Paging all 'bladeisti

I'd imagine his point may well encompass experience of early Blades,
too.

 

FFS... no I'm not.

Not being funny, but I've had enough bikes since I passed my test in 2000,
to know that the sort of shaking this is doing, is not normal... not when it
does it *every time* you approach a certain speed.

I'd would have normally put it down to it just being one of those traits you
learn to watch for, and hopefully continue to live with - this thing does it
every time you approach said speed, (billiard table smooth road surfaces an
all), suggesting something isn't quite as Mr Honda intended.

 

Are you sure it's not the front going a bit light on full throttle?

To be honest, I've found most bikes a bit jittery on bumpy roads, i'll
probably get slated for say this but it's part of hte fun.

I found that my old Blade [1] did tip into slow corners [2] quite a lot but
was very stable on faster corners

I personally don't see it as a problem, just get use to it.

I never had a steering damper on my Blade, I did consider using one though.

[1] RR model
[2] In town type corners.

 

This sounds like utter bollocks to me. SWK will be along shortly.

 

I said exagerating not lying. *Violent* tank slappers at 140+ and
you'd be very lucky to stay on. More than one or two and the law of
averages says you wouldn't be posting this question. Violent, my
guess is twitchy.

<snip>

 

Definitely - that bit comes, when I do fast launches in first, and to a
certain extent, in second - comes from having a fair old bit of ballast over
the tank, I suspect. ;-)

When this kicks in, even backing off the power slightly doesn't really help,
until the speed drops down slightly. I would try riding through it, to see
if it is the wheel balancing, but it's that bad, and I'm going that fast,
there's no room for me to find out 'oh, it just get worse', IYSWIM.

I dread to think what it would be like with someone a lot smaller / lighter
trying to hang onto it.

Aye, but not like this IME... but as I've admitted elsewhere, this is the
first bike of this genre I've had - seems very far removed from the CBR600s
I've had anyway, in terms of ride / handling.

(Yes, I know... different kettle of fish, an' all that).

Shame you're not nearer - I'd like someone who knows what they're looking at
to try it out, and give it an honest appraisal.

 

Would that be 'exaggerating', by chance? ;-)

*Violent* tank slappers at 140+ and

The bars start to shake from side to side - I've experienced this in the
past, on my VFR750 the once; hit a bump whilst riding in the upper section
of the available grunt in top gear and it all went a bit slap happy - it
turned out it had slack in the headraces.

Replaced those, and it didn't do it again - this thing, I've checked said
races, and it has recently had new wheel bearings etc: does it when you hit
a certain speed *every time*, and if you don't back off, it gets worse to
the point that you have to back off.

 

Heh. I've only ever known the R1 to be called that.

If you could explain a couple of things to ignorant me, I'd be grateful,
given it's not the power I'm finding problems with, it's the handling.

Are these, compared to stuff like the CBR600F2 etc. (bike from the same era,
and the only real benchmark I've experienced in any real sense, to compare
it to), more sensitive, handing wise, to tyre wear?

What I really don't get is... this is supposed to be perhaps the ultimate
for its day, yet I can ride stuff like said 600s, much faster, over bumpy
roads etc.

Are these that much more set up for a track, standard?

 

My gixxer will shake it's head whenever I apply full beans. Steep
head angle and a front wheel skimming the ground mean it's inevitable.
My point was that mild shakes are perfectly normal but proper side to
side stuff suggests a more serious problem. My second rather
sarcastic point was that side to side violent slapping at 140 will
almost always have you off the bike. You're therefore either
exagerating and everyting is OK or you have a serious handling issue
and you're very very lucky to have stayed on. I will of couse go for
the first as this will provoke more of a reaction ;o)

 

Did you check the front & rear sag, or just the damping settings? Also
check the wheel alignment - without relying on the swingarm marks.

 

And the H1.

(With some justification, I think)

 

I'd agree with everything before the comma.

 

And the GSXR1100, by wimps.

The Shuttleworth Snap was called the windowcleaner.

 

It's going to be a front wheel problem. Forget the suspension and get
the tyre changed, the wheel balanced and check for any damage causing
run out. After that check the front wheel bearings and if everything
is ok then sell the bike because you can't ride it.

 

This sounds like utter bollocks to me. SWK will be along shortly.[/QUOTE]

I'd have said it'd speed the steering up and by doing so make the bike
more unstable. Anything you do to make the bike turn in quicker will
upset the straight line handling but it's just a trade off which you
either live with or change the bike.

 

A direct comparism between the 9R & 10R shows the more modern bike to
be higher with the only thing lower being the bars.

 

I read it in one of the bike mags a while ago, dunno which one though.

--
Lesley
CBR600FW
SBS#11 (with oak-leaf cluster)
BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12
BONY#54P BOB#18
Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally

 

Heh. I remember watching that happen the day you picked the VFR up, on
the M1 by Scratchwood services. One of us remembered about the fucking
great bump on the motorway, the other didn't.

Ho ho ho

 

If the CofG is raised, then it's further from the fulcrum, and you'll have
to expend more energy accelerating it into the lean and stopping it when it
gets there. Honda fooled around with this sort of nonsense in the '80s,
deploying phrases like "high moment of inertia" and top-heavy galleons like
the CX500.

I don't thing the height of the CofG affects the lean angle.

 

I was giving this a lot of thought recently, after Champ commented on
the fact that I hardly ever shift my bum off the bike. 'Chicken
strips' seemed to indicate that my max lean angle was slightly less
than his (both had identical new rear tyres allowing a good
comparison) but we'd been riding the same roads at the same speeds,
taking very similar lines through most corners.

The distance of the CoM from the pivot point has a great effect on a
rotating body, as can be seen when looking at ice skaters, who extend
their arms and legs to slow a rotation and vice-versa. So the closer
to the pivot point the faster the turn for a given amount of energy,
or put another way, the less energy required for a given amount of
turn.

On a leaning bike, the higher the mass is kept the closer it is to the
(virtual) pivot point, giving the same effect. To a lesser extent, at
low angles of lean, weight shifting side to side will have this
effect, but once you're leant over by any significant amount the
height thing is much more important.

Of course, this only works for people of normal height and build.
Those vertically challenged, low CoG types like yourself will be much
less inclined [1] to notice this.

[1] Accidental, honest.
--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`