Author Topic: Maintenance and the new owner (Read 127917 times)

turbo-max · « **Reply #25 on:** February 05, 2015, 02:22:06 pm »

sadly, i can attest to the old tire gimmick. had a bike that sat for a long time, decided to take for a "quick zip" around the block after getting running again, and sure as s***, went flat side down with out proper gear on (normal clothes and a helmet). i ended up with a broken collar bone and sever road rash on the tops of my hands and arms/left shoulder left knee. trust me, you do NOT want sever road rash if you are any type of mechanic as your skin just is never the same or as "tuff" as it once was and it sucks.

REPLACE TIRES BEFORE YOU RIDE PERIOD!!!!!

Vasan · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2015, 08:48:23 pm »

Hi
Some good advice there. Thank you.

I bought a used 2001 two months ago, with just 3400 miles on it from original and first owner.
Low miles because previous owner had a car crash , 2 years after he bought the Concours - which restricted his neck movement.
He admits bike was not ridden for long periods after that.

Bike seems to be of genuinely low mileage. Not a scratch anywhere, so it has not been crashed. ( Forks are balanced, no pulling to any side. )
But due to very low use, the carbs were running rough.

I put in a new battery ( Yuasa ) from Amazon for 85.00
Even with new battery, bike barely started last week ( after endless cranking .)
Finally I somehow made it to the dealer.

A full service was done including:

Carbs full service including sync.
( dealer says they put 4 new float valves ) Could be true. ( Or not ?? I have no clue!)
Fuel Tank flushed
Oil + Filter change
Spark plugs replaced
Coolant replaced
Rear Diff/drive oil replaced
( Service Tech said , tires look fine, with none of whatever bad-tires do. )

Bike is running fine now. I went for a 100 mile last week and except for the extreme lean forward angle, mechanically everything seemed OK. Brakes are good.

Now this service cost me a bunch of money ( nearly a grand ), and based on this, I felt I did not get a good deal on the bike itself. Paid 3000 for it. ( Advertised on C/L for 3400 )

But my question is:

In spite of the rubber and fluids issue with long term un-employed bikes, I am guessing there could be something positive with a low mileage bike, and if so what would those be. Would the machinery be in better shape ?

Thanks
Vasan
Denver

Derek · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2015, 09:07:49 pm »

Quote from: None on February 12, 2015, 08:48:23 pm

( Service Tech said , tires look fine, with none of whatever bad-tires do. )

Now this service cost me a bunch of money ( nearly a grand ), and based on this, I felt I did not get a good deal on the bike itself. Paid 3000 for it. ( Advertised on C/L for 3400 )

But my question is:

In spite of the rubber and fluids issue with long term un-employed bikes, I am guessing there could be something positive with a low mileage bike, and if so what would those be. Would the machinery be in better shape ?

I beg to differ about the tires... check the date code but with 3,400 miles on the bike I'm betting tires will have a date stamp of sometime in 2000...that makes them ahhhh 15 years old! they may look alright (most likely if kept indoors and out of the sun) and they may last but I wouldn't trust them. Rubber dries out and gets hard. Hard = no grip. A sure sign of drying out and sun damage is the rubber cracking but again with little sun exposure they may not show this externally.

They say 6-8 years max for car tires.

Check the date code and replace!

$3,000 + $1,000 is great if your happy with the bike and that is all that matters. I learned LONG ago that no matter what deal you got there will always be someone who's uncle Lou got a better one!

i bought a great condition 2004 with 17,000 miles last summer and paid just over $4K CDN. Missed a 2006 with 50K on it for $3,500 by 24 hours but it wasn't in as good a shape and at the time I didn't find a lot else available.... of course now I do but still I'm happy. My 2004 came from a guy who seemed to look after it... selling as he went up to C14 so obviously like the Connie world.

One plus side of a low mileage bike like yours... "Not a scratch anywhere, so it has not been crashed". 3,400 is like new but with out the cost of new. In 10 years when it has 103,400 miles on it you can say that 100,000 is your doing!

Vasan · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2015, 11:47:35 pm »

[quote ]
I learned LONG ago that no matter what deal you got there will always be someone who's uncle Lou got a better one!
[/quote]

Thanks for your thoughts, Derek.
You are absolutely right about the purchase price. Unless one has paid a ridiculously low or high price, a couple of hundred dollars either way will be forgotten by next week. What matters in the end is whether, going forward, your new purchase is going to give tons of fun, or a heap of trouble.

I had a Honda ST1100 about 7 or 8 years ago. That was a really heavy bike. ( Ok I have heard about Goldwings ). I am 5 ft 7 and being on the older side (60 now ), I am not particularly strong either. I had a hard time getting that monster of an ST off the center stand or moving it about in the garage. However once it got under way, it was easy to handle. I sold it after riding it for about 1500 miles, and after that I have been looking for a perfect touring bike, powerful enough, but not too heavy. I found the C1000 much lighter than the ST 1100. I also find it much easier to move the Connie around, or put it on the center stand.

Mcfly · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2015, 03:57:48 pm »

We all pretty much know if you buy a 10-15 year old car with low mileage, the assumption
is there will be some work to be done on it... well, there might be some corrosion, or the engine might
need a little work, better change the oil, and check the antifreeze... So the car is purchased knowing full
well some money will have to be thrown at it to make it 'driveable, safe and road worthy'.

For some reason, in the motorcycle world a 10-15 year old bike should have preserved perfectly over time...
it's a seemingly common misperception (one I had as well on a 8 year old bike) that takes people by
surprise more often than not.

What I've learned, is that a motorcycle is more maintenance intensive than a car, a bit more to operate
than a car and its maintenance, if ignored, could cost you your life. I recently 'tallied' my total cost on
my 2006 Concours, between farkels, maintenance and repair, and I've almost tripled my purchase price
in just under 4 years (total spent w/purchase).

A motorcycle ain't cheap... not by any means. The prospect of having a shop do all the work I've done
would skyrocket that figure. Working on and riding my Connie is the labors and rewards of the love of
motorcycling, and Sport Touring... every penny spent was worth it 10 times over, every hour spent
turning a wrench, time well spent, because it all went to something I REALLY love doing...

To me, it's not the time/money spent as much as the return on investment.

So don't sweat the money... it's spent on your enjoyment and safety... if it isn't... you've chose the wrong hobby.

Derek · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2015, 04:44:17 pm »

Quote from: Mcfly on February 13, 2015, 03:57:48 pm

I recently 'tallied' my total cost on my 2006 Concours, between farkels, maintenance and repair, and I've almost tripled my purchase price

That was a dangerous thing to do! I keep all bills but WILL NOT total them as I don't want to know.... I'll just go with the happy factor as being good! LOL

Steve in Sunny Fla · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2015, 08:05:36 pm »

Quote from: Mcfly on February 13, 2015, 03:57:48 pm

We all pretty much know if you buy a 10-15 year old car with low mileage, the assumption
is there will be some work to be done on it... well, there might be some corrosion, or the engine might
need a little work, better change the oil, and check the antifreeze... So the car is purchased knowing full
well some money will have to be thrown at it to make it 'driveable, safe and road worthy'.

For some reason, in the motorcycle world a 10-15 year old bike should have preserved perfectly over time...
it's a seemingly common misperception (one I had as well on a 8 year old bike) that takes people by
surprise more often than not.

What I've learned, is that a motorcycle is more maintenance intensive than a car, a bit more to operate
than a car and its maintenance, if ignored, could cost you your life. I recently 'tallied' my total cost on
my 2006 Concours, between farkels, maintenance and repair, and I've almost tripled my purchase price
in just under 4 years (total spent w/purchase).

A motorcycle ain't cheap... not by any means. The prospect of having a shop do all the work I've done
would skyrocket that figure. Working on and riding my Connie is the labors and rewards of the love of
motorcycling, and Sport Touring... every penny spent was worth it 10 times over, every hour spent
turning a wrench, time well spent, because it all went to something I REALLY love doing...

To me, it's not the time/money spent as much as the return on investment.

So don't sweat the money... it's spent on your enjoyment and safety... if it isn't... you've chose the wrong hobby.

Perfect.

Steve

Vasan · « **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2015, 06:37:34 pm »

Honestly, I am not mechanically inclined, and the most I could do on the motor cycles I own, is change of oil and filter , change of air filter and chain lube. I just have no clue of how to tune or fix one carburettor, let alone 4 of them. I wish I knew more.
I also get the feeling that I would have enjoyed the hobby even more if I had more mechanical knowledge.
So your sentiment on the rewards of doing the maintenance on your own, is appreciated.

Thanks

connie_rider · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2015, 06:55:00 pm »

NONE, I appreciate what you say about mechanical Knowledge, but here is a thought.
Go to any COG rally, or better yet a COG Wrench session.

Roam around where folks are tinkering with their bikes and/or ask questions.

There is a Wealth of knowledge at the events!

Ride safe, Ted

Mcfly · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2015, 08:56:03 pm »

I wouldn't touch a carb either. I don't have eye of newt, or voodoo rattles... BUT STEVE DOES!! I just removed my carbs and put them back in. SISF did all the black magic on the carbs. i'm real slow at this
stuff... It's not as hard as it would seem. With NO real street bike background, I've:

R&R the carbs
Upgraded the front forks
Replaced the rear shock with a C14 shock
Upgraded the aux wiring
Put in the SISF exhaust cam sprocket
Adjusted the valves

The list goes on. All Firsts for me.
You just have to have the "hootspa"
to try it... and a Service Manual... and a liitle help from COG!

It only gets easier.

More importantly it gives you the ability
to accrue lots of cool tools. BONUS!

LessPaul · « **Reply #35 on:** February 15, 2015, 08:43:29 pm »

This. ^^^^^

Smooooth · « **Reply #36 on:** February 15, 2015, 09:20:48 pm »

Ditto!! ^^^^^

delling3 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 15, 2015, 10:00:39 pm »

To any/all who are afraid to take a wrench to their bike, I offer this.

When in high school, I bought my first car - a Triumph Spitfire. I had no mechanical aptitude or anyone to learn from. I paid no attention to maintenance, as it was all I could do to pay for gas and insurance. I ultimately wrecked the car, but never lost my interest in British sports cars. 13 years later, I bought an MG. It needed a complete restoration and I had little more experience then I had in high school. I bought a shop manual, a starter set of quality mechanics tools and went at it. 4 years later I had a show winning car. Since then, I have restored (3) motorcycles. All of which I have done with a manual, and help from forums like this one. I am no expert, and make my mistakes along the way. I also am willing to farm out some work (like my concours carbs to Steve) when their's is expertise that I find of particular value.

My point is this: If you can read manual and follow directions, you can do at least 75% of what is needed to fix or maintain your bike. You will understand how and why it works, and that will make you more self-sufficient on the road, and safer.

Vasan · « **Reply #38 on:** February 16, 2015, 02:37:25 am »

Thanks for the encouragement about doing my own maintenance.
I will order a shop manual from Ebay and see how it goes.

I wonder how my name/alias came out as "None" on this group. May be I started posting, before filling out the group profile.
So I went back later and changed my profile with a new name, but this "None" is kinda Sticky. It still does not want to leave me.

My wife had a hearty laugh when I told her that my group alias is "None."
When I could not figure out why, she said she thought only a woman can be nun !!

I also recall there was an old movie My name is "Nobody" with Terence Hill.

connie_rider · « **Reply #39 on:** February 16, 2015, 01:49:44 pm »

Better be careful with NONE.
Years ago, I saw where someone had a personalized License Plate made; "NONE"..

He started getting all the parking tickets of cars that were ticketed that did not have a license plate,,, and the officer marked NONE beside the License Plate section of the ticket..

Ride safe, Ted

Gitbox · « **Reply #40 on:** February 17, 2015, 06:06:32 pm »

Quote

A higher mileage bike that's been well maintained may be cheaper in the long run

Totally agree. Maybe that's why my 2000 C10 ran so well. It had 96K on it when I bought it in 2008. I didn't really have to add all that cool SISF stuff, but I couldn't resist.

PaulyD · « **Reply #41 on:** February 19, 2015, 12:33:25 am »

Thanks for the advice. Just bought my first Connie used from a dealership a few weeks ago, a 2005 with 36,000 km's on it. Still a month or two til I get to ride it, so I have time to get her ready. I'm heading out to the garage now to check out the tires...

Ktoby · « **Reply #42 on:** February 24, 2015, 12:12:18 pm »

First time posting here. Currently looking at buying a used C10. Looking at a '97 with 19K miles, seems like it is in excellent condition, but has not had the carb overflow done. Also looking at an '87 with 39K miles and has a lot of recent maintenance done including the carbs with overflow done by SISF. Both bikes are Indiana bikes. Any advice on which one is preferred or any things to look for on the '97? Both bikes appear to be strong and well running, but they are only about $150 different in price. Makes me nervous trying to decide. ONly bought one used bike in my life, my other one was new which was an easy decision. Previous bikes were Suzuki Katana 750 and a Yamaha Seca 900. Thanks for any advice.

Jim · « **Reply #43 on:** February 24, 2015, 12:36:27 pm »

Look for the little things like the fluid color in the sight glass of the clutch and brake reservoirs. Also, check the back brake reservoir. If the fluid looks like chocolate milk then it hasn't been touched in a long time. Have they both been garaged? Has either been dropped? Check the antlers that support the bags for cracks and cracks around the rear view mirrors where they attach to the fairing. Also look to see if either bag is sagging. They should both be square to the rear turn signals. Check nuts and bolts for rust. Are the brake pad good? Are the rotors scored? Ask if you can pull the tank. There should be 2 rubber support pads under there. One wraps around the frame by the coils and the other sits towards the rear of the tank where the frame members are welded together. Missing parts could show a lack of attention to the small details. Also, check the wiring harness while your there. Any splicing or taped wires? Pull the left side cover and check the harness by the J-Box and start solenoid. Any discolored wires or corrosion? Ten additional years can make a difference unless the owner has paid a lot of attention to the small stuff.

LessPaul · « **Reply #44 on:** February 24, 2015, 02:54:21 pm »

This is an interesting scenario. The '87 had an owner that looked after things (like overflow tubes). That demonstrates a certain level of care and feeding that isn't as evident as the with the '97. I would bet good money that the '87's engine has never hydrolocked. Don't think I'd make that bet on the '97.

But the '97 has 10 less years on all the vulnerable parts. And fewer miles (though that value could be debated).

I'll second Jim's point about the brake/clutch fluid....but clutch fluid discolors quickly. Dark clutch fluid is pretty typical, even when changed regularly. But dark brake line fluid is an indicator of neglect.

Looking forward to others take on this scenario.

Ktoby · « **Reply #45 on:** February 24, 2015, 03:29:37 pm »

Thanks a lot for the feedback/input. It is great to get "seasoned" advice. The '97 owner says no maintenance needs and the bike is smooth running and cosmetically perfect. Both the '87 and the '97 have been garaged, but the owner of the '87 has provided strong evidence of care such as rear diff oil change, carb work by SISF, brake pad and rotor replacement, the '97 owner not so much input. My big question is this....if all things were considered and the '87 has been well taken care of, would it be the better deal in your opinion? I am really struggling with this since the bikes are only $150 different in price. The '97 owner stated there had been no fuel lock on the motor and he was definitely familiar with the term. I am willing to buy either of these bikes, but just don't need to be a slave to a bad decision. Both bikes are on Craigslist for Indianapolis if you want to take a look at the posting and let me know what you think.

Steve in Sunny Fla · « **Reply #46 on:** February 24, 2015, 03:38:42 pm »

yeah, there's a dilemna there. The 87 maybe the better bike. The 97 is worth more, based on years and miles and will yield more when you go to sell it. The 97 is more friendly to getting a quality front tire, and the brakes are better. I think you need to physically see the bikes for yourself before you decide. Steve

Jim · « **Reply #47 on:** February 24, 2015, 04:44:35 pm »

They both look very nice. Glad this is your dilemma and not mine

. The '97 has tubular handlebars which look adjustable and could be rubber mount for vibration dampening. The '87 has a taller wind shield with appears to be a built in vent and tip over bars front and rear. It does look like the '87 had cracks in the fair around both mirrors. If the mirrors are snug, that should be fine. Also, '87 seems to have already taken care of some of the trouble areas. If the color doesn't matter, then take them for a ride and see which one feels the best (or has the most gas in the tank).
Good luck!

Ktoby · « **Reply #48 on:** February 24, 2015, 05:39:00 pm »

Definitely these posts have helped me some. The '87's owner reached out to me and we talked a while on the phone. Seems he is a big SISF follower. He has implemented several of the upgrades/changes from the COG on the bike. All cooling o-rings replaced, the free power mod, complete carb rebuild and overflows done by SISF, all fluids replaced, rear disk and pads done, all relays replaced in the J-box, Valves adjusted the proper way. I m going to go with the '87 with the understanding that a well maintained and cared for '87 motor and chassis just may be better than a '97 with less miles and none of the SISF mods done to it. I told the owner that the '97 is better cosmetically, but a pretty bike on the side of the road is just a pretty bike on the side of the road. I plan to go ride the '87 with cash in my hand. Thanks to everyone for the advice, your common sense is much appreciated.

LessPaul · « **Reply #49 on:** February 24, 2015, 05:48:59 pm »

My gut is telling me you made the right choice. Gotta love a good PO.

I didn't search CL. How much?