Having a couple of spare hours today I thought I'd investigate further into the so callerd non-rebuildability of the CARC.
The good news is that as long as your crownwheel and pinion are OK, (And finding this out for sure will take a bit of work.) the whole unit is completely rebuildable, much easier and cheaper than f'rinstance a V11 bevelbox.
Phil, I've currently got a munted V11 box on the bench. I was thinking a comparison would be interesting. I'll do my best to indicate the relative failings of the V11 box which are addressed, IMHO, much better in the CARC. Having said that the actual tooth size and beaing dimensions in both boxes are HUGE!!! Your statements about service live viz-a-viz 'automotive' and 'motorbike' really aren't an issue, especially with the CARC in relation to service life. I fully expect my CARC to last virtually forever! In typical Guzzi fashion though its a case of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar by using a shitty 'Top Hat' breather on the assembley, (Same as the crappy one on the V11 gearbox, although that is in a direct line for water fling from the rear tyre! ). Replace that with a remote breather and the water intrusion issue becomes a non-issue.
There are strong 'Lines of Development' clearly visible through from the very early V7 bevelbox right through to the CARC. Perhaps I should do a 'Timeline' study with pics at some point? at the end of the day I think that they have got it done pretty well with the CARC. apart from the early 'Cheap Bearing' recall they have generally been pretty much impregnable. Yes there have been a few failures outside of the bearing issue but those have been assembley based rather than design based. when I've gone in to bat for customers' who have had issues, even out of warranty, the factory has come to the party and admitted responsibility. Having said that it's always a case of 'Don't ask? Don't get' but it's up to us, the service agents, to ask.......?????
Pete, looking forward to the "tomed essay" - always threatens to be an interesting read, and with a cupla chuckles thrown in, always good value - ever thought of being an author (comedy that is)?
pete roper wrote:Phil, I've currently got a munted V11 box on the bench. I was thinking a comparison would be interesting. I'll do my best to indicate the relative failings of the V11 box which are addressed, IMHO, much better in the CARC. Having said that the actual tooth size and beaing dimensions in both boxes are HUGE!!! Your statements about service live viz-a-viz 'automotive' and 'motorbike' really aren't an issue, especially with the CARC in relation to service life. I fully expect my CARC to last virtually forever! In typical Guzzi fashion though its a case of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar by using a shitty 'Top Hat' breather on the assembley, (Same as the crappy one on the V11 gearbox, although that is in a direct line for water fling from the rear tyre! ). Replace that with a remote breather and the water intrusion issue becomes a non-issue.
There are strong 'Lines of Development' clearly visible through from the very early V7 bevelbox right through to the CARC. Perhaps I should do a 'Timeline' study with pics at some point? at the end of the day I think that they have got it done pretty well with the CARC. apart from the early 'Cheap Bearing' recall they have generally been pretty much impregnable. Yes there have been a few failures outside of the bearing issue but those have been assembley based rather than design based. when I've gone in to bat for customers' who have had issues, even out of warranty, the factory has come to the party and admitted responsibility. Having said that it's always a case of 'Don't ask? Don't get' but it's up to us, the service agents, to ask.......?????
Pete
Excellent Peter,look fwd to the comparo.Looking at phangs CARC sectioned drawing its not short of bearing support,thats for sure. ciao