LilBeaver
-
Posts
2,972 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Store
Everything posted by LilBeaver
-
While you are busy trying to pump up your tires with your progressive pump, the rest of us will be busy riding not to mention by the time you finish it'll be time to put 'er up for the winter. Seriously though, checking your tires with that would work just fine, but there is no way I am going to be laying on the ground next to my bike trying to fill my tires with my progressive pump :scorched:. Well... You are not the only one
-
As others have stated chaps or a motorcycle pant with removeable liner etc etc. Or if you want to go a real inexpensive route (note that you will be giving up crash protection) for 10-20 bucks you can pick up a pair of [packable] wind/rain pants which do not have insulation but do protect from the wind. Or for a little more you could go with a pair of snow pants (insulated wind pants). I keep a pair of the packable wind pants in my saddle bags at all times for rain protection. Occasionally when the temps dip below 30 I'll put them on to keep the wind off my legs as well (after all, windburn is NO fun at all). They do okay. The ones I have I picked up a few years ago (when I lived in northern Michigan) at a sporting goods store (gander mountain, bass pro or Academy, I don't remember which). Again they pack down to about 6"x4"x4" or so. If she is cold almost all the time then you are probably better off with something that has more insulation than just the wind pants. Hope that helps! Some examples: http://www.academy.com/index.php?page=content&target=products/apparel/womens/ski/pants&start=8&selectedSKU=0759-02016-6004 http://www.academy.com/index.php?page=content&target=products/apparel/womens/ski/pants&start=0&selectedSKU=0759-02016-6001
-
All other things being equal (and this IS a rather rash assumption) the 'same' gauge that reads 0-50PSI vs the gauge that reads 0-150PSI , the one with the smaller range is more likely to be more accurate than the one with the larger range. If you think about this in terms of a 'stick' gauge - where you put the end of the gauge on the valve and the stick pops out of the bottom with a reading on it, one can see very clearly that if you have hash marks every 5 PSI (like on a 0-100PSI gauge) vs. hash marks every 1 or 2 PSI (like on a lower range gauge, ie. 0-50) it is clear to see that the one with the finer resolution (on the stick) is, in fact, more likely to be more sensitive to finer differences in air pressure (ie. more accurate/offer a higher resolution). With the digital gauges, it is a little more difficult to make this type of comparison, because the display (as squeeze and I have discussed) may or may not be representative of what the unit is actually capable of doing. But, on the same level, would be reasonable to assume that your 10-20 dollar gauge with the smaller range has a much better chance of being more accurate than the 10-20 dollar gauge on the shelf next to it with a range of 0-160. Thanks!!! Yup yup, last night I found this too... I've got 2 on the way
-
First and foremost: :doh: ) So, after your last post I re-read your original post (quoted above) and thought about it some more and I realized that I had grossly misinterpreted a few of your phrases which, for someone who does error analysis on a daily basis (like me), I immediately over-complicated what it is you were saying. As far as the last digit 'problem' we both basically ended up saying the same thing. The issue I had was simply with my interpretation of what you had written. I guess I've been doing error analysis too long or something but your "End of scale value" and your later mention of the "99.9" vs "99" is what threw me off. I managed to interpret your comments as to say that the accuracy, quoted by the manufacture, was measured at the extremes of the devices range (which is 5PSI to 99 PSI). When you really were actually simply talking about what is DISPLAYED by the device it self. ) For this meter, the above is correct. Thanks for the clarification. As mentioned above, the issue with significant digits IS what you were referring to, and I mis-interpreted your comments as a discussion of how the 'accuracy' of the device was determined.
-
Good question. Quite frankly, I don't care. It just took a few tanks to get used to about how far I could go on each bar, and about how much further I could go as each block went away. I guess I do like that the one on the 06 is more evenly distributed - meaning that each bar represents closer to the same amount of fuel than the one did on the 01. I do also like that the fuel light actually works now (Before, it didn't work, and I didn't think it was all that big of a deal - but it is handy as a 'warning you are about to have to switch to reserve' and also since the fuel light works the "F-trip" meter works too - which is nice since we have such a large reserve capacity, I don't have to play the "Now how far have I gone since I switched to reserve" game anymore. On my original sending unit, if I recall correctly, it seems like the tank would stay 'full' for 60-80 miles or so, then the rest of the bars would drop very quickly. Again, it was just a matter of getting used to it opposed to the current unit that drops the first bar somewhere around 40 miles (50 on the highway). I hope I have provided you with some useful information here even though I did not really directly answer your question.
-
Yup, what Squidly said! I had often wondered about the actual output of our units, but do not have the equipment to test it. I asked once or twice and the best I got from people were guesses (which was fine). But this is good stuff. Thanks a lot!!
-
I replaced the sending unit on my 01 (because it failed) with one from an 06, and I noticed that the fuel bars went down much differently than my 01 did - so there IS some variance with years.
-
Got mine today, and my clamps should be here tomorrow or Monday at the latest. Can't wait to get them on as I don't like the way my bars flex everytime I throw my feet up. Thanks again for a great product as well as great instructions as to how to set it up
-
If you haven't done so yet, a post in the classifieds may be helpful to get it noticed.
-
Three Greens and Cruising
LilBeaver replied to Seaking's topic in Royal Star Venture Tech Talk ('99 - '13)
That's good service. Glad they did you right. -
I had this exact problem a few months ago. I went through all sorts of things short of welding a pin to it. Someone suggested to me the left handed drill bits, and boy oh boy, do I wish I knew about these a long time ago. If you go with a LH drill bit, just make sure you keep that puppy centered and, so long as it hasn't been cross threaded or anything, it ought to back right out. http://www.venturerider.org/forum/showthread.php?t=41854 Your mileage may vary.
-
Nose... no wait... Ear... No wait... Aye, that's it.
-
By the way, I know that I do appreciate the time and effort that you must put into typing your posts out in English. You provide a lot of great information to our community!!
-
-- Unless you are comfortable with the possibility that you could be ~1 PSI off. Then you can just suck it up and deal with it If you worry about it too much, you'll have to also consider how much the pressure changes for the little bit of air that comes out when you put the gauge on and off, not to mention any deviations in the surface and internal tempurature of the tire at the time of testing, as well as ambient air pressure and humidity. For example if you check your tires in your garage that is shaded and cool then roll your bike outside and let it bake in the sun for a while, you are likely to get two [statistically] significantly different readings. By statistically significant I simply mean that you are beyond say 2 or 3 error bars from the accepted tolerance of the meter used to make the measurement to begin with.... I suppose I will stop... For now
-
I looked up what the manufacture claims and the manufacture claims an accuracy of +/- .5% +/- 0.1 PSI. So whoever typed up the website for Canadian tire was not as complete as they should have been. However, there realistically is not enough information available to know how the company determined this particular accuracy number. Really what an end user ought to care about is the precision of the device (provided the end user have a trusted standard measure to compare it to and create their own correction curves to appropriately interpret the reading from the instrument). That is, the ability for the device to reproduce the same reading, time and time again. THEN, one could concern themselves with how close these repeated readings are to the actual accepted value (which is what is known as accuracy). What this particular 'accutire' gauge does is 'calibrates' itself when you put it on the valve stem to turn it on (by pressing it on then taking it off and letting the display show 0.0) then put it back on and the internal electronics compare the differences in the 'readings' to spit out a final reading. So, what really matters is the internal circuitry and how it was programed and what it was 'tuned' for. Squeeze: I am going to have to disagree with you on this. The 'accuracy' that the company reports does not necessarily mean that the value they come up with is the value at the top of the devices range (as you described). That is, in fact, ONE way to report a devices accuracy; but there is no way for us to know what method the company used to produce this particular value for the accuracy of this device. It could simply be an average of many values that were measured over the entire range of the device; or it could be the absolute minimum accuracy that was found in the testing process. Fact is, without more documentation (or testing), we simply cannot know. All of this really boils down to: in order to be conclusive one way or the other, we would just have to find some way to test it against a trusted standard or crack one open and take a look at the internal electronics (which I might do, for kicks, since mine no longer seals enough to get a decent reading). And what really matters to you, SilverT, is that it works well enough to give you the ride that you feel you should have when being inflated to the indicated value.
-
Not a dumb question at all. The key here is the 'wet clutch'. (The original poster can certainly comment to correct me if I am wrong on the interpretation of their comment). Since the oil maintains the lubrication of the clutch, the oil itself is exposed to a much different type of wear - that is the sheering; than a typical car or light truck would under 'normal loads' would not experience since the clutch is not lubricated by the engine oil. So, because of that - the normal car engine, or your 1.6L Corolla engine's oil, 'only' has to splash on the cylinder walls (and few other various places oil gets pumped/splashed) to keep the engine metal on metal parts protected.
-
Prayers and thoughts sent! Hopefully this time, he can come home and recover, uninterrupted... After all, it is encroaching riding season.
-
2nd Gen RSV fuel tanks or about 04 to now.
LilBeaver replied to lovebill1951's topic in Watering Hole
The price (MSRP) changes significantly from year to year too. -
As an alternative to the Odyseey (sp?) battery. If you have a sam's club membership or a walmart nearby, you may want to check them out too. I picked up an AGM battery made by interstate for my RSV for ~50 before tax (but including the core charge for 'exchanging/recycling' the old battery). I cannot comment on the longevity of the battery outside of the Interstate reputation and my 8+ months of trouble free use. However, the longest the bike sat, non-started would have been ~2 weeks while I was out of town. ( I ride pretty much all year round down here). Again, just an alternative to the OEM price tag and quality.
-
That's some good stuff, thanks for sharing . Oh, the article was good too.
-
If you scoll to the bottom of your thread here, you'll see there are many other threads that are titled "speed bleeders". Or you can do a search for 'speed bleeders' using the search tool on the bar on the top of this webpage (third from the right on the second blue bar from the top). I think you'll find all sorts of good information on them that way!! http://www.speedbleeder.com/ As a sidenote here, they don't seem to be as expensive as I recall seeing at some point.
-
These are pretty good . I had one of these (actually, it is still in my tool box) for about 10years or so, and just last year the little rubber seal on the inside of the end dried up so it doesn't seal on the valve stem anymore -- which, incidentally, is why I was looking for a new gauge. That website claims +/- 0.5 PSI. Which is what the claim on my old accutire gauge was as well. I sure wish I could find one of those down here. With respect to the "slime certification", I don't know if you have the product up there or not, but 'slime' is a company that puts out one of those 'tire sealant' kits that is the goop you put in the tire after you've run something over that is supposed to get you to the next service station. I understood the main goal of your post and couldn't agree more. I re-read my response and realize that it could have been misinterpreted. I was merely looking to help point out something to look for when one selects a new gauge and to not be given a false sense of security by seeing the digital display. Lots of people would see the fact that a gauge or meter reads to say the 0.1 place - and assume that because it reads that means it is accurate to there as well. I guess I see this A LOT with my students... And I get pretty easily discuted with products that have the potential to be great, then you flip it over and read the fine print and see that type of rating, despite the price tag and the front that claims it is the 'most accurate in its class' or whatever the wording was. Anyways, I didn't mean to hijack anything, steer away from your original point or whatever, just wanted to help make sure people were aware of that fact before hopping into something that won't do what they expect it to (and may or may not realize it).
-
Now THAT is impressive!! I wish I could get my bike to do that -- Or like Beer30 said, there is always a chance of getting some bad fuel, so better to mix the good with the bad than get all bad. Pete: One thought here is that if you had a few hard right leans or something, then you 'ran out' you would have had quite a bit of fuel left in the tank, that would have been accessible after a hard left turn or two. Sine the petcock pulls from only one side of the tank and the tank has a big 'divider deal' in the middle, it takes a good lean to get the fuel to switch from one side to another. A few weeks ago, I spent some time in a parking lot, screwing around... I mean 'practicing slow maneuvers' and my fuel was low enough that I could get the fuel light to come on when I was doing right handed U-turns and then get it to go off again with left-handed ones. After that I made a point of doing right-turns only until I started to sputter (which was a big mistake... Sputtering in the middle of a full locked turn is NOT fun ). I switched to reserve long enough to get the bike leaned over to the left, then turned it off of reserve and was able to drive for ~10 miles or so before having to actually switch back to reserve. So if we say you had maybe 1/4 gallon left in the right side of the tank (inaccessible without leaning the bike far to the left), and you added your 32 oz (1/4 gallon) that would give you ~1/2 gallon. If that all sloshed to the left side of the tank and you averaged 36-40 mpg on your way to the pumps, that would have given you your 17 miles. So that could be a plausible explanation for your 17 miles on what appeared to be 1/4 of a gallon of fuel.
-
Aside: When you get closer to planning your trip, wherever you are headed, if you want some company with the ride - keep us posted. I'm planning on heading up that way (a few times) over the summer too.
-
You have been around for some time and you have indicated that you have already found this site to be quite the resource. I have never used speed bleeders (and quite frankly, just can't quite justify the cost). A simple 8mm wrench a bottle and a couple lengths of hose are all you need to bleed the system. Someone wrote up how to setup a coke bottle to work as a vacuum pump. I haven't even gone that far, I stick with the pump and open the bleeder valve method. I start by sucking all of the old fluid out of the resevoir(s), and cleaning them out really well. THEN start working the appropriate brake (clutch) line until I get clear fluid coming out of the bleeder. Then a few more pumps for good measure (while watching the master cylinder, of course) and as long as it continues to come out nice and clear with no bubbles, I'll top off as necessary and clean up. I do see that you have a first gen and I do know that those linked brakes can be a little tricky, so this method may not be quite as easy for the linked braking system as it has been for me on all of the vehicles I've done this on. Good luck!! Don't be afraid to dive in for these kinds of simple tasks. No sense in getting ripped by a stealer for something that, while might take a little longer, you can do yourself and be assured that it is done CORRECTLY (and actually done, for that matter).