CMSMJ1 wrote:

British market VFR400's made 63-65hp, imports 59hp, that's what I mean by power restricted.

Have you any proof? I don't believe this. Tuned VFRs with full systems and the like only just make mid 60s.

None, I'm only going from memory but this is what it says in a sticky on 400greybike about the differences between Jap/Euro spec NC30's
............................................
Carbs are slightly different. Metal slides and not plastic, Jetting is richer setting and i think the main jet holders are different too.
Exhaust is a different part no, and is allegedly better flowing but looks identical.
............................................
I reckon it would be hard to gain 4-6hp with carb and exhaust changes alone but we're not talking about gaining power here we're talking about restricting power. Dropping 4-6hp with carb and exhaust changes would be easy.

There again you can't compare dyno readings like for like. My Tuono had 128hp at the wheel on one dyno but the same bike might only show 118 on another so I'm thinking 65hp may be 70 on one dyno and 60 on another.

I've been hoping for the last couple of years that the Japs would start producing 100hp 400cc bikes now that the 54hp power limit has been lifted in Japan but nothings happened yet. I'm thinking of changing bikes, something light, powerful and comfortable, so far it looks like a Street Triple or Brutale if I can find one cheap enough.

So the carbs in a Tri-Arm are not too small? Then where is this manufacturer's restriction?

• Wozza wrote:So the carbs in a Tri-Arm are not too small? Then where is this manufacturer's restriction?

Read again,
............................................
Carbs are slightly different. Metal slides and not plastic, Jetting is richer setting and i think the main jet holders are different too.
Exhaust is a different part no, and is allegedly better flowing but looks identical.
............................................

FTM wrote:

• Wozza wrote:So the carbs in a Tri-Arm are not too small? Then where is this manufacturer's restriction?

Read again,
............................................
Carbs are slightly different. Metal slides and not plastic, Jetting is richer setting and i think the main jet holders are different too.
Exhaust is a different part no, and is allegedly better flowing but looks identical.
............................................

^^ This is referring to UK VFR400's, not triarms...

which in a CBR V4 section means bugger all.

Aero, TriArm and GullArms only please...

leopard_pagan wrote:which in a CBR V4 section means bugger all.

Aero, TriArm and GullArms only please...

VFR VFR VFR VFR etc etc


Well...even a non CBR person like me knows that an Aero is a stinker compared to an Tri arm or a Gull arm..

You all want a V4 anyways..stop resisting, you know it makes sense.

FTM wrote:

• Wozza wrote:So the carbs in a Tri-Arm are not too small? Then where is this manufacturer's restriction?

Read again,
............................................
Carbs are slightly different. Metal slides and not plastic, Jetting is richer setting and i think the main jet holders are different too.
Exhaust is a different part no, and is allegedly better flowing but looks identical.
............................................

I'm reading fine... you said all the other 400s are restricted and you said one restriction was the carbs being too small. Now you say the carbs in a Tri-Arm are not smaller than Aero ones. Are you now saying my Tri-Arm is restricted by the jets? Doesn't sound quite right to me.

As for the exhaust, and the Aero ones being better flowing - wouldn't I just be better off fitting a GF system?

I'm not trying to wind you up mate, I'd just like to know exactly how my Tri-Arm is restricted if it really is.

i had my first triarm powered by an aero engine...dynoed at 60ps at the wheel...stock apart from a home made airbox...no ram air..to much mucking around tho getting it to fit
then a stock tri arm...no mods except a pipe,won 2 championships...dyno'd at 49ps at the wheel(the thing was forever having carb issues)the bike now has nc29 carbs,and modified nc29 hrccopy ram airbox
still running stock headers,but was 2seconds a lap faster...pwr unknown...proberly around 60 at the wheel
currently building a nc29 to race...stock airbox but with a race system,expexting pwr to be 55-60
...all models seem the same in the pwr department at the end of the day...its getting the things to corner faster than every1 else is what its about
stimpy

29 carbs on a 23.. is that a worthwhile swap? They fit straight on?

yep the bolt straight on...
remove the tps switch,and file down the mount to fit them between the frame,
use the nc29 throttle cable

worth while...yes...
they have proper velocity stacks for a start instead of the rubber things and a flat slide(unsure if that makes any differance)
tuning kits are readily available for them.
only real bit of mucking around is an getting an airbox to suit..i went a full ram air open airbox as i race the bike,but you can mod the 23's carb base or knock up another to sit over the 29 and use the 23's airbox.
the differance from old to a decent set of carbs worked well and worth it
i also have som 32mm flatslides and that will end up on it at some point :-)
if i get a chance i'll find some pics of the set up.
stimpy