that was my other thought....on my old RVF, the Ethos system exit was a good 6" from my indicator and it still melted it I had to put mini ones on to stop it hapening.

Troyus wrote:

i love that system, looks so nice underneath but on a 23, i feel it would grind the floor on bumps etc

I do not like. That exhaust has been done purely for looks since it will almost definitely reduce performance - yet to me it looks awful. In fact I dislike the whole bike - that tail does not match and is at a ridiculous angle, and those forks don't belong on an NC29.

Wozza wrote:I do not like. That exhaust has been done purely for looks since it will almost definitely reduce performance - yet to me it looks awful. In fact I dislike the whole bike - that tail does not match and is at a ridiculous angle, and those forks don't belong on an NC29.

I agree in general, but I see no reason why one shouldn't fit Fireblade forks to a Babyblade. The bikes weigh very similar, and they clearly fit. The forks are also better performing and lighter weight, not to mention easier to fit than the forks from an RVF, which no one ever complains about.

For reference, here is my bike... see if you can spot the bits which don't belong.

gullarm swinger and fireblade forks?

DK-Tandy wrote:gullarm swinger and fireblade forks?

'96 Blade forks, '00 Blade brakes, Gullarm swingarm discs and wheels. In that pic it has flat bars, gone for raised clip-ons now. But I humbly submit that it helps make the point, there is nothing wrong with modifying / modernising.

true..

its a problem when you want to make something moddern but you equally in love with the old school..

No biggie on the forks, just that they are very obviously from a Blade. Again nothing wrong with that, but personally I would prefer the original look - if I wanted fully adjustable cartridge forks I would look at NC29-R or 600F3 forks. I just wonder whether Blade forks have been fitted to that bike for looks or for performance - I'm very much a function-over-form person. I am all for modifying which is why my tri-arm will probably never be 'finished', and I like your CB-1 - but I can see you have not done those mods purely for looks.

Wozza wrote:No biggie on the forks, just that they are very obviously from a Blade. Again nothing wrong with that, but personally I would prefer the original look - if I wanted fully adjustable cartridge forks I would look at NC29-R or 600F3 forks. I just wonder whether Blade forks have been fitted to that bike for looks or for performance - I'm very much a function-over-form person. I am all for modifying which is why my tri-arm will probably never be 'finished', and I like your CB-1 - but I can see you have not done those mods purely for looks.

For me the main point of the front was those massive disc calipers, as CB-1 brakes are marginal at best. I was going to fit used Firestrom lowers fitted to the existing forks, but the pair I got were too damaged. When that happened, I thought stuff it, let's have better suspension as well, shall we? and threw a bit more money and effort in.

The rear arm was done entirely and exclusively for looks. I don't care about the marginal increase in stiffness, not even a little bit. If I just wanted the wider wheel and matching 6-spoke rim, I could (I think) have got that on the original spindly steel arm by just using a CBR600F2 wheel. But it would've required about the same cost of engineered parts and .. well .. that arm does look lush, doesn't it?