Tweety

And again we are conveniently overlooking a few facts aren't we? You aren't comparing a mustang and a bike...

You are comparing two bikes that apart from the gearing should be mostly identical... So the external factors fudging the math are identical...

Ie if the math says the re-gear isn't a gain... It still isn't a gain on the road...

Agreed, not all numbers translate to real world... But with all else equal, just comparing something as narrow as this is simple...

uchi

no the bike came down pretty good, it didnt bounce or try to kick me off or anything. it had the heaviest springs race tech offers and heavier fluid it just wasnt set up for my weight. even last year at track days before i got the dampening issue sorted out i rode it half set up and the bike handled great. hell ive learned how to get her to come up at speed now with bumps so its not too bad

uchi

so why re gear then? if theres no benefit to it in the performance world, why would anyone do it?

i was using the mustang as another example of how things sometimes appear better than they are in real life, and it works both ways

Tweety

uchi, we are walking in circles... Either you have a very bad memory, or you are playing stupid...

There is a performance benefit to lower gearing... But only if you re-gear to a gearing that has an actual benefit... Going beyond 16/43 or 15/41 has no benefit, mathematically or real world measurable...

It's been said why before, but here is the condensed version...

If your bike (or car whatever) is geared to tall to begin with, you are spending time "hanging" at RPM's slowly gaining speed... If the bike is not geared too tall, you accelerate smoothly, but still fall off at the top end...

The VTR is geared marginally to tall, so yes you "hang" before redline in 6'th... It's reachable, but it's slow going... If you lower the gearing a little, say 15/41 or 16/43, you can keep accelerating at decent pace... It will still fall of at the end, but not "hang"... Ie, a real measurable benefit (math's & real world both)...

However if you keep going on the gearing, you hit a point where you end up with gears that are unusable, or hard to use... Like first gear where you need to baby it unless you want to flip... Here you are in fact accelerating faster in theory than in real world, in measurable time... Despite the fact that you keep claiming it's the other way around...

The reason for this is pretty simple... If you lower your gearing, you are effectively shortening the time you are in each gear, as well as increasing acceleration... Simply because you are increasing acceleration (That's physics for you, gain something, loose something...)

On a re-geared bike when you hit the top of first gear before the stock bike, and shift to second, you are now in fact accelerating slower than the stock bike for a short while... He has the "advantage" of lower gearing until he shifts to second... Same thing applies for all gears... What you "win" by hitting the shift first, you "loose" for the same reason... If we start both bikes at the same speed, the lower geared bike will be at higher RPM to start with, and reaches redline in a shorter time, ie those things compund, and you need to shift considerably sooner in time, but at the same terminal RPM, and lower actual speed...

When you are geared too tall, and your bike "hangs", you can't gain back at the end of your gear what you lost to the other bike in the beginning... When you are geared too low, you end up loosing to much in your rapid shifting over the bike that keeps accelerating a fraction slower in the same gear, but can stay in that gear longer...

Because of this, there is a "sweet spot" where the bike is geared efficiently... That's provable both mathematically, and in real world... There are complex formulaes to calculate it... I can dig them up, but I'm not going too, since I can't be bothered... if you want to disprove me, dig them up and start working...

There is a simple rule of thumb though... If you can hit the limiter in fifth on stock gearing, like the VTR can, but not in sixth, you are above the sweet spot... That's pretty obvious to all of us...

But if you then make your sixth gear equal to that, meaning you are unable to go faster there, and you have the bike standing on it's **** in the lower gears... Well, then you are below the sweet spot... Simple as that...

Now, this can be proven with mathematics, or with a stopwatch if you dislike math's... As long as the other variables like using the same bike (or very similar) is the same, the error between theoretical speed and practical speed remains the same...

The best proof however is even simpler... If you can go faster in sixth on a bike that's geared between those two (15/43 to 16/41) ie 16/43 or 15/41, then you are closer to the sweet spot... Basically you want to be able to just hit redline in sixth without "hanging"...

That is the defenition of the mechanical "sweetspot", you are able to accelerate all the way, and you are loosing as little as possible in both ends of each gear... Ie you will in the real world actually out accelerate a lower geared bike over a few gearchanges...

Not idle to redline in each gear, where the two bikes are actually at different speeds because of the different gearings, but in the real world you will be ahead... You are making the mistake of comparing RPM, not speed or acceleration... Since the two bikes in the same gear at the same RPM are at different speeds, you cant compare that way in the real world, only in theory... Match speed instead, and you find out what I'm talking about

There is a little caveat here...

I fully agree that there are situations when you gain by going to a gearing that's lower than 16/43... On a tight, twisty track for instance, where you put your gearing where you shift the least for most acceleration on that particular track...

But that doesn't mean that the re-gearing is actually making your bike accelerate faster... It just means that you gain back the loss of that shift on that particular track... Still slower acceleration, both matchematically, and in the real world... But faster in that very narrow span...

This is why I have kept saying, you may like whatever gearing you wan't... and you may recommend whatever gearing you want to others...

But anyone trying to tell me that going below 16/43 or 15/41 in gearing is making your bike accellerate faster, you are either stupid, uninformed or both... Doesn't matter if you like math's or in killer's case like or dislike particular wordings containing "stupid"... Either disprove what I'm saying with facts, or ignore me... But keep telling me I'm wrong, just "because", and you end up in the "You are stupid" category "just because"... Pretty simple, right?

lylesvegas

Hey, I was thinking of changing the gearing on my bike any suggestions?????
LOL

Bluesuperhawk83

yeah i have a suggestion.......DUCK!! NOW RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

lylesvegas

This is awsome.......

nath981

The consensus seems to be favoring 15/44/520 because the superhawk doesn't have enough power to justify 16/41 unless you're touring or running a lot of post 100 speeds, or mainly running downhill. LOL

8541Hawk

Yeah the facts don't matter, math lies and physics is just foolish......
Though it is rather silly to claim sometime works better than stock but then have no proof to back it up.

So about all I can say at this point is:

matt365

I can loft the wheel no problem with stock gearing...

I can't understand how you guys can keep running in circles with this gearing thread crap.

8541Hawk and Tweety are right... I don't think I'd want to turn my hawk into a farm tractor with a stump puller first gear...

Re-gearing an I4, especially a 600 to suit a particular track is one thing, but for a streetbike I think it's pointless... We have so much useable torque, learn to use your right wrist before thinking gearing is what you need.

I'm 6'2", and 160lbs. I'm a lightweight compared to some of you guys, no amount of gearing is going to make up that difference.

This thread is as useless as an oil thread, octane, or "what tires should I buy..."

uchi

meh we have different opinions. math only goes as far as the paper its written on. i know what gearing i like and what works for me. i wont change it because its a great all around gear setup. i track my bike, i run twistys all the time, i dont do long hiway rides and rarely will you see me avoiding twistys to get to where i wanna go. i enjoy my gear setup for the fact that i can come out of a corner in a higher gear and still have the power to pull out of that corner without having to come into it high up in the rpms.

everyone has what they like. i like mine, you like yours. do what makes you happy, im doing the same. im glad this stayed civilized, i guess adjusts can do that

im gonna try to stay out of this thread as tweety and i are both stubborn europeans and we could argue about the color of the sky till were both blue in the face

RIPI

RIPI

He called yas fat. Hhhheeeehhhhheee!

Old Yeller

speaking of which, I hear that synthetic oil and 100 octane gas along with Michelin PP2's help with wheelies too!

Bluesuperhawk83

After a week of 15/43 gearing i switched to 16/43 its definately better than stock and ive got my commuting gear back.

8541Hawk

Now you see exactly what I have been talking about.

smokinjoe73

Whats stock again?

lazn

16/41
I am at 16/43 and think it is perfect.

RIPI

16/43 works for me also. Have 15/43 with a 520 chain on another SH that is being wrenched on right now and that is a bit too low in first but kind of cool in second and third on the backroads. Also I have not heard any mention of noise. Changing the stock front sprocket to an aftermarket one without the rubber dampers results in A LOT MORE CHAIN NOISE. Not that it is all that bad, but it is clearly noticeable. Have yet to do any comparison testing, but is there really that much to gain with the lighter chain (520 v. 530)? Seems that with all this torque it might make more sense to stick with the lightest steel sprockets available and a 530 chain, at least for all around general use?

smokinjoe73

Yeah that sounds right, I am at 15/43 so its about the same; lower but not too low