Bngt

I am trying to figure out if later model VTR's are less prone to CCT failure.

Have you personally had a CCT failure?
What model year was the bike?

RWhisen

We all know it happens and compiling statistics for it would we ridiculous as this group would be skewed. If you are are trying to decide if you should replace yours or not, well, it's like an insurance policy. I suggest you talk to Tweety, he's in your neck of the woods.

Tweety

That he is... And his suggestion is replace first, not worry later...

That has been polled a few times before, and the results where all over the chart... The only common factor was that the CCT's prefer to go snap when you least prefer them to...

autoteach

this is very much like a head gasket job on a subaru. should be done at the scheduled interval (or before the known failure point) as maintenance. You do not want to be doing repair. The problem with our bikes vs honda's other applications of this cct is that this one can skip timing in the case of a failure.

drew_c14

Might I suggest adding a vote for "replaced before failure" and "original has never failed"

inderocker

Since the majority of VTR's were produced in '98 I'm sure your results will look a lot like this...
https://www.superhawkforum.com/forum...highlight=year

I've had CCT failures on 2 98's and 2 02's. Year makes no difference... they all suck (CCT's).

lean'r~N~prgrss

my '04 had 20,000mi on it before i swapped to manual cct's. the stockers never failed.

Bngt

Thank you for destroying my poll.

Bngt

BTW have you considered that if there is no relation to age or mileage for a break (just as the life span distribution for light bulbs), then there is no benefit of changing. You could be changing a perfectly good CCT for one which will fail in a short time.
I am suspecting that later models have springs which have had a better heat treatment and might not break as easy. I read somewhere a claim that there was a new part number but no difference in the part. Well a different heat treatment wouldn't be visible.

Bngt

For those who would like to contribute to a better understanding of the problem, please vote and don't be intimidated by the smart *** comments above.

Bngt

http://www.weibull.com/SystemRelWeb/...aintenance.htm

For those who would like to get a better understanding of exponential failure distribution.

inderocker

Huh?

I don't think it has so much to do with age or mileage as it does with poor design. Most are not changing out old OEM CCT's for new, questionable OEM CCT's... They're replacing them with bulletproof, manual CCT's with a better, simpler design and a proven track record. The design flaw with the OEM CCT is not the spring.. it's the ratcheting mechanism itself. The teeth round off from the beating they get from the big twin making them unable to hold their place.

I didn't catch any "smart ***" comments when re-reading the thread... only useful, helpful info. Please point out the Smart *** comments for the rest of us.

Tweety

You're welcome... Get used to it, around here you never get the answer you want... Sometimes you get the one you need though...

Smart *** comments or not, to you the poll is new, to the rest of us it's old news and repeated about 10 times now... And since it only deals with one of about 10 unknown variables it can prove anything from the color of the rainbow to the existance of poltergeists... Including any theory you like about CCT's

We prefer a discussion than "absolute facts" that isn't very absolute... Feel free to disagree...

Yes, it's been considered... And the data seems to support it somewhat ie, no correlation to mileage/age... So yes, you might change a perfectly working CCT for one that will break earlier...

But if you like autotech said, replace them at regular intervalls, say the large service when you are already tearing stuff down, then you will never suffer a failure... Safe mileage, but most likely some overprecation...

The only common denominator at all, is that the spring breaks and it's made worse by wear around the spring in the CCT mechanism... Ie the spring isn't solely responsible for the failures... The only other factor that is somewhat proven is engine breaking = bad, frequent oilchanges = good... Ie for CCT life...

The theory about new springs might be valid, might not... If it where you would see considerable less CCT failures from 01 onwards as that was when the partno# changed... Unfortunately that's not been proven in any way... Not disproven either though... Something to consider though... There are some 20 parts on the VTR alone that have had a change of partno# at some point with no apparent change... Looks the same, works the same... My guess, different subcontractor means a change in #... But that just a guess...

The "solution" to the problem is manual CCT's...

RWhisen

Bngt
As others have mentioned this subject has been talked to death but you would have known that had you used the search function of the forum. Most of us here do not need inaccurate figures or polls to confirm what we already know happens. There are so many variables of this equation, your poll can not even begin to map all of them. I guess if you want really simplified data you can conduct this poll however it will contain no real basis in fact that can be pointed at to empirically claim certain years fail sooner than others.

drew_c14

BTW, welcome to the site. Thanks for being a douche bag with your first post's.

jsteel

hey there everyone, i replaced my front about 10k ago, before i found this site.I put an origanal cct from honda , should i change out asap for manual units? I changed out due to rattle and have a receipt from Boyd Honda who changed the rear some 15k earlier. ????
thanks.

RWhisen

It's insurance jsteel. Cheaper than an engine rebuild

slabm7

Its really personal preference, If you love your Superhawk and plan on keeping it for a long time and thousands of fun filled miles (like most on here do) then I would change them. For me it was the worry factor. Every time I rode it with the original CCT's, failure was always in the back of my head. I changed mine out just for insurance and also did the R/R at the same time. Now I can hop on the bike and know that it will always get me home no matter how far I decide to travel. For the 120 bucks its the best money that can be spent on these bikes.

autoteach

Honda has had problems with all their ccts, and if you work on them you know what I am talking about. f they have an auto cct, it fails. The real difference, like I said earlier, is that the honda f3 (like many machines) will not skip time with a broken cct but simply will make excessive noise. The vtr will skip time and smash valves, on the other hand. If you really wanted both sides of the coin, you could use the auto cct but extend its reach so that, when fully compressed, it will not skip. I believe that it is as close as .1" away from this, but I also believe that doing this would be a waste of someones good time. The manual ccts are easy to use, although they are not idiot proof. there are some major downfalls with them, and its best to use the search function or talk to someone who knows.

Something that I tell my students: We aren't trying to reinvent the wheel; we just want to make it more round.

Bngt

You may think it is ridiculous. I don't. Why kill this attempt to get a better understanding? If you don't like it just skip it, but please do not recommend others to refrain from voting as that definitely would skew the results!

I haven't yet looked at the CCTs myself but from the Haynes manual and from reading other posts I expected it to be a steep screw friction mechanism?

Has anyone had a failure without a broken spring?

I agree it has been talked to death, but without any valid conclusion! I for sure have used the search function but didn't find what I was looking for, not even the "end it all CCT poll" was very valuable.

This is the kind of ambiguous reasoning which do not further the topic.

Anyone who do not think this is ambiguous?

I love my bike and would do most anything to prevent a failure, however I would like to know if the measure would make the situation better or worse and the jury is still out on this one.

I like that idea. Safe, convenient and with correct tension. I might go this route.


My bike is from 2005 and if there are no late bikes with failures I wonder if there is a problem at all.


I am sorry for those I have upset and I thank those who have provided valuable input. The best thing about forums are the experienced guys who willingly share. The worst thing about forums are the old experienced guys who have given up on a problem and do not allow new approaches. Maybe you should take some time off?

Bngt

8541Hawk

Well as a member of the the old experienced guys who have given up on a problem and do not allow new approaches I doubt you want to hear what i have yo say......

It has much more to do with how the bike is ridden than what year it is.
Also if you are going to make a poll, you might get better results if you list actual years the bike was made.....

RWhisen

I would think that the earlier years would show more failures as they have been around longer and I agree with 8451 Hawk that how the bike is ridden has everything to do with how soon the CCTs fail. How do you account for that in your pseudo-scientific poll Bngt?

cliby

I don't think anyone is trying to shoot you down or discourage you. But we've been through the thought process many times. The main problem is you can only reach erroneous conclusions, or at best unsupported ones based purely on statistic and your sample population. You have too small a sample size of bikes and too skewed a percentage of owners.

For instance its going to be heavily weighted to older bikes because we are all idiots stuck on an outdated bike and kept it for too long, and put too many miles on it when we should have traded it in on an RC51 or 1000RR long ago. Very few people were still buying superhawks in the later model years. Many others busted their CCT and gave up the SH lineage because of the failure - so they won't be here. So you're left with a tiny traction of all superhawks ever owned, mostly older models, with high mileage and amongst failures those true diehards who rebuilt their engine to stick with an outdated and underperforming bike. I haven't viewed the poll results you have yet, but guarantee based on the sampling that you will show failures are most common in the first 3-4 model production years of bikes. If for no other reason than that is what is represented on this board. If that supports your hypothesis, great, but it lends absolutely nothing objective to the question you are asking.

If your bent on sticking to it, at a very minimum you have to ascertain how many bikes are in play on this forum, year and mileage without and with failure. And if I recall someone already did this.

What can you really hope to learn from it the way you are posing the question.

Bngt

And how are your views not pseudoscientific? Have you investigated how all the failed bikes were ridden and compared with how all the non failed bikes were ridden?

I am only interested in if late bikes have failures.

I assume you refer to that I listed bikes up to 2007. Well I find a lot of 2007 bikes being advertised. If they are actually made in 2007 I do not know but the ad below state build date 03/2007

http://www.bikesales.com.au/all-bike...80%20493%20500

Bngt

Well if there are none or almost none of the 2005 bikes having had a failure then even this small population would yield a statistical significance.

Bngt

Bngt

I found a picture of a disassembled CCT. It looks like it would be possible to just add a stop screw in the bottom to prevent the plunger from backing out.

Tweety

Yes, I have... I still have the parts lying around if you want to examine them... Hop on the bike and come over...

No, it is not ambigous... Only if you take it out of context... If you look at it in context, I do agree with you on the fact that since we cannot pinpoint the exact singular cause of the failures, you are correct that the replacement part might break at a total of miles lesser than the original part... But that's why it is termed a wear item and should be replaced at safe intervalls in the first place... The larger service intervall is probably overly cautious but safe... Now, please inform me what's ambigous about that?

Well, to answer your question... Look at what I said again after reading the answer to one of your own questions...

I have one engine from a 2002... I had a CCT failure when I bought it... And as the partno# changed in 2001, it has the "new" part... I'm pretty certain it's not the single exception to the rule... It might or might not be more or less frequent however... Also you left out a little information i added, about how Honda had in other instances changed the partno# without actually changing the part...

The CCT in this failed by a broken spring... That doesn't really add to your theory, but since it's one engine, I think the data is inconclusive for any meaningfull interpretation... Hence why I said it's not proven or disproven... Again, only ambigous if you take it out of context... But please point out where I'm wrong if that is the case...

Since I'm assuming I'm one of the guys that should consider taking time off, you get a counter proposal... Make a relevant poll, with a relevant question or refrain from giving me suggestions unless you actually intend to **** me off... Just fair warning...

I'm going to say this once more, this time in more detail so it cannot be misunderstood... The exact poll you have made has been made before... There have also been similar but not exact replicas... All of them are flawed because of the reasons mentioned above...

The have to be quantified against the number of bikes in circulation of that year to have any and all relevance... Then against the sample size of the poll... Then if you for instance use the same poll mentioned in a post above giving you a sample of how many bikes from what year, against the total in both polls... And since you don't have that data the poll is not going to answer any questions...

Believe me, I have no problem with a new approach... But you are not trying a new approach are you?

You are in fact repeating the same old one that has already been tried and found inconclusive and skewed...

RWhisen

8541Hawk

Are you always such a ****? Are you going to do a forensic investigation on ever failed tensioner to know exactly way they failed or are you just compiling a list of hear say to try and make some sort worthless conclusions.

So why didn't you just ask that question instead of making a incomplete poll. It's not all that hard to do.
Any and all automatic CCT can and do fail. Either replace them at set intervals or replace them with manual units. Of course I have no problems with auto tensioners and I could tell you what you need to do to make them live a long life but my views and opinions are just pseudoscientific.

Well maybe you might need to work on your research skills a bit.... I really don't care what ads you can post up. Honda stopped making the VTR1000f in 2005. Hell give me a sec and I can post up an ad for an unbreakable auto CCT and you can believe that also with no additional research to verify the facts.

Tweety

You are right on one thing though Bngt... I have given up trying to find a more meaningfull solution to when and how the OEM CCT's fail...

The simple reason for that is that it's not a single component that fails, it's two independant parts that fails, giving the same result... It's also possible for a catasrophic failure, and more rare, but possible to have a partial failure that means you have time to replace the CCT... It's evident that the failure exist on all years... regardless of partno# (with the reservations I noted above)...

Add those variables to the one's that you get from trying to calculate it against the population of bikes of various years, and mileage with or without failure... My simple conclusion is that it's to many variables and to little constants to give a meaningful answer...

That's why I say either treat it as a wear item, or replace it with a manual CCT... Buy APE's or modify the OEM one with a carrieage bolt (there are details in other threads)...

I however still think you should re-read the responses in this thread, think it over one more time and evaluate if your response was infact as justified as you thought... Nobody said not to answer... All of the old guys gave you very valid resons why your poll might not be as relevant as you though... You responded in a borderline indignant tone, somewhat justified... Then others started bashing you... If you wanna bash them back have fun... But my advice is to separate that from the rest of us giving you a factual reason to not consider your poll relevant...

But other than that, I wish you luck finding an answer... Let me know if you do, I still would like one, even if this thread is unlikely to provide one...

BTW how would you like me to answer the poll? I will undoubtedly skew the results since I have several engines from different years with CCT failures in their history prior to when I got them, and I can only answer once to the poll...