PatBox CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission)
- Status
61 - 80 of 98 Posts
Hello all.
In several threads of this forum I read for 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23gr weights for the Burgman 400.
Also for combinations of weights (like: four 15gr and four 18gr).
Each setup has its own plusses and minuses.
Worse even, you have only one pick and choose of weights before the assembly of your CVT. Then you have to live with your choice.
The PatBox is a general idea, applicable to almost every scooter.
The PatBox is easy and cheap to apply.
At the forum http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/read.php?1,3941377 two guys (third parties) made the modification of their Honda Hobbits mopeds in a couple of days, at a cost of a dozen of dollars.
Here is what the one guy writes for the PatBox today:
“Frankly, this is better than that thrust bearing design.
It's universal, easier, no mystery bearings to buy,
No mods to the pulleys.
It's the best.”
and
“This design is not difficult to make at all, and shifts like butter.”
Why I wrote for 25gr weights for the Burgman 400?
Consider the full automatic mode of the Burgman 400-PatBox.
![]()
(if you don’t know to see stereoscopically, there are instructions at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonStereoscopy.htm )
Depending on the preloading of the restoring spring of the lever of the PatBox (it is a more than easy on-the-fly adjustment) the scooter operates as having different weights, for instance:
With light preloading, the scooter is like running on 23 gr weights, enabling quieter, more fuel efficient and smoother highway trips.
With more preloading, the scooter is like running on 21gr weights.
With even more preloading the scooter is like running on 19 gr weights.
And so on.
With full preloading of the restoring spring of the PatBox lever, the scooter is like running on 12gr weights, for top accelerations (in expense of noise, of mileage, of reliability etc).
It is like having an infinity of weights in your pocket and the option to put instantly in your CVT the ones you like for the specific ride, or the ones you like for the specific moment of the ride.
For instance, suppose you travel on the highway at 60mph with the light preloading of the restoring spring of the PatBox lever (i.e. like having the 23gr weights), the engine is revving calmly at, say, 5,000rpm and you want to overtake, as quickly as possible, a truck in front of you. With wide open throttle you press as required the control lever by your foot to shift the rpm wherein the peak power is provided by the engine and overtake the truck in the minimum possible time. Then you release the PatBox lever and the revs of the engine drop to 5,000rpm again allowing a pleasant, quiet and green riding.
In a steep uphill, you can either increase the preloading (it is like replacing the weights by lighter ones) or you can press properly, by your foot, the PatBox lever.
And any time you release the cyan lever, you turn your CVT into “tiptronic” or “touchshift” or “DCT” etc:
![]()
According the above, a scooter with the PatBox gets, among others, faster, more pleasant, more fuel-efficient.
It also gets safer, enabling faster overtakes and keeping the rider tireless.
Do I miss something?
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
In several threads of this forum I read for 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23gr weights for the Burgman 400.
Also for combinations of weights (like: four 15gr and four 18gr).
Each setup has its own plusses and minuses.
Worse even, you have only one pick and choose of weights before the assembly of your CVT. Then you have to live with your choice.
The PatBox is a general idea, applicable to almost every scooter.
The PatBox is easy and cheap to apply.
At the forum http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/read.php?1,3941377 two guys (third parties) made the modification of their Honda Hobbits mopeds in a couple of days, at a cost of a dozen of dollars.
Here is what the one guy writes for the PatBox today:
“Frankly, this is better than that thrust bearing design.
It's universal, easier, no mystery bearings to buy,
No mods to the pulleys.
It's the best.”
and
“This design is not difficult to make at all, and shifts like butter.”
Why I wrote for 25gr weights for the Burgman 400?
Consider the full automatic mode of the Burgman 400-PatBox.
(if you don’t know to see stereoscopically, there are instructions at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonStereoscopy.htm )
Depending on the preloading of the restoring spring of the lever of the PatBox (it is a more than easy on-the-fly adjustment) the scooter operates as having different weights, for instance:
With light preloading, the scooter is like running on 23 gr weights, enabling quieter, more fuel efficient and smoother highway trips.
With more preloading, the scooter is like running on 21gr weights.
With even more preloading the scooter is like running on 19 gr weights.
And so on.
With full preloading of the restoring spring of the PatBox lever, the scooter is like running on 12gr weights, for top accelerations (in expense of noise, of mileage, of reliability etc).
It is like having an infinity of weights in your pocket and the option to put instantly in your CVT the ones you like for the specific ride, or the ones you like for the specific moment of the ride.
For instance, suppose you travel on the highway at 60mph with the light preloading of the restoring spring of the PatBox lever (i.e. like having the 23gr weights), the engine is revving calmly at, say, 5,000rpm and you want to overtake, as quickly as possible, a truck in front of you. With wide open throttle you press as required the control lever by your foot to shift the rpm wherein the peak power is provided by the engine and overtake the truck in the minimum possible time. Then you release the PatBox lever and the revs of the engine drop to 5,000rpm again allowing a pleasant, quiet and green riding.
In a steep uphill, you can either increase the preloading (it is like replacing the weights by lighter ones) or you can press properly, by your foot, the PatBox lever.
And any time you release the cyan lever, you turn your CVT into “tiptronic” or “touchshift” or “DCT” etc:
According the above, a scooter with the PatBox gets, among others, faster, more pleasant, more fuel-efficient.
It also gets safer, enabling faster overtakes and keeping the rider tireless.
Do I miss something?
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
> For instance, suppose you travel on the highway at 60mph with the
> light preloading of the restoring spring of the PatBox lever (i.e. like
> having the 23gr weights), the engine is revving calmly at, say, 5,000rpm.
Hi, Manolis -- also suppose you face a wind gust during such a cruising, it will likely slow you down and you'd have to operate the lever to maintain constant speed at almost every wind change. Wouldn't think it's too relaxing.
Will say it again, i've never wanted 21 g sliders, forget about 23. Can't tell for the riders that chose 23, just to me it's a no-no weight.
> light preloading of the restoring spring of the PatBox lever (i.e. like
> having the 23gr weights), the engine is revving calmly at, say, 5,000rpm.
Hi, Manolis -- also suppose you face a wind gust during such a cruising, it will likely slow you down and you'd have to operate the lever to maintain constant speed at almost every wind change. Wouldn't think it's too relaxing.
Will say it again, i've never wanted 21 g sliders, forget about 23. Can't tell for the riders that chose 23, just to me it's a no-no weight.
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
I cannot imagine what a dog the 400 would be with anything more than 19 or 20g sliders. When I first got the 15g set I ran them for a bit but found they behaved at cruising speeds just about like the 19g stock rollers--i.e. with engine revs/100 matching the actual vehicle speed (6000 rpm = 60 mph).
The combination of four 15 and four 18g sliders gets me to 64 mph (actual) @ 6000 rpm and 80 at 7200. This makes passing at 70 to 75 mph not a problem as the scoot' will rev up to 80 to 85 (7600 rpm) quite briskly. Experienced bikers that have ridden my '03 have all been amazed that it is "only 400 cc"...
The combination of four 15 and four 18g sliders gets me to 64 mph (actual) @ 6000 rpm and 80 at 7200. This makes passing at 70 to 75 mph not a problem as the scoot' will rev up to 80 to 85 (7600 rpm) quite briskly. Experienced bikers that have ridden my '03 have all been amazed that it is "only 400 cc"...
Hello Bolzen.
The guy in this youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge5061MrcjE
chosen to run his Burgman 400 on 23gr weights.
The guy in this youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeYZiVLy-_o
chosen to run Burgman 400 on 21gr weights.
Your choice is 18gr weights.
Clyffyk’s choice is (4x15gr and 4x18gr).
Obviously, each one of you thinks his choice is the best one.
Otherwise, in case you accept Clyffyk’s setting (5x15gr and 4x18gr) is better than yours (8x18gr), you should follow his formula / recipe.
I hear you saying: the best setting has to do with the rider and the way he likes to ride.
I add: the best setting has also to do with the road (dry or wet etc), with the weather (calm, windy etc), with the traffic, with how much tired is the rider, with the mood of the rider, etc, etc.
Having the option to align instantly and effortlessly your CVT’s weights to the existing conditions seems as the ideal solution.
This is what the PatBox can do to your CVT: depending on the instant conditions (road, traffic, co-rider, mood etc) you have the option to align your CVT weight on-the-fly instantly.
You write:
“suppose you face a wind gust during such a cruising, it will likely slow you down and you'd have to operate the lever to maintain constant speed at almost every wind change. Wouldn't think it's too relaxing.”
While the guy with the 23gr weights Burgman 400 (first youtube video) cannot help slowing down when he faces an adequately strong wind gust at cruising,
the rider of the PatBox Burgman 400 has the option to shift the lever (or the restoring spring of the lever) at a position replicating lighter weights (like yours or like Cliffyk’s).
Would you think this is “less relaxing” than having to travel with the engine revving permanently at higher revs (noise, smoothness, wear, increased fuel cost, more often stops at gas stations etc)?
Hello Clyffyk.
You write:
“I cannot imagine what a dog the 400 would be with anything more than 19 or 20g sliders.”
With your CVT upgraded to PatBox , you don’t need to imagine.
You just displace, on-the-fly, the PatBox lever and see “what dog the 400 would be with anything more than 19 or 20g sliders” (and with anything below 15gr sliders). And who knows? You may discover that your setting, 4x15 and 4x18, not the ideal one for you.
Like having a lab on the road.
Isn’t it better you the rider, and not the chosen weights in your CVT, to define how your scooter behaves on the road?
The theoretical analysis would be adequate for an engineer to be convinced.
But what about the practice?
Here are a couple of comments posted today, by a third party, in the moped army forum at http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/read.php?1,3941377
“As for eating power, It might, but my bike is faster now.
I can say that my hobbit is faster now than it was before.
Substantially.
Not having to accommodate for rpm drop at high speeds
because you can manually adjust opens so many new tuning avenues.”
and
“Tonight I went to the store.
Coming back I had to gun it uphill to catch the yellow.
The bike just went uphill so fast compared to my other tune I had on it.
It is nice to let the gearing do the work sometimes, and let the revs work other times.”
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
The guy in this youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge5061MrcjE
chosen to run his Burgman 400 on 23gr weights.
The guy in this youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeYZiVLy-_o
chosen to run Burgman 400 on 21gr weights.
Your choice is 18gr weights.
Clyffyk’s choice is (4x15gr and 4x18gr).
Obviously, each one of you thinks his choice is the best one.
Otherwise, in case you accept Clyffyk’s setting (5x15gr and 4x18gr) is better than yours (8x18gr), you should follow his formula / recipe.
I hear you saying: the best setting has to do with the rider and the way he likes to ride.
I add: the best setting has also to do with the road (dry or wet etc), with the weather (calm, windy etc), with the traffic, with how much tired is the rider, with the mood of the rider, etc, etc.
Having the option to align instantly and effortlessly your CVT’s weights to the existing conditions seems as the ideal solution.
This is what the PatBox can do to your CVT: depending on the instant conditions (road, traffic, co-rider, mood etc) you have the option to align your CVT weight on-the-fly instantly.
You write:
“suppose you face a wind gust during such a cruising, it will likely slow you down and you'd have to operate the lever to maintain constant speed at almost every wind change. Wouldn't think it's too relaxing.”
While the guy with the 23gr weights Burgman 400 (first youtube video) cannot help slowing down when he faces an adequately strong wind gust at cruising,
the rider of the PatBox Burgman 400 has the option to shift the lever (or the restoring spring of the lever) at a position replicating lighter weights (like yours or like Cliffyk’s).
Would you think this is “less relaxing” than having to travel with the engine revving permanently at higher revs (noise, smoothness, wear, increased fuel cost, more often stops at gas stations etc)?
Hello Clyffyk.
You write:
“I cannot imagine what a dog the 400 would be with anything more than 19 or 20g sliders.”
With your CVT upgraded to PatBox , you don’t need to imagine.
You just displace, on-the-fly, the PatBox lever and see “what dog the 400 would be with anything more than 19 or 20g sliders” (and with anything below 15gr sliders). And who knows? You may discover that your setting, 4x15 and 4x18, not the ideal one for you.
Like having a lab on the road.
Isn’t it better you the rider, and not the chosen weights in your CVT, to define how your scooter behaves on the road?
The theoretical analysis would be adequate for an engineer to be convinced.
But what about the practice?
Here are a couple of comments posted today, by a third party, in the moped army forum at http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/read.php?1,3941377
“As for eating power, It might, but my bike is faster now.
I can say that my hobbit is faster now than it was before.
Substantially.
Not having to accommodate for rpm drop at high speeds
because you can manually adjust opens so many new tuning avenues.”
and
“Tonight I went to the store.
Coming back I had to gun it uphill to catch the yellow.
The bike just went uphill so fast compared to my other tune I had on it.
It is nice to let the gearing do the work sometimes, and let the revs work other times.”
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Hi, Manolis -- various weights mean choices. I do not want to lag my engine that's why i chose 18 g and don't recommend heavier to anyone. I may go for Cliffyk’s setting one day, but hardly for the heavy side. Now, in my situation why would one need extra complexity and weight if all i want is a set of lighter sliders.
The ability to move like a larger displacement bike is attributed to the engine running at optimal rpm all the time, that is the cvt. To force 5000 rpm for cruising at 70 mph is probably possible, but you place additional load on the engine so what's the point -- quietly kill the engine?
The ability to move like a larger displacement bike is attributed to the engine running at optimal rpm all the time, that is the cvt. To force 5000 rpm for cruising at 70 mph is probably possible, but you place additional load on the engine so what's the point -- quietly kill the engine?
Hello Bolzen.
You write:
“I may go for Cliffyk’s setting one day”
The way you write it, shows how serious decision is today the shifting from a set of weights to another.
With the PatBox controlling your CVT, it will be just a click to the next position of the lever (or of the restoring spring of the lever).
You also write:
“why would one need extra complexity and weight if all i want is a set of lighter sliders”
The question is whether the extra complexity and cost are justified.
As it is now, your CVT is the master and you, the rider, have to compromise with your CVT’s characteristics.
With the PatBox the rider becomes the master, and the CVT is aligned to rider’s needs.
You also write:
“To force 5000 rpm for cruising at 70 mph is probably possible, but you place additional load on the engine so what's the point -- quietly kill the engine?”
You are wrong.
The lower mean piston speed is the most critical factor for increased time between overhauls (TBO).
See the power generation sets.
See the marine engines.
See the big truck engines.
The longest TBO are achieved with less than 10m/sec mean piston speeds.
Anything above 15m/sec is too much for the long-term reliability.
The Burgman 400 (stroke: 77.6mm for the recent models) has:
at 5,000rpm a mean piston speed of 13m/sec,
at 6,000rpm a mean piston speed of 15.5m/sec,
at 7,000rpm a mean piston speed of 18m/sec.
If with a set A of weights you can go with 70mph at 5,000rpm (which means 13m/sec mean piston speed), while with the set of weights of Cliffyk (post #37) you go at 70mph with 6400rpm (which means 16.5m/sec mean piston speed, i.e. 27% higher mean piston speed and 60% heavier inertia loads), then for reliability prefer the set A. There is no comparison.
And if there exist such a set A, the PatBox can replicate it on-the-fly.
Doesn’t the added complexity and cost justify the control over the CVT characteristics, and the better TBO?
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
You write:
“I may go for Cliffyk’s setting one day”
The way you write it, shows how serious decision is today the shifting from a set of weights to another.
With the PatBox controlling your CVT, it will be just a click to the next position of the lever (or of the restoring spring of the lever).
You also write:
“why would one need extra complexity and weight if all i want is a set of lighter sliders”
The question is whether the extra complexity and cost are justified.
As it is now, your CVT is the master and you, the rider, have to compromise with your CVT’s characteristics.
With the PatBox the rider becomes the master, and the CVT is aligned to rider’s needs.
You also write:
“To force 5000 rpm for cruising at 70 mph is probably possible, but you place additional load on the engine so what's the point -- quietly kill the engine?”
You are wrong.
The lower mean piston speed is the most critical factor for increased time between overhauls (TBO).
See the power generation sets.
See the marine engines.
See the big truck engines.
The longest TBO are achieved with less than 10m/sec mean piston speeds.
Anything above 15m/sec is too much for the long-term reliability.
The Burgman 400 (stroke: 77.6mm for the recent models) has:
at 5,000rpm a mean piston speed of 13m/sec,
at 6,000rpm a mean piston speed of 15.5m/sec,
at 7,000rpm a mean piston speed of 18m/sec.
If with a set A of weights you can go with 70mph at 5,000rpm (which means 13m/sec mean piston speed), while with the set of weights of Cliffyk (post #37) you go at 70mph with 6400rpm (which means 16.5m/sec mean piston speed, i.e. 27% higher mean piston speed and 60% heavier inertia loads), then for reliability prefer the set A. There is no comparison.
And if there exist such a set A, the PatBox can replicate it on-the-fly.
Doesn’t the added complexity and cost justify the control over the CVT characteristics, and the better TBO?
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Hi, Manolis
> The way you write it, shows how serious decision is today the shifting
> from a set of weights to another.
If it were 23 g i would have changed it yesterday. I'm pretty satisfied with my current setup. Bike cruises 70 mph at about maximum torque output, so i can install a cruise control on the right handle. I'm not worried about winds much with this setup. I'm relaxed and engine does the job instead of my right hand.
Comparing to other motorcycles this machine is heavily underpowered, that's why i believe is important to operate it in the sweet spot all the time.
Overall i like your idea, but technically given the cvt box it would cost more to implement than probably 1001 set of sliders. Better find a way to increase capacity to 550 cc :wink
> The way you write it, shows how serious decision is today the shifting
> from a set of weights to another.
If it were 23 g i would have changed it yesterday. I'm pretty satisfied with my current setup. Bike cruises 70 mph at about maximum torque output, so i can install a cruise control on the right handle. I'm not worried about winds much with this setup. I'm relaxed and engine does the job instead of my right hand.
Comparing to other motorcycles this machine is heavily underpowered, that's why i believe is important to operate it in the sweet spot all the time.
Overall i like your idea, but technically given the cvt box it would cost more to implement than probably 1001 set of sliders. Better find a way to increase capacity to 550 cc :wink
Hello Bolzen.
You write:
“Comparing to other motorcycles this machine is heavily underpowered, that's why i believe is important to operate it in the sweet spot all the time.”
The “heavily underpowered” engine is one more compromise of the conventional CVTs wherein a constant power along a wide range of revs (flat power curve), , in expense of the absolute peak power, is preferable.
But this is another, more difficult, chapter. The table:
![]()
(post #37 of Clyffyk) explains a lot.
Also the dyno:
![]()
You also write:
“Overall i like your idea, but technically given the cvt box it would cost more to implement than probably 1001 set of sliders. Better find a way to increase capacity to 550 cc.”
Quote from post #50 :
”Here is the complexity and cost added by the PatBox CVT:
A lever (7) pivotally mounted on/in the casing of the CVT,
a pair of rollers (12, 13) rotatably mounted on the lever (7),
a restoring spring (not shown),
and an auxiliary thin belt (6).
Total cost: say 25$ in mass production.”
Can you be more specific?
Hello Cliffyk.
I would like your comment on Bolzen’s post. Just for the record.
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
You write:
“Comparing to other motorcycles this machine is heavily underpowered, that's why i believe is important to operate it in the sweet spot all the time.”
The “heavily underpowered” engine is one more compromise of the conventional CVTs wherein a constant power along a wide range of revs (flat power curve), , in expense of the absolute peak power, is preferable.
But this is another, more difficult, chapter. The table:
(post #37 of Clyffyk) explains a lot.
Also the dyno:
You also write:
“Overall i like your idea, but technically given the cvt box it would cost more to implement than probably 1001 set of sliders. Better find a way to increase capacity to 550 cc.”
Quote from post #50 :
”Here is the complexity and cost added by the PatBox CVT:
A lever (7) pivotally mounted on/in the casing of the CVT,
a pair of rollers (12, 13) rotatably mounted on the lever (7),
a restoring spring (not shown),
and an auxiliary thin belt (6).
Total cost: say 25$ in mass production.”
Can you be more specific?
Hello Cliffyk.
I would like your comment on Bolzen’s post. Just for the record.
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Hi, Manolis -- until recently my main bike was the 1st gen V-Strom 1000. It has same weight as the B400 
Although it can cruise at 3000 rpm, it feels terrible. I found best rpm for cruising to be 4000-4500, which corresponds to 45-55 ft-lbs of torque, more than the Burgie peak output. Why would i want to run it at anything less than that?
> A lever (7) pivotally mounted on/in the casing of the CVT,
> a pair of rollers (12, 13) rotatably mounted on the lever (7),
> a restoring spring (not shown),
> and an auxiliary thin belt (6).
> Total cost: say 25$ in mass production.”
> Can you be more specific?
Try to install that with lever within the reach:
![]()
Drilling the reductor casing hardly promises anything good.
Although it can cruise at 3000 rpm, it feels terrible. I found best rpm for cruising to be 4000-4500, which corresponds to 45-55 ft-lbs of torque, more than the Burgie peak output. Why would i want to run it at anything less than that?> A lever (7) pivotally mounted on/in the casing of the CVT,
> a pair of rollers (12, 13) rotatably mounted on the lever (7),
> a restoring spring (not shown),
> and an auxiliary thin belt (6).
> Total cost: say 25$ in mass production.”
> Can you be more specific?
Try to install that with lever within the reach:
Drilling the reductor casing hardly promises anything good.
Hello all.
Here is a part of Bolzen's photo:
![]()
At the right side, inside the CVT cover, I see space available.
I also see an opening at the right – bottom side of the CVT cover.
Let me think loudly:
A pivot pin for the PatBox lever is disposed (and secured without drilling the reductor) at the left end of the cover opening, close to the rear pulley.
A wheel (the “stationary” wheel) rotates about the pivot pin.
The lever extends downwards and is linked, by a rod or cable, to a control pedal.
The restoring spring of the lever is disposed either inside the cover of the CVT or, preferably, outside.
At its other end the lever extends upwards inside the casing.
A wheel is rotatably mounted at its top end (this it the displaceable wheel of the lever).
The arc-shaped right-top end of the CVT cover gives space for the angular displacement of the lever about its pivot pin.
A 2mm thick (and as wide as the V-belt) plane belt is disposed around the V-belt and around the two wheels of the lever; this slim belt is the secondary – or control – belt.
I.e. an arrangement, more-or-less, like this:
![]()
It would be nice if someone could check, with his Burgman400 CVT cover open, the above.
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Here is a part of Bolzen's photo:
At the right side, inside the CVT cover, I see space available.
I also see an opening at the right – bottom side of the CVT cover.
Let me think loudly:
A pivot pin for the PatBox lever is disposed (and secured without drilling the reductor) at the left end of the cover opening, close to the rear pulley.
A wheel (the “stationary” wheel) rotates about the pivot pin.
The lever extends downwards and is linked, by a rod or cable, to a control pedal.
The restoring spring of the lever is disposed either inside the cover of the CVT or, preferably, outside.
At its other end the lever extends upwards inside the casing.
A wheel is rotatably mounted at its top end (this it the displaceable wheel of the lever).
The arc-shaped right-top end of the CVT cover gives space for the angular displacement of the lever about its pivot pin.
A 2mm thick (and as wide as the V-belt) plane belt is disposed around the V-belt and around the two wheels of the lever; this slim belt is the secondary – or control – belt.
I.e. an arrangement, more-or-less, like this:
It would be nice if someone could check, with his Burgman400 CVT cover open, the above.
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Hello Bolzen.
You write: "I don't think ..."
Provided you really wanna help, leave thinking to me and check what I asked to be checked.
Take a few photos from the back side of the CVT (with the cover open) and make a few measurements of the available space.
As for the drive-by-wire, there is an electronically controlled version (PECVT) of the PatBox at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatBox.htm
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
You write: "I don't think ..."
Provided you really wanna help, leave thinking to me and check what I asked to be checked.
Take a few photos from the back side of the CVT (with the cover open) and make a few measurements of the available space.
As for the drive-by-wire, there is an electronically controlled version (PECVT) of the PatBox at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatBox.htm
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
:smile You are so eager to ruin the scooter, Mr. Pat Engineer.
I'll take the measurements once it's warmer than sub 0 temp in my garage. Maybe others will be able to provide it sooner. The earlier picture was taken from the internet and it's '03-06 model. Here's the '07 one from this site
![]()
Bell's outer diameter is approx 170-175 mm
I'll take the measurements once it's warmer than sub 0 temp in my garage. Maybe others will be able to provide it sooner. The earlier picture was taken from the internet and it's '03-06 model. Here's the '07 one from this site
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
I will state quite clearly and unequivocally that without significant modification¹ there is no way the PATCVT control mechanism will fit in the Burgman 400 CVT case. Also (entirely as my opinion) I put forth that the costs of such modifications even as a , which would maintain the integrity of the CVT/swingarm, and fabricating the needed PATCVT control mechanisms and remote linkages would far exceed any possible benefit.
It may be that there are those out there that would tackle such a project passionately--in fact in my youth I explored similar "unreasonable to most" projects and I would wish well to anyone that pursues it but at my age I am all over chasing fairies...
---------------------------------------------------------------
¹ - To an extent that would likely destroy the structural integrity of the CVT/swingarm of a Burgman 400 of any MY.
It may be that there are those out there that would tackle such a project passionately--in fact in my youth I explored similar "unreasonable to most" projects and I would wish well to anyone that pursues it but at my age I am all over chasing fairies...
---------------------------------------------------------------
¹ - To an extent that would likely destroy the structural integrity of the CVT/swingarm of a Burgman 400 of any MY.
Hello Cliffyk
You write:
“I will state quite clearly and unequivocally that without significant modification¹ there is no way the PATCVT control mechanism will fit in the Burgman 400 CVT case. Also (entirely as my opinion) I put forth that the costs of such modifications even as a , which would maintain the integrity of the CVT/swingarm, and fabricating the needed PATCVT control mechanisms and remote linkages would far exceed any possible benefit.”
Thanks for your declaration / statement / bet.
What if you prove wrong?
Hello Bolzen.
You write:
“I'll take the measurements once it's warmer than sub 0 temp in my garage.”
Is it still cold there?
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
You write:
“I will state quite clearly and unequivocally that without significant modification¹ there is no way the PATCVT control mechanism will fit in the Burgman 400 CVT case. Also (entirely as my opinion) I put forth that the costs of such modifications even as a , which would maintain the integrity of the CVT/swingarm, and fabricating the needed PATCVT control mechanisms and remote linkages would far exceed any possible benefit.”
Thanks for your declaration / statement / bet.
What if you prove wrong?
Hello Bolzen.
You write:
“I'll take the measurements once it's warmer than sub 0 temp in my garage.”
Is it still cold there?
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
I will sue MIT, as they will have equally obviously screwed me out of a lot of time and money between 1966 and 1975.
It cannot be done (properly) without sIgnificant modification to the CVT/swingarm casting--in all things vehicular we all want safe, cheap and fast, but you only getbto pick two...
Joined
·
21,745 Posts
Manolis, not to be one to say it can not be done, I only want to agree with CliffyK to say "It can not be done EASILY".
If there is room to fit all the brackety and pivot points then maybe. But to just drill a hole to mount a pivot point will require welding a thick solid base pad on the backside of the case where you will drill the hole and maybe even adding some gussets to support the pivot shaft. This is engineering well beyond 99% of these Burgman riders so it is for them just a dream.
Now if YOU or someone were to take a Burgman 400's CVT and do the engineering and modifications, then test it for a year on the road then maybe a few 400 owned would buy the kit from you.
But CliffyK is one of the best engineers we have on here and if he says it can not be done easy, it can not be done easy.
Now get Kymco/Honda/Hyosing/Suzuki,Yamaha or any other scooter manufacture to see how your design will work is a whole different level that NONE OF US ON HERE WILL HAVE ANY SAY IN!!!
But we are on page two now and still going.
If there is room to fit all the brackety and pivot points then maybe. But to just drill a hole to mount a pivot point will require welding a thick solid base pad on the backside of the case where you will drill the hole and maybe even adding some gussets to support the pivot shaft. This is engineering well beyond 99% of these Burgman riders so it is for them just a dream.
Now if YOU or someone were to take a Burgman 400's CVT and do the engineering and modifications, then test it for a year on the road then maybe a few 400 owned would buy the kit from you.
But CliffyK is one of the best engineers we have on here and if he says it can not be done easy, it can not be done easy.
Now get Kymco/Honda/Hyosing/Suzuki,Yamaha or any other scooter manufacture to see how your design will work is a whole different level that NONE OF US ON HERE WILL HAVE ANY SAY IN!!!
But we are on page two now and still going.
Joined
·
1,487 Posts
Caveat Lector: I haven't read or analyzed, in any detail, the forces involved in Manolis' suggestion so this is possibly a hare-brained idea...
If the goal is to control the effective diameter of the front sheaves, wouldn't it be simpler to simply place an idler at the top of the variator that would press the belt further into the sheaves and result in a smaller effective diameter. Seems this could be accomplished without a great deal of heartache. End result would be the addition of a single bearing on a fairly sturdy control rod. Heck it might even fit in the space allowed. Alternatively, you might just set the idler on the length of the return belt (the upper stretch from the driven plates to the variator) and have it push down. Might be a simpler solution to the second belt approach.
If the goal is to control the effective diameter of the front sheaves, wouldn't it be simpler to simply place an idler at the top of the variator that would press the belt further into the sheaves and result in a smaller effective diameter. Seems this could be accomplished without a great deal of heartache. End result would be the addition of a single bearing on a fairly sturdy control rod. Heck it might even fit in the space allowed. Alternatively, you might just set the idler on the length of the return belt (the upper stretch from the driven plates to the variator) and have it push down. Might be a simpler solution to the second belt approach.
61 - 80 of 98 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!