elden talk/ now payload

[k650dsn@aol.com]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., Ted Palmer wrote:

> Gino wrote: > [...] > > A fork brace is not that heavy either. > > Probably very close in weight to a GPS and mounting bracket. > > But your GPS and mount are not regarded as unsprung mass, unless you > attach them to the fork lowers for some reason. > > Mister_T

True, but still useless weight on the bike. Gino

[k650dsn@aol.com]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., Zachariah Mully wrote:

> > Logic wants to agree with you, except Eldon has purchased several

lister's

> > junk KLRs for next to nothing because they didn't heed his

balancer chain

> > replacement advice. > NOT mean anything to me because I have no history, no control and no > record of what I was measuring and when. > > I want proof, not rhetoric. > > I have no beef with the man, just his opinions > > Zack

I agree. I like Elden and have enjoyed many great conversations with him, but he views the KLR world from a different set of glasses than others. He looks at a KLR strictly from a sense of how it will perform on his favorite rides in Baja, usually two-up with Pauline. Now compare that to how Bill Haycock approached his KLR as a tour guide for Pancho Villa tours. Bill's livelyhood depended on that KLR, so he took a low risk approach to it. Made very few if any engine mods. Didn't tear into the motor unless he absolutely had too. Put some money into suspension and and focused on making the bike useable. It shoot be noted that Bill now rides a Tiger, but only because he needed a bike that could carry more payload at speed which is an issue in the tour biz. Gino

[Ted Palmer]

Devon Jarvis wrote:

> How much does the balancer chain cost?

[...] Whatever the exact price is, it aint cheap for a piece of quite ordinary chain. My guess is that the chain becomes quite expensive when Kawasaki spec a chain with 2 bight links in certain exact places. While bright links are technically elegant, a couple of dabs of tough paint would be a lot more cost effective. Mister_T

[Ted Palmer]

Mark wrote: [cam and balancer chain life according to Elden]

> I mean c'mon ... the balancer chain is a large as the 200,000 mile > cam chain on a car engine.

Depends on the car engine, but I would be dubious of any car engine that uses a single row roller chain, and I can think of a couple.

> You figure with the bike's faster revs > and shorter chain it will wear faster, but I say don't change it > until it measures out of spec or 45,000 miles. > Think about it: it's in a constant bath of oil and there's not much > there to drive.

I think there is a bit more to it than that. The balancer chain has to flex both directions, in and out of the loop. Just this factor alone could affect the life significantly. Most car engines would have a camchain that take a much less tortuous path. Look at the angles the balancer chain has to flex over and compare those to a typical car camchain. Another thing to consider is that the KLR is a single cylinder, so the crank revs are a lot lumpier than you would get in a typical 4+ cylinder car with hugely more flywheel mass compared to a bike. I would bet that concern for this lumpiness is why Kawasaki put the springs into the balancer sprockets in the first place, as the springs would function a lot like the damper spring is most bike clutch baskets (and indeed like the rubber cush drive in the rear wheel). The balancers would contribute to the flywheel mass of the engine, and I can't imagine a modern car maker driving any significant flywheel or harmonic balancer mass through a chain. (Yes, Mitsubishi Astron 4cyl motors ran chain driven counterbalancer shafts but they had a lot of flywheel mass too) As for the camchain, it is in a better position in that it doesn't have to flex around as much, but it does get some lumpy tight/slack vibes through it as the valves open and shut. A multicylinder car engine, particularly with 6+ cylinders, you can get some overlap in the opening and closing of the valves that can reduce some of the peak variation in the load on the chain. Maybe these are the sort of things that Elden is thinking about but not much expanding on. Mister_T

[Ted Palmer]

Conall O'Brien wrote:

> Elden writes:

[balancer chain stuff deleted]

> Kurt Grife and Toby Lampson among others are quite concerned about the > automatic cam chain tensioner on the KLR650 as well they should be. It > appears that as KLR cam chains get stretched out the tensioners often jam > thereby causing excess slop in the chain as it continues to wear.

[...] I've occasionally wondered if some race-type manual adjuster would be more appropriate. There may be a chance that a manual adjuster intended for some other Kawasaki, like a ZX6R or ZXR750, would fit and work on a KLR. It's hard to imagine that the KLR tensioner is a unique part in the Kawasaki range. Mister_T

[Devon Jarvis]

I would think that occasionally disassembling and cleaning the automatic adjustor would be enough to keep it working well. It was easy enough to remove the tensioner when I did the valve adjustment, reset the rod, and hear it ratchet it when I replaced the spring nd cap bolt. Regarding my earlier post, I just ran the part# at my local shop, and $247 for the balancer chain. ?????? This is (as others have pointed out) a plain old single-roller chain like you'd find on a bicycle. I can get a race-spec endless SR500 camchain for about $90, which is similar. Is the balancer chain different over the years? I know the sprocket and adjustor was modified in '96. I didn't price the sprockets though, if these are really expensive then perhaps changing the chain early (before it wears enough to really eat the sprockets) would be justified. Devon Ted Palmer wrote:

> > Conall O'Brien wrote: > > Elden writes: > [balancer chain stuff deleted] > > Kurt Grife and Toby Lampson among others are quite concerned about the > > automatic cam chain tensioner on the KLR650 as well they should be. It > > appears that as KLR cam chains get stretched out the tensioners often jam > > thereby causing excess slop in the chain as it continues to wear. > [...] > > I've occasionally wondered if some race-type manual adjuster would > be more appropriate. > There may be a chance that a manual adjuster intended for some > other Kawasaki, like a ZX6R or ZXR750, would fit and work on a KLR. > It's hard to imagine that the KLR tensioner is a unique part in the > Kawasaki range. > > Mister_T > > Visit the KLR650 archives at > http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 > > Post message: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com > Subscribe: DSN_klr650-subscribe@yahoogroups.com > Unsubscribe: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > List owner: DSN_klr650-owner@yahoogroups.com > > Support Dual Sport News by subscribing at: > http://www.dualsportnews.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Tobin Slide Lampson]

Ted Palmer wrote:

> Conall O'Brien wrote: > > Elden writes: > [balancer chain stuff deleted] > > Kurt Grife and Toby Lampson among others are quite concerned about the > > automatic cam chain tensioner on the KLR650 as well they should be. It > > appears that as KLR cam chains get stretched out the tensioners often jam > > thereby causing excess slop in the chain as it continues to wear. > [...] > > I've occasionally wondered if some race-type manual adjuster would > be more appropriate. > There may be a chance that a manual adjuster intended for some > other Kawasaki, like a ZX6R or ZXR750, would fit and work on a KLR. > It's hard to imagine that the KLR tensioner is a unique part in the > Kawasaki range. > > Mister_T

It would be a brilliant discovery.........I've wondered about the old KZs(even with 4 barrels), cause the cylinder-trans relation looks like its from the same thinking(foundation)...... Slide

[richardk@infinet.net]

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., Ted Palmer wrote:

> > Another thing to consider is that the KLR is a single cylinder, so > the crank revs are a lot lumpier than you would get in a typical > 4+ cylinder car with hugely more flywheel mass compared to a bike. > I would bet that concern for this lumpiness is why Kawasaki put > the springs into the balancer sprockets in the first place, as the > springs would function a lot like the damper spring is most bike > clutch baskets (and indeed like the rubber cush drive in the rear > wheel). > The balancers would contribute to the flywheel mass of the engine, > and I can't imagine a modern car maker driving any significant

flywheel

> or harmonic balancer mass through a chain. > (Yes, Mitsubishi Astron 4cyl motors ran chain driven counterbalancer > shafts but they had a lot of flywheel mass too)

And these engines were notorious for their poor design. My parents went through hell with theirs, I'm sure their mechanic retired on what that engine cost them. I think you're on the money with why Kawi put the springs in the balancer sprockets, but the design was flawed, the wear issues must have become more important than this dampening, hence the switch to solid sprockets. Those of you doubting Eldon's judgement might care to consider that he came up with the same solution that a panel of Kawi engineers did, on his own, based on the engines that he's seen. I'm not getting into the 30K replacement debate, its like the sight glass, oil and chain lube threads, but note the balancer upgrade which now seems to be universally accepted as a great idea is something he has championed for ages. The 30K replacement, as I think I understand it, is to prevent having to replace the sprockets, especially the centre drive sprocket, which is a royal PITA, requiring special tools or a machine shop. Its not the balancer chain itself. I believe Eldon told me a balancer chain could probably go 50K or more before needing changing, but by then, the worn chain would have worn the sprockets faster as well, so everything would require changing. A balancer chain changeover is accessible to the average rider, the centre sprocket isn't. Rich

[Krgrife@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/19/01 4:20:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, richardk@... writes: << he 30K replacement, as I think I understand it, is to prevent having to replace the sprockets, especially the centre drive sprocket, which is a royal PITA, requiring special tools or a machine shop. Its not the balancer chain itself. I believe Eldon told me a balancer chain could probably go 50K or more before needing changing, but by then, the worn chain would have worn the sprockets faster as well, so everything would require changing. A balancer chain changeover is accessible to the average rider, the centre sprocket isn't. >> Richard, you are correct about the PIA aspects of replacing the balancer and cam chain drive sprocket (it is both sprockets on one assembly). In the pre-96 like mine it is necessary to split the cases and have the new sprocket pressed on the left crankshaft end. I may be wrong but I don't see how that sprocket assembly could be pressed on with the crankshaft in the motor. Elden tells me that in the 96 and later the sprocket only comes as part of the crankshaft assembly, obviously this is a major job requiring complete bottom end disassembly. I think there are great differences between bikes as to the wear of the cam and balancer chain and the related sprockets, bikes that live at mostly constant speeds on the highway probably have much lower wear rates than bikes that are ridden aggressively on rough roads or off road, they would have much greater shock loads on these systems. Also some riders are just easier on engines than others. I have now put about 14,000 miles on my rebuilt motor since last August, that includes all sorts of riding, 3 Baja trips totaling about 7,000 miles, lots of highway miles and many hours of fire roads. I'm going to continue to periodically check the balancer system and the cam chain but do not plan to automatically replace anything at an arbitrary mileage limit. I belong more to the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" school than Elden does. As with so many things in life there are no fixed rules, do what works for you and your bike. I'm sure there are KLR's running around with 100k miles that have had minimal maintenance just as I have seen major failures at low mileage on bikes like my friend Jim's which was carefully maintained and had balancer chain failure at 19k miles. Regards, Kurt Grife Avila Beach, Ca

[Susan Moorhead]

That's where I mounted mine! Works great, just stand on the pegs, lean over the headlamp assy, and read the GPS, simple! Marshall in Afton, Ok '95 KLXC3 "Blackhorse"

----- Original Message ----- From: Ted Palmer To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] Re: Elden tech talk continued > Gino wrote: > [...] > > A fork brace is not that heavy either. > > Probably very close in weight to a GPS and mounting bracket. > > But your GPS and mount are not regarded as unsprung mass, unless you > attach them to the fork lowers for some reason. > > Mister_T