V50 II Ign Sensors.

As per some FB posts I pulled down my pals V50 yesterday for a gearbox refurb and a new clutch. One thing that came to light in all of this was the parlous state of the insulation on the wiring that goes in back of the alternator to the ignition sensors. We had to unclip this from the loom just behind the headstock. It was at this end I found the insulation to be in a high state of decomposition. And cutting back down the outer sleeve it looked rotten as far as I went.

I’d heard of this issue before but presumed it was at the sensor end where you would expect repeated head cycles up against the engine to take their toll. From what I have seen I would suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the wiring that was used in this sub-loom. How widespread might this be? Just a small batch that was faulty or more far reaching?

So I’m going to pull the alternator and try soldering new wiring onto the sensors – hopefully with them remaining in situ. I suppose if I can perfect this I ought to then look at my own bike.

What do folks here think? How many others have found this? And if I want to replace the 4 way connector block at the top does anyone know the ID code for this? Thanks.

Plan is going to be cut the block off the top. Cut away all of the outer shrouding. Peel off all the bad insulation. Slide sleeving down each wire, and heat shrink at the sensor end. Solder in a new block at the top and add some more heat shrink. Leave all the copper wire cores as is.

So I’ll be ordering stuff and post pics on FB when the job gets done.

No pics on here?

Too lazy to resize. As in the resizing never seems to work for me - there seems to be a random factor at work that I can’t understand. Sorry.

And whilst on the subject – given that on line storage now costs no more than three parts of sweet Fanny Adams I don’t understand why we have these restrictions on the various on line forums now (and this is not to be seen as a criticism of this forum or our illustrious webmaster).

I thought we’d moved beyond all this when we were fixing the Y2K problem back in 1998/99?

The size restriction was changed a few months ago by Gus. Not sure what it is now but it is better than it was.

6 files at 3 mb each, that should suit you Sir :smiley: http://diltondesign.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=28799&p=321085&hilit=photos&sid=5510a5922f19d3888a7f5fd9a6d54780#p321085

Bandwidth. Especially if you live out in the sticks, still like being on dial-up for some people. I’m in Boston but even then I have occasional problems with large pictures, and often can’t be 4rsed to wait for them to finish loading. :frowning:

And here is the photo:

V50 sensors.jpg

It measures 960 x 720 pixels, and 88 kB. If what Steve uploaded was larger, then Facebook has resized it smaller. Looking at all the other pix on that page (that is to say, what is currently showing from the top of thread), they are all the same sort of dimensions, if not smaller still. The sizes are consistently similar if not identical which does suggest that Facebook resizes uploaded pix. Or else all the users are resizing their pix to identical dimensions. :smiley:

Mike, I do not think Butch is complaining about the speed of uploading photos, but the restriction of file size that was previously imposed, required him to reduce the size of the photo files before posting them on here. As I have noted above, the restrictions on photo file size have been altered and so it may now be unnecessary to reduce the size of photo files that you want to upload on here. Large files are wasted on the internet anyway, in my opinion.

Bandwidth is a measure of speed (as far as I am aware) but Butch was talking about file size and not being bothered to reduce the file size to suit the old limits (now changed). Personally, I set my camera to a lesser resolution and so have no problem with file size and also as we have optic fibre broadband here in the metropolis that is Essex, have no problem with speed either.

So why do you want photo files of a greater size then 3mb anyway? Are you intending to post them to Life magazine?

I rest my case, the quality is totally sufficient for the purposes of explaining the issue, and it is a quarter of the maximum file size

Man, that pic looks so much like the problem that I’m having you wouldn’t believe (ahem).

And with apologies - I’m monumentally lazy with these things, and a complete clutz with anything introduced since the treadle lathe. Which is unfortunate given that I work in IT (and my lathe is powered).

My problem on picture sizing was that on byte size the maths would suggest, say, I needed something half as big. So in photoshop or picture or whatever I was using I’d go 50% and save and it would work out to something completely different for some reason i.e. I’d still get a refusal on trying an upload. Say what you like about FB (and for sure there is plenty not to like) but posting pics is not hard.

My usual approach has been to use FB for chat and the forum here for tech issues. But to be honest, footfall here is now so low that for tech responses FB is the better medium also.

For your amusement Chris - on that picture you can see the insulation just falling away as I disturb it. That continues the further I cut back down the outer sleeve, like it is biodegradable. The bike was running right up to the day I found this, so it presumably holds up until you touch it. I’d be interested to see how many other V50 II owners have this issue. I will be looking at mine once I have finished with my pals bike … and assured myself that the fix is simple and effective enough.

600x450 pixels should be adequate and a quarter of the size of this photo file. You should try and set the file size on your camera/phone then you would not have to resize the photos to post. Most smart phones take really detailed images/photos not what you need unless you want to carry out aerial recon from your drone at 10k feet or if you like to see skin pores in your portraits. If you can’t do that try resizing in Paint, easy to use program that most people have on their computers and it is free!

Regardless. So far I have been unable to remove the alternator rotor so work at this end of the motor is stalled for the moment.

Brass drift and a 5lb club hammer. Problem solved. So into the wiring this coming weekend.

Sorry to diverge away from image sizes for a moment. :wink:
I’ve been away, hence the delay on this response… I did precisely this with my v50 II

In mine the insulation was powder where it had got hot from the engine, and the copper wire was pretty corroded particularly at the pickup end within the alternator bay, so the lot needed replacement. I located wires of matching colours and re-soldered them onto the pickups with some heat resistant sleeving (although I never considered soldering them in situ: is it even possible?). Anyway, I removed the pickups.

I couldn’t locate the right block connector (with spades as per the pic) anywhere (Gutsibits don’t have them but you can probably get very similar items as used on Jap bikes of the period). As I have often re-cycled block connectors in the past if not too messed up, I compressed the retaining tangs, pulled the blades out of the block, prized out the shreds of corroded wire and opened the ‘clamping bits’ up (what are they actually called? :nerd: ) to accept the new wires. As I recall, I was able to re-crimp three of the blades but one I had to solder as said ‘clamping bits’ had broken.

As these pickups generate such tiny currents and are so far from their amplifiers, any compromise in connectivity along the circuit will likely translate into dodgy ignition so on an old bike, examination and refurbishment of the entire cable run and the connectors will probably be rewarded by better running.

BTW, refitting the pickups and attempting to reset both the gaps and firing positions simultaneously generates some choice language and curious RSIs, doesn’t it? Tips anyone?

You can get similar spade connectors here http://www.vehicle-wiring-products.eu/product.php/613/multi-connectors-6-3mm/3e29b8d264c46e2e91a67f2685b3f966 the photo shows 6 way but 4 way are available and don’t cost much.I would solder and crimp them.

So as a final update on this one, for anyone who didn’t follow progression the FB page;

I found the right replacement connector block on line. It’s the 4 way on this page –


With the engine sitting on its bell housing I then cut the existing wiring back to tails and then soldered new to those and heat shrunk insulation on at that end. Then added extra sheathing around the pairs and then around the four, also available from that site above. I also soldered the connectors at the top. I know what people say but I don’t do crimped anywhere.

So that was all with the actual sensors being left undisturbed. I’ve done the timing on these bikes before and agree that the job is a complete PITA. But I do agree that it is fiddly enough that to do this that with the engine still in the bike would be very tricky indeed. This work was on a pals bike, and so I guess mine of the same vintage might well be the same. The gearbox kind of needs attention so I’m thinking I’ll attend to that next winter and do the wiring at the same time.

And I somehow got the job all done right. Early days but his bike is now back on the road and all running very nicely – much better than mine does in fact.

Well done Butch :smiley: