From: owner-klr650-digest@lists.xmission.com (klr650-digest) To: klr650-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: klr650-digest V2 #122 Reply-To: klr650 Sender: owner-klr650-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-klr650-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk klr650-digest Friday, March 12 1999 Volume 02 : Number 122 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:44:27 EST From: FTabor231@aol.com Subject: Re: (klr650) Re: KLR list ettiquette, etc. In a message dated 3/12/99 6:48:44 PM Central Standard Time, alarsen@rapidnet.net writes: << There are also two wires (with connectors on them) in behind the headlight that are not hooked up to anything >> Arnie, one is a keyed HOT and the other is ground, I use them for my heated hand grips, Frank ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:57:04 -0800 From: "Robert Morgan" Subject: Re: (klr650) KLR Fork Brace??? Rob Tim Bernard has something in the R&D phase. Stay tuned. Morgan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:58:00 -0800 (PST) From: KLR650@webtv.net (Conall O'Brien) Subject: (klr650) NKLR Sport Touring Access. Whoops- subtle typo. http://www.dnet.net/~pemble Sport touring Accessories ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 01:55:14 +0000 From: Sarah Barwig Subject: (klr650) oil changes OK. So I searched the archives and I'm going to go buy some Mobil 1 synthetic motor oil in a weight appropriate to the list in the manual. 15W50 or 10W40 depending on what the back of the can says is better for So Cal conditions. If this is horribly wrong, please, somebody, stop me before I do it. Sarah - -- Beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, There is a field. I'll meet you there. -Rumi ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:48:39 EST From: FTabor231@aol.com Subject: Re: (klr650) NKLR - Suzuki GS500 Vik, the GS 500 is a developed GS450 which was a great machine. We could balance a nickle (US) on its end on the engine and rev it pretty high without it falling. I don't remember any weakness other that the occassional voltage reg on the early ones. I"d go for it. Frank ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:12:24 -0700 From: "Vik Banerjee" Subject: Re: (klr650) O-kaaay.... - -----Original Message----- From: Juan Villarreal To: KLR650@lists.xmission.com Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 3:09 PM Subject: (klr650) O-kaaay.... >the inputs. On to the tail-lights! Yes I highly recommend them...=) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 20:18:03 -0600 (CST) From: Tom Clay Subject: Re: (klr650) - Driving MR. Michael NUTS >Also, speaking of cooled, so has that burning sensation in my pocket... I >bought a used A13 today with a whopping 27 kilometers (18 miles) on it. I'm >pretty happy. I've already ordered a set of Progressive front springs and a >coated steel-braided line for the front. I forgot to check on what kind of >bash-plates the dealer can bring in - but I figured, get the front end >solved first and foremost. Further, after selling my other bike and now >buying this one, I am $9,000 to the good. This fact alone is having a very >positive effect on my wife. > >Thanks to all - for all, > >Arne Congratulations on the bike. I think you will like it. I've travelled by KLR from Winnipeg to Victoria and back in each of the last two years, with absolutely no mechanical problems [I have a '97]. I didn't bother with the extended warranty, but instead spent the extra money on Manitoba's bizarre motorcycle insurance rates. Ironically, the Valkyrie was the other bike I was considering before I bought my KLR. I never did test one and am still curious. Good luck. Tom Clay Winnipeg MB Vive le KLR ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:16:28 -0800 From: Tom Myers Subject: (klr650) Re: Insurance (WA) If you want to ride it on the street, it will have to be insured. This is new for WA, we somehow slipped thru the mandatory insurance thing that occurred a few years back. Not too suprising when you consider that all the big buildings in every city you pass thru are INSURANCE companies. Making insurance mandatory, then requiring it on every vehicle stinks of collusion between the Insurance industry and State Government. The driver should be insured, not each vehicle. They're jackin' us up. Who can drive two vehicles at once? I wish someone could file a class-action suit to get all that money back. Tom +------------------------------------+ | CycoActive Products tel (206) 323-2349 | 701 34th Ave fax (206) 325-6016 | Seattle, WA 98122 USA | webpage: http://www.cycoactive.com | e-mail: TomMyers@cycoactive.com +------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:20:02 -0700 (MST) From: Jeffrey P Moorbeck Subject: Re: (klr650) oil changes On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Sarah Barwig wrote: > OK. So I searched the archives and I'm going to go buy some Mobil 1 > synthetic motor oil in a weight appropriate to the list in the manual. > 15W50 or 10W40 depending on what the back of the can says is better for > So Cal conditions. If this is horribly wrong, please, somebody, stop me > before I do it. I've been using the 15W50 in my '89 KLR since I purchased it two years ago, no problems. I live in Tucson, AZ. Previous owner was the one to recommend it and used it in the bike. Now at 15,000. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:26:41 -0800 From: Tom Myers Subject: Re: (klr650) oil changes >OK. So I searched the archives and I'm going to go buy some Mobil 1 >synthetic motor oil in a weight appropriate to the list in the manual. >15W50 or 10W40 depending on what the back of the can says is better for >So Cal conditions. If this is horribly wrong, please, somebody, stop me >before I do it. > >Sarah > >-- >Beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, >There is a field. >I'll meet you there. > -Rumi To meet Rumi in a field and then dump your oil would be horribly wrong...... Tom +------------------------------------+ | CycoActive Products tel (206) 323-2349 | 701 34th Ave fax (206) 325-6016 | Seattle, WA 98122 USA | webpage: http://www.cycoactive.com | e-mail: TomMyers@cycoactive.com +------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:55:36 -0800 From: "Jeff & Lisa Walker" Subject: Re: (klr650) Questions, Questions, Questions - KLR >Ah my friends we just so happen to have an engineer on the list. >Caution: Heavy physics follows! >(for those other physics freaks out there, yes I know am am making some >simplifications.) >When you squeeze the brake lever pressure is exerted on the brake pads via the >caliper. This pressure increases the friction between the pads and the rotor. >This frictional force is tangential to the edge of the rotor and in the direction >opposite of wheel spin. This force is NOT the same on the larger rotor as it is >on the stock rotor! Why? Because the frictional force is a function of the >molecular structures of the two materials (brake pad and rotor) AND of the speed >at which the two are passing. Outside edge of the bigger rotor goes further than >the outside edge of the smaller rotor in the same amount of time (for a given >bike speed) and therefore is moving faster to accomplish this feat. Yada Yada Yada...good explanation, but I think that it is also important to note that the frictional force isn't dependent (coefficient of kinetic friction) upon the contact area of the brake pads. The kinetic friction force is determined solely by the coefficient of static friction between the surface of the rotor and the pads (a constant number) and the amount of force applied to the pads by the calipers, by the pistons, by the fluid pressure, by the brake lever, by the hand squeezing the lever, discounting any mechanical advantages in that system. This was a hard concept for me to grasp at first. Say for instance, people assume that big fat tires have more traction on dry pavement than skinny tires. Taint so! The static friction between the tires and the road is determined solely by the weight of the car, and the coefficient of static friction between the tires and the pavement. I didn't believe it until I experimented with this concept in the lab. Say you have a very heavy board, a 15 foot long 12 x 4, and you want to push it across the floor. It will not matter if the board is flat or on edge, the frictional force opposing your push will be the same. What the larger brake pads do is displace heat better, and wear more slowly. Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:12:12 -0800 From: "Jeff & Lisa Walker" Subject: Re: (klr650) Insurance (WA)(NKLR) >Amazing isn't it? A very small minority who contribute no financials to the >economy as a group or society except to promote there own agenda, but they >get their way because they scream the loudest. >Anybody willing to damage/destroy other peoples property, willing to stretch >wire across trails, dig pits, and CUT DOWN TREES to block LEGAL ACCESS is >full of s... > > >>I "think" the same rules apply here in Ontario too. I've seen a few >offroad >>bikes with plates on them but I've never bothered to get one. It may be >law >>to have a motorcycles drivers license (for off roading) too but I don't >>really care about that law either. As long as you keep to trails that >>aren't patrolled you should be okay. There are too other things that we, >as >>off road enthusiasts, should also consider. The first one being that "The >>Sierra Club" should be crushed immediately. Their mandate is to ban all >>modes of transportation except for walking on public property. The other >is >>the issue of trail clubs. I know a lot of you will probably disagree with >>me but please don't flame me. They should be stopped for a number of >>reasons. All I see them doing is increasing the amount of trafic on once >>tranquile trails and making us pay to use Crown Land (public property). The Sierra Club enacted legislation is California a few years back prohibiting off-road driving and riding in that state. The problem is that the bill required mandatory patrols to ensure compliance by law enforcement....It was later determined that the patrols were causing more trail erosion and damage than the original off-road traffic. I'm pretty green, but some of these environmental groups piss me off, when as an avid hunter, I'm the one footing the bill for habitat maintenance by buying my hunting and fishing license every year. Most of those groups contribute nothing but more problems...I'm really pissed off that right now a huge consortium of environmentalists and sport fisherman have joined forces to get the dams on the lower Snake and Columbia river torn down, because of the salmon. I personally think that the damage was done long ago by the dams, and the new problems are those of pollution and run off by major development, causing siltation in spawning beds. Its like trying to cure a headache with a guillotine. The real losers will be the small farmers out here who will have their water rights taken away, and won't be able to afford to ship their crops to market. They'll get foreclosed on, and the big corporate farms will come in with their pesticide poisoned produce....sigh. What I don't understand, is if the salmon are endangered, and I'm not debating that, why are they still allowing sport fisherman to go after them, why are they still letting Native Americans (and those Americans who claim to be) gillnet salmon as many salmon as they want to take, and why are they letting huge commercial fleets use drag nets just off the mouth of the Columbia River? Why are they letting a non indigenous species of bird catch 80 % of the salmon fry? Environmental consciousness is a good thing, but it must be tempered with a true understanding of the actual facts, and with the problems and hardships of the people who actually live and work in the affected habitat. My $5.00 worth (inflation) Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:20:54 -0800 From: "Arne Larsen" Subject: Re: (klr650) Questions, Questions, Questions - KLR - -----Original Message----- From: Jeff & Lisa Walker To: Tim Bootle ; klr650@lists.xmission.com Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 7:01 PM Subject: Re: (klr650) Questions, Questions, Questions - KLR >Say you have a very heavy board, a 15 foot long 12 x 4, and you want to push it across >the floor. It will not matter if the board is flat or on edge, the >frictional force opposing your push will be the same. So what you're saying then is that I've been wrong all these years believing that my size 14 feet have been providing me with better traction? >What the larger brake pads do is displace heat better, and wear more slowly. >Jeff So then I guess the upside is that the soles of my shoes aren't wearing out as fast and my feet stay cooler. =^) Arne ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:36:53 -0800 From: "Jeff & Lisa Walker" Subject: Re: (klr650) Re: Insurance (WA) >If you want to ride it on the street, it will have to be insured. This is >new for WA, we somehow slipped thru the mandatory insurance thing that >occurred a few years back. Not too suprising when you consider that all >the big buildings in every city you pass thru are INSURANCE companies. > >Making insurance mandatory, then requiring it on every vehicle stinks of >collusion between the Insurance industry and State Government. The driver >should be insured, not each vehicle. They're jackin' us up. Who can drive >two vehicles at once? I wish someone could file a class-action suit to get >all that money back. > >Tom I take it that the insurance companies will scale their rates according to the motorcycle like they do for cars? Does this mean that we are going to get hosed because our bikes are the equivalent of SUV's? I don't understand why they are trying to push this now, when its always the rider that get hurt. I tried to get medical insurance for myself and passenger with my insurance, and the amount of coverage that they offered was PITIFUL! I understand that the majority of accidents with motorcycles is shifting from the fault of the cage driver who didn't see the bike, to bikers who fail to negotiate a corner safely and crash "single vehicle accidents" If this is the case, then no harm is done to anyone other than the rider and his bike, and liability won't cover this. I think that all insurance, other than homeowners, is a total rip-off. Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 22:42:17 EST From: K650dsn@aol.com Subject: Re: (klr650) March/April DSN [NKLR] In a message dated 3/12/99 5:32:40 PM Mountain Standard Time, mkovaliv@MNSi.Net writes: << Gino, just a quick note from Windsor, Canada that I got the DSN today. Thanks. I assume that's your DR on the front? Very nice! >> When I took the picture, it wasn't mine yet. I bought it a couple of weeks later. Gino ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 22:45:07 EST From: K650dsn@aol.com Subject: Re: (klr650) KLR Fork Brace??? In a message dated 3/12/99 7:01:34 PM Mountain Standard Time, robertlmorgan@worldnet.att.net writes: << Tim Bernard has something in the R&D phase. Stay tuned. >> So does Steve at Quality Engine R&D. Who will get done first? Gino ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:57:16 -0800 From: "Jeff & Lisa Walker" Subject: Re: (klr650) Questions, Questions, Questions - NKLR >So what you're saying then is that I've been wrong all these years believing >that my size 14 feet have been providing me with better traction? > Thats right. You have better traction not because your feet are bigger, but because you weigh more than someone with smaller feet. In physics, its like this. Your body has mass. The acceleration due to gravity times your mass results in the force of gravity. Newton said that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. So the ground pushes back with the same amount of force, called the Normal force. Between your feet and the ground there is some coefficient of static friction (unless you are sliding, then its a different coefficient, of approximately half the magnitude-depends). Anyway, this coefficient, times the normal force, is the maximum amount of static friction force that you can have. So, say you weigh 100 Kg (nice even #), then your normal force is 100 x 9.81 meters per second per second. Say the coefficient of static friction is .4, then the max static frictional force for traction that you'd have is 392.4 Newtons. Simple huh? Of course that's for both feet. Jeff--just thought I'd share the physics. ------------------------------ End of klr650-digest V2 #122 ****************************