gas - probably as bad as a oil thread

[Rodney Copeland]

Sure wish someone would burn one of those stock front sprockets to see if it is a two piece with rubber in between. I got alot more miles out of the stock front than any of the aftermarkets. I thought it had kind of a cush drive to it. Go figure, Rod --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "squasher_1" wrote:

> --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "takes2serious" > wrote: > > --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, Alan L Henderson > > wrote: > > > > > The rubber helps the KLR pass the EPA noise test as does the > > fiberglass > > > that used to be in the last section of your muffler. > > > Alan Henderson A13 Iowa > > > > Thanks for the quick replies on this guys. I wondered what the > > rubber was for, as I had not seen it before on my street bikes. > I'll > > bet it does quiet down the chain some. > > > > Randy > > > > My Kawasaki ZR-7s has rubber around the sprocket just like the KLR. > maybe it's a Kawi thing

[johnsondesigns2004]

i have a stock front sproket that will probably never make it back onto my bike, i have a 16 now and love it, even on the dirt! maybe if i can find the stocker (in back of my truck someplace) i will fire up the cutting tourch and melt the rubber out of it just to see what its all about. will post my finds when its done. A17 Circus Bear --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Rodney Copeland" wrote:

> Sure wish someone would burn one of those stock front sprockets to > see if it is a two piece with rubber in between. > I got alot more miles out of the stock front than any of the > aftermarkets. > I thought it had kind of a cush drive to it. > Go figure, > Rod > > > > > --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "squasher_1" > wrote: > > --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "takes2serious" > > wrote: > > > --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, Alan L Henderson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The rubber helps the KLR pass the EPA noise test as does the > > > fiberglass > > > > that used to be in the last section of your muffler. > > > > Alan Henderson A13 Iowa > > > > > > Thanks for the quick replies on this guys. I wondered what the > > > rubber was for, as I had not seen it before on my street

bikes.

> > I'll > > > bet it does quiet down the chain some. > > > > > > Randy > > > > > > > > My Kawasaki ZR-7s has rubber around the sprocket just like the

KLR.

> > maybe it's a Kawi thing

[takes2serious]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Saltzer" wrote:

>While your putting your motor at a lower rpm for > a given speed, your also losing mpg, because the motor is weaker in > that rpm range. Making the motor weaker makes it harder to pass, > slower to build speed, harder to climb hills, lowers your top

speed,

> and, of course, is harder on the motor overall. > > > MrMoose > A8 (Barbie and Ken special)

I just did a quick ten miles on the freeway with my new 16T sprocket and it does exactly what I was hoping: gives me about 5mph higher speed in 5th gear for the same rpm. Now, I don't want to lose mpg, or hurt my motor, but I'm having a hard time understanding how I would be doing that by changing to a 16T. Bear with me because I'm no mechanical whiz. With my 16T I can do 70 in 5th gear at about 4,300 rpm. That used to get me about 65mph with the stock 15T. Seems to me that while an engine may be more efficient at converting fuel to horsepower at higher rpm, it is still taking more fuel to spin that engine at the higher rpm, isn't it? So how can I be burning more gas at 4,300 rpm with a 16T than I would be at higher rpm (same speed) with a 15T? I would think that, if anything, I would be getting better milage in terms of MPG with the 16T. In terms of engine wear, again, I would think that, if anything, there would be less wear at 4,300 rpm versus say 4,800 rpm, though it's probably inconsequential. 4,300 certainly isn't lugging. Even if you're talking about the engine load getting up to crusing speed, seems to me the issue would only be in first gear, since you can hold your shifts to the same rpm regardless of sprocket. I would think that if there is any increased wear anywhere in the bike it would only be in the clutch on first gear take-offs, and how much can it be for one tooth (6%), in one gear (first)? Randy

[squasher_1]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Rodney Copeland" wrote:

> I got alot more miles out of the stock front than any of the > aftermarkets. > Rod > > > >

That is why I said in an older post about sprockets, that the OEM stock front sprocket is worth the xtra money over the after-market brands. I'm glad someone else noticed the same thing

[Rodney Copeland]

Hey Randy, I see what you meen about the mimimal difference it should make. I run a 14 and do the Slab quite well at 65-70. I try to keep it under 5500 R's. I run fairly gnarly tires and speed ain't my thing. I may run a 16 someday too, if I decide my buns can handle a lengthy journey. I did recently beat a KLR Dude at the Dragstrip with his 16 against my 14, I had questions about runnin out of top end, but didn't! What we have had reported though, with the 16 toother, is that with large loads and maybe larger riders, that the top speed of the KLR may be less at times because it won't rev all the way, compared to the 15. Guess I could see where holdin the throttle wide open to maintain speed, could hurt fuel economy and be a little harder on the motor. Rod, now that he thinks about it! --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "takes2serious" wrote:

> --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Saltzer" > wrote: > > >While your putting your motor at a lower rpm for > > a given speed, your also losing mpg, because the motor is weaker

in

> > that rpm range. Making the motor weaker makes it harder to pass, > > slower to build speed, harder to climb hills, lowers your top > speed, > > and, of course, is harder on the motor overall. > > > > > > MrMoose > > A8 (Barbie and Ken special) > > I just did a quick ten miles on the freeway with my new 16T

sprocket

> and it does exactly what I was hoping: gives me about 5mph higher > speed in 5th gear for the same rpm. > > Now, I don't want to lose mpg, or hurt my motor, but I'm having a > hard time understanding how I would be doing that by changing to a > 16T. Bear with me because I'm no mechanical whiz. > > With my 16T I can do 70 in 5th gear at about 4,300 rpm. That used

to

> get me about 65mph with the stock 15T. Seems to me that while an > engine may be more efficient at converting fuel to horsepower at > higher rpm, it is still taking more fuel to spin that engine at the > higher rpm, isn't it? So how can I be burning more gas at 4,300

rpm

> with a 16T than I would be at higher rpm (same speed) with a 15T?

I

> would think that, if anything, I would be getting better milage in > terms of MPG with the 16T. > > In terms of engine wear, again, I would think that, if anything, > there would be less wear at 4,300 rpm versus say 4,800 rpm, though > it's probably inconsequential. 4,300 certainly isn't lugging. > > Even if you're talking about the engine load getting up to crusing > speed, seems to me the issue would only be in first gear, since you > can hold your shifts to the same rpm regardless of sprocket. I

would

> think that if there is any increased wear anywhere in the bike it > would only be in the clutch on first gear take-offs, and how much

can

> it be for one tooth (6%), in one gear (first)? > > Randy

[Keith Saltzer]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "takes2serious" wrote:

> --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Saltzer" > wrote: > > > > BTW, I do not like 16 tooth sprockets on the KLR at all. I have > read > > and heard time and time again about (dropping the rpm's) but I

say

> so > > what. > > > > MrMoose > > A8 (Barbie and Ken special) > > I understand what you're saying and I may not keep it on, but I

have

> a problem with vibration at 5,000 rpms and above. My stocker is

fine

> to 65 mph and then the vibes are too much for long-distance riding > for me. > > I would love to know how much my bike vibratues more than average,

if

> at all, because it's my first single and I have nothing to compare

it

> to. If some 'Vegas rider wants to meet up for a ride one day, and > would give me another KLR to compare to, I would be very grateful. > > So, the reason I'm trying the 16T is to see if I can get a 75mph > cruise speed at 4500 rpms or thereabouts. > > Randy

I can relate to the vibration problems, but why not go after the main problem causing the vibes instead of changing the gearing to drop the motor out of the vibe zone. Your still gonna have vibes at 5000 rpm and above you know. It will just take a faster speed to get there. In the past, (like just last month) I have found the problem of vibes on my KLR above 5000 rpms to be 1) very dirty air filter 2) cush drive shot 3) doohicky spring broke. When I fixed these problems, no more vibes. Of course my aluminum Renthals, and Progrips help too. When everything is adjusted, cleaned and running right, my KLR will actually smooth out at the higher rpm's. MrMoose A8 (Barbie and Ken special)

[Keith Saltzer]

> With my 16T I can do 70 in 5th gear at about 4,300 rpm. That used

to

> get me about 65mph with the stock 15T. Seems to me that while an > engine may be more efficient at converting fuel to horsepower at > higher rpm, it is still taking more fuel to spin that engine at the > higher rpm, isn't it? So how can I be burning more gas at 4,300

rpm

> with a 16T than I would be at higher rpm (same speed) with a 15T?

I

> would think that, if anything, I would be getting better milage in > terms of MPG with the 16T.

Your right in being able to cruise at the same speed (say 65 mph) with lower rpm's, but because your motor is not as strong now, your having to ride down the road with the throttle opened up a little more, therefore your using more fuel per mile. Your motors not really "weaker", it's just that you have lowered the torque at the rear wheel by changing the gearing. You know, it's harder to wheelie, harder to climb hills, and everything else is harder too. Accerating for any reason, hills, passing, wind resistance etc is just MORE work for the motor to do now with a 16 tooth instead of the 15. You will not be able to get to redline either, which means your top speed is lower now too, because the lowered torque or "grunt" of the motor is not going to be able to push the bike and you through the wind as easily it would with a 15 tooth. I can't even redline my bike with a 15 tooth now since I have put the stock pipe back on and rejetted back down for it. With the 14 tooth though, I can redline, and have a ton of torque to pull weight, wheelie easier than 15 or 16 tooth, pass, and so on. But mpg will suffer there too because now the motor is spinning faster, and using more fuel. Yes it is stronger with the 14 tooth, and you don't need to twist the throttle quite as much as with the 14 tooth, but it just doesn't work quite the same as putting a 16 tooth on and lowering your torque. You can actually get better mpg with a 14 tooth off road compared to a 15 if you ride a certain way. Sometimes I get it and sometimes I don't. MrMoose A8 (Barbie and Ken special)

[Judson D. Jones]

My buddy Craig and I did a semi=scientific comparison on our trip to Moab this last June. Craig ran a 16t on his '02, while I stuck with the 15t on my '98. We had similar loads, except that I outweigh him by about 40 lbs. Sometimes he got better mileage, sometimes I did, but never by more than a couple of tenths of a gallon on a tank either way. I think my bike works better on the 15t, better roll-on, better top end. A stronger motor might pull the higher gear better, and bikes vary enough so that somebody could get better results with the 16t, but you can't prove it by me.

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Saltzer" wrote: > > > With my 16T I can do 70 in 5th gear at about 4,300 rpm. That used > to > > get me about 65mph with the stock 15T. Seems to me that while an > > engine may be more efficient at converting fuel to horsepower at > > higher rpm, it is still taking more fuel to spin that engine at the > > higher rpm, isn't it? So how can I be burning more gas at 4,300 > rpm > > with a 16T than I would be at higher rpm (same speed) with a 15T? > I > > would think that, if anything, I would be getting better milage in > > terms of MPG with the 16T. > > Your right in being able to cruise at the same speed (say 65 mph) > with lower rpm's, but because your motor is not as strong now, your > having to ride down the road with the throttle opened up a little > more, therefore your using more fuel per mile. > > Your motors not really "weaker", it's just that you have lowered the > torque at the rear wheel by changing the gearing. You know, it's > harder to wheelie, harder to climb hills, and everything else is > harder too. Accerating for any reason, hills, passing, wind > resistance etc is just MORE work for the motor to do now with a 16 > tooth instead of the 15. You will not be able to get to redline > either, which means your top speed is lower now too, because the > lowered torque or "grunt" of the motor is not going to be able to > push the bike and you through the wind as easily it would with a 15 > tooth. I can't even redline my bike with a 15 tooth now since I have > put the stock pipe back on and rejetted back down for it. With the > 14 tooth though, I can redline, and have a ton of torque to pull > weight, wheelie easier than 15 or 16 tooth, pass, and so on. But mpg > will suffer there too because now the motor is spinning faster, and > using more fuel. Yes it is stronger with the 14 tooth, and you don't > need to twist the throttle quite as much as with the 14 tooth, but it > just doesn't work quite the same as putting a 16 tooth on and > lowering your torque. You can actually get better mpg with a 14 > tooth off road compared to a 15 if you ride a certain way. Sometimes > I get it and sometimes I don't. > > MrMoose > A8 (Barbie and Ken special)

[Eddie]

Attachments :

My 09' has a little over 9,000 miles of 99.99% street use. (yea. too many nines. lol)

I have a Scottoiler keeping things lubed and the chain tension has been kept in spec.

The rear sprocket looks fine and the chain is in good condition (no kinks,etc...)

 

Here's my puzzle: Looking through the countershaft sprocket cover, I can see the teeth on the front sprocket have a slight hook to them. The odd thing is the hook is forward - not backward. See attached very bad graphic illustration.

Is this weird or what?

 

 

eddie

 

 

[Michael Martin]

This wear pattern looks normal to me.  The wear is from the sprocket pulling on the chain under engine load. Mike Martin, Louisville, KY [b]From:[/b] eddie [b]To:[/b] KLR650 list DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> [b]Sent:[/b] Fri, November 12, 2010 11:07:39 AM [b]Subject:[/b] [DSN_KLR650] sprocket question   My 09' has a little over 9,000 miles of 99.99% street use. (yea. too many nines. lol) I have a Scottoiler keeping things lubed and the chain tension has been kept in spec. The rear sprocket looks fine and the chain is in good condition (no kinks,etc...)   Here's my puzzle: Looking through the countershaft sprocket cover, I can see the teeth on the front sprocket have a slight hook to them. The odd thing is the hook is forward - not backward. See attached very bad graphic illustration. Is this weird or what?     eddie