V7Goose

You may have seen my flag mounts in other threads. In response to several requests for more information on the construction, I am posting detailed info here. http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/V7Goose/Flagmount4.jpg Here is a little background info - I have used this flag mount for many hundreds of miles at highway speeds (60-80 MPH) with both 3X5 flags unfurled with no problems. Nothing is used to secure the flag poles - they just drop down into the mount tubes. This makes it especially easy to take the flags out when heading for a flag line during a PGR mission. I've seen a lot of other guys' flags come loose during missions, but this design so far seems solid. All measurements are taken to the outside edges. I like the V design, and I have not seen any others like it. Don't make it any wider than this, as the flags can get in the way (the first one I made was wider). If I was making another, I'd probably make the bottom bar 16". Here is a picture of the bottom of the mount before painting: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/V7Goose/Flagmountunfinished3.jpg The bottom bar is 14", and it is made from 1 1/4" angle iron. The angle iron is welded to a square tube that sticks 3 1/2" out of the receiver. Ignore the bolt you see sticking down through the stinger just behind the receiver; this was originally put in for a center brace that I later removed. I just left the bolt in place because it aligns the hole for the clevis pin behind the mud flap. The tubes are 1" O.D. EMT electrical conduit, 25" long. I brazed these to the bottom bar instead of welding because of the relatively thin metal - no danger of burn-through. The middle brace is 1" flat bar brazed to the back of the tubes. It measures 18 1/2" to the outside of the tubes. I later bolted 1" aluminum angle inside that brace as an anchor point for the center brace I later removed. I never took off that aluminum angle, but there is no reason for it. Here is a closeup of the brackets that hook onto the helmet locks: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/V7Goose/Flagmountsupport.jpg The top of the tubes measures 23" wide. The brackets I made for the helmet locks measure 5 1/2" from the eye bolts to the back of the tubes. I made these by simply taking aluminum bar stock and bending it around the tubes and riveting it together. This fits very tight, but still allows some movement that facilitates fitting the brackets over the helmet locks. Here is how I braced the flag poles: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/V7Goose/Shelfbracket2.jpg http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/V7Goose/Shelfbracket.jpg The flag poles are 3/4" O.D. EMT electrical conduit and 6' long. These are smaller diameter than anyone else is using, but they seem plenty strong. I originally made several 70 MPH runs with flags out without problems (even before I added the helmet lock brackets), but decided to reinforce them just to be sure. I took modular shelf wall bracket and just laid it on the driveway and started whacking it with a ball-lean hammer to force the edges together, then drove it up inside the flag poles with the hammer. This brace extends past the top of the mount tubes so the full pull of the flags doesn't cause the poles to collapse at the top of the tubes. Not sure it is necessary, but it gives me peace of mind! That's about it. Make sure you use decent sized eye bolts for the helmet lock anchors, as I had one break from the strain of a heavy flag after about 400 miles (but the rest of the flag mount made the entire mission without further damage). I have found that very light weight nylon flags put much less strain on the mounts and actually last much longer at high speeds than heavier flags. So save your money and buy cheaper flags! Goose

Sorry RPG, but despite the fact that we both agree with your basic sentiment, you made one very incorrect statement. Calling 5th overdrive is absolutely correct and appropriate. The incontrovertible fact is that 5th IS an overdrive. The marketing joke is simply making too big a deal out of it. Goose

Actually, I think that light is just a sales gimmick to keep reminding you that Yamahaha gave you and OVERDRIVE! The reality is that an overdrive gear on any vehicle can cause as many problems as it solves. It is very easy to lug an engine in overdrive, and vehicle performance can suffer to the point you think it is a real dog, when all you needed to do was get out of overdrive. Unfortunately, that kind of technical information about vehicles and driving started disappearing in the 50s. Back then, engines generally were limited in power enough that understanding exactly when and how to use an overdrive was important on the few vehicles that had them. The situation was even more complicated because the overdrive unit was usually aft of the transmission output, so if you didn't turn OD off, it adversely affected all gears. Now that just about everything has an overdrive, and it is part of the transmission, nobody knows much about it except it is just top gear. Goose Oh, one more clarification to my first post - just to keep me out of hot water if someone thinks I made a mistake in what I said. I don't know for a fact if the owner's manual numbers are actual "overall" drive train ratios like I said they were or just transmission ratios; it does not make it clear and I did not care to research it. If it is actually the overall ratio, then my statement is correct that the rear wheel is turning faster than the engine. BUT, if the ratio only applies to the transmission, then it means the output shaft is turning faster than the engine (or input shaft). In the latter case, the final drive gearing would need to be factored in to determine the actual wheel speed compared to the engine.

The owner's manuals list the overall gear ratio for 4th gear as 24/25 or 0.960 and 5th gear as 22/28 or 0.786. Technically any ratio below 1 (where the rear wheel actually turns faster than the engine) is an overdrive. This means both 4th and 5th gears are overdrive, even if Yamaha only talks about 5th being overdrive. The OD light only comes on in 5th gear. Goose

I changed the links on my 05 RSV without removing anything except the two nuts and bolts. My bike is stock with all the AIS stuff, and I did not have any problem at all. Don't do more than you need to! Goose

OK, maybe not the mirrors - with no apologies to the TV commercial. Heh heh . . . It sounds to me like you two are in violent agreement, just not using the right terms. You are both right on what you are trying to say. Compression itself can have little to do with the ability of the spark plug and coil to fire, but any liquid introduced into the mix (such as fuel) can! A perfectly dry carbon-fouled plug will usually still fire, but if that carbon layer gets wet it becomes a good path to ground for the charge instead of being forced to jump the air gap. Technically the problem is not increased resistance across the gap, but a lower resistant path to ground through the wet carbon coating over the ceramic insulator. Always best to have some new plugs available when troubleshooting a problem like this. Good luck, Goose BTW - that exhaust pipe blowing off with a bang proves that you do have spark (at least some times). You are just getting a backfire from the unburned fuel building up in the pipe, then getting ignited by partially burned fuel being blown out on one of the exhaust strokes. That does not prove the pipes are plugged, but certainly worth checking.

To answer your original question - no, the fuel filter is not causing any of the things you are experiencing, and no, the stock filter does not (or should not) materially restrict the gas flow. Bottom line on fuel filters is this - they should always pass as much gas as the engine is trying to suck. The amount of fuel that enters the cylinders is limited by the carbs or fuel injectors, and it is also related to the amount of air being sucked into the cylinders. The only negative impact a fuel filter can have is to get clogged and not allow enough fuel to reach the carbs. This will rob power, and it can especially show up when the engine is pushed hard and trying to suck the maximum fuel. Your problem sounds more like restriction in the air flow. How about the air filters? If they are clogged, then you will be running very rich, have poor power AND poor fuel economy. Pull the plugs and see if they are sooty black to confirm this possibility. Good luck, Goose BTW - have you done a compression test and verified that all cylinders are firing?

OK, I'll admit that I don't know what "too much tire" would be, other than too big! It sure sounds like one of the stupidest things anyone could ever say. Even if they were trying to say it was better than the bike needed, that's not a bad thing! But hey, I don't work for a tire company or a race track, so what do I know? Goose

I do not believe LEDs are significantly brighter than available incandescent bulbs. Yes, we all know that you can buy bright and dim versions of both, but that is not the question. More importantly, MANY LED conversion bulbs placed in an existing incandescent light housing will appear dimmer. This is driven by the fact the an LED is a very focused light, where incandescent bulbs are diffuse 360 degree lights. The reflectors and lenses of normal vehicle lights are designed to appropriately direct the light from an incandescent bulb and fail miserably when a focused LED is placed in them. Even when you have an LED that is actually as bright as the original bulb (and many are not), the full brightness often will not be seen through the lens, and even if it is, it can only be perceived from a very limited viewing angle. These are all factors that make most LED replacement bulbs LESS safe than the original incandescent bulb. Note, however, that most of this does not apply to a complete replacement LED light that does not just stick an LED inside an old fixture. If you buy the whole thing, then it is properly designed to emit the right light in the correct pattern. Unfortunately, most of what this thread has talked about is putting LED replacement bulbs behind existing lenses, and that is usually a bad idea. You are absolutely correct about many lights in one spot verses one bulb to fail, but that is almost pointless. What I mean is that LEDs virtually never fail, so the many-to-one means nothing; even a one-for-one replacement would give you the same reliability improvement (but not the same brightness). So, if I am only going to have a single brake light or a single turn signal on each side, then replacing those lights with a proper LED setup absolutely adds a lot of value. However, I prefer to solve this problem by adding LED lights for both brake and signal functions, while leaving my stock lights alone. Now I have the best of both worlds. Even if any single light fails (LED or regular bulb), I have backups. Also, adding LED lights to an existing signal circuit will not add significant load to the electrical system nor will it have any impact on the flashers or computer. All the benefit with none of the problems for probably less cost than trying to convert existing lights with replacement LED bulbs. You are hit it right on the head when you said "it is all just opinion." Ain't it great that we all get to have one in this country? Nothing at all wrong with yours. My only concern is that I hate to see those sad reports that so often show up where someone thumped out $35 or more on a fancy replacement LED bulb and then finds out how disappointing it is when they install it. I ain't never gonna prevent that, but I can at least give the folks here a little information to use in making an informed decision on their own. I do try to make sure everyone knows when I am blowing opinion verses when I believe I am stating facts. Hope I haven't misled anyone. Please know that I wasn't putting down your ride in any way. Ride safe, Goose

I am saying that with the narrower tire in the front and stock suspension links you will have fantastically improved low speed handling on an RSV. I also feel the overall handling and maneuverability of the RSV is improved, not just the low speed handling, but that is where you will notice the most dramatic improvement. HOWEVER, the MT90 tire does NOT change the rake or trail. That would only come from a tire that has a smaller overall diameter than the stock front tire. There ARE some brands of tires where the MT90 or 130/90 front tire is a smaller diameter than the stock 150/80, but that is not the case with Avon Venoms. The improved handling is a result of the changed tire profile. The narrower tire causes the tire to lean into a turn more smoothly when running below the counter-steering speed (about 6 MPH). Wider tires or flatter profiles cause what I'll call a tipping point where the tire suddenly reaches a point where it acts like it is falling over a cliff. On the RSV with stock tires and stock suspension, as soon as the bike committed to a low speed turn the forks would try to slam all the way to full lock, causing the rider to constantly push out on the inside bar to keep that from happening. This is what caused the bike to feel so darn heavy and ponderous. By putting on the MT90 tire in front (and a good tire in the rear), the bike totally lost any tendency to force the front wheel into a turn. With the narrower tire, the steering at parking lot speeds is almost neutral, meaning you no longer have to try and force the handlebars to the position you want. The bike will hold just about any line you put it on. Hope that helps, Goose

Not trying to disagree with anyone's personal preferences here - just expressing my own thoughts . . . I agree in the choice to replace brake lights and running lights with LEDs. but ONLY if you find ones that work appropriately with an incandescent fixture and lens. This is a totally separate subject that I won't take the time for here, but the majority of LED bulbs will NOT work appropriately as replacements for normal bulbs in existing lights. It is possible to replace flashers with units that are designed to work specifically with the low draw of LEDs (as already described in other posts). If you do this and do not use anything described a load balancers, resistors, etc., then you will be saving electrical load for the very small amount of time that the flashers are actually flashing. And that is all. I personally do not see the benefit of this, even if my bike is running close to the limit. Since the flashing lights have roughly a 50% duty cycle, even if those two bulbs (four in the case of 4-way flashers that are even used LESS often) put me over the max charging current when they are on, the time they are off should more than compensate for the battery drain. The total current drain from just two flasher bulbs is fairly minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Then when I factor in the problems with the computer circuits that provide the auto cancel function, if I loose that feature than I have lost something valuable to me while gaining nothing of value. And on top of all that you still have the problem of the correct light pattern when replacing normal bulbs with LEDs. CAUTION: even more personal opinion follows: Yes, LED bulbs do last MUCH longer than normal bulbs, but considering the price difference and normal long life of standard 1156 and 1157 bulbs, you will never save more than you spend. Yes, LEDs do technically light up a few milliseconds faster than incandescent bulbs. MAYBE in a brake light this provides a margin of safety; although, that is debatable. I absolutely deny any possibility that the turn signal lighting up a few milliseconds faster on each flash can have any possible safety value. None. Nada. Zip Zilch. No way. Unfortunately, the dual filament 1157 bulbs in the front don't have a good solution. Since the smaller wattage filament is on all the time as a running light, you could save this very small amount of electrical load by switching to LEDs, but all of the other concerns above then come back into play. There is no option that I know of where you can change just one filament of an 1157 bulb to LED and not the other. The closest thing here is to use a replacement LED and the load balancing resistors on the flasher circuit. Still not enough benefit in my eyes to be worth the expense or effort. Just two small running lights is not going to make a real difference in the charging system. So, for those that have a personal preference to make the change, great - go for it. Just 'cause I wouldn't do it is no reason for you not to. I just want to try to help folks understand what is really going on so they don't do this for the wrong reasons. Good luck all, Goose

Instead of trying to help you solve the flash rate, I thought I'd ask why you are even messing with it? I use a lot of LEDs on my bike; in fact, I much prefer them to normal lights for just about any added lighting. But not for the existing turn signals. The main reason why most of us even look at LEDs is to add lights without increasing the load on the charging system. Converting existing running lights or brake lights will also reduce the total electrical load, so those conversions make sense. But not with turn signals. To make the existing turn signal circuit flash at the same rate, you need to add shunt resistors to cause all the electricity that WAS being used by the old lights to be wasted going to ground; therefore, you are not reducing the electrical load on your bike the least little bit (I'm deliberately ignoring the dual-filament bulbs in the front). Sooooo, if you are not gaining anything by reducing the electrical load on your charging system, why waste your time and money messing with it? Goose (All contrarian views expressed are free, and they DO reflect the opinion of the author!)

Hey, you're not confused at all - you boiled it all down to one neat sentence! Stock tires if you raise the rear, narrower front tire if you do not raise the rear. Goose

The tread pattern in the Avon Venom tires seems to be the new industry standard for heavy cruiser or touring tires. You will see lots of similarity with Dunlop EIIIs, Metzeler 880s, etc. I have been completely impressed with the total handling characteristics of these tires specifically (traction, wet roads, etc.) and the RSV with the Avons (no tracking problems, neutral turning effort, stability). I have 20,000 miles on Avons with my 05 QuickSilver, and I have ridden in light misty rain, frog stranglers, all-day storms, patchy rains through the mountains, high speed solo runs, two up marathons, footboard-dragging runs through the twisties in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas Hill Country, slew the Three Sisters, and just plain old boring runs to and from work dodging the stupid cagers. At no point have I wished for anything more than what the Venoms could deliver to me. I'd guess that the tread pattern on the Venoms seems just about perfect to me, at least compared to anything else I have ridden on. Good luck, Goose

The rake is the angle of the steering head related to a perpendicular line to the ground. The trail is the distance on the ground between an imaginary line drawn straight through the steering head and one drawn vertically through the front axle. Here is how Wikipedia describes it: The trail dimension is determined by drawing an imaginary line through the steering axis to the ground, dropping a perpendicular line from the front axle to the ground (which usually falls some distance behind the first line), then measuring the distance between these two points (the name arises because the drop point "trails" the steering axis point).[2] Trail ultimately defines the handling characteristics of a motorcycle, how stable it will be at higher speeds, how easy it will flick through S-turns, and how easy it will be to control at sub-idle parking lot maneuvers. Bikes with shorter trail will be very easy to handle at slow speeds and quite responsive when navigating S-turns, but at higher speeds these bikes will be more vulnerable to the road conditions and feel more unstable. On the other hand, bikes with longer trail dimensions may handle like a wheel barrow in the parking lot, require a bit more encouragement to tackle an S curve, but track straight and true like an arrow at freeway speeds, offering little response to the road until the handlebars are activated by the rider. The trick for the motorcycle designer is to find some happy medium for the intended design. By just raising the rear of the bike without making any other changes, the rake angle becomes slightly steeper AND the trail becomes shorter. In contrast, lowering the bike by putting smaller diameter tires on both the front and back so that the bike remains level would not change the rake but WOULD produce a shorter trail. Putting a smaller diameter tire on the front while also raising the rear will decrease the trail by more than just raising the rear will do. Because of the confusion pointed out by several folks here, I generally TRY to avoid using the term "smaller" when talking about tires, preferring instead to say "shorter," "narrower," or "smaller diameter." I'm sure I don't avoid it all together, since I am constantly catching myself typing the word, then going back and correcting it to one of the others, but I try. Thanks for making sure this was clear to everyone. Goose

Absolutely correct, but I am not sure what point you were getting at. The MT90 improves the low speed performance because it is narrower with a more rounded profile, not because it changes the trail by being shorter (which is is not, as you point out). I referred to my worn out MT90 as being shorter because the diameter of the tire will shrink as the thickness of the tread is worn away. This will obviously be a very small change (probably 1/4" max), but a change nonetheless. More importantly, I was contrasting the worn out Avon MT90 to the old Brickstone 150/80 with lots of tread left on it. I had to raise the front of the bike between 1/2" and 1" more to get the Brickstone under the fender. The handling characteristics of the bike can be changed by either changing the steering geometry or changing the tire size/profile. If you make both changes, the effects can be multiplied even though only one of them changes the trail measurement. Based on my own experiences and the reports of others, it seems that whichever change is done FIRST (either the links or the narrower front tire) is the change that the rider most dramatically feels. In my case I did the tire first, and the improvement was dramatic, then when I added the links later, the handling did not seem to change that much. Others have reported dramatic improvement just from changing the links while still riding on the stock front tire. Now that I have the links on and went back to the stock front tire and the handling did not get ponderous again, I conclude that the links alone on my bike are making as big an improvement as I originally found from the MT90 tire alone. Hence, my suggestion that only one of those changes should be made, not both. Your point about the measurements of the Avon tires specifically, as opposed to assuming it applied to all tires is well taken. Way back BC I had done some research on published nominal measurements from each tire manufacturer on both their 150/80 and 130/90 front tire sizes and stock rear tire sizes. I shared that information on this site. I do not remember the specifics for any particular brands (other than the Brickstone 150/80 was the widest of all by far), but I did find that two different brands have a significantly smaller diameter in their front tires compared to their rear. The point here is that by comparing published tire sizes and choosing based on that information, you can actually change the front/rear height and thereby the trail of the steering geometry without modifying the bike itself. I think the maximum difference I found comparing other brands to the stock Brickstones was about 3/4", which is almost as much as you get from the Leveling Links. The bottom line is that just because two different brands of tires are stamped 150/80-16 does NOT mean they are the same size - they are usually close, but not identical. Goose

Here's an update on my tire experiments and how the RSV handling has been affected: Very brief background - for all the details, see the beginning of this thread and another one by me titled "Tire Talk - ": I hated the handling with stock Brickstone tires, and it got really bad as the rear tire wore out. I bought new Avon Venoms with an MT90 front size at 8,000 miles and RAVED about the improved performance. After running about 4,000 miles on the Avons with everything else stock, I switched to shorter suspension links to raise the rear of the bike. I did not notice the dramatic handling change from the links that others had reported. My rear Avon wore out at 14,000 miles - while waiting on a new tire, I mounted my old Brickstone rear for a week or two. The bike hated that tire so much I thought it was trying to kill me! Turned out that the worn Brickstone rear tire had more bad impact on RSV handling than the front tire. I put new Avon rear tire on and all was right with the world again. As the front tire continued to wear down, I noticed some increased squirreliness in the handling. About the same time, others here were commenting on the same thing. I guessed that maybe this was coming from a combination of the raised rear, narrower front tire, and worn front tire profile.Back to today - my front Avon was toast at 20,000 miles. True to my promise a few months ago (see quote above), I mounted the original Brickstone front tire last night (only 8,000 miles on it and it still had lots of tread). Initial report is the bike is handling fine today. So again it seems that all of the nasty bad handling problems I remember from the stock Brickstones were related to the rear tire much more than the front. I also noticed that the worn out tire I took off the front was considerably smaller in diameter than the old Brickstone due to lack of tread. What made this evident is that I could not roll the Brickstone under the fender without raising the bike quite a bit higher. More importantly, however, is the fact that the bike did NOT revert to the real heavy handling at slow speed that it had with the stock tires. I attribute this completely to the fact that I now have the shorter suspension links. Right now, my bike has an Avon Venom on the rear that only has about 4,000 miles on it and the stock Brickstone front tire that I took off 20,000 miles ago. When combined with the raised rear end, my initial impression is that the poor slow speed handling caused by the overly wide front tire is negated by the reduced trail from raising the rear of the bike. My conclusions are that the handling characteristics of the RSV can be dramatically improved by EITHER changing to the MT90 or 130/90 front tire OR raising the rear of the bike. I believe that doing BOTH changes (narrower front tire and the higher rear) is not optimal. Although I did not initially feel that the handling was bad after adding the shorter suspension links, I did notice it get worse as the front tire wore down. I think that this made the front even lower, which combined with the narrow tire made the handling just too quick for such a big bike. My recommendations: If you have long legs and want the higher seat height, change out the suspension links to DiamondR's Leveling Links and keep a stock front tire size. If you want to keep the rear of the bike at the same or lower height as stock, definitely change your front tire to the MT90 or 130/90 size. Finally, no matter what you do, select a better brand of tire than the Brickstones. This alone will provide a lot of improvement! I have measured the actual width of the 150/80-16 front tire in all the major tire brands, and the stock Brickstone is about 1/2" wider that the stock size in other brands. This means that just buying a different brand of tires will actually give you a slightly narrower front tire even if you stay with the stock size. Good luck, and safe riding, Goose

I personally use a set of 4 vacuum gauges from JCW - had them for many many years and see no reason to consider anything else. They are just about indestructible and work very well. That is also the low cost option. Good luck Goose

This advice is unbelievably irresponsible! Many folks here have already explained why. If you still have any doubts about our answers, just do a little research on the internet on minimum wire gauge for a 10 amp circuit draw. Anyone who decides to replace a circuit protection device with one larger than designed puts their equipment, and possibly the lives of themselves and others at risk. If you significantly over-draw that circuit, the wire insulation WILL melt. Wires that are overloaded increase the heat they generate the longer they are under the overload, so you might get away with adding 5 lbs of air to a tire, but not 20. There really isn't any way to know how long you can get away with that. Since all of the wires are out of sight, you won't even know it is happening until it either starts a fire or the wires short out and finally blow the larger fuse. By then, the damage will already be done. Goose

I'd sure like to understand how they are shipping you a tire that won't be born for two more months?!?!?!

Saddlebum has a good point about the engine sitting - I didn't even think about that. If those 6,000 miles are real, then that bike has done a LOT of sitting for extended periods over the last 17 years. Those rings could be frozen in the ring grooves, thus acting just like a worn out motor! Or worse, the cylinder walls could be badly pitted and damaged from rust, or the rings broken from catching on the damaged cylinder surface after it was first fired up. If these engines have iron cylinder sleeves (probably, but I don't know for sure), then it is very common for iron rings to rust to the cylinder walls when an engine sits for many years, especially if it is any place except the desert. Goose

The RSV has both types of noise filters installed for the stock radio (I believe the condensor is in the fairing, not sure about the other parts). Ther RSTD almost certainly does not have these parts. I'd get the schematic for both to identify the items, then use the IPB from Yamahaha's web site to identify the specific parts and how they are connected. From there you should be able to solve your problem. Good luck, Goose

There is absolutely no concern switching between synthetic and dino oils, so if yo want to try it, go for it! But I doubt you will find any difference in the leak. Despite the many stories and superstitions about synthetic oils, they do not leak any more or less than any other engine oil of the same grade. Still, no harm in trying, and you get to save a few bucks on your oil change too! Good luck, Goose

If you are seeing visible exhaust gasses from that crankcase breather, your rings are shot. There is no need for it to be connected to the intake, but that does reduce pollution. Make sure the engine has a functioning PCV valve; if not go get one from a junk yard from any engine (or your buddy's car!). Just make sure you can hear it rattle when you shake it and you can only suck/blow through it in one direction. Put this in the hose so that the air can get out but not back in. If you are going to run the bike that way instead of doing a top end job, make sure you change the oil more often. Those hot combustion gasses carry a lot of contaminants, and they will oxidize your oil faster too. Does the bike have electric start? If so, you need a bigger ground cable than otherwise. 4 gauge should be fine. Just go to any auto parts store and tell the counter guy you need a battery ground cable about x long. If no electric start, 10 gauge should be fine. Good luck, Goose

Here is another thought from a totally different direction: Your symptoms (including your description of more smoke under acceleration) really sound like a worn-out or damaged engine. How sure are you about the miles this thing has on it? Did the smoking mostly start after you changed the oil? If so, what did the oil look like that you drained? Was it black and thin or did it look mostly new with lots of viscosity? I'm not trying to point the finger at anybody, but a worn out engine with a bunch of STP or Motor Honey in the oil might just hide enough of the smoke to slip past an unsuspecting buyer until the oil was drained and replaced with normal stuff! There should be lots of other tell-tale signs to look for on the bike to see if it really only has 6,000 miles on it. Original paint job? If so, are there any stone chips or pits on the front fairing, body work or fender? How about the rubber covers on the brake peddle, shift lever, pegs, etc.? With 6,000 miles you should be able to see some indications of wear, but not much. If they look brand new, suspect that they may have been changed! Is the twist grip rubber? Look closely for wear patterns from the hand. Again, at only 6,000 miles, this should be just barely visible. How about under the bike? If it has not been steam cleaned, there should be some gunk and road grime built up in a few places, but not a lot. Also look for wear marks around any moving parts, such as the clutch lever pivot, swing arm pivots, shock mounts, shift linkages, etc. If the 1st gen has exposed fork tubes, how much wear is visible above the oil seal? At 6,000, there should be almost none. If necessary, go find a bike (any bike) with verifiable mileage under 15,000 and compare how much wear is visible on similar parts. Good luck, Goose