ktk_ace

Motorcycles are not built for crashing imho. that said, steel chassis bikes are much more resilient to minor knocks imho.

True that~

Opps, i was trying to reply to stroker's other post on the other thread ; sorry~

maybe its because anything over a certain lean angle (i guess 50 or above )makes the rider get pushed down hard enough on the bike so much that a proper knee lock on to the tank isnt 100% necessary... hence rossi's "pose" but if its 0-said lean angle (0-50 degrees of lean ?? ) , the g force might NOT be able to totally plant the rider on the seat , hence the need for a good lock on to the tank... esp with bumps mid corner as shown in above video clip. I might be wrong thou...

Ah slip ratio... Have a look at this article: http://www.sportrider.com/sportbikes/advanced-traction-control/ PS. goodies are in the pictures, press next to cycle thru the goodies. also this article shows how different manufactureres use different stances to modulate torque in the TC systems: http://www.motorcycle.com/how-to/traction-control-explained-91272.html

X2 for the student discount!

Id say the remainder % that led to scrapping of the parts might be not using the 2 step for choosing a turn in entry (too early entry) + no quick flip Or maybe hes just too heavy for the Z1000 in stock form. Anyone with more than 170 pounds fully geared up on the Z1000 already has reduced clearance from the get go imho

A picture tells a thousand words (English isnt my mother tongue BTW) Anyway I draw better than i type so heres my own personal intepretation of the discussion above: I included 2 variables as lean angle and G-force are related but not mutually exclusive (ie banked / chambered / incline/ downhill stituations) values with a "?" denotes that its a guesstimate and i have no research to back it up, just a hunch Its in the rough so im open to suggestions ~

electronic aid took a few years to mature in the car industry... Give bosch and the other manufactirers a few years to iron out and fine tune the stuff imho...

I'm not sure it really matters either way. Heavier riders can use the weight as an advantage up to a point to help turn the bike with less effort. Lighter riders have more acceleration on the straights. In reality mixed in with the differences in abilities it all works out in the wash. This of course only applies to "mere mortal" riders rather than MotoGP which is it's own world all together. I think the most important take away really is to identify where your build is an advantage and a disadvantage and exploit the advantages and minimize the disadvantages as much as you can. The classic "know thy self". This is actually quite inspiring for me as I have been on a personal weight shedding mission in the quest of getting faster. It really does not matter as much as I thought it did. I'm not giving up on the personal weight shedding as being in the best possible physical shape is still an advantage. It's just nice to know that I'm not alone and the stick figure guys have their own set of disadvantages as well. If you go abit "hardcore" and dev into suspension and bike geometry(esp trail and tree angle placement...) / frame / mass centraliziation... A lighter rider WILL have much more advantage during the long run due to fuel economy alone ... (Suzuka 8 hrs anyone? or LEMANS 24hrs ...) I dont even want to dev into brake pad life/shock fluid temps/tire wear ... these all cross over to commuting too. more weight = more wear and tear. but of course for racing ... unless the track is biased towards small bikes with next to no straights , the usual know how is how to maximize all 170-200hp's using modifications on a litre bike ; ie you already start off with too much power ; you have to make it more controllable/accessible and that requires personalization. imho Bikes have rider weight "sweet spots" too... be on either end of the spectrum(too light or too heavy) and huge suspension mods might be necessary...

Good job! Hopefully more podiums soon!!

Michelin is producing the pilot road 4's which is a mix... wonder if it will be best of both worlds or just an over hyped product... http://moto.michelin.com/tyres/michelin-pilot-road-4 on the other hand, the new Dunlop D211 GP-A PRO's whith manufacturer approved flippability (rear only) really brings up a financial advantage to the racer! http://www.sportrider.com/sportbike-news/dunlop-releases-bi-directional-sportmax-d211-gp-pro-tire?dom=sri&loc=contentwell&lnk=dunlop-releases-bidirectional-sportmax-d211-gpa-pro-tire

TCs are not build the same ... Yamaha... Khreist, they are the 2nd Japanese big4 to venture into the TC realm in production bikes.(and that was late last year , slow as heck) (Kawasaki being the 1st(ZX10R) and Honda being the 3rd on their VFR's) Its gonna be very "prototype-y" aka unrefined until they wanna sort it out or some other manufacturer comes and bite their ass... HARD. like the KTM 1290 superduke ( which has pretty unrefined ABS too for the 2013 production version...)

That was before advance/mature TC systems (and ducati's tc systems are only beginning to show maturity on their street machines , which imho tells alot) If you read up on TC systems, the 2011 production Kawasaki ZX10R actually permits (controlled) slippage with the use of wheel speed sensors alone (cost) and it does it very well imho. Comparison http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/156/14099/Motorcycle-Article/Kawasaki-ZX-10R-Traction-Control-Comparison.aspx Tech jargon: http://www.visordown.com/uploads/images/Large/21455.jpg PS. The closest production bike next to a full blown WSBK bike will still be the BMW HP4 on virtue of its suite of sensors and active damping electronic suspension ... or untl some other company comes and play catch up (which i bet wont be soon, not for the next 2-3 years , given the Japnese big 4 are pretty campy ... )

For generics , its pretty good. There are some oddball exceptions thou , for example Honda's C-ABS / BMW's rear paralever/ front non-dive suspension linkage. And by fast , i hope you mean aerodynamically stability , a naked street bike going 200KM/H will try to tear your face off ~

ABS Pro initially offered as retrofit to HP4 models http://sportrider.co/FVS9xA

As Stroker said, replace the pads. The pad material is porous material so the oil has already seeped deep inside. Safety isnt worth saving 25-50 a set of pad material imho.

imho could be the tire compound as well... but there IS less flex on radials , which can lean to warm ing problems and road holding capabilities on worn tarmac bias has more flex but the tradeoff is they are more prone to overheating during long stints michelun pilot road 4's have this hybrid construction that mixes radial and bias pros into a tire, u might wanna givvit a look ^^

Oh well the Germans had started somewhere with the S1000RR HP4 ... its still "gen 1" so give it a few years imho

I dunno im like a black box; if the tire pressure is off by 2 psi , i can feel it , im freaking sensitive.? If the bike feels "sick" or funny, i'd just go to the shop for tire/basic inspection... Im usually right 99% of the time that somethings not right or off by 10% of normal parameters.

someone commented on the % of weight of rider VS bike and it seems that 50% (of rider weight vs bike) is the line between stable and really unstable...(for bone stock bikes) based on the data you provided, it seems to add up ~ (Z400G is already optimized to your weight and style , sus damping/oil is a HUGE upgrade imho ) weight (bike + rider) doesnt show itself much on street and sport riding situations as the G forces acting on all parts doesnt really upset any component whatsoever (weakest link theory) up the ante and weak points show up faster on a heavier rider... esp with antique bikes that werent designed with CAD / calibrated optimal stiffness technology . its really like goldilocks (rider) and the porridge(chassis); too stiff and the other components take a beating ; too much flex and the bike wobbles around. WSBK 2015 rules makes chassis "optimizations" all but outlawed with 0.003mm tolerance on the frame , else every team is just optimizing the "stock" frame to a rider's riding style by adding or shaving thickness on frame areas on 2014 and prior....

do you mean bias build tires? radials (usually) offer lighter weight and heavier load bearing imho... lighter unsprung weight = more compliant suspension heavierr load bearing = more direct feel at same pressures. but if radials make your bike flinchy, then there MIGHT be a big problem with the rebound damping in the suspension system (much less of a problem with modern cartridge system shock/forks) older bikes with damper rod systems tend to have this; bias tires with more weight helps keep part of the problem in check thou~

nice writeup!! COG of bike + COG of rider MIGHT be factors too Im 5"8 160 pounds with gear and during my big bike class.... The XJ6N (205KG) feels much more unstable as the gas tank is conventionally placed. The NC700 (215KG) on the other hand, feels supremely planted with the gas tank below the seat . Fun part is another student who is doing the same class ( lanky 6foot 150 pound guy) commented that he feels that the NC700s feels like a 160KG bike at low speeds. He was surprised when i said that the NC700s is a full 215KG without fuel, 10KG more than the comparatively wobbly XJ6N~ thou a more scientific method for the bike COG experiment will be to find 2 bikes of the same weight and wheelbase (nc700S wheel base= 1525, XJ6N = 1440 ,MM) but totally different COG's. For the biker COG... same bike as control, and same height+ weight but different COG /build rider (high COG = afro american american soccer player/bodybuilder , low COG = olympic ski team candidate?)

If you are top heavy, it helps more if you hang off top only imho. Rider weight also affects lean angle clearance on stock untuned bikes; a heavier rider is gonna have less lean angle and vice versa.

Hi there