Author Topic: Pods. What do you think?  (Read 33730 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Retro Rocket

  • Eggs are hard due too a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 19,279
  • ROCK & ROLL
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #200 on: June 29, 2014, 07:41:10 PM »
Some of us are on a mission to acquire a working airbox.  In the meantime to get on the road we have to use these pods.


Good point, and one I've brought up before. ;) Every pod thread has 10 posts about how they can't work, for every post about how they worked, after re-jetting. The useable information tends to get buried by rhetoric and sometimes humorous "scientific" explanations. ::)

I couldn't disagree more Scott, its fine if you want to race {older bikes, usually with race orientated carbs}or maybe use different carbs but the Keihins Honda use do NOT LIKE PODS unless they have built in velocity stacks, you only have to look at more modern bike carbs to see that they are all built with a bell mouth intake, why would they do that if it wasn't necessary..? If racers and all other forms of motorsports have stacks then what makes you think its bad science..? The airbox helps the bike perform well right throughout the rev range, pods are built for top end performance, which is rarely achieved at street levels. Most people "think" pods are working better, usually due to the fact that , "thats what they want, so it must be better", plus the seat of the pants method usually lies, they hear more induction noise and think its faster  :o, not to mention side wind and rain interference, all of which you don't get with the stock induction system..... The main reason that people with little tuning skill shouldn't use pods is because of the time and fiddling it takes to get a compromised half acceptable tune, its beyond most, just go back and look at the guys that struggled with pods on this forum, only to go back to the stock system and achieve a tune in no time, kinda says it all. I find it amazing that someone like yourself thats not a silly guy, would dismiss the science when that very science gave us the bikes in the first place... When you said that they "worked" you should have added that they don't work any where near as efficiently as the airbox, as the airbox suffers none of the inherent problems that effect pods, especially the cheap ones, and thats a fact.... ;D :P ;)
750 K2 1000cc
750 F1 970cc
750 Bitsa 900cc
If You can't fix it with a hammer, You've got an electrical problem.

Offline scottly

  • Global Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,261
  • Humboldt, AZ
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #201 on: June 29, 2014, 07:58:25 PM »
My point is that pods are better than no filter, and can work well enough on the street with proper tuning. :P For one thing, there is a very low air velocity at the carburetor entrance at lower RPMs, regardless of throttle opening, so the gang called turbulence Lloyd likes to call on has no effect. ;)
Don't fix it if it ain't broke!
Helmets save brains. Always wear one and ride like everyone is trying to kill you....

Offline Thamuz

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #202 on: June 29, 2014, 08:13:17 PM »
Well, I have the plenum.  Would the idea of using one big K&N at the back be better?  i seen the pics of it.  Im at the point of needing the piece the old airfilter sat on and the drain/grate at the bottom, and a gasket to mate a box and plenum.  I got lucky locally.  Anyone have a source or a alternate for that gasket and other missing parts?  Carb boots can be had.
1979 Yami Chopper XS1100s
1978 CB750k
1977 CB550F
1974 CB550k
Parts bike for the 550's

Offline Stoli

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 583
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #203 on: June 29, 2014, 08:34:27 PM »
You can make pods work.
You need to tell us the year and model.
If it is the 77-78 model I can give you very exact info.

Every other concern must already be fixed. Carbs last.
Would you mind elaborating on this?
I have pods and "stubby" exhaust (4 in 4)
Thanks


My bike (CB750 78K -  Project #1) is running great with pods. I don't ride it in the rain if I can help it and I'm sure it isn't as well tuned as it would be with the airbox, but I don't have any problems to speak of. Runs a little rich at 3/4+ throttle but I don't spend too much time in that range. I will admit that if I snap the throttle (idle to full instantaneously) it will bog a bit, but as long as I roll on (1 second from idle to full)  I get good response.

PD Carbs
APE Pods
4-1 Mac Header with Cone Engineering Reverse cone (no baffle)

Slow Jets - 42
Needle shims - 1mm (2 x M2.5 flat washers honed to .0195" each).
Main Jets - 135

Note: One thing you will discover as you read through all the info on the site is that every bike is a bit different, so what works for one might be a little off for another. The year is important as well. The 135s work well on my PD carbs but they would probably be way too big for the earlier models.  Maybe even a tad big for my PDs but its running great so I'm not inclined to change them.
My Project Threads:
Project #1 - http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=117106.0  First bike
Project #2 - http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=127364.0  Something different
Project #3 - http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=123831.0  Long and Low

Offline Retro Rocket

  • Eggs are hard due too a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 19,279
  • ROCK & ROLL
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #204 on: June 29, 2014, 09:14:49 PM »
You can make pods work.
You need to tell us the year and model.
If it is the 77-78 model I can give you very exact info.

Every other concern must already be fixed. Carbs last.
Would you mind elaborating on this?
I have pods and "stubby" exhaust (4 in 4)
Thanks


My bike (CB750 78K -  Project #1) is running great with pods. I don't ride it in the rain if I can help it and I'm sure it isn't as well tuned as it would be with the airbox, but I don't have any problems to speak of. Runs a little rich at 3/4+ throttle but I don't spend too much time in that range. I will admit that if I snap the throttle (idle to full instantaneously) it will bog a bit, but as long as I roll on (1 second from idle to full)  I get good response.

This is a great example of what i mean, you say its running great then list the inherant problems with the set up, so its not "running great with pods". It seems that a lot of people have no idea of what "running great" actually means, it also seems, some think thats open for interpretation.. Running "OK" would have been a better description...

Well, I have the plenum.  Would the idea of using one big K&N at the back be better?  i seen the pics of it.  Im at the point of needing the piece the old airfilter sat on and the drain/grate at the bottom, and a gasket to mate a box and plenum.  I got lucky locally.  Anyone have a source or a alternate for that gasket and other missing parts?  Carb boots can be had.

Thats been done a few times on here and seems to work well, you are retaining the induction part of the airbox and just adding a better flowing filter...
750 K2 1000cc
750 F1 970cc
750 Bitsa 900cc
If You can't fix it with a hammer, You've got an electrical problem.

Offline scottly

  • Global Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,261
  • Humboldt, AZ
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #205 on: June 29, 2014, 09:27:41 PM »


Thats been done a few times on here and seems to work well, you are retaining the induction part of the airbox and just adding a better flowing filter...
And the better flowing filter will require re-jetting to realize the full potential. Also, our 10% ethanol means a 4% increase in fuel flow is required, even with a stock filter.
Don't fix it if it ain't broke!
Helmets save brains. Always wear one and ride like everyone is trying to kill you....

Offline ekpent

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,512
  • To many bikes-but lookin' for more
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #206 on: June 29, 2014, 09:28:32 PM »
9 pages started on Sept of 13. Just thought I would pop in and say Hello and hope all is going well. Summer or Winter depending on where you are at is sure flying by fast, Good riding all   :)

Offline TwoTired

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,805
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #207 on: June 29, 2014, 09:35:14 PM »
My point is that pods are better than no filter, and can work well enough on the street with proper tuning. :P For one thing, there is a very low air velocity at the carburetor entrance at lower RPMs, regardless of throttle opening, so the gang called turbulence Lloyd likes to call on has no effect. ;)

Scottly,
I'm not certain why you delight in trying to bash me at every opportunity or to infer that I have said something I didn't.  I invite you to focus your vendetta somewhere else.

To the ones in the tech forum who care,
Velocity is only one factor the carb employs to make a proper air fuel mixture.  There is also the low pressure made by the falling piston on the intake stroke, and the physical distance from the atmospheric air source, to the carb throat jet exit point.

The most dramatic effect pods make for a street machine is to raise the carb throat pressure closer to atmospheric.  This reduces the push through all the fuel jet orifices without effecting the air volume.  Larger fuel jets are needed to compensate and restore correct fuel mix ratios.  Neophytes then erroneously assume their engine uses more fuel, therefore is making more power, which is patently false.  The extra noise, uncalibrated butt dyno, and unwillingness to believe they harmed their bike, fuels rider delusion.  The larger jets are just compensating for lost volume of fuel due to operating pressure differences.

As I've said before (to those willing to listen) the turbulence issue is modal, related to the RPM and the air velocity through the carb throat.  Turbulence eddies which reach into the carbs vary in size and violence as the air velocity changes.  Each eddy has a high pressure side and a low pressure side.  As the sides traverse the fuel jet outlets, more or less than average fuel volume exits the fuel jet pathway, making any fuel compensation adjustment non-linear and certainly unpredictable with whatever throttle position is selected.

Pods (as a generic) are only "better" than stock induction at or above red line RPMs when the engine is thrashing and trying to self destruct.  That's a risk racer's take for the brief period of time they are on the track.  This operational band is rather narrow and only briefly used on street vehicles.  Without taylored profile slide needles, there will be street operating ranges which are too rich or too lean, and some that are just right, even if the attending "mechanic" has done anything besides getting it to run without customer complaint.

Racers don't care about these weird operation throttle selections, and posers only care that their bike "looks" like a racer, and tells everyone who will listen that it performs like one, whether their pods are specifically the same brand and type that were used on the idolized bike, or were simply ones they could obtain cheaply.

Can "pods" be tuned to "work"?  Yes, for some value of "work" related to the level of acceptance and standards a person has.
If "working well" means being able to drive it around the block a few times, then pods can even work "well".
Lloyd... (SOHC4 #11 Original Mail List)
72 500, 74 550, 75 550K, 75 550F, 76 550F, 77 550F X2, 78 550K, 77 750F X2, 78 750F, 79CX500, 85 700SC, GL1100

Those that learn from history are doomed to repeat it by those that don't learn from history.

Offline scottly

  • Global Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,261
  • Humboldt, AZ
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #208 on: June 29, 2014, 10:14:04 PM »

Pods (as a generic) are only "better" than stock induction at or above red line RPMs when the engine is thrashing and trying to self destruct.
If the pod induced turbulence is as bad as you have steadfastly stated over and over again, it would be worst at those higher RPMs. Just because you can't, or don't care to invest the time and effort to tune carbs to work with a less restrictive intake doesn't mean it can't be done. ;)
Don't fix it if it ain't broke!
Helmets save brains. Always wear one and ride like everyone is trying to kill you....

Offline TwoTired

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,805
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #209 on: June 29, 2014, 10:47:38 PM »

Pods (as a generic) are only "better" than stock induction at or above red line RPMs when the engine is thrashing and trying to self destruct.
If the pod induced turbulence is as bad as you have steadfastly stated over and over again, it would be worst at those higher RPMs. Just because you can't, or don't care to invest the time and effort to tune carbs to work with a less restrictive intake doesn't mean it can't be done. ;)

The turbulence eddies get very small at high velocities.  Therefore, the turbulence effects are less significant at extreme high RPMs, contrary to your assertion.  Sure you can tune them for this narrow band of operation, as I just typed a few minutes ago and you either didn't read or couldn't comprehend.  But, I am no longer interested in constantly racing these 40 year old machines with limited parts availability.  You stress them frequently and they will break or wear out quickly.  $$$  Price of looking "cool"or "rad", I guess.

As previously mentioned, the modal turbulence can be tuned at specific RPMs.  The range of modality peaks around Red line can be wide enough to incorporate an entire band around red line.   It can even be be elaborately compensated at each RPM with custom profile slide needles for street use.  But, it is not easy or quick to do so.  Red line RPMs are the ONLY range that the inlet air flow restriction might be improved with PODs.  The stock induction provides more than enough airflow for the engine at all throttle settings from idle to 3/4.  No pod improves power in that operation range.

Lloyd... (SOHC4 #11 Original Mail List)
72 500, 74 550, 75 550K, 75 550F, 76 550F, 77 550F X2, 78 550K, 77 750F X2, 78 750F, 79CX500, 85 700SC, GL1100

Those that learn from history are doomed to repeat it by those that don't learn from history.

Offline scottly

  • Global Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,261
  • Humboldt, AZ
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #210 on: June 29, 2014, 11:09:28 PM »

The turbulence eddies get very small at high velocities.  Therefore, the turbulence effects are less significant at extreme high RPMs, contrary to your assertion.
Turbulence decreases with velocity??!!  ::) 
Don't fix it if it ain't broke!
Helmets save brains. Always wear one and ride like everyone is trying to kill you....

Offline Stoli

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 583
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #211 on: June 30, 2014, 03:34:23 AM »
Sorry Retro. Just trying to answer Petros' question. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I wasn't aware there was a scale though. I'll requantify....

My bike is running way better than poor with pods and definitely better than good. I'm sure it would run fantastic if I put on the airbox, so I'll just say it is running almost great. I have not run it in heavy rain though, so some might say it is just running OK. However, I must admit that when I was out riding the other day, I indulged and thought to myself, "man, this bike is running great".
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 08:05:47 AM by Stoli »
My Project Threads:
Project #1 - http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=117106.0  First bike
Project #2 - http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=127364.0  Something different
Project #3 - http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=123831.0  Long and Low

Offline Stev-o

  • Ain't no
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 34,238
  • Central Texas
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #212 on: June 30, 2014, 05:34:19 AM »
Popcorn, anyone?
'74 "Big Bang" Honda 750K [836].....'76 Honda 550F.....K3 Park Racer!......and a Bomber!............plus plus plus.........

Offline buffalogt750

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 192
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #213 on: June 30, 2014, 07:41:21 AM »
Does anyone make biodegradable pods?
1976 Honda CB550K   SOLD
1993 Ducati 750 SS
2000 Suzuki Bandit 1200

Offline wowbagger

  • Not much of an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #214 on: June 30, 2014, 07:44:33 AM »

Offline Petros2r

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #215 on: June 30, 2014, 09:09:26 AM »
Thanks Stoli.
The reason I have those pods is because the old air box was dismantled and partially thrown away. For the longest time I couldn't get the bike to run good and just noticed that one of the pods restrict the choke wheel movement... Duh! So I was running win the choke only partially closed.
So, after I zip-tied it to the other one, to make it lean to the side, the bike runs "great" (lol)... For me..
Now I will sync the carbs (as I've already ordered the tool, and the carbs are tuned to factory specs) and may re-jet it the next time I'm cleaning the carbs. Unless I come across a good deal on air box on eBay
Thanks a lot!
2005 Ducati Monster S2R
2007 H-D Sportster 883XLC
1978 Honda CB550 Four K

Offline TwoTired

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,805
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #216 on: June 30, 2014, 09:17:21 AM »

The turbulence eddies get very small at high velocities.  Therefore, the turbulence effects are less significant at extreme high RPMs, contrary to your assertion.
Turbulence decreases with velocity??!!  ::)
You sure like to misquote and make inuendo.   Are you unable to discern the difference "turbulence" and "turbulence effects"?

Turbulence energy doesn't decrease, but the shape and physical form do which is what interacts with the carb's duct physiology.  The turbulence gets more violent at higher velocities, and occurs over a longer distance.   In some ways, that actually helps with atomization.  However, the turbulence boundary layer hugs the duct walls closer at higher velocities while the eddy sizes becomes smaller as they traverse over the jet exit ports.  Therefore, their effects are averaged quicker in the 3/4 to WOT range, resulting in an easier tuning effort at that narrow range.

I suppose the "discussion" is moot really, as you've already created your own belief system that all pods solve all airflow issues, from which no one will dissuade you.  (Wow, wasn't that easy to generalize you're thinking!) You've contributed no explanations to the contrary, only trite questions.  So, I must assume you are totally baffled by aerodynamic principles, and have no desire to learn anything not fitting your personal model.

And, clearly there are other readers out there unable to follow a technical explanation without being overcome with attention deficit disorder while totally unable to contribute something meaningful.  Such is the influence of "social media" and it's contribution to dumbing down the human populace.  In the "modern" age, 4 posted opinions override any one post with technical reasoning.

No doubt the "pod" epidemic will flourish with the "cool" factor overriding and overcoming any possible understanding of their true effects on street machines.

Entrophy will always prevail in an uneducated human society.
Lloyd... (SOHC4 #11 Original Mail List)
72 500, 74 550, 75 550K, 75 550F, 76 550F, 77 550F X2, 78 550K, 77 750F X2, 78 750F, 79CX500, 85 700SC, GL1100

Those that learn from history are doomed to repeat it by those that don't learn from history.

Offline Sticky Gerbil

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #217 on: June 30, 2014, 12:12:26 PM »
Last words! hahahaha

Offline Thamuz

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #218 on: June 30, 2014, 12:21:37 PM »
I can agree with the crosswinds and turbulence issues when on the highway.  Yet another reason I want the airbox or plenum with filter working.  If I don't have my knees right by the pods it will loose al sorts of power.

Sounds simple?  Not on long rides.  a good crosswind will make this same issue happen.  I also happen to like long rides, and this is a huge bummer, man.
1979 Yami Chopper XS1100s
1978 CB750k
1977 CB550F
1974 CB550k
Parts bike for the 550's

Offline Stev-o

  • Ain't no
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 34,238
  • Central Texas
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #219 on: June 30, 2014, 02:29:15 PM »
Quote
And, clearly there are other readers out there unable to follow a technical explanation without being overcome with attention deficit disorder while totally unable to contribute something meaningful. 

Hey, I  resent   resemble that!





or maybe we just dont care?
'74 "Big Bang" Honda 750K [836].....'76 Honda 550F.....K3 Park Racer!......and a Bomber!............plus plus plus.........

Offline Lostboy Steve

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,096
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #220 on: June 30, 2014, 02:46:28 PM »
You guys do realize, that every time this question gets asked, you all bite on it. We've been over this all probably 10 times in the time that I've been a member.

My answer is the same as it always is. I got more power out of my airbox (without a lid) and a uni filter, than I ever did out of 4 uni pods. Along with that better idle as well. Something about air in motion VS idle air. The vacuum from all four cylinders pulling air from one common source. Anyway, do as you will. Trial and error is the best way to find something "comfortable" for you. Just be careful because in certain themes this is how a Darwin Award is achieved. ;) <--- I'm being a wise ass.
1968 Honda Z50
1977 Honda CB550K
2018 Indian Scout

Offline TwoTired

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,805
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #221 on: June 30, 2014, 03:34:58 PM »
or maybe we just dont care?
Ah, so now you are the spokesman for the membership of this forum?  Be sure to pass on that edict to Glenn.

Anyway, you certainly care enough to spoil/interrupt a dialog, rather than just bypass something you can't contribute to in a meaningful way.   Wouldn't want someone else to learn something beyond your capacity, would you?

What technical input have you brought to a technical forum?  Or, do you consider stamping your feet and screaming for attention, meaningful?

I hear your message loud and clear, though.  Dumb down the dialog to your entertainment level. 
Lloyd... (SOHC4 #11 Original Mail List)
72 500, 74 550, 75 550K, 75 550F, 76 550F, 77 550F X2, 78 550K, 77 750F X2, 78 750F, 79CX500, 85 700SC, GL1100

Those that learn from history are doomed to repeat it by those that don't learn from history.

Offline Stev-o

  • Ain't no
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 34,238
  • Central Texas
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #222 on: June 30, 2014, 03:55:58 PM »
or maybe we just dont care?
Ah, so now you are the spokesman for the membership of this forum?  Be sure to pass on that edict to Glenn.

Anyway, you certainly care enough to spoil/interrupt a dialog, rather than just bypass something you can't contribute to in a meaningful way.   Wouldn't want someone else to learn something beyond your capacity, would you?

What technical input have you brought to a technical forum?  Or, do you consider stamping your feet and screaming for attention, meaningful?

I hear your message loud and clear, though.  Dumb down the dialog to your entertainment level. 

No TT, I'm not the spokesman for the forum, why would you assume that?

Sorry to interrupt your meaningful dialog, but how many pod threads have there been over the years? Don't you think we all know that these bikes run better with an airbox?? Do you think you are going to change the pod world???

I help when I can, I had nothing to add after Retro's meaningful post. I don't recall myself stamping my feet and screaming, guessing you are assuming again TT.

Yes, my post was meant to entertain, sorry you took it so personal. Heaven forbid we poke fun in the tech forum in a serious pod thread!!

'74 "Big Bang" Honda 750K [836].....'76 Honda 550F.....K3 Park Racer!......and a Bomber!............plus plus plus.........

Offline TwoTired

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,805
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #223 on: June 30, 2014, 04:15:11 PM »
No TT, I'm not the spokesman for the forum, why would you assume that?

Because of the WE in:
or maybe we just dont care?

Sorry to interrupt your meaningful dialog, but how many pod threads have there been over the years? Don't you think we all know that these bikes run better with an airbox?? Do you think you are going to change the pod world???
No, but some education might just change a corner of it.

Anyway, it was Scottly that dragged me into it with his misquotes, false accusations, and derogatory remarks.  Nothing new I suppose, really.

I help when I can, I had nothing to add after Retro's meaningful post. I don't recall myself stamping my feet and screaming, guessing you are assuming again TT.
I consider posting about popcorn at the very least a distraction meant to demean/derail a serious thread, which is what tantrums are all about.  You weren't the only one,  just the most recent, coupled with an "I'm a spokesperson" edict.

Lloyd... (SOHC4 #11 Original Mail List)
72 500, 74 550, 75 550K, 75 550F, 76 550F, 77 550F X2, 78 550K, 77 750F X2, 78 750F, 79CX500, 85 700SC, GL1100

Those that learn from history are doomed to repeat it by those that don't learn from history.

Offline scottly

  • Global Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,261
  • Humboldt, AZ
Re: Pods. What do you think?
« Reply #224 on: June 30, 2014, 06:32:36 PM »
No TT, I'm not the spokesman for the forum, why would you assume that?

Because of the WE in:
or maybe we just dont care?

Sorry to interrupt your meaningful dialog, but how many pod threads have there been over the years? Don't you think we all know that these bikes run better with an airbox?? Do you think you are going to change the pod world???
No, but some education might just change a corner of it.

Anyway, it was Scottly that dragged me into it with his misquotes, false accusations, and derogatory remarks.  Nothing new I suppose, really.

I help when I can, I had nothing to add after Retro's meaningful post. I don't recall myself stamping my feet and screaming, guessing you are assuming again TT.
I consider posting about popcorn at the very least a distraction meant to demean/derail a serious thread, which is what tantrums are all about.  You weren't the only one,  just the most recent, coupled with an "I'm a spokesperson" edict.
I dragged you into this??? You posted 10 times on this thread before my first one. If anyone is interested in popcorn, read replies 19, 20, 22, 27, 102, 161, 170, 178, 182, and 185.
Don't fix it if it ain't broke!
Helmets save brains. Always wear one and ride like everyone is trying to kill you....