Board index

My Home Page

PilotOdyssey.com By hoser...


PilotOdyssey.com Chat Room

PilotOdyssey.com Photo Album

* Login   * Register * FAQ
http://www.pilotodyssey.com/PO/adm/images/imagemenu/smiley_cool.png PilotOdyssey.com Chat    http://www.pilotodyssey.com/PO/adm/images/imagemenu/find.png PilotOdyssey.com Google Search    http://www.pilotodyssey.com/PO/adm/images/imagemenu/emoticon_tongue.png FL400 Parts    http://www.pilotodyssey.com/PO/adm/images/imagemenu/emoticon_grin.png FL350 Parts    http://www.pilotodyssey.com/PO/adm/images/imagemenu/emoticon_evilgrin.png FL250 Parts    http://www.pilotodyssey.com/PO/adm/images/imagemenu/emoticon_unhappy.png Admin Email   
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:45 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:04 am
Posts: 465
Location: Springfield Ohio
Holy cow you guys are killing me.
Looking at an Odyssey in 1985 it’s freak’in state of the art ATV design.
Looking at one today it’s an antique, if it where street legal Ohio would let you get ‘historic auto’ license plates for it.
I’ll take these in order:

Dave-co said
Quote:
“I can say after driving it at Barstow I could not imagin putting a snow mobile Engine in one except for the sand dunes, the suspension is just not good enough for anywhere else in my humble opinion”

This is spot on.
The thing was designed for a set amount of power / speed, exceeding that will upset the balance of the vehicle.
Not just the suspension stroke but the drive train, brakes and safety gear are set up as a matched set.
If you change one part of that equation you need to anticipate the impact to other parts of the equation.
Some people seem to realize this, other are starting to look like the guy on Craigslist that has a 1000RR street bike Engine stuffed in the back of a FL250.
“Geared for a bazillion mile an hour” yea, good luck with that one.

Another great quote from Hoser
Quote:
“sounds like them Polaris RZR pussies that complain about the steering in a RZR until they install the 800.00 power steering on their RZR's.”

Then again any quote disparaging company P is a good quote in my book (yes I’m biased, but you already knew that).
One small point, the EPS unit acts like a steering damper, as the tire pushes on the tie rod, the electric m0tor will push back trying to maintain what the driver is requesting on the steering wheel side of the equation, as the steering wheel kicks, there is a higher demand on the EPS to resist.
Steering damper would be the cheap way to do this and I have a Bilstein unit I might get around to installing on my FL350 one day, but the damper just increases the steering effort, EPS would make it easier.
The Odyssey is really at the limit for steering stability.
Ride a FL350 and FL400 (in stock configuration – stock wheels and tire size) and the Odyssey will seam twitchy, especially at high speed in rough sand conditions ( I think Randman mentions this).

Then Dave-Co has a revisionist history lesson:
Quote:
“The rear end sure does waky things thasts for sure. I bet the jap that designed that rear end killed himself in shame lol and the one who stamped OK also with a giant sword”.

Don’t get me wrong Dave, I think your LT Pilot suspensions are a work of art, but you have the advantage 30 years of advancement in the technology.
The guy that designed the FL350 suspension is retired, and he did quite well in the company.
Certainly, if he could have peered in to the future and seen what you fabricate on a day to day basis today he could have done better, then again if he could see the future he would have been looking at the stock market and made some real money.
When the FL350 was designed, there were no ATVs on the market to copy (Suzuki released the first one the same year as the FL350 release).
Some SCORE class 1 cars at that time still used forged VW trailing arms, coil over shocks where the new ‘trick’ set up with much more stroke than the front torsion leafs could ever produce, stock trailing arm where good for what, 9” max stroke? (assuming you knew to lean the front beam forward).
The CPSC was cracking down on ATCs and no one knew what the final regulation would be until 1986, two years after the end of 3 wheeler manufacturing ended (how dose an industry invest money in new vehicles when the rules are changing year to year?).
Because of this the FL350 was considered by Honda to be an ATV and maintained the 600 pound max weight rule, this caused some stuff like the rear axle working as a suspension link, reducing the weight of 2 links.

There seems to be a lot of carping about the U-joints in the suspension.
Yes when they let go it is bad.
However the vehicle is 30 years old, if you went out and replaced it after 5 years – the expected life of the vehicle – you would not be having this issue (and the Pilot would have sold better and stayed in production).
I get it – many are not satisfied with this set up.
At the time swing axle VWs where doing something similar, with rear suspension loads fed in to the transaxle side cover, and they seemed to work OK.
This was rectified on the Pilot, the drive line doesn’t take any suspension loading.
But at the time no one in the ATC/ATV industry had any idea what would work or not work off road.
Look at the early 4X4 ATVs, the 1985 TRX350 had 4 wheel drive.
The rear suspension was a typical single swing arm ATV axle.
The front axle was a reverse swing arm similar to the rear but pointing the other way.
So the axle could go up and down, both wheels together, but for one wheel to go up the axle bushings, swing arm or the frame had to flex.
This was a horrible idea.

Dave-Co on the rear suspension:
Quote:
The last 1 to 1.5 inches going down the wheel lays in A LOT. Mine going up will touch the bottom of the tank with the axle.

There is a definite limit to how much droop you can have, max length eye to eye (with the stock mounting locations) is 15.25”.
Any more travel than that and the U-joints will bind.
There are tricks and dodges like adjusting the upper link or clerancing the U-joints but these are not recommended.
I think there may be some possibility of more bump travel.
Typically Honda limits bump travel based on the frame not hitting the ground in certain situations.
Usually the drive line limits the droop travel as the U-joints (or CVs) reach their limits but the bump travel is limited by the frame clearance to the ground.
I have not investigated the FL350 rear yet, but the axle hitting the gas tank is not going to be stock Honda (as Rarerat pointed out).
An aftermarket shock with a shorter body could allow some more bump or remounting the upper end of the shock could maximize the axle angles.
A size up in the wheel / tire can fix any frame to ground clearance issues and a retune of the clutch will restore the off the line acceleration.


Attachments:
File comment: Front leading arm suspension - they learned what not to do (yes it's called spin)
1986 TRX350 4x4.jpg
1986 TRX350 4x4.jpg [ 76 KiB | Viewed 1102 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:04 am
Posts: 465
Location: Springfield Ohio
FL350 rear suspension 101:The FL350 rear suspension is a basic 3-link buggy suspension, similar to what is used by Polaris on ther RZR vehicles.
There are a few tweaks Honda used to adapt it to their specific needs.

Travel: 3-link suspension systems have a normal operating range where the wheel has good camber control.
Trying to extend this range will lead to unusual wheel camber and toe at full droop.
The ‘normal’ operation range is related to the base length of the lower A-arm (the trailing link and lower lateral link form a virtual A-arm).
In order to increase the suspension travel of the XP1000 Polaris moved the front pivot of the trailing link ridiculously far forward.
This becomes a packaging nightmare as the bump travel of the trailing link requires room to move up and down along almost half the length of the frame between the wheels.
For the FL350 this will limit the useful stroke range unless the suspension geometry ragicly modified along with the frame.
The suspension and frame could be re-done but is it worth it?
I don’t know the practical limits of the suspension in stock form but this would be a good target to start with.

Drive shaft as a suspension link: In order to save weight the lower link was eliminated and the drive shaft performs that function.
This is a typical solution borrowed from auto design, look at the Corvette and Jaguar rear ends from the 1960s.
They got the idea from formula 1 racing in the 1950s.
For off road this is a high maintenance item and has become a sore point now that the axles are no longer available from Honda.
Either, make sure your U-joints are in good shape or consider adding the lower lateral link back in.
This would require placing the link joints in exactly the correct location (not easy) or changing the drive shaft to a CV set up so it can accommodate some variation in the length of the axle.
If it where me, I would look in to finding a drive line shop that was willing to weld in new yokes and U-joints in to the old FL350 axles. (actually I have NOS axles in the barn but lets not discuss how that happened).
If I were to add the link in, I would look in to using VW parts.
For the off road buggy / race buggy crowd there are many axle lengths available and the CVs are easy to find and set up.
The hard part is getting a flange set up for the inner CV, I’m going to sit back and see if Dave-Co finds a good solution for this.

Upper lateral link: This is a bit of Honda packaging magic.
At the same time the FL350 was under development Honda auto design was trying to solve a problem with cars intended for the export market (that is, export from Japan to the US).
US customers and the automotive press complained that Japanese cars rode like tin boxes.
American cars weighed more than twice the average Japanese car and the ride quality was much better, at the expense of inefficient manufacturing, horrible gas mileage and higher cost in raw materials.
Honda sent a team of engineers to America to try and understand what the issue was.
What they discovered was not a problem with the Japanese cars, but that US road where terrible.
Roads in Japan have excellent maintenance, the government employs farmers in the off season to do public works so the farmers have income in the winter (an advantage of a socialist government system – if you can afford it), as such a pot hole doesn’t stand a chance in a Japanese road (unlike an Ohio pot hole that often has a home for life).
The 1985 Prelude had more suspension travel and longer suspension links to reduce the influence of the wheel hitting a pot hole on the body.
The problem with this was how to make room for the upper front suspension link and the transverse Engine / transmission.
The solution was to make the front knuckle taller.
As the knuckle got taller the upper link got shorter – while maintaining the wheel movement geometry.
This was the perfect solution for the FL350 to fit the Engine and the fuel tank down low, maintaining the low CG without making the vehicle longer (and heavier considering Honda thought they would need to maintain the ATV 600 lb rule).
However the upper lateral link is short, this may be the limiting factor in the max suspension stroke possible with the FL350 suspension.

Max suspension stroke for the FL350 could be limited by:
1) 3-link suspension has funny camber and toe stuff happening at the limit.
2) Drive shaft angles max out, lower is known but upper limit is not.
3) Upper lateral link is short and limit in bump stroke is not known.
Some experimentation is needed to figure out just what the max limit is for the FL350 rear suspension.


Attachments:
File comment: pivot location is in front of the drivers butt
XP1000 trailing link pivot location.jpg
XP1000 trailing link pivot location.jpg [ 37.06 KiB | Viewed 1103 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:28 pm
Posts: 887
Lee wrote:
Look at the early 4X4 ATVs, the 1985 TRX350 had 4 wheel drive.
The rear suspension was a typical single swing arm ATV axle.
The front axle was a reverse swing arm similar to the rear but pointing the other way.
So the axle could go up and down, both wheels together, but for one wheel to go up the axle bushings, swing arm or the frame had to flex.


Honda was making great atv/atc's back then. My dad bought an 84 big red brand new for raccoon hunting. He rode it until 2009 when he bought his 420 rancher new. Every spring he did a tune up on it. Oil change, spark plug, air filter etc. A few battery's, brake pads, and sets of tires. He put a TON of miles on it and it never let him down. When I was a teenager I tried to go up a big hill in high range/3rd gear maybe and it died. I decided to roll backwards down the hill and get another try at it. I backed into a tree at the bottom of the hill and bent the axle. He heated it with the torch and straightened it best he could and it lasted until he sold it. Biggest repair it ever needed.(I still here about it every time I get near his rancher lol) The next year my uncle bought the 85 TRX350 new. That was a great design or at least a durable one. He still uses it every single day to feed his animals. It's sat outside under a tree every day of its life. It's ugly and it had to have some cables replaced, a few seat covers, and several key switched but for sitting outside for 30 years it's been an incredible machine. It might get the oil changed every 2 or 3 years when my dad picks it up and brings it to his house to go over it and do maintenence.(usually when the key switch goes out from sitting outside) My uncle wouldn't even do that. Neither of these Honda's have had any major break down ever. My dads 09 rancher seems to be a great ride to. It had its oil changed after break in and now one of the gifts I buy my dad every year for Christmas is a tune up kit for it off eBay. Honda air filter, NGK spark plug, Honda oil, oil filter, and a new crush washer for the oil drain plug. It hasn't needed anything but gas.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:40 pm
Posts: 22512
Location: Chicago
Lee wrote:
FL350 rear suspension 101:The FL350 rear suspension is a basic 3-link buggy suspension, similar to what is used by Polaris on ther RZR vehicles.
There are a few tweaks Honda used to adapt it to their specific needs.

Travel: 3-link suspension systems have a normal operating range where the wheel has good camber control.
Trying to extend this range will lead to unusual wheel camber and toe at full droop.
The ‘normal’ operation range is related to the base length of the lower A-arm (the trailing link and lower lateral link form a virtual A-arm).
In order to increase the suspension travel of the XP1000 Polaris moved the front pivot of the trailing link ridiculously far forward.
This becomes a packaging nightmare as the bump travel of the trailing link requires room to move up and down along almost half the length of the frame between the wheels.
For the FL350 this will limit the useful stroke range unless the suspension geometry ragicly modified along with the frame.
The suspension and frame could be re-done but is it worth it?
I don’t know the practical limits of the suspension in stock form but this would be a good target to start with.

Drive shaft as a suspension link: In order to save weight the lower link was eliminated and the drive shaft performs that function.
This is a typical solution borrowed from auto design, look at the Corvette and Jaguar rear ends from the 1960s.
They got the idea from formula 1 racing in the 1950s.
For off road this is a high maintenance item and has become a sore point now that the axles are no longer available from Honda.
Either, make sure your U-joints are in good shape or consider adding the lower lateral link back in.
This would require placing the link joints in exactly the correct location (not easy) or changing the drive shaft to a CV set up so it can accommodate some variation in the length of the axle.
If it where me, I would look in to finding a drive line shop that was willing to weld in new yokes and U-joints in to the old FL350 axles. (actually I have NOS axles in the barn but lets not discuss how that happened).
If I were to add the link in, I would look in to using VW parts.
For the off road buggy / race buggy crowd there are many axle lengths available and the CVs are easy to find and set up.
The hard part is getting a flange set up for the inner CV, I’m going to sit back and see if Dave-Co finds a good solution for this.

Upper lateral link: This is a bit of Honda packaging magic.
At the same time the FL350 was under development Honda auto design was trying to solve a problem with cars intended for the export market (that is, export from Japan to the US).
US customers and the automotive press complained that Japanese cars rode like tin boxes.
American cars weighed more than twice the average Japanese car and the ride quality was much better, at the expense of inefficient manufacturing, horrible gas mileage and higher cost in raw materials.
Honda sent a team of engineers to America to try and understand what the issue was.
What they discovered was not a problem with the Japanese cars, but that US road where terrible.
Roads in Japan have excellent maintenance, the government employs farmers in the off season to do public works so the farmers have income in the winter (an advantage of a socialist government system – if you can afford it), as such a pot hole doesn’t stand a chance in a Japanese road (unlike an Ohio pot hole that often has a home for life).
The 1985 Prelude had more suspension travel and longer suspension links to reduce the influence of the wheel hitting a pot hole on the body.
The problem with this was how to make room for the upper front suspension link and the transverse Engine / transmission.
The solution was to make the front knuckle taller.
As the knuckle got taller the upper link got shorter – while maintaining the wheel movement geometry.
This was the perfect solution for the FL350 to fit the Engine and the fuel tank down low, maintaining the low CG without making the vehicle longer (and heavier considering Honda thought they would need to maintain the ATV 600 lb rule).
However the upper lateral link is short, this may be the limiting factor in the max suspension stroke possible with the FL350 suspension.

Max suspension stroke for the FL350 could be limited by:
1) 3-link suspension has funny camber and toe stuff happening at the limit.
2) Drive shaft angles max out, lower is known but upper limit is not.
3) Upper lateral link is short and limit in bump stroke is not known.
Some experimentation is needed to figure out just what the max limit is for the FL350 rear suspension.



I love reading your replies and getting your point of view on the details on these machines, makes so much sense now hearing it from your point of view and knowing some of the constraints Honda engineering was faced with and forced to abide by the days the made the decisions they made.

I always thought the FL350 was advanced in its day and was a really great achievement for Honda even with all the problems the FL350 had that prompted the recall.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and info.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Duneit, eseymour72, Garemie, Google [Bot], Lanix, Q, wyeeoddy


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group