|
Man, your motorcycle manual examples are ridiculous. 6th gear at 37mph on a GSXR750? What the gently caress? Here's the break-in page from a Genuine Stella manual. A 4-speed 150cc 2-stroke based on a 35-year-old Italian design and it's actually reasonable compared to your Japanese bikes?  I mean, these shift points are kinda low, but they aren't insane for this bike (it has VERY short gearing). e: goddamnit new page, sorry, here's an picture of my bike on a hill 
Gay Nudist Dad fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Dec 12, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
My understanding has always been that the recommended shift points are for optimal fuel economy and nothing more. That is why they're low enough that following them might even leave the engine chugging a little bit if you give a sudden big twist of the throttle. For reference my V-Max doesn't redline in 2nd gear until 50mph or so. Shift points are 1 : 1-10 mph 2 : 10-15 mph 3 : 15-20 mph 4 : 20-25 mph 5 : 25-30+ mph Following that pattern has you shifting around 3-4k tops. This is below the natural powerband on the bike, and V-Boost doesn't kick in until 6k from factory. So clearly Yamaha expects you to actually use the rest of the engine for various circumstances not at all related to fuel efficiency. Halo_4am fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
All I can say about break in procedures after perfectly following whatever the insane requirements are for a Ninja 250 in the first 500 miles: gently caress it
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
Gay Nudist Dad posted:Here's the break-in page from a Genuine Stella manual. A 4-speed 150cc 2-stroke based on a 35-year-old Italian design and it's actually reasonable compared to your Japanese bikes? I'm pretty sure modern breakin limits (especially sportbike ones) are less about breaking the engine in and more about when GSXRBrah takes his shiny new steed home to show his friends, proceeds to bang it off the limiter in neutral in a parking lot for about 5 minutes to hear that sweet scream and manages to roast something, Suzuki can tell him to piss up a rope about warranty claims. Or when he takes it out of the dealer parking lot, wheelies off at full whack for 100 yards and wads it into a truck, then complains the tires were bad or some nonsense. Well, bro, the manual says to keep it under 4k, you were clearly revving higher, not our fault. YMMV but I've never had a dealer suggest anything other than "mix the revs up, ride it like you own it, don't bounce off the limiter" as a breakin, or imply they'd try to lawyer out of warranty claims if you revved higher but weren't clearly careless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
All this breakin stuff is well and good for other bikes but the Triumph has Angry Blue Lights on the tach that light up if I go over 5k rpm. If I can't find a way to disable them, I'll have to learn to ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
JohnnyDangerously posted:All this breakin stuff is well and good for other bikes but the Triumph has Angry Blue Lights on the tach that light up if I go over 5k rpm. If I can't find a way to disable them, I'll have to learn to ignore it. You change them in the Setup menu, which you get to with the key in Run with the engine off and the transmission in Neutral. Check your owner's manual. You'll need to mess with them anyway, they're not going to automatically change to higher RPMs as you gain mileage (your dealer probably set them for you during initial setup, mine did.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
JohnnyDangerously posted:These replies are all I need to ride a bit harder. Staying under 5k was driving me nuts. Yeah, find some nice steep hills too. You want to be exposing the engine to as wide a range of load and running conditions as possible, and steep hills (as well as pegging the throttle once in a while) all help on that, just don't go nuts. Ironically a too-conservative running-in period can be almost as bad for your bike as it can lead to rings and gaskets not fully bedding in, leading to a bike that burns oil and is missing a few hp. The thing is that this isn't terminal, but bouncing a 0-mile engine off the rev limiter for a thousand miles almost certainly is, so they have to set the limits pretty low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice all - Breaking this in won't be so bad after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
 My bike (Husqvarna te250) and dad's bike (WR450f), riding some trails at a bike park ~4hours away from where I live Guni fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
Guni posted:
Braaaaaaaaaaaap.  Are both of those plated? Hard to tell in the photo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Good Ship Theseus posted:Braaaaaaaaaaaap. As in registered? If so, yes they are registerable models and are registered .
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Shift points on the DRZ from the manual: 1>2 20 kmh 2>3 30 kmh 3>4 40 kmh 4>5 50 kmh Downshifts: 5>4 35 kmh 4>3 25 kmh 3>2 20 kmh The best part? Above the table, in bold letters, it says "Only applicable on the Canadian model." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Well obviously. We don't have kilometers down here in the states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
 Last nice day of the year. If I had stuck to the 4000 RPM the manual suggested when I broke it in last year, I probably would have lost my mind. I followed the advice given by the other posters in this thread and it worked out just fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 10:10
|
|
|
That looks lovely, where is that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
Wootcannon posted:That looks lovely, where is that? Bald Peak, Oregon. Picture taken right about here, facing east towards Mt. Hood: http://goo.gl/maps/Of3ib
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
ought ten posted:Well obviously. We don't have kilometers down here in the states. I go across the 49th many times a year, and I always get a kick out of the inevitable sign just on the  side of the border says "SPEED LIMITS ARE METRIC" just because you know they've had people think the speed limits really are 110MPH on the highway and 50MPH going through downtown. Yes, I am easily amused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
My old bike, along with my fiancee's former bike And on my favourite road  It's somewhere in heaven, being hard to start and double-reading on the tacho... Replaced with something far more sensible 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Both of those are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
There's something I absolutely love about the two small, round, side-by-side headlights on bikes of that era. Along with the simple rounded fairings, it just looks super cool. I need to get a CBR250RR someday: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:There's something I absolutely love about the two small, round, side-by-side headlights on bikes of that era. Along with the simple rounded fairings, it just looks super cool. These are wonderful in theory but not great to actually own, at least not where I live. All of them have been raped by learners, have upwards of 40,000 on the odo and crashed multiple times. Plus you can just get a cbr400r, which i also had!  That small, unassuming factory can had been hollowed out in such a masterful way that it sounded magical, like an F1 car, without any buzzyness or droning. Truthfully the engine felt much smoother than the VFR and the build quality and engineering came across as much better, it was just heavier and bulkier and didn't quite handle as nicely. Fantastic small bike though... ...until I destroyed it in a spectacular lowside that involved the bike hitting a kerb, flipping over and smashing the crank-case so hard the crankshaft was bent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Plus you can just get a cbr400r, which i also had! ungghhhh, it's even in JPS colors  I would absolutely adore one of those. The USA has this vast cavern of nothingness between 250cc and 600cc, and even the 250 end is kind of lacking. But that...that is just wonderful. What's the redline?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
14,500 if I remeber correctly. The VFR was similar but had a completely different torque curve, as you would expect. It didn't feel faster than the cbr, chiefly because of the long gearing (100k/h in 1st) but it most certainly was, once you were on the move. The cbr also felt slightly more strained near the redline. I miss both these bikes but they're deeply flawed compared to what you would be used to; they're awful in traffic, have very peaky engines for a relatively heavy bike, are very maintenance intensive. That being said, there's nothing I would recommend more than a 400 rocket for a learner looking for a sportbike that won't kill them; the modern 250's are pretty dull and soft by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
They are terrible functional motorcycles but beautiful pieces of engineering. Much like most other supersports 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:There's something I absolutely love about the two small, round, side-by-side headlights on bikes of that era... it just looks super cool. Cool people do not think these bikes are cool. Not even in a retro sense. I'm sorry but they're utterly hideous. The only acceptable cool older bikes are things like bonnevilles, guzzis and maybe some of the old Hondas. There's no greater indication of poverty than someone riding an old sports bike.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
Philanthropy! posted:Cool people do not think these bikes are cool. Not even in a retro sense. I always thought these had awesome headlights, not quite round but badass with a cute little face. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Philanthropy! posted:Cool people do not think these bikes are cool. Not even in a retro sense. You HAVE to be a troll. I can't begin to imagine how anyone who really enjoys bikes could come to think this way. Got an e30 m3? YOU ARE SHAMEFULLY DESTITUTE
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
  You take that back right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
Quite A Tool posted:
Those quick fasteners on the fairing are giving me a semi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
Quite A Tool posted:
I'm willing to accept that the show-room condition ones which have had megabucks spent on them look no more than 'alright' but the average douchebag bullshitting around on a normal version of these stumpy things just looks like he's probably a student or just doesn't earn enough money. [edit] actually no I take that back. It looks like a big plastic box that was designed to fill the set for space odessy:2001 and then used as a prop for a glam rock band in the 80s. The front suspension looks like a cast for a broken limb and I don't trust that unbranded front brake. Philanthropy! fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Dec 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
You do know what that is don't you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
So which one are you, mootmoot or Jack the Smack?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
Maybe Phil should post a pic of his own bike in the pics of your bike thread of a Bike forum. Seeing as it's a 2012 injected 1970 CB750 with brembo radial calipers and 200bhp
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
I don't know exactly what that bike is but its the best thing. Those old bikes look awesome. I can't believe somebody wouldn't like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
Shimrod posted:I don't know exactly what that bike is but its the best thing. Those old bikes look awesome. I can't believe somebody wouldn't like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_RC30 Honda RC30. They built it in the late 80's as a thinly veiled race bike for homologation purposes, blew away everything else at the time. Gear driven V4, single sided swing arm, extruded beam frame, it was a spaceship at the time and incredibly influential. They routinely sell for more than a brand new literbike, they're like the ferrari gt250 of bikes (an imperfect analogy I know).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
Janky, goofy bikes are the best bikes. Riding a new and shiny motorized bicycle for some backwater Floridian mongoloid busa pirate mohawk ego boost is the reason most motorcyclists are terrible. Unless a motorcycle looks like it ultimately made Boeing lose a bid for an 80's government aircraft contract then it isn't worth riding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Maybe Phil should post a pic of his own bike in the pics of your bike thread of a Bike forum. Does it matter whats under the bonnet? It may have the comparable capacity of Steven Hawking, but it's also got the body.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
So speaking of ugly bikes, after almost a year and a half (doing a Japanese mid-size bike license from scratch, shitiness from my employer, then waiting for my friend to buy a car to replace the bike so he could sell it to me):
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
 Beauty
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:ungghhhh, it's even in JPS colors Don't feel cheated. I had one of these and the slightly newer CBR 600 I owned subsequently was a much better bike. The 400 race reps only exist because of Japanese licensing limitations and many things about them make sense only in those terms. The chassis is massively over built and far heavier than it needs to be. The swingarm in particular is incomprehensible except as a styling exercise - you can't see it clearly, but that is basically a solid lump of metal with space very reluctantly provided for the chain run. 90s 600s with an extra 30 to 40 hp and obviously 33% more torque managed with unbraced sheet steel welded up or simpler box section ally and didn't have any problems. The frame construction is extremely similar to the 'blade and also much more than is strictly necessary for 56hp or whatever. At the back you have an 18" wheel to restrict tyre choice and a very crude shock that's usually thrown away and replaced with a cbr6 unit. They can still work very well if the roads or tracks you ride have flowing, moderate speed corners without a great variation in speed and very few straight lines. Any stop-start sections or just slow-fast-slow corner combinations and you may not be able to reach your best potential apex speed in the space available. You can make a hell of a sportsbike for a very very short person out of one by swapping in a carby cbr6 motor, doing a 17" back wheel conversion, doing a front end swap with a later nc with 4 pot brakes and adding a rebuilt cbr6 shock. But while the result will have a stronger frame than a cbr steelie, it still has 1987 geometry and it probably won't be particularly more satisfying than a good cbr600f2 or f3. Unless you're 5 foot high. Honestly, bone stock, the motor was more fun in the 400 iteration of the CB-1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 11:09
|
|