Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I ran into this via a brief mention in the text an eBay auction, you long-timers have likely already seen it. It seems to have originated in Britain 5 or 6 years ago and has been on and off a few times, they now have a US distributor in Roswell GA.

Photos from the UK site:



That's a Burgman 400 power-plant pushing it:



Kind of neat and not to many $$ ($4k for the basic kit), something to do if the tupperware get smashed up...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,227 Posts
Interesting, looks like a fun little vehicle.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,331 Posts
I have an email in to them. I would think about it with one of my 650's. Run some 145-R 15 car tires up front and a 185/50 14 in the rear. Triple darksided.

I would most likely put in a foot throttle and brakes but link the brakes with a good proportional valve F/R.

Lots of lights and maybe even a high flying flag. That puppy sets 35 inches high. You could change lanes UNDER a Semi Truck's trailer. You'd look UP at the lug nuts of most SUV's. I'd even mount a TRAIN horn. :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,296 Posts
....... But grafting a 650 introduces another layer of complexity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
What would be more complex?

The 650 power-plant is as self contained as is the 400. The wheelbase would likely grow as the 650 assembly is longer, and I assume the engine pivot point would have to be redesigned/relocated to accommodate that. Brackets for the rear shocks would need to be added added, and more wires extended. I see no additional complexity, it would just be a bit different.

I helped a fellow build a Miata powered Caterham Seven some years back and I am sure like that, and like any kit car, there would be challenges; but without those what would be the point of doing it in the first place. Any idiot can buy a bunch of pre-engineered and fitted pieces and bolt them up.

Not being a trike person, two wheels in fron or back, it is no more than an interesting concept to me. However I do like the design as opposed to the popular "rear-wheel" Burgman conversion. In the latter I find the extension of the swingarm by bolting plates to the gear housing to be a bit "Rube Goldbergish" (aka "Heath Robinsonish" for you Brits)...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
cliffyk said:
What would be more complex?

The 650 power-plant is as self contained as is the 400.
Perhaps, but the engine is frame-mounted. Our engine is on the fork of the rear wheel. I do think it would be a much different job as a result.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,296 Posts
I never suggested it was so complex as to be too difficult.

All I meant was that it would be 'comparatively ' more complex than using the 400 package.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,227 Posts
Modifying for a 650 shouldn't be all that hard. Lengthen the top rear loop for the extra power module length and to provide upper shock mount points. Lengthen the bottom frame rails and add bracing to the top rail. Add the three engine mounting points between the rails. Past that most everything else could remain much the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
NormanB said:
I never suggested it was so complex as to be too difficult.

All I meant was that it would be 'comparatively ' more complex than using the 400 package.
Gotcha', my wife tells me "I take things too literally" all the time--can't help it, it's that ME thing...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,331 Posts
Buffalo said:
Modifying for a 650 shouldn't be all that hard. Lengthen the top rear loop for the extra power module length and to provide upper shock mount points. Lengthen the bottom frame rails and add bracing to the top rail. Add the three engine mounting points between the rails , leave a removal frame section for CVT removal. Past that most everything else could remain much the same.
Craig, I fixed that post for ya. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,933 Posts
Wow! Just 30 minutes away.....I might just have to check them out. 8)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,331 Posts
In all likelihood, I would just run some taller front motorcycle tires and rims but leave a Potenza on the rear. But with a frame section that could be removed for CVT replacement. Then add a 25 horse shot of Nitrous activated by the Power button. :twisted:

Steve, take pictures.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,227 Posts
Dave_J said:
Buffalo said:
Modifying for a 650 shouldn't be all that hard. Lengthen the top rear loop for the extra power module length and to provide upper shock mount points. Lengthen the bottom frame rails and add bracing to the top rail. Add the three engine mounting points between the rails , leave a removal frame section for CVT removal. Past that most everything else could remain much the same.
Craig, I fixed that post for ya. :D
Thanks, of course if I'm doing the mod then there isn't going to be a frame rail in front of the CVT to need removing :lol:.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,331 Posts
Well, I have spent the latter part of this afternoon researching this. It is a TRIKE. In all the Washington states regulations (RCW 46.xx.xx) it is a Motorcycle as it has three wheels or less. It is also approved for HOV "Car Pool" lanes usage. But it looks like a Danson trike is not a motorcycle. We have had this topic come up before may times. Here is the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), read the first sentence well, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.04.330 .

IF they answer my Email, There may be a kit shipped to Auburn Wa soon. :D Even if I have to buy the Burgman 400 kit, I have a welder and a plasma cutter and am quite able to mock up and modify anything.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,331 Posts
Someone sent me an Email with a link from Summit Racing about Nitrous. :D http://www.summitracing.com/parts/NOS-03001NOS/

Thats 70 to 76 Horsepower (54+ 16 to 27 added). :cheers: Uh, NO. I don't want to launch a cylinder head into a low earth orbit. I think it can be jetted down to the 10 to 15 HP level. :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Florida's statute, FS 316.003 (22), is similar, a bit more brief:

(22)?MOTORCYCLE.—Any motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, but excluding a tractor or a moped.

Technically this excludes training wheels, however I am not aware of the DMV or any law enforcement agency pursuing or enforcing this. There are a couple around here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
cliffyk said:
Florida's statute, FS 316.003 (22), is similar, a bit more brief:

(22)?MOTORCYCLE.—Any motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, but excluding a tractor or a moped.

Technically this excludes training wheels, however I am not aware of the DMV or any law enforcement agency pursuing or enforcing this. There are a couple around here.
Training wheels are temporary, so I think "designed" is the keyword. The vehicle was designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. Also, not sure what you mean by training wheels, but when I was a kid learning to ride a bike, my bike's training wheels were slightly higher than the rear wheel, so I could literally have no more than 3 wheels in contact with the ground.

Note that lawyers/lawmakers have corrupted the meaning of "moped", which originally meant a motor on a bicycle (with pedals), or a little motorcycle with pedals. Florida has included scooters 49cc and less in their "moped" definition.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top