**** "DO'S & DO NOTS" for NEW SPYDER OWNERS... ****

[ShortCake]

What an awesome thread! I have yet to even look at any other posts/threads and have read this all the way through from the beginning.

I am totally new to Spyders although being active on 2-wheels for about 12 years now. I'm a youngin' only in my mid 40's but due to a nagging knee issue, felt it was time to get more serious about safety and the chances of going down. I am in the process of getting a brand new leftover 2015 RT S SE6 (still in the warehouse and boxed) $5630 under suggested retail. Putting a lot down so the monthly payments are less damaging. I also invested in getting the additional 3 yr extended warranty (especially with all of the electronics and computer gadgets used in these machines).

My only question is, after reading most of the info in this thread, I remember reading something about what gears you should be in for certain mph. I did read about the lower RPM's when to shift for the RT 1330 models, but, was anything said about which gear is best for which speeds? Previously stated was that 4th gear is good for cruising anywhere from 45mph up to 60 or even 65mph. Is that still the same or different since new info has been added about the 1330's?

[Illinois Boy]

...was anything said about which gear is best for which speeds? Previously stated was that 4th gear is good for cruising anywhere from 45mph up to 60 or even 65mph. Is that still the same or different since new info has been added about the 1330's?

It is explained in detail within the text that is specific to the 1330 engine if you re-read just that section (very first post).

In short however, for the 1330's, the important thing to remember is when to shift out of first to second. It should be at or above 2500 rpm's. Many shift out of first at 3000 rpm's or slightly higher.

The second thing to remember is that you do not need to use all the gears (6 of them) all the time. In other words, if you are just cruising around town you might never use 5th or 6th gear.

Since you have ridden motorcycles, you know when an engine sounds like it needs to be shifted up or down. The same applies here. The 1330 machines are not as sensitive to its shifting points as the 900 series engines were.

The shifting issue mostly came about because of the 998 engines' low torque at low rpm's. The torque-range of the 900 series engines is at 5,000+ rpm's -- required shifting at higher rpm's (5,000+) and basically staying within that range.

Too many owners were shifting their 998 engines too early and running them at too low of rpm's. Some were also shifting to 5th gear and cruising around town all day in 5th gear. That is torture on the 900 series machines. Apparently, American's love low rpm machines and many have a hard time getting used to a higher rpm engine. Thus, BRP came up with the 1330 engine to satisfy those who are not comfortable with a high rpm engine. (Personally, I love the 900 series engine.)

Hope this helps.

Enjoy your ride, and ride safe, often, and aware.

Illinois Boy

[Dan65]

I had read this post before picking up a 2010 RT with 4,800 miles on it. Great info and I followed a lot of it. The RT had just went thru a $700 plus annual inspection. It looked like new including the tires which showed very little wear. The bike had not been ridden in the last year plus, or if so very minimal. You can look at my post "wild ride" and see what happened to me 20 minute's after leaving sellers home on interstate I-25. Its at the dealer now and is considered a catastrophic failure. looks like 5-6 thousand repair. No one is going to be able to really say what happened for sure but common sense says 6 year old tires sitting for quite some time equals a good chance for a blow out (i.e. Possible Dry Rot). Not trying to create fear but I don't want anyone going thru what I did for it truly was a near death experience. Just my thought !!

[Illinois Boy]

6 year old tires sitting for quite some time equals a good chance for a blow out

There is generally a rule about tires... do not use tires after 6 years -- period. It is also important one looks at new tires for their manufacture date. While it is rare, a dealer could sell you news tires that are six-years old. The advice... do not buy them.

Glad to hear you are okay.

[Wct22]

I just ordered the belt guard myself. I live on about a 1/2 mile of gravel/dirt road, and I guess I have been lucky and had no issues in the couple weeks I have owned my . I'm hoping the belt guard works well, as I don't know anything else to do besides slow down.

BTW, this is an awesome thread.

Jive

Where did u get guard, I'm new to Spyder and live on gravel road
thanks

[NoJive]

http://spyderpops.com/the-missing-be...pt-2014-15-rt/

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

[rosebelle]

This thread has been going for a few years. Much was claimed in the earlier years.

Now that some time has passed, from those that have contributed in the past, or others, is there any reason to add to, take back or modify the views expressed?


Not criticizing the thread, I think it's very good and absolutely what Forums should be about, but I have a slight problem with the statement often made summerized as "rev it high, it is good for the engine (and stops belt vibration)". The engine is not an animal, it is made of parts rubbing and pushing together, the faster it runs the greater these factors and wear increases. Every second an engine runs it is wearing out. Other than destructive vibrations, or a weak oil pump is there a reason to run any engine fast without increasing wear albeit a small wear increase.

So, is there any evidence that the 998 engine wears out quicker running it slow (but at reasonable, often felt natural, shift points)?. Alternatively what evidence of longevity (miles) is there with those that run these at the higher stated revs.?

[PrairieSpyder]

This thread has been going for a few years. Much was claimed in the earlier years.

Now that some time has passed, from those that have contributed in the past, or others, is there any reason to add to, take back or modify the views expressed?


Not criticizing the thread, I think it's very good and absolutely what Forums should be about, but I have a slight problem with the statement often made summerized as "rev it high, it is good for the engine (and stops belt vibration)". The engine is not an animal, it is made of parts rubbing and pushing together, the faster it runs the greater these factors and wear increases. Every second an engine runs it is wearing out. Other than destructive vibrations, or a weak oil pump is there a reason to run any engine fast without increasing wear albeit a small wear increase.

So, is there any evidence that the 998 engine wears out quicker running it slow (but at reasonable, often felt natural, shift points)?. Alternatively what evidence of longevity (miles) is there with those that run these at the higher stated revs.?

The OP is updated as things change. The current version is as of June 27, 2016. So a new member doesn't have to read through all the pages of advice to get the best info.

However, I just did a quick scan of that post and didn't notice anything specific to the F3 model, like shifting RPMs, etc. So maybe it needs to be revisited after all.

[Illinois Boy]

The OP is updated as things change. The current version is as of June 27, 2016. So a new member doesn't have to read through all the pages of advice to get the best info.

However, I just did a quick scan of that post and didn't notice anything specific to the F3 model, like shifting RPMs, etc. So maybe it needs to be revisited after all.

No reference directly to the F3; but rather the 1330 engine itself. It is mentioned and covered.

[Illinois Boy]

This thread has been going for a few years. Much was claimed in the earlier years.

Now that some time has passed, from those that have contributed in the past, or others, is there any reason to add to, take back or modify the views expressed?


Not criticizing the thread, I think it's very good and absolutely what Forums should be about, but I have a slight problem with the statement often made summerized as "rev it high, it is good for the engine (and stops belt vibration)". The engine is not an animal, it is made of parts rubbing and pushing together, the faster it runs the greater these factors and wear increases. Every second an engine runs it is wearing out. Other than destructive vibrations, or a weak oil pump is there a reason to run any engine fast without increasing wear albeit a small wear increase.

So, is there any evidence that the 998 engine wears out quicker running it slow (but at reasonable, often felt natural, shift points)?. Alternatively what evidence of longevity (miles) is there with those that run these at the higher stated revs.?

No offense but this has been parsed, covered, uncovered, cooked, stewed, and broiled. This info on the two different engines has been verified through several years practical experience and data by many experienced riders. If you have a 998 engine, then you may want to follow the advice; but that's entirely up to you. You are not the first who wants to argue with it.

If you have a 1330, then it is far less complicated and that info is in there as well.

Ride safe...

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

So, is there any evidence that the 998 engine wears out quicker running it slow (but at reasonable, often felt natural, shift points)?. Alternatively what evidence of longevity (miles) is there with those that run these at the higher stated revs.?

Maybe you're not aware of it yet, but when you take your Spyder in for servicing the technician connects it up the BUDs computer. One of the readouts is a histogram of engine speed in increments of 2000 rpm for the 998. If you have the 998 engine, and have a high percentage of operating time in the 2000 to 4000 rpm range, the technician may well chew your butt. BRP wants owners to spend something like 80% and more time at rpms above 4000. That's the way the engine is built. Keep in mind the pedigree of the Rotax includes ultra light aircraft. You don't want slow turning engines on them!

[PrairieSpyder]

No reference directly to the F3; but rather the 1330 engine itself. It is mentioned and covered.

That's true. But the F3T and F3L (don't know about the base F3 or F3S) have a bigger rear sprocket and the shifting points are different than for the 1330 in an RT.

[Peter Aawen]

Further to what IdahoMtnspyder wrote, there isn't any evidence that keeping your revs up will cause premature wear (& growing numbers of Spyders doing this are reliably reaching high mileage for bikes too) but there IS evidence that ignoring that advice can cause premature wear requiring expensive repairs!!

So, if you ride a V-twin Spyder, ignore the rev recommendations at your peril & potential cost!!

[rosebelle]

I'm not ignoring this to my peril. What is the type of failure related to too much time at low revs? I am reading anecdotal evidence not proper science. I do realise this topic has been discussed from the moon and back, but I cannot find say e.g. this 998 has spent 80% of its time at 2000rpm, 5% at 3000, 5% at 4000 .....and it's crankshaft is bent, the piston have melted.....etc.; as opposed to this engine has spent 80% at 5000 rpms.....etc and the engine is glowing with health.(or whatever happens). Data?

As far as the relationship to aircraft motors, is this engine used in any aircraft, and if so at what revs does it cruise on? I suspect not and even less so at peak HP at what...8000rpm?.

My experience in aviation is that engines are run at very low outputs to what the engine could be hotted up to do. Continental and Lycomming motors in Cessnas run at 2700 rpm. Now I do realise that Rotax do cruise higher RPMs than that; but the point is less rpms means less stress means reliability.

I am not arguing that the 998 was designed to rev high to get max power but about it's longevity if run this high, and what doesn't fail that claims to fail if running at lower revs. What wears out prematurely? Data please.

[Illinois Boy]

I'm not ignoring this to my peril. What is the type of failure related to too much time at low revs? I am reading anecdotal evidence not proper science. I do realise this topic has been discussed from the moon and back, but I cannot find say e.g. this 998 has spent 80% of its time at 2000rpm, 5% at 3000, 5% at 4000 .....and it's crankshaft is bent, the piston have melted.....etc.; as opposed to this engine has spent 80% at 5000 rpms.....etc and the engine is glowing with health.(or whatever happens). Data?

I am not arguing that the 998 was designed to rev high to get max power but about it's longevity if run this high, and what doesn't fail that claims to fail if running at lower revs. What wears out prematurely? Data please.

You have valid questions.

First, all engines will have wear, as you know; and certainly there are various types of wear on an engine depending on how it is run, or how it is operated under load.

The recommendations for the higher rpm's on the 998 engine is primarily due to its underwhelming power at lower rpm's.

However, if you have a paddle-shifter, the clutch does not fully lock (engage) until 3200 (+/- 200) rpm's. Running a Spyder in any range where it is not fully-locked causes wear due to the clutch slipping. Over a long period of time, slippage will cause excessive wear on the clutch; if not clutch failure. (An example of clutch failure was provided by a member who refused to run his Spyder as suggested, and he paid the price of having to replace his clutch.)

So you have a couple issues facing you if you have both the 998 and a paddle-shifter.

Now, to further help explain the information provided in the first thread relates to the power-band of the 998 engine (not the 1330). As you know, if an engine is run consistently in a range below or above its power band, the engine is not working at it optimum efficiency -- which translates to increased stress (load) on all of the engines components exposed to this load.

An example would be if you were riding a 10-speed bike up a hill in 10th gear. Your body will be considerably more stressed from the workout from doing so; versus if you were to have used a lower-gear (1st for instance). If you were to have used first gear to climb the same hill, you would have peddled considerably more times (higher revs); however it would have also been considerably easier (less stress) in first gear versus 10th. I believe you get the point. It is similar to an engine.

In addition: the added load on a Spyder's drive-train, when running a 998 engine below its power band, has been noted many times with people having to replace their primary drive bearings and other components. While an engine's speed (rpm) can cause wear and heat, the load factors are an important factor in drive-train failure.
Refer to this info for more detail of a study on aircraft engines: http://www1.coe.neu.edu/~smuftu/docs...0Espinosa).pdf

When operating any engine below it power band exposes the engine and its drive-train to potential excessive load; which over time can cause failure of components receiving the load.

Lastly, anyone who is a expert rider/driver/pilot will tell you it is best to maintain the vehicle at all times within it optimum range of power and torque for safety and control reasons. More accidents happen when a vehicle is in too low or high of a gear for a specific situation requiring power to avoid it.

You had great questions; and I hope this helped some.

Ride safe...

[beefybudds]

I had read this post before picking up a 2010 RT with 4,800 miles on it. Great info and I followed a lot of it. The RT had just went thru a $700 plus annual inspection. It looked like new including the tires which showed very little wear. The bike had not been ridden in the last year plus, or if so very minimal. You can look at my post "wild ride" and see what happened to me 20 minute's after leaving sellers home on interstate I-25. Its at the dealer now and is considered a catastrophic failure. looks like 5-6 thousand repair. No one is going to be able to really say what happened for sure but common sense says 6 year old tires sitting for quite some time equals a good chance for a blow out (i.e. Possible Dry Rot). Not trying to create fear but I don't want anyone going thru what I did for it truly was a near death experience. Just my thought !!

I can not find your wild ride post.?.?
Can you post link to it.
Thanks

[rosebelle]

You have valid questions.

First, all engines will have wear, as you know; and certainly there are various types of wear on an engine depending on how it is run, or how it is operated under load.

The recommendations for the higher rpm's on the 998 engine is primarily due to its underwhelming power at lower rpm's.

However, if you have a paddle-shifter, the clutch does not fully lock (engage) until 3200 (+/- 200) rpm's. Running a Spyder in any range where it is not fully-locked causes wear due to the clutch slipping. Over a long period of time, slippage will cause excessive wear on the clutch; if not clutch failure. (An example of clutch failure was provided by a member who refused to run his Spyder as suggested, and he paid the price of having to replace his clutch.)

So you have a couple issues facing you if you have both the 998 and a paddle-shifter.

Now, to further help explain the information provided in the first thread relates to the power-band of the 998 engine (not the 1330). As you know, if an engine is run consistently in a range below or above its power band, the engine is not working at it optimum efficiency -- which translates to increased stress (load) on all of the engines components exposed to this load.

An example would be if you were riding a 10-speed bike up a hill in 10th gear. Your body will be considerably more stressed from the workout from doing so; versus if you were to have used a lower-gear (1st for instance). If you were to have used first gear to climb the same hill, you would have peddled considerably more times (higher revs); however it would have also been considerably easier (less stress) in first gear versus 10th. I believe you get the point. It is similar to an engine.

In addition: the added load on a Spyder's drive-train, when running a 998 engine below its power band, has been noted many times with people having to replace their primary drive bearings and other components. While an engine's speed (rpm) can cause wear and heat, the load factors are an important factor in drive-train failure.
Refer to this info for more detail of a study on aircraft engines: http://www1.coe.neu.edu/~smuftu/docs...0Espinosa).pdf

When operating any engine below it power band exposes the engine and its drive-train to potential excessive load; which over time can cause failure of components receiving the load.

Lastly, anyone who is a expert rider/driver/pilot will tell you it is best to maintain the vehicle at all times within it optimum range of power and torque for safety and control reasons. More accidents happen when a vehicle is in too low or high of a gear for a specific situation requiring power to avoid it.

You had great questions; and I hope this helped some.

Ride safe...

Illinios Boy thanks for the effort in replying and supplying the bearing and spline info re aircraft engines.

I know the clutch issue with SE5 998 motors, and now I know of primary drive bearing failure and I take it wear failure within the gear box?

This all leads me to believe that the engine was not adequately designed for use with the Spyder as I don't think that engine in the Aprilla had any of those issues. It is hard to understand why at low power (particularly noted as low torque) and low revolutions that people take that as creating greater stress within the engine. I would have also thought big end bearing failure would occur before crankshaft bearing failure, if that was the case.

I suspect that (also from reading the article) the issue can only be of poor oiling of those bearings at low revs, causing greater friction heat build up that is not efficiently dissipated.

I suspect the drive train failures (I don't know yet which components they might be), are not only due to insufficient lubrication and heat dissipation, but due to weak strength. Yes we do understand that revving higher in a geared up situation distributes the load (say on gears) over more teeth because of the greater ratio. But we are transmitting the maximum torque through this drivetrain in doing so.

On that point of ratios why would you not make the top gear correspond to top speed allowed or what would reasonably be cruise speed. Highway speed does vary over the world, I am limited in my country to 110km (65mph) but more of 100km (60mph) and maybe I am a little unreasonable to expect top gear (5 on 998) should be the gear selected to cruise all day on. What I am saying it makes more sense to use all these gears, unless the 998 has extremely good strong low range gears clearly contradicting my proposition that they have not. Many vehicles, cars and bikes have traditionally low gear failures due to excessive use of these gears that they were not designed for.

It is strange to me why people believe there is something special about how we should use of the Spyder engine, not done anywhere else in the world of motors (possible overexaggeration by me!); when it can IMO be because a shear lack of adequate design.

[Illinois Boy]

The post was/is merely a suggestion from many who have years (since the Spyder inception), and miles of experience with the 998 Spyder. Your view would be a minority view. However, there are some who simply cannot bring themselves to run any engine at a higher rpm no matter what. Again, that is their choice.

[Peter Aawen]

Rosebelle, this 'driving in the optimum rev range' thing isn't unique to Spyders with the 998 motor; you might benefit from spending time reading 4WD forums in Aus, or talking to truckers, heavy transport drivers, earthmover operators, & even taxi drivers - most of whom who have learnt that instead of dropping into your highest gear as soon as you get moving & ignore the lugging engine, you really do need to try to run your engine at its most effective & efficient REVS for the majority of the time & simply use the gear selection to allow you to drive at the road speed you desire atm!! It doesn't matter what the engine is, that's how you get the best overall fuel economy in the real world rather than when on an economy run under un-realistic conditions; and that's how you minimise your maintenance & repair costs too!! Modern vehicles rarely suffer too much mechanically from being driven in their lower gears instead of overdrive, altho that may have been an issue some decades back, it isn't nowadays, with modern manufacturing & tolerances, etc. In fact, many modern auto's even refuse to select their highest gears until specific speed & throttle load conditions are met, so they almost always run in their lower gears! But still, the number of newbie operators who either destroy engines, gearboxes, &/or clutches thru just picking their highest gear too early might astound you; & that IS in these automotive industries that make a big deal of teaching their new operators to always run/drive in the efficient REV range for the engine rather than just going for the high gears straight away & then letting the engine lug along below its efficient minimum, or for that matter, running the engine out beyond its greatest efficiency at the top end!!

Even most recreational 4Wheelers have managed to learn this; engines have an efficient rev range, & driving under or over that 'best for power, torque, & fuel economy' rev range just to stay in their 'overdrive' gear too much will cost in the long run - maybe largely in excess fuel costs, (yes, they've learnt the hard way that running in a high gear too much & lugging the engine as a result only wastes fuel!) but often also in maintenance & repair costs as well as in their vehicle's long term reliability, especially for their clutches & over-drive gears!! In reality, most Vehicle manufacturers give us gears because it's too hard for them to develop an engine that runs at its most efficient across its entire rev range, or to develop an engine that will deliver power & economy across the entire speed range that the users want or desire from the vehicle!! The only vehicle manufacturer that's managed to get around those problems that I'm aware of is Tesla, & guess what?? Their vehicles run engines that are always at their most efficient so they don't have any other gear choices at all!! You either go forwards, backwards, or stop! But they can drive as fast or as slow as the operator wants (weeeellll, I hope you get the drift! )

How do you think truck engines & gearboxes manage to reliably reach the millions of kms they do between major overhauls? It sure ain't thru lugging their engines along along at 600 rpm & effectively idling with 15th gear selected behind an engine that's designed to run at it's most efficient between 1200 & 2400 rpm, nor is it thru spending most of their time running in their highest gear 'cos it's more economical to get it into their top cruising gear quickly' - it just isn't economical or viable to do that when you are driving in the real world! Conditions & posted speed limits don't always permit that, so they run their engines in the engine's most efficient REV RANGE, & select whatever gear will give them the ability to move efficiently & economically at the road speed they currently want - so for the vast majority of their driving, they aren't going to be in their highest gear! And in the long term, doing this pays off handsomely in reduced fuel bills, reduced maintenance costs, and reduced repair costs!

Some of us have learnt the hard way that running in the engine's efficient rev range rather than dumping it into top as soon as we are moving actually works with our V-twin Spyders, & some of us have learnt that it isn't always necessary to repeat others' mistakes to learn the very same lessons.

[Shifter]

Not maintaining higher RPM's and riding the brake seem to be two of the most consistent bad-habits I have read about (here and other places).

Again, it is arbitrary, but I shift to 2nd gear based on the speedo being no lower than 22 MPH, but mostly nearer 28 MPH. From there I do not shift (typically) until I see the RPM's above 4800 -- and typically above 5,000.

In doing so, I do not have to roll-back the throttle at all (as I did prior to running at higher RPM's). The trans just slips into the next gear very smoothly and without much, if any, sound ever.

I will stay in 4th gear up to around 63 / 65 MPH if cruising-along. That puts the RPM's at around 5,500 or so. In that gear at that RPM, the motor's vibrations seem to melt away and it purrs smoothly. (I promise, it took me some time to get used to it -- especially when switching back-n-forth between my HD Ultra-Classic. I am now quite comfortable with high RPM's now.)

While I am not a mechanic, I have been told by several that running the Spyder at low RPM's can eventually cause too much stress, and possible failure in the main-bearings -- something you do not want to pay the bill to have fixed. Cannot vouch for that info though -- but that type of problem is common on snowmobiles that are consistently over-loaded and ran hard from a stop. (Too much torque on the drivetrain so I am told.)

I never had a problem with riding brakes on any vehicle I operate -- so I have not had any experience -- however I hear where others are having all kinds of problems with their Spyders when they do so. Apparently the "nanny" doesn't know if you want to go or stop. Makes sense because riding a brake while moving forward doesn't.

Ridden two wheels for 40 years, current 2 wheeler Kawasaki GPZ900R and Victory Vegas, world's apart but the Spyder is a whole new Universe!
After reading the above on revving I've marked the tach at 5000 and trying to stay above that.
It feels manic and like an old RD350 2-stroke riding like that, just rode up twisty Springbrook mountain and then Beechmont mountain and stopped at the general store and I'm exhausted!.... Gotta be 100% on the ball, I've got the handlebar action and weight shift happening. Picking lines into corners that keep me in my lane....and it's hard work!

[rosebelle]

Rosebelle, this 'driving in the optimum rev range' thing isn't unique to Spyders with the 998 motor; you might benefit from spending time reading 4WD forums in Aus, or talking to truckers, heavy transport drivers, earthmover operators, & even taxi drivers - most of whom who have learnt that instead of dropping into your highest gear as soon as you get moving & ignore the lugging engine, you really do need to try to run your engine at its most effective & efficient REVS for the majority of the time & simply use the gear selection to allow you to drive at the road speed you desire atm!! It doesn't matter what the engine is, that's how you get the best overall fuel economy in the real world rather than when on an economy run under un-realistic conditions; and that's how you minimise your maintenance & repair costs too!! Modern vehicles rarely suffer too much mechanically from being driven in their lower gears instead of overdrive, altho that may have been an issue some decades back, it isn't nowadays, with modern manufacturing & tolerances, etc. In fact, many modern auto's even refuse to select their highest gears until specific speed & throttle load conditions are met, so they almost always run in their lower gears! But still, the number of newbie operators who either destroy engines, gearboxes, &/or clutches thru just picking their highest gear too early might astound you; & that IS in these automotive industries that make a big deal of teaching their new operators to always run/drive in the efficient REV range for the engine rather than just going for the high gears straight away & then letting the engine lug along below its efficient minimum, or for that matter, running the engine out beyond its greatest efficiency at the top end!!

Even most recreational 4Wheelers have managed to learn this; engines have an efficient rev range, & driving under or over that 'best for power, torque, & fuel economy' rev range just to stay in their 'overdrive' gear too much will cost in the long run - maybe largely in excess fuel costs, (yes, they've learnt the hard way that running in a high gear too much & lugging the engine as a result only wastes fuel!) but often also in maintenance & repair costs as well as in their vehicle's long term reliability, especially for their clutches & over-drive gears!! In reality, most Vehicle manufacturers give us gears because it's too hard for them to develop an engine that runs at its most efficient across its entire rev range, or to develop an engine that will deliver power & economy across the entire speed range that the users want or desire from the vehicle!! The only vehicle manufacturer that's managed to get around those problems that I'm aware of is Tesla, & guess what?? Their vehicles run engines that are always at their most efficient so they don't have any other gear choices at all!! You either go forwards, backwards, or stop! But they can drive as fast or as slow as the operator wants (weeeellll, I hope you get the drift! )

How do you think truck engines & gearboxes manage to reliably reach the millions of kms they do between major overhauls? It sure ain't thru lugging their engines along along at 600 rpm & effectively idling with 15th gear selected behind an engine that's designed to run at it's most efficient between 1200 & 2400 rpm, nor is it thru spending most of their time running in their highest gear 'cos it's more economical to get it into their top cruising gear quickly' - it just isn't economical or viable to do that when you are driving in the real world! Conditions & posted speed limits don't always permit that, so they run their engines in the engine's most efficient REV RANGE, & select whatever gear will give them the ability to move efficiently & economically at the road speed they currently want - so for the vast majority of their driving, they aren't going to be in their highest gear! And in the long term, doing this pays off handsomely in reduced fuel bills, reduced maintenance costs, and reduced repair costs!

Some of us have learnt the hard way that running in the engine's efficient rev range rather than dumping it into top as soon as we are moving actually works with our V-twin Spyders, & some of us have learnt that it isn't always necessary to repeat others' mistakes to learn the very same lessons.

Peter, fellow Australian, don't you realize that our vehicles are under less stress than most of the "up and over" world. Something to do with not having to contend with gravity, I've been told before. Our issues are around requiring stickier tyres to stop us from falling off the earth, aren't they

Thanks for your detail, I'm still asking for actual figures (% of Spyders) where normal (old fashioned?) revs have been used to cause significant failures/premature wear - I was not initially arguing the "against" the higher revving argument. But I see things creep into people's opinion that may be questionable/illogical.

The point is made, and accepted, that driving in an optimal rev range produces the best power but economy not necessarily so, and what does fuel economy have to do with the subject anyway?
Silly examples that don't support the argument:
I've heard aeroplane engines need to rev. on this thread: what 2700rpm is high?
You have written not to "lug" truck engines at 600 rpm. Who does that?
How does trucks running at 1200 - 2400rpm equate to faster running engines? For a few examples.

Often I hear the implied stupid argument that an engine uses the least amount of fuel at the highest torque or power revolutions. Laws of Physics suggest otherwise.

Not trying to be too picky but "modern cars refuse to select their highest gears" is not universal at all. The ones that I have come across all do go to the top gear quickly. Yes they have learned behaviour controlling gear changes, based on load/throttle position etc, but that is to maintain adequate power, and control emissions.
You mentioned 4WD I've had quite a few, just looking at a new Prado (top popular 4WD) to replace the wife's. It is offered with 6 speed (2 overdrives), the 4th gear no different to past 5 speed model, strongly suggesting the designers are targeting economy.
My Mitsubishi Challenger switches to top very quickly, adding a "chip" has created more power and torque but the engine spends even more time at low revs, and with improved economy. No discernible extra wear. Reading 4WD mags , the Internet and Forums don't suggest revving engines at all, on my readings. First 4WD bought new 1983, probably driven 0ne million Kms in them. My various F100/Bronco's clearly ran most efficiently at low low revs (did probably 400,000 Km's in those (bullet proof). I can go on. You did not mention marine engines - tell me about these modern engines! ha
.

Tesla? isn't "don't have any other gear choices at all" because they are electric?

Maybe I haven't learnt the hard way yet. But the last fifty years of extensive driving numerous types of engine things does not support the argument "revving is better", if I am now to argue the "against" case.

I'm not saying that you should "lug" an engine at all. Sensible driving of course (I understand what has been said and there is some truth in it all).

Evidence on Spyders, other than anecdotal please.

[rosebelle]

Shifter, I remember the Yamaha RD350 2 stroke. What did you get out of the tank when running the old ton? Something like 50 miles, refuel every 1/2 hour?. How long did it last doing that? 5000 miles? Not much was it, to have to rebuild it. That bike doesn't support the argument on this thread either.

[Shifter]

Shifter, I remember the Yamaha RD350 2 stroke. What did you get out of the tank when running the old ton? Something like 50 miles, refuel every 1/2 hour?. How long did it last doing that? 5000 miles? Not much was it, to have to rebuild it. That bike doesn't support the argument on this thread either.

Yeah heavy on fuel and 2 stroke oil but big on excitement!
Was a long time ago, owned both the RD350 air cooled as well as an old XS650 twin, world's apart.
Didn't really own it long enough to rebuild it but throwing rings in an elderly 2-stroke is a walk in the park:-)
After posting elsewhere and getting more reaction I now see I've both misread and mis interpreted the OPs sticky post......I'll move my 1/8" masking tape line down to 3500rpm as the NO GO area.
I'll see what revs it's pulling at a legal 60kph(37mph) in third as riding around at 5000 at that speed sounds and feels ridiculous and cruel to the engine,
I know not to lug a modern V Twin engine, I also own a Victory Vegas cruiser 1700cc and it don't like to lug either, it'll do it but it's cruel on the engine.
It's best at 3000 and up, the factory limiter comes in at 5100 on my model but with the pipes, intake, advance,as well as Power Commander V and dynotuned I've had it lifted to 5500 and will have it extended to 6500 once hotter cams and big bore kit go in later this year.
But that's apples and oranges and pumpkins really.
The Polaris V Twin and the Rotax V Twin are different animals entirely.
I've got to do a run today to see a herbalist who is making me up some Comfrey ointment as the strong stuff is unobtainable here right now.
And my wrist is still sore from the Spyder bite last week:-)

[scottglu]

Just wanted to thank you for posting this!! It was very helpful as i am a new Spyder RT owner!

[Troublesome]

What is the ideal trailer size for the 2013 RSS?