Re: Harley Davidson Dyna ride height

I know. Proof positive that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

 

To be fair, Suzuki's Posi-Force was probably the best two-stroke lube
system going, given that it injected the oil directly into the crank
bearings as well as mixing it with the fuel.

I also remember, fondly, Superbike's Ultimate Streetbike event in the
1980s, and the geezer who campaigned a tuned Kawasaki 750H2 in the
unlimited two-stroke class.

He kept the standard injection system but had a widget that actually
*switched it off* when he was running the quarter-mile. He figured that
the fractionally purer fuel delivery was worth another horsepower or two
and there was enough oil swilling around the crank and barrels for it
not to seize in a mere quarter-mile.

It never did, but even so.....

I always thought that was one of the nuttiest things to come from the
addled brains of a stroker fiend.

 

Hmm this is reminding me of the car makers launching 2T engines, Ford
were on the verge with a Fiesta variant couple of years ago and
www.allpar.com/neon/stroke.html

 

'Hog said...

Norfolk Police were testing an Orbital engined Fiesta back in 1991. It
went like stink and was 100% reliable. The coppers I spoke to couldn't
fault it and were full of praise for it.

 

To be fair, Suzuki's Posi-Force was probably the best two-stroke lube
system going, given that it injected the oil directly into the crank
bearings as well as mixing it with the fuel.
[/QUOTE]
Shh, I've removed the x-post here but I'm only trying to wind the ****
up.

 

Shh, I've removed the x-post here but I'm only trying to wind the ****
up.[/QUOTE]

*Winks*

Go for it.

 

Learn something every day. I always figured stiffer was
better....

http://www.motorcycledaily.com/21may03steeltrellisframe.htm


--

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

 

It was conventional wisdow - what everyone thought, and in theory, it's
correct. In practice, it's not.

Racing chassis makers have deliberately been building varying degrees of
flex into their frames for years.

That's a very interesting link, btw.

 

The only thing right here is that the forces are completely different.

Hitting a bump generates a very quick "spike" of force. When leaned over at 34
deg 1/2 that energy goes into the suspension. At over 45 deg less than half goes
into the suspension. This is simple vector analysis. Where do you think the
rest goes, into thin air??

It can only go two places: either it flexes the frame or launches the tire into
the air. In practice it does both but the less tire bounce the better. The
part that doesn't go into the suspension twists the frame at the steering head
(against its own inertia) using the whole fork as a lever. Were you to bolt a
frame so it couldn't move then pull sideways on the bottom of the wheel, even
you could twist the frame a tad.

However the frame is a spring - it can only store energy. This is true of
aluminum also but to a lesser degree than steel since aluminum has some internal
friction that damps some of the pulse. In either case a steering damper, or
simply tight steering bearings convert this stored energy to heat - which
iindeed dissipated into the air.

Yes, a steering damper can be moved by hand if you move it slow enough. So can
a rear shock absorber or a front fork once the spring is removed. But we are
talking about energy pulses lasting fractions of a second. Try moving the
damper (or shock) that quickly and you'll discover far more resistance.

Failure to understand these simple facts of physics causes you to make ignorant
statements and to vilify your betters.

 

I believe that. It's an 04 model and you sometimes act like a two year old.
But don't feel bad, we all started out young and ignorant.

Have you provided any *quantifible* data? No! Typical ignorant NY'r trying to
get by on bluster.

Neither I nor my wife rely on estimations like you rely on dealer propaganda. We
know one cannot trust the seat of your pants. Whenever I'd make a change
(gearing, jetting, etc) to a bike the rider would say it made the bike faster or
slower. As often as not the stopwatch said just the opposite. Which would you
rely on?

I onced helped a kid at Summit Point. He was turning 2-minute laps on a 900. I
helped him rejet and tune and adjust tire pressures and got his times down by 15
sec/lap. I thot that a good mornings work. After lunch, he checked his tires and
began cussing me. They were not at the cold pressures his dealer had told him
to run so I had to be wrong! He set them "right" again and promptly began going
7 sec/lap slower. Yet he still bad mouthed me. There's no sense argueing with
some people. If you say your 600 handles like a TZ I won't say you are stupid
.... I'll just think it.

Are there still any races where GP bikes and stuperbikes run the same course??
How about listing the winning race (not just one lap) times for F3 (125cc), F2
(250cc), F1 and world stuperbike.

Haven't looked hard enough, kid - your whole bike IS a pendulum, or at least
acts just like one! Dude I hired out of CCNY was pretty savy on simple physics -
maybe you'd understand if you took the same courses.

World Champ - on GP bikes. Geeze you must be young.

Could be. Everybody gets old. A few, like me and Kenny get smart. Break a
chain, get a new one and keep racing. Break a rider ... same thing except
they're cheaper to replace.

 

By reliability I was more referring to operator error. I have seen riders run
out of gas (or oil).

There were three bikes deemed good cross-country tourers in those days: BMWs,
CB750 Hondas and Suzi Water Buffalos. AFAIK the 750 Suzi was unique in that it
had a car-like pump injecting oil directly into the crank and thence to the
bearings just like a 4-stroke (the difference being it was 'total loss' like the
old bikes). I never, ever heard of one failing but that doesn't say it never
happened of course. Other 2-strokes, including Suzi's smaller bikes simply
injected oil into the inlet air stream an were indeed less reliable.

The context was that 2-strokes can be made as reliable as 4-strokes. The big
Suzis were as reliable as the 4-stroke Hondas and BMWs of the day, and more
reliable than contemporary BSAs, et cetera, tho none were very reliable by
todays standards. The diference is due to millions spent developing both
engines and lubricants - money not spent on 2-strokes thanks to environmental
laws.

 

You don't understand what a steering damper *is* or *does*, do you?

 

The church once said that the idea of a round earth was BS too. Now we know
that simply displayed their own ignorance and dogmatism.

Could you be more specific. I got 100s of hits all trying to sell dampers but
none refuting me.

 

By whom?

Ony three? There were many more.

Jesus, I pointed this out four days ago. And Suzuki's Posi-Force lube
system was fitted to *a lot* of Suzuki two-strokes, if not most of them.
The GT185, GT250, GT380 and GT500 that I owned all had it. I think my
TS250 and TS185 dirt bikes had it as well, but I can't remember and I
cba to check.

All I do know is your saying that the GT750 was unique in this respect
is complete nonsense.

You're talking shite. The Suzuki was pretty reliable, granted, because
it was (for a two-stroke) in a very mild state of tune. Which is one
reason why it wasn't very fast. To attribute its reliability entirely to
the oil pump is a bit stupid.

If it had the same specific power output as, say, the GT250X7 of the
1970s, it would have developed something like 90bhp, and would have been
a lot less reliable.

You know a little, but it only serves to demonstrate the vastness of
your ignorance.

 

That's because nobody else makes the claims you do.

Look - a steering damper merely acts to make the handlebars turn more
slowly. More force is needed to turn them. This is achieved either by
using friction - at the crudest level, it's like tightening a nut up -
or by a hydraulic strut.

This makes the bars less prone to flapping on bumps or certain road
conditions. It is especially useful on bikes with light steering, small
front wheels, or some chassis defects.

It has **** all to do with frame springiness.

 

I suppose it depends on the alloys, but generally speaking, I wouldn't
have thought aluminium was springier than steel.

 

The springiness matters not a jot - it's the fact that he thinks a
steering damper alters frame rigidity that amuses me.

 

Well I suppose if take two frame mounted types, one for each fork leg
and wind them up as tight as they will go.....

 

Back atcha buddy!

Riiiight. So which latemodel 4-stroke sportbikes have you ridden?

Uh huh. Now quantify how many extra pounds a latemodel 600 has over
your tiddler on its cylinder head.

GP are currently 4-strokes. There is no Roberts to be seen.

Geeze you're an old fart out of touch with today!

After having seen how well his Modenas have taken over GP, I'd say you
and Kenny are about as well clued!

 

A TZ-250 weighs under 200 pounds. Your 600 UJM weighs over twice as much.

Why would I do that? They haven't changed significantly in over 5 years.
Except for Honda they are the same UJMs they have always been. Lap times (ie,
quantifiable data) prove it.

Typically 50-70 pounds... about the weight of a #27 car battery. The 600 weighs
over twice what a "tiddler" does.

The context was that one must be small to win motorcycle races. Roberts was
small and won many races - a greater variety of races than, say, Valentino, who
is also small. Can you name any 250 pound world champs? Then siddown an shut
up!

Admittedly. In fact I still prefer women to "greek style".