-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
final drive ratio
- Thread starter retread
- Start date
bjt
Very Helpful Member
Another idea... I'm not a transmission expert or gearhead or anything like that so I'm not even sure if this is really possible or would cause other problems that would make it very undesirable. :dontknow:
The idea - make the 5th gear the size / ratio of what a 6th gear would be. Then make each gear between 1st and 5th a little taller to make up the difference between the old 5th and the new 5th gear. Almost half of my daily commute is at speeds of 45MPH or more where I would use a 6th gear ratio.
The idea - make the 5th gear the size / ratio of what a 6th gear would be. Then make each gear between 1st and 5th a little taller to make up the difference between the old 5th and the new 5th gear. Almost half of my daily commute is at speeds of 45MPH or more where I would use a 6th gear ratio.
Think about it ,if you are going upper hill will you get the same rpm with same speed on the road . I don't think so.You need more rpm to reach the same speed . so when you get more HP from the pipe . you will need less rpm to reach the speed . I know the gear will make more different but it will cost a lot more.
Yeah - at best the Hindle will just let you get to that RPM quicker.......
I don't really mind the higher revs... this engine seems to like things at 6,000 or more. Anything much under 4,500 and it seems to dog out on you... if you are in 4th or 5th for sure.
I've had her up to 115 while still in 4th gear... 5th took me to 122... and there was still more where that came from... but I had to slow down.
I don't really mind the higher revs... this engine seems to like things at 6,000 or more. Anything much under 4,500 and it seems to dog out on you... if you are in 4th or 5th for sure.
I've had her up to 115 while still in 4th gear... 5th took me to 122... and there was still more where that came from... but I had to slow down.
hmmm... wonder if 2-3 in. taller rear tire would honestly help.. I know it would reduce RPMs at higher speeds. (better MPG) also getting a Michelin, or Kumho, that can be run at higher pressures ( with quality sidewalls for cushioning) could lower the Coefficient of friction with the road, (less resistance, better MPG)
Both of these options are very easy on the budget, and are tried and true eh.. my .02 worth.
Both of these options are very easy on the budget, and are tried and true eh.. my .02 worth.
SpyderMark
New member
Ryno said:
I would be careful about changing tire sizes. The Vehicle Stability System uses sensors to measure speed based, in part, on the number of tire revolutions. If you change the tire size significantly you might render your VSS inoperative -- or even force the computer into "limp" mode.
Regards,
Mark
Something to think about - does it measure actual wheel revolutions ie; with a sensor located on the wheel, or does it measure the revolutions with a sensor in the transmission? It isn't going to cost too much to see if this will work if you can find a regular car tire that will fit. I went to a size larger tire on the rear of a conventional trike (Goldwing/Hannigan) with about a 3mph increase at normal cruise rpm.
Dwight
Dwight
Magic Man
Registered User
The VSS system is programed like any computer is. It was programmed with what the testing showed the "normal" amount of variances the engineer felt was needed for "normal" conditions. Tire wear is "normal", However, there is no "normal" set of circumstances that would have your tire diameter change to this amount, or even close outside of a major blowout or loss of air pressure. Again, these are not "normal", and indeed emergency type of events.
All VSS systems be it on a car or bike have a "moment threshold" programed into them. A "moment threshold" is that point when things are so out of balance that the "nanny" kicks in. Even if you put on a larger tire and at first "seem to get away with it" because the"nanny" is not yet kicked in. What you have done in any case is move those "moment thresholds" way outside the design limits. This could be a move ether too close together, or too far apart.
Move them too close together and the "nanny" will kick in at the slightest hint of anything. Move them too far apart, and the VSS won't kick in in time when really needed, and you could have real trouble on your hands. Ether way it's a crap shoot at best.
The BRP design team knows the RPM these units run at, and felt they could back these bikes with a factory warranty and not have a problem with the engine speeds they operate under. To risk the possibility of a VSS problem one way or the other when you really need it to save you, in my opinion is not worth the few MPG or RPMs you would save. Your safety is worth way more than that any day.
All VSS systems be it on a car or bike have a "moment threshold" programed into them. A "moment threshold" is that point when things are so out of balance that the "nanny" kicks in. Even if you put on a larger tire and at first "seem to get away with it" because the"nanny" is not yet kicked in. What you have done in any case is move those "moment thresholds" way outside the design limits. This could be a move ether too close together, or too far apart.
Move them too close together and the "nanny" will kick in at the slightest hint of anything. Move them too far apart, and the VSS won't kick in in time when really needed, and you could have real trouble on your hands. Ether way it's a crap shoot at best.
The BRP design team knows the RPM these units run at, and felt they could back these bikes with a factory warranty and not have a problem with the engine speeds they operate under. To risk the possibility of a VSS problem one way or the other when you really need it to save you, in my opinion is not worth the few MPG or RPMs you would save. Your safety is worth way more than that any day.
:agree:
For the small amount of possible gain.. it's just not worth it. The Rotax likes to run at higher RPMs.... so why not let it?
Now, that being said.....
The speed sensor for the rear tire is on the hub. I don't think it's going to know that you have a bigger tire installed.
Are you thinking that the VSS is going to compare your speed to the RPMs ?
There has to be an allowance there.... going uphill, downhill, etc. Heck.... you can go 70 downhill at 1500 rpm's....
On the issue of how the VSS determines what is normal... there are a few ways that could be done. There could be hard programmed values in the system... or it might take readings when you start out to determine what is 'normal'.
Maybe a combination of both.... which would compensate for tire wear.
For the small amount of possible gain.. it's just not worth it. The Rotax likes to run at higher RPMs.... so why not let it?
Now, that being said.....
The speed sensor for the rear tire is on the hub. I don't think it's going to know that you have a bigger tire installed.
Are you thinking that the VSS is going to compare your speed to the RPMs ?
There has to be an allowance there.... going uphill, downhill, etc. Heck.... you can go 70 downhill at 1500 rpm's....
On the issue of how the VSS determines what is normal... there are a few ways that could be done. There could be hard programmed values in the system... or it might take readings when you start out to determine what is 'normal'.
Maybe a combination of both.... which would compensate for tire wear.
Magic Man
Registered User
NO NO NO! The VSS compairs the speed of the front wheels from their sensor signals to the rear to see who is spinning who is locking up etc. The front wheels will be spinning at the "normal" 40 MPH but some how the rear will be spinning at only say 35 MPH. The computer will see this and say???
That's when the fun could begin. Now, be on the brakes and the VSS sees the rear wheel spinning so much slower than the front, and the computer thinks the rear wheel is beginning to lock up and will try to release the rear wheel brake pressure to try to get it back to the same speed as the fronts. Have the rear wheel brakes release when not needed to be released and the fronts be on full and can you say.... end swap?
But I only have an Engineering degree from RPI and am an ASE Certified Master Auto Technician as well as Class of 79 AMI Certified Motorcycle Mechanic. What could I know about how VSS systems work, they only been on cars for 10 years now?
That's when the fun could begin. Now, be on the brakes and the VSS sees the rear wheel spinning so much slower than the front, and the computer thinks the rear wheel is beginning to lock up and will try to release the rear wheel brake pressure to try to get it back to the same speed as the fronts. Have the rear wheel brakes release when not needed to be released and the fronts be on full and can you say.... end swap?
But I only have an Engineering degree from RPI and am an ASE Certified Master Auto Technician as well as Class of 79 AMI Certified Motorcycle Mechanic. What could I know about how VSS systems work, they only been on cars for 10 years now?
Ok... I get you now... I was thinking from the hub out instead of the wheel in.
So he would have to make the front tires larger by the same factor to keep everything even?
I guess without being able to see the actual programming of the VSS it's hard to know exactly how it 'thinks'.
I know the VSS irks me at slow speeds.... pretty embarassing to pull out of a driveway and punch it while still at a slight turn and have it cut out on me......
It should be more forgiving at slower speeds.... IMO.....
So he would have to make the front tires larger by the same factor to keep everything even?
I guess without being able to see the actual programming of the VSS it's hard to know exactly how it 'thinks'.
I know the VSS irks me at slow speeds.... pretty embarassing to pull out of a driveway and punch it while still at a slight turn and have it cut out on me......
It should be more forgiving at slower speeds.... IMO.....
Magic Man
Registered User
Now you got it! Now just think if the "moments" were even closer you would not even be able to chirp the tires without the "nanny" killing it. Or, worse yet have the the "monents" moved too far apart and have the brakes let go when you really need all 3 wheels to be stopping full force. Not good at all. All this for a few MPG or RPMs, not me.
But, you are correct in if the front wheels could be made bigger by the same amount as the rear was without hitting on the fenders than it would all work OK. But, the fenders are real close to the tires now.
But, you are correct in if the front wheels could be made bigger by the same amount as the rear was without hitting on the fenders than it would all work OK. But, the fenders are real close to the tires now.
