LilBeaver

There is no argument that the faster the wheels spin (assuming no slippage of the tires on the road) the more stable the bike is. The PROBLEM here is that the direction of rotation for the wheels not to mention the negligible mass and radius (related to the moment of inertia) as compared to the overall mass of the bike -- independnt of the fact that the direction of rotations for the wheels and crank are perpendicular to each other. The increased speed of the bike affecting stability has more to do with the increase in forces (and hence torque) between the tires and the road. Rotational equilibrium is achieved by balancing the forces. Yes, of course, momentum plays a BIG role here. As previously mentioned the direction of rotation of the crank and drive shaft simply have no effect on the roll of the bike independent of the fact that the rotating parts are a small fraction of the overall weight of the bike and hence would have a very small contribution even if the directions were such that the angular momentum of the spinning parts would have any effect at all on the roll of the bike. The technique produces the result, which is excellent. I do not argue that at all. But again, the claim that the crank has an overall effect related to the roll and stability of the bike is bogus. The laws of physics do not support the explanation. Hope this helps some

Playboy, I do NOT mean to imply at all, that the RLAP method does not work because it most certainly DOES work. I was trained to ride that way many years ago and I will continue to attest to its success. The 'WHY' that gets applied to the explanation is what I was addressing as to what is blatantly incorrect. Noahzark -- correct, my longer statement was discredit the incorrect rationale specifically related to RPM as being related to stability via the incorrect conservation of angular momentum statements (that routinely get incorrectly applied to the apparent correlation of RPM to stability). My suggestion with respect to the real reason as to why the method works has to do with the appropriate balance of power and the ability to continually 'fine tune' the control one has over the motorcycle and hence provide much better control during those slow speed maneuvers. My original statement is as follows: I renew my thought challenge: I hope this clears up the confusion.

I use winderz and a variety of Linux distributions. Lets see... Any ubuntu that uses Gnome 3 drives me nuts. Althogh, I have never been a real big fan of Ubuntu with the way I use my linux boxes. I will say that a lot of it does 'just work' and there is a ton of support for it out there. As for the Linux Mint 11 that I have used, I keep a Mint 11 live USB drive handy (last distro of linux mint to include gparted and gnome-disk-utility by default) -- which, if I am using a live distro that is why I am using it. I have gone up to Mint 14 on a few boxes, just for kicks and it seems to work just fine. XFCE is nice, very lightweight and quick which is nice -- especially on older boxes. KDE is 'cute' with lots of visual effects, but I tend to use the MATE distro the most [without the 'Cinnamon' add-on because I do NOT use these boxes for media entertainment and whatnot]. If I am setting a box up for a more novice type user, I generally recommend Mint MATE or KDE [unless their hardware is a little older, then XFCE is the way to go]. A HUGE advantage for Ubuntu is that of the ability to use the Wubi installer (which allows for a nearly fool proof install for dual boot with windows without having to rewrite the boot loader and the ability to do a simple uninstall of the linux partition, if desired, straight from the "Add/remove programs" in the windows part. All of that being said, my primary linux box [and servers] are all Scientific Linux [which is a stripped down version of CentOS]. My reasons for using SL are mostly because it is extraordinarily stable, I know the OS inside and out, and it runs on just about any piece of hardware you can find. Sadly enough, some of the major equipment at the lab I work at in your neck of the woods is run off of Pentium 3 boxes running the latest iteration of SL. The data analysis packages I use are adapted from some of the packages used at CERN for high-energy physics useage; written for SL [CentOS/RHEL] -- which also means that it is the easiest way for me to port and modify the analsis packages for what I do with them. CentOS is a real nice package as well. It is a very complete and robust operating system that is very stable and very easy to install and setup. I have an analysis cluster that was configured with CentOS due to some of the MD simulations some of my coworkers do, and it works flawlessly as an 8 node cluster. The main server in my department runs Open SuSe which anything beyond version 11 is a pain to work with. Sometimes when we reboot that machine it will randomly change the drive orders, the numbers on the network ports, and all sorts of other weird stuff... Open SuSe has some components that make it very easy to manage for server applications -- which is appealing, not to mention our System Administrator [co admin of this server] has been using SuSe for the last many many years and since he is primary on that server, it was his choice. My 4 servers are all configured with SL -- SL is solid for server and workstation useage. For home use, I am torn between Mint MATE and SL -- if I was not so gosh darn familiar with SL (and use it for work), I would probably be perfectly happy running Mint MATE on my home machines. Every new iteration of Mint seems to be more and more user friendly and easier to port windows drivers for hardware support. I really cannot speak for the extra fancy 'Cinnamon' packages or whatever, but, I would be surprised if they were not as well put together as the rest of the OS. Okay, have I rambled enough yet?

That was the very very condensed version The usual lecture takes at least 45 minutes -- sometimes it is several 45 minute periods worth... ---- I'll give it another try. Take a look here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/bicycle.html This has some good diagrams to help describe what effect the rotating bodies have on a system. The real important bit to take from all of this is within this next statement. Now, from what you learned there, note that on our bikes, the 'rotating engine parts' are rotating in a direction that is perpendicular to the wheel rotation (parallel to the rotation of the cam shaft) and hence any effect from the rotating cam would be felt in the frame of the bike and in pitch and have nothing at all to do with the roll of the bike. I hope that helps some. If desired, I will take some time to write up a much more complete explanation for a general audience -- but it might be a little while before I end up with a sufficient block of time to do such a write-up...

As I commented initially, I too have seen and heard the claim time and time again but that does not make it any less wrong. There are plenty of misconceptions in the world, sadly, this concept is one that is often misconstrued or just flat out not understood and still passed around regardless of its accuracy. This particular link that you posted here claims that centripetal force somehow has something to do with keeping one's bike up; for the record, that explanation may seem good at first because they throw around some fancy words, but it too is nonsense. By definition, centripetal force is a force that causes a body to move along a circular trajectory. The link you provided would lead you to believe that the 'rotating engine parts' (their words, not mine) exert a centripetal force on the bike which helps keep you upright and makes your turns easier. Again, complete and udder nonsense. Lets start with a simple example to show what centripetal force REALLY is. Go get a golf ball and put it in a long tube sock. Hold the sock by the end with the hole in it and then begin to swing the sock and ball in a circular motion holding your hand relatively still but allowing the sock to be twirled about. If you were to be a 3rd person, observing yourself twirling this sock and golf ball around you can easily identify the forces at play here. First of all, the outside observer can easily see the golf ball is traveling in a circular motion. In order for the ball to not just go off straight, there must be a force acting on it to keep it moving in the circular path. One can easily identify the fact that the sock is exerting a force on the ball, which is keeping the ball from flying off in a straight line. The sock is being held into place by your hand. Your hand exerts a force on the sock as the sock exerts a force on your hand. The tension in the sock mediates the force between your hand and the golf ball. The CENTRIPETAL force, in this case, is identified as the force required to keep the golf ball moving in its circular path. Furthermore, the centripetal force is equal in magnitude to what you feel in the sock as you feel the apparent weight of the golf ball as it twirls around. So, looking back at the rotating engine parts, ie the cam shaft, and note that while the centripetal forces involved there have to do with keeping the cam shaft (as a rigid body) from falling apart and has nothing to do with the outside body [ie the stability of the motorcycle itself] The only plausible argument for increased stability due to rotating parts MUST include an explanation that includes conservation of momentum as well as account for the remaining forces in this dynamic system since the rotating wheels and effects of conservation of angular momentum (ie gyroscopic stability) are actually a small part in what keeps you upright. In the video clip that the original poster showed, you can see that when the wheel is spun and then suspended by the axle, it rotates around the suspension point. Now, if you were to hold the axle in your hands and tilt it either clockwise or counter-clockwise, the system would resist that change and you would feel it in your arms. If you were on a stool that was free to rotate, you would find that the entire system's angular momentum is conserved and the more you tilted the wheel the faster you rotate on the stool in the opposite direction. THIS effect, clearly demonstrates part of why you are able to be much more stable at higher speeds when leaning over. The other contribution has to do with balancing the forces and torques between the rubber and the road, etc etc. Note that the axle of the wheels is perpendicular to the direction in which the cam rotates. More importantly, the direction of the axle for which the wheels rotate around is perpendicular to both the direction of linear motion of the bike and the direction of rotation of the bike and hence, it actually makes a difference. But I digress... %%% Video clip of the fairly typical bicycle wheel/stool demo (no, it is not me as I am not quite cool enough to have a fancy white coat...): [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZDF3oDs-JI]1Q40 30 Rotating Stool and Bicycle Wheel - YouTube[/ame] FYI: Not all scientists wear lab coats, in fact, I usually take off the loose articles of clothing for demos that involve rotating things because I nearly always get something stuck in the object that is rotating.... All about safety here .

This is absolutely 100% false. [for low speed maneuvering] -- I have heard a number of people say this and claiming a physical explanation to back up this reasoning is complete non-sense. Keeping the engine speed up, using the friction zone and modifying your speed with the rear brake keeps you from stalling your bike and gives you a very easy 'out' if you start to go over since all you need to do is lift your foot and/or pop the clutch to stand upright under the proper application of principles of linear and angular momentum in addition to opposing forces, etc etc -- but that will be for another discussion. The rotating parts in the motor, while they do contribute to the overall dynamic of the bike the effects are nominal, at best, not to mention in the wrong direction of rotation to have any effect on keeping you upright. Lets begin by looking at the simple mechanics of what is moving inside the engine. First one ought to note that there is actually quite a bit of symmetry in an engine -- think about it -- the V design is not an accident, nor is the flat design or the in-line designs. So motion of the pistons over a given time period oppose each other and have a net zero effect on the overall dynamic of the bike. Now for the part that rotates and is a function of engine speed (actually how the engine speed is defined) -- the cam shaft rotates but is laid along the long axis of the bike, rotates in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of linear motion, parallel to the angular motion (roll) and puts the direction of angular momentum along the axis of the bike itself (that is draw a line connecting the two wheels and that is the line for which the direction of the angular momenta is aligned). Any variation in the rotation rate (assuming constant mass of the cam shaft) makes NO contribution to the 'roll' (if you let me borrow an aeronautical term here) of the bike what so ever. -- Think about it: if the engine speed itself was correlated affected your ability to stay upright, in order to never have to put your feet down, all you would need to do is rev your engine really high when you stop! How many of us know that the bike drop just as easily when you are in neutral with the side-stand up regardless of whether the bike is running or not? Now, if there were active gyroscopes located in your bike and you adjusted the rate in which those were spinning, that would absolutely have an effect on low speed maneuvering -- how do you think that satellites are realigned in space, how large ships are stabilized or how a segway stays upright? Or, more directly, when you are traveling at a higher rate of speed you can lean over further [hint: different and much more massive objects are rotating in a direction that aligns the angular momenta properly to have a direct effect on the roll of the bike -- not to mention the linear momentum and net forces between the tires and the road....]. Okay so now let us take a peek at some of the simplified math. Linear motion and forces are related to the rotational motion and forces by the simple cross product of the position vector and the linear force [or momenta] for which you are describing. Recall that newton's second law relate momentum, p, and force, F, as: F=dp/dt -- that is force is equal to the way momentum varies as a function of time. Also recall that momentum can be loosely defined as a measure of an objects inertia or more simply put, a way to quantify how difficult it may be to change an object's motion. In simple math, momentum, p, is equal to the objects mass, m, times its velocity, v. That is: p=mv Rotation is accounted for by including a quantity to define the position of a particular particle [or group of particles] for which you are actually describing the motion. In this case, we will call that position vector, r. What you do not realize is that rotation is already built into the 'standard' simple statement but there is an implicit assumption that there is a constant direction. Skipping some of the details, one follows through by using what is known as a cross product -- which is one way of combining two quantities [vectors] that include information of both size and direction. In this case the position vector, locates any particular piece of mass and its location from the part of the system that we define as the origin [often times, the place that remains constant or has high symmetry -- such as the center of rotation, ie the center of an axle]. So the form for angular momentum, L, comes out to be: L=r x mv which, with some additional fancy footwork to put this into terms that are little more user friendly one can introduce what is known as the 'moment of inertia', I, which is a quantity that basically provides the appropriate scaling for the 'mass' quantity that is rotating. Strictly speaking, the moment of inertia accounts for the varying mass as a function of distance that contributes to an object's rotational properties. That is to say that the moment of inertia is a quantity that scales the resistance to an object's rotation acceleration. Just like a more massive object resists linear motion (it is a lot easier to push a 1 gram paper clip across your desk than it is to shove an elephant -- right?). Skipping boring details, one can make an assumption of a constant position vector and write the angular velocity as the simple expression w=r x v. Now the direction of the angular momentum is parallel to that of the angular velocity. The important aspect to remember here is that when there is no net external torque (force) momentum is conserved which includes the size of the momentum vector as well as the direction of the momentum vector. Despite the fact that the direction is based on an arbitrary mathematical definition, since the 'roll' of the motorcycle occurs in a direction that is parallel to the roll of the rotating cam shaft, the external force/torques are present, the angular momentum is not conserved and hence there is no additional stabilization that is a result of the increased engine speed. Disclaimer: I have not proof read this, and maybe I should before posting but I am going to post it now so I don't lose everything I have written [again]. I hope this makes sense, if not, please ask away, I am happy to explain whatever requires additional explanation as long as someone is interested in learning. ---- Sorry for the hijack...

I am pretty sure we have exchanged some messages between your question and now but I finally got around to replacing my ignition switch as the symptoms returned, with vengeance, last week. I will hopefully get some time to autopsy my old switch this week and verify (I certainly prefer to have conclusive evidence of the source of the problem), but, at this point I am pretty sure that the ignition switch was part of (if not the entire) source of this problem. I will report back with findings when I get there... For everyone else, I will write up a quick report on the problem, troubleshooting and solution once I have enough data gathered to assemble a proper report.

Where I live the weather people do not even start talking about the wind being anythig than a 'breeze' until it gets over 20 or 30 mph (and I am not exaggerating at all) -- which is nearly every single day. In fact, when I visit places that has anything less than a 10 mph breeze it just feels wrong outside. At any rate, high winds WILL push you around a bit on these bikes -- just like it will on any bike. As long as you keep a firm grip on the bars, ride in the PROPER gear and pay attention -- with enough practice you will be able to handle it well. Extreme gusty conditions where the direction of the wind changes with each blow, are the worst because it is so very unpredictable... But again, it is going to be bad on any bike... Ride safe!

Excellent! Was the weather better this time around?

He's going to need something to do with that other bike of his is... um... in for tune-ups and other associated work... So yeah, I suppose he is welcome to stick around. Now if you'll excuse me I need to figure out why my RSV refuses to start...

It is my understanding, based on the plethora of discussions I have seen that the rear shock is NOT rebuildable. In fact, we have had a member (Rick Butler, I believe) take one apart to figure out why they failed to begin with (and presumably if there was anything we could do to get more life out of them) -- I am certain that if he had come up with a fix, many of us would still be riding on our original shocks. I know that is not the news you wanted to hear, but, I guess it is just a weakness that our beasts have. ----- Freebird has one for sale in the classifieds here for $325. http://www.venturerider.org/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=4773&title=stock-rsv-shockalmost-new-&cat=7 [To my knowledge, I will not be making any commission on that sale... unless Freebird feels generous ]

When was the last time you changed your fuel filter? If it is partially clogged, your bike may run fine under low load conditions but struggle if/when it gets opened up. Keep in mind that the fuel pump is supposed to cycle long enough to fill the float bowls up in the carbs -- which means that sometimes, when one turns the key ON, it may not need to cycle at all. Regardless, having a fresh pump in your bike via warranty is not a bad thing, one less part for you to worry about. I would definitely suggest changing out your fuel filter though -- it does not take much to clog those suckers up [one little spout of contamination in your fuel could do it, depending on what the contaminant is]. Additionally, a few dollars for a filter is a lot cheaper than getting stuck somewhere for fuel starvation or ruining a pump because of a clogged filter...

8-76 of the service manual lists the fault code for 3 blinks: Item: Throttle position sensor (TPS) Condition: "Disconnected, Short-circuit, Locked" Response: - enables the motorcycle to run so taht the ignition timing is fixed when the throttle is fully opened - Displays the condition code on the engine indicator light When engine is stationary: Blinks fault code [3] When engine is running: Light on Page 8-78 has additional troubleshooting for that circuit %%% Also, I would be careful with the application of dielectric grease in all of your connectors -- one must understand the purpose of the grease and what it really does. That the grease itself is an insulator and helps protect the contacts from corrosion via moisture and contact with the atmosphere. Applying too may contribute to hindering the connection that is supposed to occur (if, for example, the contacts are not quite as snug as they ought to be or if with the vibration that occurs while the motor is running, the grease works its way between the two parts of the contact in the connector -- maybe unlikely, but NOT something I would want to try to troubleshoot...) I would say giving your connectors a good cleaning ought to be in order, and it is rather straight forward to further test the TPS. Regardless, then manual does have some good information in it and it sounds like the bike is giving you a good place to start

Sometimes it just happens. I ride my bike daily as a commuter and have been on plenty of cross country trips that I get 'stuck' riding through some nasty storms. While I do prefer to ride in the ideal conditions sometimes storms sneak up on you or sometimes there is just no place to pull off and be safe (which I am sure we all recognize and/or have seen before). Whether any of this applies to this particular case or not, I have no idea, but I know that I do not usually look outside see an approaching storm and then decide "hey, now is a great time to go for a ride"... Glad whoever it was is mostly okay -- sure could have been a heck of a lot worse!

It really is as straight forward of a change out as it sounds. I think the hardest part I had (after confirming the diagnosis) was actually making sure the wiring harness connector between the bike and the new R/R unit, made a solid connection. As Pointed out, make darn sure you inspect that connector very VERY carefully and go ahead and "plug" and "unplug" the connector several times to clean any corrosion off the pins that may exist. I tightened up a few of the connectors as well, to ensure a solid connection. I will note that when you ride home today, unless you feel like spending a lot of money replacing other parts too, keep anything OFF that you do not absolutely need to use (such as the radio, CB, cruise control, auxiliary lights, etc etc) since you are experiencing spikes in voltage, they could easily knock out parts of your system. I am not saying that if you DO use them you will definitely kill them, however, the likelihood of the components failing is pretty high. It may not be an immediately noticeable failure either... Anyway, just throwing that out there. I too had to replace mine a few years back. I found out mine was bad 3 days before leaving on a 3 week/6k+ mile trip too -- it was my 'check ride' and I was nearly in the middle of nowhere. Yuk. Make sure you check your ground connections and battery terminals for corrosion and to make sure they are tight -- since you are going to have a few things apart anyway, it is an easy thing to do -- pop off the wires and give the terminals a quick pass with a wire brush (remembering that just because you cannot see the corrosion, does not mean that oxidation has not started...). Enjoy your trip!

Have you ventured your way over to a F6B forum? I know and can appreciate looking 'locally' here first for opinions and such, but I was just throwing that out there just in case you had not thought of it. Interesting since the foot position is nominally the same as a 1st gen...

This is somewhat misleading so I just wanted to offer clarification. Not ALL RSTD's are geared this way. The 'early' line of Royal Star (Boulevard, Tour Classic, Tour Classic II, Tour Deluxe) made from 96? to 2001 had the ratios you describe. The "RSTD" made from 2005-2009 is identical to the venture. Below is from the respective owner's manuals: Royal Star Venture (99-present) Owner’s Manual: Page 9-2 Primary Reduction: 1.776 Secondary reduction: 2.567 1: 2.529 2: 1.632 3: 1.200 4: 0.960 5: 0.786 Royal Star Tour Deluxe (2005-2009) Owner’s Manual: Page 9-1 to 9-2 Primary reduction: 1.776 (87/49) Secondary Reduction: 2.567 (21/27 x 33/10) 1: 2.529 (43/17) 2: 1.632 (31/19) 3: 1.200 (30/25) 4: 0.960 (24/25) 5: 0.786 (22/28) Royal Star Boulevard/Tour Classic/Tour Classic II/Tour Deluxe ( 96(?)-2001) Owner’s Manual: Page 8-2 Primary: 1.666 Secondary: 2.566 1: 2.437 2: 1.578 3: 1.160 4: 0.906 5: 0.750

Hmmmm... My department ordered a 3D printer a few weeks ago... It is due in any day. We are already making a list of things to try with it

good info here. Another thing to do would be to drain the float bowls and inspect what comes out -- especially if you have a repeat... Simple checks of the electrical connections are always a good way to go to. And change out that fuel filter for good measure

Oh, no -- I have not bothered getting that done yet. I am actually not sure whether I want to have the switch redone or the locks and gas cap (all 4 of my current keys are all pretty worn) or just call it good with two keys. Thanks for the reminder though; I have been to Deckelmans for a few things and have always been pleased.

Good to know. I have often wondered how long some of these parts are expected to last. If memory serves me correctly, FLB_78 (I may have the numbers on his screename wrong) had a similar issue around 105k miles or so. As far as I know he was good about maintaining his too.

Yikes. How many miles are on that? How often did you repack that with grease?

Anyone know the size of the bolts that replace the ones holding the ignition switch in place? %%%EDIT [15/Sep/2013 18:12]%%% M8-1.25 x 25 worked for me. %%%End Edit [15/Sep/2013 18:12]%%% %%%EDIT [29/Aug/2013 11:19]%%% Thanks for the call [you know who you are, I will keep this anonymous unless you request otherwise]! The riser bolts are reported to work %%%End edit [29/Aug/2013 11:19]%%% I have searched and searched and I guess I did not hit the magic combination of terms to find it... I am about ready to do mine and I would like to be able to NOT have to run to the store half way through the job. I know the stock ones are the 'tamper proof' but I do not really care about that since if someone knew enough to slide the tank back to unscrew those bolts they would be smart enough to know which wires to cross to drive off with it... Thanks and cheers.

Considering the "low fuel countdown" and "low fuel light" work off the same piece of electronic system (thermistor in fuel sender unit) and the gauge itself is the float apparatus that runs through the other circuit on the same unit, you can put your trust in these gauges if you choose to. My preference is to rely on the mechanical failsafe of manually switching between on and reserve. Please note that I have had the sending unit fail on me a few times, without warning. Every time the thermistor circuit is the part that failed -- that is my low fuel light and associated "F" Trip meter did not come on despite being lower than 1.5 gallons remaining. My gauge itself is inconsistent enough (just like any fuel gauge I have ever used be it on a car or another motorcycle) that I use it only as a rough reference. Just note the number of threads where people find that they fill up but their gauge already reads "one bar down" -- or next time you are running a little low go to a parking lot and make some hard right U-turns followed by some hard left U-turns and watch how your gauge varies... For me, the mechanical safety of switching from "ON" to "RESERVE" is by far, the most consistent 'gauge' and more importantly, the least likely to fail. I have been riding long enough to not have a problem reaching down and flipping from "on" to "reserve" while driving. I do pay attention to my trip odometer and know how far I have traveled since my last fill up as well as keep track of fuel economy under various driving conditions so I usually have a pretty good idea as to when I will need to switch (and plan for various fill ups); so under conditions of heavy traffic, if I am close, I will sometimes switch prematurely to avoid the slowdown that may occur due to the fuel starvation before switching to reserve. You can ride your ride however you choose and I will do the same with mine. %%% NOTE: The information here with respect to the fuel sending unit is specifically referring to that of the 2nd gen RSV and 06+ RSTD. It may or may not apply to other bikes. Also, all of the bikes I have ridden have had the petcock in a position that is actually capable of being reached safely while driving and I do realize that there are some configurations that it is simply unsafe or not possible to reach the petcock while driving.

The only thing that one can say objectively here is that it does not matter what position the petcock is in when you fill up (and don't anyone start about having a stuck float ). Oh, of course while you are cruising down the road you should NOT be in the 'off' position