high winds and coasting issue

[Miata Myk]

> Mike- > There is not the clearance for a 17T sprocket... It would shred the > stator wires. If you could reroute the stator wires and remove the > section of the sprocket cover which shields them, then you might have > enough room, but then you run the risk of the chain eating through your > engine case.

Thanks! I haven't changed my front sprocket and in all honesty never looked that closely at it aside from making sure it didn't look like a set of rotating shark fins. It was just something I was tossing out as a possibility but obviously it isn't going to work.. which is why no one is doing it!

> what I would look at. Your first gear would suck, but I find with the > 16T it is easier to pop wheelies than with the 13T, it has me mystified.

I have a very hard time trying to get the front end off the ground with the Kenda's. Even sitting back and popping the clutch a bit I leave a lot of weird little black marks from the knobbies and about a 2" clearance for an instant below the front wheel. I only got one almost over-the-top wheelie from a stoplight. I was just getting ready to take off and the clutch cable broke. Boy were the cars next to me surprised! (and if they were, you ought to have imagined my face! I can't believe I didn't fall off even with one leg dangling off the bike, one on a peg, etc!)

[Ted Palmer]

Devon Jarvis wrote: [...]

> My $.02 on the 16t dilemma is no two of the stock speedos ever read > exactly the same. Unless you're using a GPS or a stopwatch and mile > markers, 2 or 3 mph differences with different bikes is below the % of > error.

Yeah, and people should not expect miracles of precision from the tacho either, it is not much smarter than the speedo. Mister_T Melbourne Australia

[Fred Hink]

The problem with changing the rear sprocket is that anything other than a stock 43T or 45T will most likely have to be made out of aluminum. Steel sprockets last much longer than those made from aluminum. Fred www.arrowheadmotorsports.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "Miata Myk" To: "KLR 650 Group" DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] Front Sprocket > > > I have been told and don't know from first hand knowledge that a 17T won't > > fit first and if it did the KLR wouldn't have enough "beans" to pull it. > I > > can get you a 17T but comes without any guaranties. > > That makes sense. I'm pretty happy with the range I'm pulling now though a > hair less rpm at 70 would be good. Before I worry about playing with front > sprockets I need that front fork brace, lowering link, and a non-tweeting > exhaust! (probably the Laser) Somewhere in there would also fall the > progressive front springs. > > If the 17T won't fit any chance that a 16T with a few less teeth on the rear > (say 2?) make up the difference? Still seems that it would take a good bit > of torque to move it. > >

[Ryan Newman]

> All the years I have been on this list I don't recall anyone posting a

10mph

> increase when going to the 16T sprocket. I do remember posts indicating > about a 300-400 rpm drop at highway speeds when going up one tooth on the > front sprocket.

I got around a 400 rpm drop when I switched from a smaller front, back to the stock one. Ryan

[RM]

On 11 Dec 2001, Zachariah Mully wrote:

>would definitely cause serious problems. If anything, I would go down in >the back and down in the front, so that a 14T/4? would provide the same >gearing as a stock 15T/45, a 15T/4? a 16T/45 and a 16T/4? a 17T/45... A >13T could be used to provide the same gearing as a stock 14T. I think >the rear is 45T stock? Perhaps a 39T would do this? I'd have to sit down >and calculate the ratios, but if I wanted better highway gearing this >what I would look at. Your first gear would suck, but I find with the >16T it is easier to pop wheelies than with the 13T, it has me mystified.

All things considered, I like the idea of having a 15T on the front, as opposed to a 14 or a 16. Sprockets with an even number of teeth have teeth that engage the chain in the same manner on every rotation and they develop a funny wear pattern which probably accelerates chain wear somewhat. RM

[hens_p]

Devon Jarvis wrote: [...]

> My $.02 on the 16t dilemma is no two of the stock speedos ever read > exactly the same. Unless you're using a GPS or a stopwatch and mile > markers, 2 or 3 mph differences with different bikes is below the %

of

> error.

Or use GearCalc. Pat / Austin

[Zachariah Mully]

Yeah, but I'm running a 107-link chain! Z

On Tue, 2001-12-11 at 11:59, RM wrote: > > On 11 Dec 2001, Zachariah Mully wrote: > > >would definitely cause serious problems. If anything, I would go down in > >the back and down in the front, so that a 14T/4? would provide the same > >gearing as a stock 15T/45, a 15T/4? a 16T/45 and a 16T/4? a 17T/45... A > >13T could be used to provide the same gearing as a stock 14T. I think > >the rear is 45T stock? Perhaps a 39T would do this? I'd have to sit down > >and calculate the ratios, but if I wanted better highway gearing this > >what I would look at. Your first gear would suck, but I find with the > >16T it is easier to pop wheelies than with the 13T, it has me mystified. > > All things considered, I like the idea of having a 15T on the front, as > opposed to a 14 or a 16. Sprockets with an even number of teeth have > teeth that engage the chain in the same manner on every rotation and they > develop a funny wear pattern which probably accelerates chain wear > somewhat. > > RM

[hens_p]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., RM wrote:Sprockets with an even number of teeth have

> teeth that engage the chain in the same manner on every rotation

and they

> develop a funny wear pattern which probably accelerates chain wear > somewhat.

RM, I'm surprised someone that been around bikes as long as you would fall for this wives tale. Think about it for a while and you will prove to yourself that this is simply not true. Other factors are involved: the teeth on the rear sprocket, the number of links in the chain. Not just the teeth count on the front sprocket. Pat / Austin

[monahanwb]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "hens_p" wrote:

> RM, I'm surprised someone that been around bikes as long as you

would

> fall for this wives tale. >

If you rub rotting fish all over you, you will find that deer don't jump out in front of you quite as often as they did before.

[mikem]

The change in speed at a given rpm for a change in one tooth (15 to 16) is not rocket science. It is a very simple mathematical ratio(15/16). In this case for a given rpm, speed will increase about 6 percent or for a given speed a reduction in rpm of 6 percent. Whether you get an increase in top speed is dependant on the power of the engine. A three tooth reduction in the rear will give you about the same net change as one tooth up in the front. I wouldn't get too carried away or you will seriously compromise the ability to handle tighter trails in the dirt. In fact if you are going to be doing some serious trail riding try going down a couple of teeth in the front - I think you'll find the find it seriously easier. Pure dirt bikes don't have big rear sprockets for nothing. As a kid in Texas I used to carry an extra sprocket in my pocket for my dt 175; two teeth up for highway - 1 tooth down for dirt. I could change 'em in less than 10 minutes and it made a big difference. Mike Melugin