Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'ratio'.
Found 9 results
-
OK I'm discovering part of the the reason for lower gas mileage besides the additional weight. While cruising today, I notice 5th gear is actually useable at speeds as low as 45 as opposed to useless under 55. Soooo, I'm thinking that the gear ratio is a tad tall. Has anybody done any research on this?? I am also considering slightly larger diameter tires for better gas mileage. I know, Hannigan is adimate about using only that tire size, and I have to admit, the speedometer is dead nuts on, but I use my GPS for the speedometer so maybe I will experiment. Any suggestions or input??
-
What is the difference between the Dunlop Elite 3 front tires listed below. Since they are different prices and weights (by $16.00) there must be some significant difference. The only thing I see different is the Aspect Ratio. Which one is best for the RSV? Dennis Kirk lists both tires for RSV fitment. What I really want to know is which of these two tires do I want and why one over the other? Would I notice an Aspect ratio difference from 80 to 90? On Dennis Kirk site more people reviews the 90 Aspect Ratio tire. Is that because it is $16 cheaper or a better ride and life? One other detail, I am considering the Dunlop E3 because I can not get the Michelin Commander which I already have on the rear. Michelin has no idea when the 150/80 16 may be available. My Dunlop 404 front will need changing before to very long so I thought the E3's would be a good alternative choice. But which one??? What do you think???? $107.99 * Dunlop Front Elite 3 150/80H-16 Blackwall Tire (1 Review) weight 17.70 pounds Dennis Kirk Part #: 543447 Manufacturer Part #: 407989 Aspect Ratio: 80 Construction: Bias Position: Front Rim Size: 16 Sidewall: Blackwall Speed Rating: H Tire Classification: Touring Tube Type: Tube or Tubeless Units: Each Width: 150 Compared to: Dunlop Front Elite 3 MT90HB-16 Blackwall Tire $91.99 per tire (14 Reviews) weight 16.06 pounds Dennis Kirk Part #: 542887 Manufacturer Part #: 407990 Rim Size: 16 Width: MT Aspect Ratio: 90 Construction: Bias Position: Front Sidewall: Blackwall Speed Rating: H Tire Classification: Touring Tube Type: Tube or Tubeless Units: Each -
I've seen several discussions of wider vs narrower tires on this forum. But I don't recall any discussion of changing the aspect ratio of the tires. tire width x aspect ratio = height of the tire. The stock rear tire on the 2nd gens is: 150/90-15 where 90 is the aspect ratio that determines how high the tire sits, and hence its circumference. Its also part of the overall gear ratio of the machine. ie: a taller tire is going to require fewer rpm's of the engine than a shorter tire (using the same transmission gear). This implies that a well worn tire will be 'geared' lower than a new tire... How about that? Lower aspect tires have less side wall flex than higher aspect tires, so may be considered stiffer. That might mean better in the twisties? A thought occired to me that one way to achieve a lower gear ratio, much as one does by using a Vmax rear end, could be achieved by using a slightly smaller aspect rear tire? Has anyone tried this? or even thought about it? This is also a possible alternative to installing lowering links.
-
I was daydreaming about hopping up the performacne of the 2nd Gen RSV.. What parts could I take off of a 1st Gen V-Max and put on a 2nd Gen RSV???? Vmax Specs Type Liquid-cooled, V-four DOHC, 4-valve Displacement 1198cc Bore x Stroke 76,0mm x 66,0mm Compression ratio 10,5:1 HP 145 Starting system Electric Lubrication Wet sump Carburation BDS35 (4) Primary reduction ratio 1.775 (87/49) Secondary reduction ratio 2.566 (21/27x33/10) Final transmission shaft drive Clutch type Wet, multiple disc Transmission type Constant mesh 5-speed Gear ratio 1st 2.529 Gear ratio 2nd 1.772 Gear ratio 3rd 1.347 Gear ratio 4th 1.076 Gear ratio 5th 0.928 2nd Gen RSV specs Type Liquid-cooled, V-four DOHC, 4-valve Displacement 1296cc (98 more than a V-Max) Bore x Stroke 79mm x 66mm (3mm more bore than a V-Max) Compression ratio 10:1 (one half point less than a V-Max) HP 97 @ 6000 RPM (48 less or 67% of a V-Max) Starting system Electric Lubrication Wet sump (4) 32mm Mikuni CV (Smaller than a V-Max) Primary reduction ratio ??? Secondary reduction ratio ??? Final transmission shaft drive Clutch type Wet, multiple disc Transmission type Constant mesh 5-speed Gear ratio 1st ??? Gear ratio 2nd ??? Gear ratio 3rd ??? Gear ratio 4th ??? Gear ratio 5th ??? How much of that 1st Gen V-Max 145 HP could you get into a 2nd Gen RSV??? Will the V Boost fit??? Exhaust concerns??? -
OK, the numbers are in - Goose 1, Magic plugs 0! Executive Summary: In a recent thread the subject of NGK Iridium plugs generated several comments from some members claiming an improvement in either performance or fuel economy attributed specifically to these "Magic" plugs. I maintained that there is absolutely no way any magic plug could ever improve anything over standard plugs except longevity (they do not erode the electrodes as fast). Kross Kountry and I devised and executed a quasi-scientific test designed to effectively prove or disprove the idea that magic plugs could improve fuel economy. This test was performed by two similar bikes riding the same routes and speeds together for several tanks of gas with standard plugs in both, then several more tanks of gas with magic plugs in the test bike, while carefully comparing the amount of gas each bike took at each fill. The exact miles per gallon for either bike are completely irrelevant in this test, as the only significant issue is to determine if the ratio of fuel used by Bike A to Bike B changed after the magic plugs were installed. At the end of 732 miles, the fuel used by the test bike was effectively unchanged, "proving" that magic plugs have NO value in improving fuel economy. The Results: By running two similar bikes together through several tanks of fuel, we were able to remove most of the normal variables (such as weather, terrain, speed, riding styles, quality of fuel, etc.) that make normal measurement of miles per gallon on a motorcycle fairly useless. Since our tanks are so small, the variables effectively invalidate every single calculation, but in this test they can mostly be ignored because they should have affected BOTH bikes the same way. And, again, we were not actually concerned by the MPG calculations, just the ratio of fuel used in Bike A to Bike B. There are a few significant variables that remained, and I will detail these in the gory details below. Bike A was the control bike with standard plugs. This was my 2005 RSV with over 70,000 miles on it and no special preparation. I consider the bike in reasonably good tune, and the plugs were changed a bit over 2,000 miles ago. Bike B was the test bike. This was Kross Kountry's 2008 RSV with about 8,000 miles on it. Prior to starting the test we reset the float levels correctly and set the fuel mixture screws. All indications were that the bike was running excellently throughout the test. We began the test by installing new standard plugs in the test bike, then riding together for three tanks of gas over a variety of roads for a total of 412 miles. For the first tank, 150 miles, the ratio of fuel used A:B was 1.06:1, meaning that for each gallon of fuel used by the test bike, the control bike used 1.06 gallons. Tank 2 was 148 miles, and the ratio was 1.11:1. The third tank was just 114 miles with a ratio of 1.10:1. For the entire 412 miles with standard plugs in both bikes, the ratio of fuel used by Bike A to Bike B was 1.09:1. At the end of day 1 we switched the test bike to new NGK Iridium plugs (the "Magic" plugs). For this test we ran only two tanks of gas for a total of 320 miles. Tank 1 was 159 miles with a ratio of 1.09.1. Tank 2 was 161 miles with a ratio of 1.05:1, for a total average ratio of fuel used by Bike A to Bike B of 1.07:1, actually WORSE than with standard plugs! But read the gory details below to find out why I do NOT consider that significant. In effect, I believe that there was absolutely NO difference in the fuel used by the test bike with either plugs. In addition, Kross Kountry is a professional driver, and he feels he is probably more in tune to the "feel" of a vehicle than the average rider might be. He stated that he was not able to detect even the slightest hint of difference in the way the bike ran after we installed the Magic plugs. All The Gory Details: One of the variables we were not able to completely remove was filling the bike to the exact same level each time. We did, however try to minimize this by carefully using the ignition key to measure the fuel level; however, we did not try to check each other. In one case, I believe the slab at the pump was sloped, and I pulled in facing up hill, while he pulled in to the other side of the pump facing down hill. This was the first tank with the magic plugs. The slope was not real evident, so I ignored it at the time, but Tracy commented later that he wondered if he got a true fill since his bike came down off the "Full" mark sooner than before. This seems to have been verified by the lower than normal ratio at the second tank fill, where his bike needed more gas to completely replace the fuel that had not been added on the previous fill; the two tanks together should have removed that variable. In addition, after I shut the pump off for that final fill and re-checked my key measurement, it seemed as if I might have been just a tad too low, but it was too late to add more. I'll readily admit that only doing this comparison for two or three tanks is still not enough to average out all the variations we might have had in the exact amount of fuel added, but it is all we had time for! Another variable that I introduced without thinking ahead of time was the weight on the bike. Most of the baseline test with standard plugs in both bikes was run with a passenger on my bike, but all of the second day was run solo. On the first day, about a third of the first tank was run solo, which would account for the closer ratio of fuel used than we got on the next two tanks. This, along with the issue above concerning the exact fill amounts, is why I do not believe the test bike actually used more gas with the magic plugs than it did with standard plugs - the reasonable fact is that my bike simply used slightly less fuel when riding solo than it did two-up. But if someone wants to claim this completely invalidates the test, well, I'd be hard pressed to argue. The odometers on both bikes were consistently very close, with Bike B showing approximately 1 mile less over 150 miles. For all of the MPG calculations below, I have used the numbers from my bike, removing that small variable. Here are all the exact numbers related to each tank of fuel during the test: Day 1, tank 1 - 1/2 city riding, 1/2 SMALL secondary roads at speeds around 50 mph. Bike A took 3.873 gallons and got 38.73 mpg. Bike B: 3.647 gallons, 41.13 mpg. Ratio 1.06:1 Day 1, tank 2 - all riding was back roads, but somewhat larger and straighter than above. Roughly 1/2 the riding was under 70 mph, and 1/2 between 70 and 75 mph (as reported by GPS). Bike A took 4.249 gallons, 34.83 mpg. Bike B: 3.824 gallons, 38.70 mpg. Ratio 1.11:1 Day 1, tank 3 - virtually all was straight highway or freeway at 70 - 75 mph. Bike A took 3.418 gallons, 33.35 mpg. Bike B: 3.103 gallons, 36.74 mpg. Ratio 1.10:1 Day 2, tank 1 - open roads, 1/2 under 70 mph, 1/2 over 70 mph. Bike A took 4.554 gallons, 34.91 mpg. Bike B: 4.187 gallons, 36.74 mpg. Ratio 1.09:1 Day 2, tank 2 - open roads with two thirds over 70 mph and running the Talimena parkway at the end. Bike A took 4.465 gallons, 34.91 mpg. Bike B: 4.251, 37.873 mpg. Ratio 1.05:1 That's it - hopefully all my math and typing is correct! Goose
-
What rearends are a good choice to build a trike with out of a 1st gen? What gear ratio? What are the pros and cons to a trike as apposed to a hack?
-
Hey all, I am considering going to a CT on my 2000 Royal Star Venture. I have been monitoring this forum for a while now, and I'm pretty convinced I want to take the plunge. Two quick questions for the guru's out there. First, if I've done my homework correctly, the aspect ratio for the 165/80R15 (Federal, Khumo, etc.), when converted yields a sidewall height of 132 MM. The 155/80R15 (BFGoodrich) converts to 124 MM. The stock size MT of 150/90R15 converts to 135. Obviously, the 165 tires are closer to stock, but is that necessarily better. I think, as others have suggested, it might have less of an effect on the number of tire rotations (speedometer) than the smaller 155 tire. But, is that necessarily better. What I am wondering about is flex in the sidewall. Won't the taller sidewall of the 165 have more flex in hard turns than the 155? If it does, is that better or worse? While I'm not thrilled about the idea of alterations to the speedometer, to me, that is secondary to handling performance, especially when leaning in the turns. My second question is about the sidewalls themselves. Some of the CT's are single ply, and some are two-ply. Is either one better than the other? Any and all input would be greatly appreciated. Don from Harrisburg, Pa
-
In the past few months I have been dealing with TriWing Trikes to obtain a DX Cruiser body. After selling us the body they have become rude. The only thing we have done is to question an EXTRA $125.00 shipping charge, and ask them which gear ratio they would recommend a 3.45.1 or a 3.27.1, oh I also asked if they had a tech line if ******* was not available. Hear is some of the negative correspondence. I hope this will give someone a heads up before they deal with them. :mad: :mad: :mad: It costs us $75.00 to ship to Vancouver, and the Vancouver to your residence was $350.00 as the below message I received states. That is a total of $425.00. As you paid $300.00, you still owe $125.00, I was not aware that we put the gear ratio in our instructions. I don’t see how I can assist you. This was a project you decided to take on instead of purchasing a proper kit, so I would say you are on your own. I don’t have a tech person sitting here to ask your questions to and I don’t put kits together. I have a manual courtesy of Jerry-M and it does give gear ratio and recommended tire size PS. I went and picked the body up at the trucking company it was not delivered to our shop.
-
Ok folks who knows what the gear ratio is for the 2nd gen differentials? What's the 1st gen and V-max ratios too for that matter? Larry
.thumb.jpg.4e1b3809c4633f365ba67afc212f21df.jpg){kind=avatar}
