the Mid 60's

I wasn't liking the seat to much by the end of the day....might need to get one of those Sheepskin covers....

That sounds like a fun ride. :)

I got 73 mpg, and 76 mpg on my last two tanks of fuel. :) These rides included some interstate highway riding at wide-open-throttle. :tup: I love this engine and its transmission. :)

Most of the intended use with my Cyclone will be cruising around 55mpg on paved rural roads. 79mpg sounds really good. Is there ethanol in your fuel?

I'm curious about reupholstering a seat with a gel pad; I wonder if that would be a good solution.

Yes, there is 10% Ethanol in our fuel, and that was running Regular, 87 Octane fuel.

I have a Gel Pad, I took it with me, and threw it on the seat toward the end of the day...it helped a little, but didn't really fit the seat well...so...maybe...?

Someone on another forum did this with a spare seat they obtained from csc. Not sure if they have put many miles on it yet... They were able to salvage the stock seat cover for reuse in this application. When I'm not on a mobile device I'll go grab a link.

Link to the other forum where they discuss the mod: click here

Thanks for the link. It even has a link to Amazon, where the OP purchased the gel pad. I like how he contoured the foam and changed the angle, so as to position himself further back. Smart!

update on this - that OP has decided to scrap the gel pad, and is having a custom seat made.

My work in biofuels research averaged a ~17% improvement in fuel efficiency when E0 replaced E10 of identical octane rating (R+M)/2.

Interesting findings. I presumed the mileage figure would drop with a higher octane level, but I hadn't considered that mileage would improve with an identical octane number.

Do you recall what the final octane level was in those tests? I presume there would be a sweet spot for the average car or truck.

We tested gasolines from 82.3 to 106 octane (R+M)/2, diesel fuels with cetane numbers from 38 to 62, and other fuels with octanes up to 117. The happy sweet spot for all vehicles not specifically designed to run on pure biofuels is 0%.

It is impossible to recalibrate an engine to run as efficiently per unit volume on 100% ethanol or in any % mixture with gasoline because ethanol only has 5/8 the potential energy per unit of volume as gasoline.

To make matters worse, engines operated on nonimiscible fuel mixtures cannot be tuned to maximum efficiency for BOTH fuels, so efficiency of one fuel will be sorely compromised. In the case of gasohol, the ethanol does not contribute to forcing the piston down until well after the beginning of the power stroke, and typically is still burning well into the exhaust stroke, which is kind of like two riders on a tandem bicycle, and the one in the back has the brake on to keep the bike from rolling backwards. Therefore, poor combustion efficiency compromises fuel efficiency.

Also, the additives that allow immiscibility occupy fuel volume and not only do not burn, they inhibit burning. Sort of like replacing a little of each intake charge with a tiny burst from a fire extinguisher.

These are the reasons why theoretically E10 has about 97% of the potential energy of gasoline, but in the real world only provides 73 to 89% of the power and efficiency per unit volume.

Egads! I hate how the government is always screwing things up. :tdown:

Thanks for taking the time to compose, and post this useful information. :) I think I am going to start filling up at the one gas station in town which pumps fuel without ethanol. ;)

We have not had a government for quite some time now. We are ruled by a self perpetuating bureaucracy. According to the Declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... ." Just try withdrawing your consent. Go ahead, just try.

That was an excellent explanation.

I realize that I failed to ask my question properly. I knew that Ethanol only has a fraction of the potential energy of gasoline, but I thought the number was closer to propane, which I think is around 80%. In Canada, we went through these issues in the '80's, when our gov't offered rebates to those who would have propane conversions performed. The only reason that propane seemed to be more efficient was that is was far less expensive than gasoline in the beginning. Then the price started creeping up...

The question I meant to ask was, is there an octane sweet spot for straight gasoline for modern cars and trucks? I ask that knowing that some vehicles require premium, but I'm not interested in that info. I'd like to know your thoughts about everyday passenger vehicles that run on regular.

87, unless at high altitudes. 85 at high altitudes. Make sure the octane rating is (R+M)/2. Some places use different definitions of "octane rating."

Many engines loose power and efficiency as octane ratings go up because the slower flame front propagation does not allow peak cylinder pressure early enough in the combustion stroke.

Tdub (stock engine with rejet) lost power slightly over 88 octane, exponentially.

Tdub2 (267cc EFI, 11.6:1 compression, timing advanced 4* with ping sensor and ignition retard to run 87 when necessary) gains power with up to 97 octane, then levels off.

Pirate (276cc carbed, 12.7:1 compression) requires 93, and really likes 103. My son put 87 in Pirate, rode 1/4 mile, shut the bike off and pushed it home. It pinged so bad he thought he had blown the engine.

To vary octane we started with 87 E0 and added toluene, a common octane booster and paint thinner.