From: owner-klr650-digest@lists.xmission.com (klr650-digest) To: klr650-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: klr650-digest V2 #124 Reply-To: klr650 Sender: owner-klr650-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-klr650-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk klr650-digest Saturday, March 13 1999 Volume 02 : Number 124 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:51:06 EST From: FTabor231@aol.com Subject: Re: (klr650) Questions, Questions, Questions - NKLR In a message dated 3/12/99 11:42:16 PM Central Standard Time, jlwalk@prodigy.net writes: << Subj: Re: (klr650) Questions, Questions, Questions - NKLR >> It's 6:30 Saturday morning and after considering all the explanations of why the bigger rotor is beter, I see the light! Ithink a bigger rotor will be heavier (unless it is carbon fiber) and not sure the extra unsprung weight and inertial mass is worth it, but I now can visualize how a bigger rotor applies more force to the contact patch. Thank you for your patience everyone. Frank ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 08:21:34 -0500 From: "Steamroller" Subject: (klr650) (nklr) land usage, my apologies On the subject of land usage, I extend my apologies for bringing up a "hot potatoe" subject to this board. Based on my e-mails, this is a subject that is frowned upon. However I don't apologize for my opinion, I'm entitled to that as everyone else. But I will refrain from bringing up this topic in the future. Again, my apologies, NY Pete ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 09:08:10 -0800 From: Dave Wormmeester Subject: Re: (klr650) Questions, Questions, Questions - NKLR > > As for your second e-mail, which I have copied a portion of above. Yes I can. > The formula is F=ma. You are thinking in terms of F=mv. That is the force is > equal to the mass times the acceleration. All other formulas needed can be > derived from this one. You are thinking in terms of F=mv. This type of physics > we are dealing with is called dynamics. It is the studies of bodies undergoing > acceleration. A statics representation of this formula would be F=mv or F=md/t > or where acceleration had been replaced by velocity and mass over time had been > replaced by the coeficient of kinetic friction. The formula we need to use is > F=ma or F=md/dt(d/t) where d/dt(d/t) is the derivative of or change in > distance/time as a function of time. The torque exerted by the brakes IS a > function of how fast the rotor is turning because it is a function of the > frictional force. The frictional force is greater on a bigger rotor because it > is turning faster. Why? Because there is more movement per revolution of the > wheel. (the distance is greater.-more rotor passes the pads) Since the rotor > under the pads is turning faster than the stock rotor would be, it is going > further for a given MPH of the bike. So if you are figuring a torque why is > the distance important? Because in an angular system you have to consider the > angular force, which is a factor of acceleration (the change in the change in > the distance as a function of time) Thinking about this from a statics viewpoint > it does not make sense. But since the wheel is slowing it has an angular > velocity which is decreasing. This is a negative angular acceleration. The > torque that the brakes provide is not a static torque like that when using a > torque wrench. It is a dynamic torque which provides negative angular > acceleration. > > Tomorrow's lesson, the molecular physics of semiconductor doping as an > explaination for the long advertised life of LED tailights and brakelights and > of insulating base materials as an explaination of their short street life. > -No, just kidding. I'll try to stay away from heavy physics from now on. I > just could not resist today. -Tim Come on guys this is a list about KLRs. Please take this off list. I have been I this list since the begining and it has been great, all of it, not just the KLR stuff so I don't want to skip all the post labeled NKLR. If there is nothing left to say about the bikes lets talk about riding them. Kurt loved your tale on camping. Anyone else? Dave W Grand Rapids Mi. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 06:47:22 -0800 From: "Robert Morgan" Subject: Re: (klr650) KLR Fork Brace??? Who can say? Morgan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 09:57:43 -0500 From: Bryan Moody Subject: (klr650) Questions OK Listers. I just got a free (yes, free) 94 KLR650 with 6086 miles. Only problem is, it was left in the weather for two years, along with the stator being bad, plus the starter solenoid being missing. The previous owner had the stator and gasket, but never did put them in. Seems he couldn't get the bike to turn over, so he took it to a shop which diagnosed the stator being bad, what a bunch of BS, but since the original stator was missing, I couldn't check it out. I ordered the service manual from Banzai along with the microfiche. I've already installed the stator, and a solenoid, and troubleshot the starting system, (turns out the start button was corroded). Ran it last night with new oil and filter about 30 seconds. Gonna hook up an aux fuel container today to run it for a hour before changing the oil again (did I mention the cup of water that was in the crankcase?). I've still got to: Get a new chain Flush the brakes Check valve clearance (next oil change) get misc small missing parts OK, enough background. Are there any REAL trouble areas in the KLR? Has anyone had Sargent recover their seat? What kind of suspension mods are recommended? Are there any good sources of used KLR parts? Thanks! - -- Bryan Moody Greensboro, NC 86 Concours, 93 KLR650 COG Southeast Area Director http://www.concours.org/se IronButt Association: BBG, CCC Gold ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:09:27 -0600 From: Alan Henderson Subject: Re: (klr650) Re: KLR list ettiquette, etc. >Thanks Eric. BTW 99 03 12 @ 1300 hrs - A13 (used - with only 27 kilometers >) > >Arne > Congratulations! Have fun! Alan Henderson, Iowa A13 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 12:02:36 -0600 (CST) From: Dale Borgeson Subject: (klr650) Re: (KLR650) Oil changes I'll second the use of Mobil 1. I've been using Mobil 1 15W50 in my KLR for 4 years. The positives are 1) smoother shifting 2) smoother and more predictable clutch engagement. The negatives are 1) Mobil 1 is more expensive. Cheers - -- Dale Borgeson dalebor@tiny.net Minneapolis, MN U.S.A. "Motorcycle Touring For Beginners" at www.visi.com/~dalebor ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 13:20:32 +0000 From: Tom Simpson Subject: Re: (klr650) Re: (KLR650) Oil changes At 12:02 PM 3/13/99 -0600, Dale Borgeson wrote: >I'll second the use of Mobil 1. > >I've been using Mobil 1 15W50 in my KLR for 4 years. > >The positives are > >1) smoother shifting > >2) smoother and more predictable clutch engagement. All true. >The negatives are > >1) Mobil 1 is more expensive. Not than motorcycle-specific oils like Golden Spectro, which did not work worth a damn in my KLR. - -Tom '96 KLR 650 32,700 miles ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:58:26 -0800 (PST) From: KLR650@webtv.net (Conall O'Brien) Subject: (klr650) NKLR Night vision Now that Cadillac has announced the first fully-intergrated night vision system with heads up display(HUD) in a production vehicle (seville yr-2000), any guesses how long it will be before someone puts one on a motorcycle? 2 to 3 yrs? BMW-?- maybe Honda? wow http://www.car.net.au/news/archive9809/gmh980903.htm link to Cadillacs' night vision w/HUD Conall klr650@webtv.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:34:53 +0000 From: Jeffrey Doyle Subject: (klr650) Reality check, KLR Model It's Saturday and, while I was charging my battery and having a Heineken I was admiring my machine and thinking about how soon it will be before it'll be doing Mt. Greylock, MA. Suddenly it occured to me that the bike may possibly be an A1, not an A2, based on the date of manufacture. But I'm not sure. The registration called it a KL650AZ and I just assumed they mistook the 2 for a Z. Anyways.... All this time I assumed I was riding an A2, but the 11/97 date on the bike I.D. tag that is on the front frame up near the steering stem head plus the model just being called a KLR650A makes me wonder if this is indeed an A1. I bought the bike as a 1988. I thought the numbers on the paperwork indicated an A2. Anyone have else think this may be an A1? Jeff A? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:54:13 -0800 From: "Jeff & Lisa Walker" Subject: Re: (klr650) Questions, Questions, Questions - NKLR >Jeff, your first response was correct except that you confused the words kinetic >and static friction. Brake pads under braking undergo kinetic friction. Tires >when not slipping undergo static friction. You were right about the size of the >brake pads. There is only so much force available and it will be spread out >across whatever size pad is there. The coefficient of kinetic friction does >change based on the size of the pad but the braking force does not. (when >simplyfing by centering the braking force of each size pad the same distance >from the center of the wheel.) I dissagree. The coeffecient of kinetic friction doesn't depend on the area dA of the brake pad, and is therefore constant. It is the nature of the two surfaces in contact, not the magnitude of the area. > >As for your second e-mail, which I have copied a portion of above. Yes I can. >The formula is F=ma. You are thinking in terms of F=mv. That is the force is >equal to the mass times the acceleration. All other formulas needed can be >derived from this one. You are thinking in terms of F=mv. This type of physics >we are dealing with is called dynamics. It is the studies of bodies undergoing >acceleration. A statics representation of this formula would be F=mv or F=md/t >or where acceleration had been replaced by velocity and mass over time had been >replaced by the coeficient of kinetic friction. The formula we need to use is >F=ma or F=md/dt(d/t) where d/dt(d/t) is the derivative of or change in >distance/time as a function of time. The torque exerted by the brakes IS a >function of how fast the rotor is turning because it is a function of the >frictional force. The frictional force is greater on a bigger rotor because it >is turning faster. Why? Because there is more movement per revolution of the >wheel. (the distance is greater.-more rotor passes the pads) Since the rotor >under the pads is turning faster than the stock rotor would be, it is going >further for a given MPH of the bike. So if you are figuring a torque why is >the distance important? Because in an angular system you have to consider the >angular force, which is a factor of acceleration (the change in the change in >the distance as a function of time) Thinking about this from a statics viewpoint >it does not make sense. But since the wheel is slowing it has an angular >velocity which is decreasing. This is a negative angular acceleration. The >torque that the brakes provide is not a static torque like that when using a >torque wrench. It is a dynamic torque which provides negative angular >acceleration. > >(In your defense, In my original answer to Frank's question I did explain it as >if it was a static torque. You can't find any formulas for it because you >probably don't have a dynamics book. The first 4 to 6 semesters of college >physics don't cover dynamics. It is a specialty course for physics majors and >engeneers.) I do have a dynamics book, but that's next term for me. But we did cover this in physics. Actually, everything I studied in Statics this term was covered in physics too. (professor was a Nobel winner--tough class). I understand perfectly the change in velocity versus change in time. This does not affect the magnitude of the braking force applied to the rotor. I think that you are confusing this with an energy equation and work. Because the rotor is turning and more rotor material passes through the (applied) pads, more work is done on the rotor by the pads, by the equation Work = Force x Distance. But work is the same thing as energy. What I'm saying is that the extra work that is done is wasted in the form of heat energy. So basically, what you are saying is that the magnitude of the braking force increases due to greater velocity? I am talking about the applied force on the rotor at the pads, regardless what the size of the rotor is. I say no. This force is determined soley by the magnitude of the normal force and the coeffecient of kinetic friction. So then this force is applied over a greater distance due to the larger rotor. Well, this is work (W=FxD). Work has the same dimension as energy. Total energy is equal to the potential energy plus the kinetic energy. What I'm saying is that the extra work done is converted to potential energy, in the form of heat, and is thus dissapated and wasted as far as the system goes. I took a quick peek though my dynamics book, but could find no example problems of this nature. I'm sure to start off an interesting debate in this class next quarter over this. Please derive for me the equation that you are talking about so that I can understand. Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:42:49 EST From: K650dsn@aol.com Subject: Re: (klr650) Reality check, KLR Model In a message dated 3/13/99 12:36:34 PM Mountain Standard Time, rascal9@snet.net writes: << All this time I assumed I was riding an A2, but the 11/97 date on the bike I.D. tag that is on the front frame up near the steering stem head plus the model just being called a KLR650A >> No you have an A2. Motorcycles are usually manufactured a few months before the new year. I had a 92 Yamaha that was actually manufactured in 9/91. Gino ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 12:05:34 -0800 From: "Jeff & Lisa Walker" Subject: Re: (klr650) NKLR Night vision Now that Cadillac has announced the first fully-intergrated night vision system with heads up display(HUD) in a production vehicle (seville yr-2000), any guesses how long it will be before someone puts one on a motorcycle? 2 to 3 yrs? BMW-?- maybe Honda? wow http://www.car.net.au/news/archive9809/gmh980903.htm link to Cadillacs' night vision w/HUD There already is night vision for motorcycles, and I've used it for countless hours. Its called the AN/PVS 7B Night Vision Goggles. I've got to tell you, while they work, your visual acuity goes from 20/20 to 20/40 or so. Objects appear smaller than what they really are, you have no depth perception, and to change focus you have to use your hand, like a camera lens. Riding at night on a KLR 250 across the desert in Jordan, trusty M-4 carbine strapped to my side, what a life. I was having a great time that night, until I almost decapitated myself on a strand of barbed wire. It can be done, but its scary. BTW, I haven't seen these goggles on the market yet, as they are still in current use by the military. Rangers lead the way, Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:58:32 EST From: Cloudhid@aol.com Subject: Re: (klr650) Reality check, KLR Model On 3/13/99, rascal9@snet.net writes: snip >...KLR650A makes me wonder if this is indeed an A1... Built in '87, sold in '88, it's probably an A2. You can verify A1 ~ A9 by referencing the guide on the back of the 650 service manual. The frame #'s all start with "JKAKLEA1", followed by an "H" for '87, up to "S" in '95. My A10 is a "T". If the A11 ~ A13 are "U" through "W", then maybe the KLE will finally replace the KLR after the "Z" model A16 in 2002. Redondo Ron A10 - contemplation, meditation, belly button ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 15:23:13 EST From: OlZorro@aol.com Subject: (klr650) Ventura racks Has anyone mounted the Ventura rack on the KLR? If so, do you lose the back rack; where do the brackets attach? Thanks in advance for your help. John Paul Gray Dana Point CA 95KLR650 94 ST1100 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 15:36:19 +0000 From: Jeffrey Doyle Subject: Re: (klr650) NKLR Night vision > It can be done, but its scary. BTW, I haven't seen these goggles on the > market yet, as they are still in current use by the military. > > Rangers lead the way, > > Jeff First of all thank you for having the guts to serve. I heard about those KLRs in Desert Storm. I guess one of the reasons the military liked them so much was that you could get parts almost anywhere motorcycles were sold. While you were practicing for the Dakar I was a small cog in the big wheel of building submarines. Not as dangerous as combat but nevertheless dangerous. I was an E3 for a while in the Regular Army back in 1977. Jeff A2 ------------------------------ End of klr650-digest V2 #124 ****************************