How fast do you drive with your motorcycle on the freeway? 70?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Tim - 17 Nov 2007 08:29 GMT I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway?
Thanks for your feedback.
saddlebag - 17 Nov 2007 12:31 GMT > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find > out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? You can ride much faster than 70 mph without fear of breaking a chain. Racers often exceed 200 mph. The chain is going to be more adversely affected by rapid changes in speed than constant speeds anyway.
Keep your chain clean and lubed and you can expect 15k miles or more before the internal bushings wear to the point of becoming a problem.
Albrecht - 17 Nov 2007 14:17 GMT >I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? Don't worry your head about such things. I ride 80 mph on southern California freeways because that's how fast traffic is going and breaking the chain is the least of my worries.
The drive chain on a powerful sportbike has a tensile strength of about 10, 000 pounds. That's not 10,000 pounds per square inch, it's 10,000 pounds, period.
A motorcycle engine cannot produce enough power to stretch the chain to test the elasticity of the steel side plates, let alone exceed the elastic limits.
Even with perfect traction, a very powerful motorcycle engine can only produce about 1350 pounds of tension on the chain with the transmission in low gear.
http://chain-guide.com/basics/2-1-1-elastic-stretch-plastic-deformation-breakage.html
Bob Myers - 17 Nov 2007 16:40 GMT >I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. If the question is "do you drive more slowly than normal highway speeds because of the chance of a broken chain," then the answer is clearly no. Yes, there is always a chance of something going wrong, but it's sure not limited to your chain breaking. And IF you are reasonably conscientious about maintenance and doing a periodic inspection of the important bits, the chances of anything going wrong while you're on the highway are greatly minimized. Not to zero, of course - so you still have to ride prepared to deal with those sorts of things should they happen - but certainly the risk is not high enough that you need to limit your riding to puttering around town at 30 mph because of it.
And no, I've never had a chain break on the freeway. I travel at the same speeds as everyone else.
Bob M.
Tim - 17 Nov 2007 21:39 GMT >>I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >>find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bob M. Thanks Bob for your feedback, I appreciate it. I know I sounded funny but I was just trying to be consistent with my logic, any time you maneuver/control any moving object to me it's called driving, it is English that screws people, hehee.. Riding means seating and do nothing like the passengers doing, they ride the bus, and airplane etc.. Hehee...
Tim
Tim - 17 Nov 2007 21:43 GMT >>I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >>find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bob M. Thanks Bob for your feedback, I appreciate it. I know I sounded funny but I was just trying to be consistent with my logic, any time you maneuver/control any moving object to me it's called driving, it is English that screws people, hehee.. Riding means seating and do nothing like the passengers doing, they ride the bus, and airplane etc.. Hehee...
Tim
Andrew - 17 Nov 2007 17:37 GMT >I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. Nope never had a chain break at all. I do between 50-80 mph on the freeways depending on traffic density, and conditions. I won't do 80 at night or in populated areas, though I will do 80 all day on the country backroads.
 Signature Andrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo
Seth Hammond - 17 Nov 2007 17:45 GMT >I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. I lost a master link at 70 mph on a dirt bike while on a dirt road. It locked the rear wheel but I skidded safely to a stop. It do get yer attention....
Albrecht - 17 Nov 2007 21:18 GMT >I lost a master link at 70 mph on a dirt bike while on a dirt road. It >locked the rear wheel but I skidded safely to a stop. It do get yer >attention.... In this modern era of endless chains, riveted master links and red Loctite, there's no excuse for losing a master link.
A guy I know built a KZ1000 up to about 1260cc and used a cheap DID chain made with really soft steel. He managed to pull a pin through the side plate.
But, there's really no excuse for buying a cheap aftermarket chain when the chain manufacturers website list what size chain you should use for engines of any given size.
~kurt - 18 Nov 2007 00:17 GMT > In this modern era of endless chains, riveted master links and red Loctite, > there's no excuse for losing a master link. Some 530 chains come with a clip on master link - I don't trust that....
- Kurt
Albrecht - 18 Nov 2007 00:36 GMT >Some 530 chains come with a clip on master link - I don't trust that.... No problem.
When I was roadracing my Suzuki, I would come in off the track after a practice or a sprint race and find the damned master link clip missing. The press-on side plate would still be there, but I had to keep replacing the clip.
So I started degreasing the side plate and the clip and appyling a drop of red Loctite to the clip before installing it.
I never lost another clip.
Now the only way to remove the master link is to grind the ends off the pins.
~kurt - 18 Nov 2007 06:18 GMT > When I was roadracing my Suzuki, I would come in off the track after a > practice or a sprint race and find the damned master link clip missing. The > press-on side plate would still be there, but I had to keep replacing the > clip. I just have a clip for the RS-125 - the side plate slips on pretty easy - but I rarely hear of the clip coming off on those little bikes.
> So I started degreasing the side plate and the clip and appyling a drop of > red Loctite to the clip before installing it. Hmmm....
> I never lost another clip. > > Now the only way to remove the master link is to grind the ends off the pins. Yea, before I first replaced a chain, the directions said you could just break the rivet with a chain breaker. When I went online I found that often results in a broken tool - so I just zipped the end of the rivet off and then used the chain breaker. That process seems to work very well.
- Kurt
P. Roehling - 17 Nov 2007 19:04 GMT >I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? I pretty much stay with the flow of traffic on the freeway, as going either much faster or much slower is much more likely to cause an accident than blowing a chain.
If you've got a modern chain and it's well maintained then it's unlikely to let go on the freeway or anywhere else. (Yes, it could, but you could also be hit by a stray meteorite.)
Stephan Rose - 17 Nov 2007 20:12 GMT > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to > find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? Never, and my highway average highway speeds usually have been higher than those in the US. Not unusual for me to exceed 100mph plus conditions permitting (this is in Germany btw, speeds are legal).
On a Sunday with an open road and little to no traffic I've averaged 130-140 non-stop for 30-45 minutes.
So no, I'd not be worried about the chain breaking. That's about the last thing I'd worry about.
Now an engine randomly deciding to seize on you due to a few valves going byebye...now that's a different story! =)
 Signature Stephan 2003 Yamaha R6
君の事思い出す日なんてないのは 君の事忘れたときがないから
Tim - 17 Nov 2007 21:49 GMT >> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Now an engine randomly deciding to seize on you due to a few valves going > byebye...now that's a different story! =) Thank is amazing.. I know that, European drive so fast, I've seen it two years ago on the southern France freeway. That reminds me of princess Diana's death. Thanks for increasing my confidence. I heard somewhere people said they had their chain broken and it almost caused a big damage the victim said.
Tim
Andrew - 17 Nov 2007 22:55 GMT >>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >>> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Tim If you lose your chain at high speed, you might lose your left leg too.
 Signature Andrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo
alf - 17 Nov 2007 23:00 GMT > If you lose your chain at high speed, you might lose your left leg too. has i it ever happened or you just speculating?
~kurt - 18 Nov 2007 00:17 GMT > has i it ever happened or you just speculating? The worst I know of is when the chain broke on a friend's bike, and it came around an knocked a chunk out of the engine side plate.
- Kurt
Andrew - 18 Nov 2007 02:59 GMT >> If you lose your chain at high speed, you might lose your left leg too. > > has i it ever happened or you just speculating? Take it with a grain of salt. I've heard of it happening, yes. Are my sources good? Does Usenet count?
 Signature Andrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo
Tim - 18 Nov 2007 08:01 GMT >>>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >>>> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > If you lose your chain at high speed, you might lose your left leg too. Hummm why left leg? the chain accident is prejudice?
Andrew - 18 Nov 2007 08:56 GMT >>>>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >>>>> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Hummm why left leg? the chain accident is prejudice? Well all my bikes are left side chains. I haven't had a bike with the chain on the right.
 Signature Andrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo
saddlebag - 18 Nov 2007 10:46 GMT On Nov 18, 3:56 am, "Andrew" <yogig.no.spam.mmm.sp...@n.o.sp.am....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to > >>>>> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Well all my bikes are left side chains. > I haven't had a bike with the chain on the right. Sportsters and Victories have belts on the right. They could give you a spanking.
Warren Weber - 18 Nov 2007 19:55 GMT >>>>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >>>>> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Hummm why left leg? the chain accident is prejudice? My old Harleys had the chain on the right side. W W
sweller - 18 Nov 2007 19:56 GMT > > Hummm why left leg? the chain accident is prejudice? > > > My old Harleys had the chain on the right side. So do my MZs
 Signature Simon
Stephan Rose - 18 Nov 2007 00:17 GMT >>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >>> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Tim Generally speaking, chains don't break. It simply just does not happen. The chain would have to be in really severely bad condition, completely rusted to crap and noisy as hell before it'd ever even think about breaking. And at that point in time, the only person to blame is the owner / rider of the bike.
I had about 16,000 miles on my bike when the engine broke, primarily due to me trying to ride my R6 like as if it was a R1, and the chain could have easily lasted another few thousand miles without a problem.
The key thing is, take good care of the chain. No need to be obsessive compulsive with it, but simply take 10 minutes out of your day once a week to lubricate it and you should be perfectly fine.
 Signature Stephan 2003 Yamaha R6
君の事思い出す日なんてないのは 君の事忘れたときがないから
Alexey - 18 Nov 2007 15:33 GMT > The key thing is, take good care of the chain. No need to be obsessive > compulsive with it, but simply take 10 minutes out of your day once a > week to lubricate it and you should be perfectly fine. Chains only need to lubricated if they have no O- or X-rings, which tend to be for racing applications only these days. If the chain has some kind of gasket setup (O-ring or X-ring), pins have their lubricant and if the rings go, you have to replace the chain, not lubricate it. If you attempt to lubricate such a chain, the lubricant will not get behind the rings and will simply get flung all around. Won't hurt, but won't do any good either. That said, chains still need maintenance, but it's more to do with cleaning than lubricating it. Things like sand grains or other little road debris can severely shorten the life of a chain if they stay on it or sprockets. That's what you gotta watch out for.
saddlebag - 18 Nov 2007 16:30 GMT > > The key thing is, take good care of the chain. No need to be obsessive > > compulsive with it, but simply take 10 minutes out of your day once a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > shorten the life of a chain if they stay on it or sprockets. That's > what you gotta watch out for. The chain is subjected to considerable punishment. Dirt, sand and water all wreak havoc, while the constant tugging pressures claim their toll. Keeping a chain lubricated is absolutely essential for repelling those same destructive elements the chain is exposed to. Some of the best chain lubes available come from Belray and PJ-1. Although the specialized chain lubes offer the best protection and adhere better, heavy weight oil such as SAE 90 will work. Lubricate the chain often and also immediately after the chain has come into contact with water. Should the chain become noticeably caked or dirty, remove and clean it in kerosene or fuel oil and then soak it in oil overnight.
Mike Schenk - 18 Nov 2007 16:52 GMT Alexey <inline_four@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike:
>Chains only need to lubricated if they have no O- or X-rings, which >tend to be for racing applications only these days. If the chain has >some kind of gasket setup (O-ring or X-ring), pins have their >lubricant and if the rings go, you have to replace the chain, not >lubricate it. If you attempt to lubricate such a chain, the lubricant That's bullshit, a chain with X/O rings still needs to be lubricated. Not like in the old days, by taking the chain off the bike and soaking it in warm oil for a time, because the internals of the links themselves are taken care of by the X/O rings. But still, the chain rolls are in contact with the sprockets and that needs lubricating too otherwise it will wear out faster than necessary.
It's not as critical as it used to be, but it is still important to lubricate a chain. The easiest to do that is by using a spray, and make sure to spray it on the inside of the chain.
Mike
Alexey - 19 Nov 2007 14:21 GMT > Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > contact with the sprockets and that needs lubricating too otherwise it > will wear out faster than necessary. Why does it need lubrication? Chain rolls are not subjected to friction.
> It's not as critical as it used to be, but it is still important to > lubricate a chain. The easiest to do that is by using a spray, and make > sure to spray it on the inside of the chain. I'm not gonna get into a religious debate about proper chain maintenance, but suffice it to say that the concept of O- and X-ring chains not needing external lubricants was first communicated to me by a guy teaching a bike maintenance course, who used to be a mechanic for several BMW road race teams. Nowadays I dabble in racing and I've been running X-ring chains, primarily out of laziness. I never lubricated them, only cleaned them. When I was in California racing a 600 on fast tracks, a 420 DID chain would go a season and a half with no stretching or other issues whatsoever. After that, it would usually develop slight tightness in some links and I would replace it for performance reasons, though it would still be perfectly fine for a street application.
Mike Schenk - 19 Nov 2007 14:37 GMT Alexey <inline_four@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike:
>I'm not gonna get into a religious debate about proper chain >maintenance, but suffice it to say that the concept of O- and X-ring >chains not needing external lubricants was first communicated to me by >a guy teaching a bike maintenance course, who used to be a mechanic >for several BMW road race teams. Racing and day-to-day street use are entirely different things. I keep the chain on my bike well lubricated and it lasts easily twice as long as the chain on bikes of people who don't lubricate often. And given that this is the bike that I use in winter conditions, with a lot of rock salt on the road, it's not that it doesn't get much wear.
In racing it doesn't matter that a chain does not last for 15.000 miles or more.
Mike
Alexey - 19 Nov 2007 17:33 GMT > Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the chain on my bike well lubricated and it lasts easily twice as > long as the chain on bikes of people who don't lubricate often. I assume you not only lubricate, but also clean your chains, yes? And the people, whose chains didn't last as long, did they clean theirs?
Mike Schenk - 19 Nov 2007 17:42 GMT Alexey <inline_four@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike:
>> Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: >> Racing and day-to-day street use are entirely different things. I keep [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I assume you not only lubricate, but also clean your chains, yes? And >the people, whose chains didn't last as long, did they clean theirs? Nope, don't clean it, just spray on some lubricant, like Castrol Chain Wax or anything similar.
Mike
Alexey - 19 Nov 2007 20:12 GMT > Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Mike Okay, that's cool. And what kind of bikes are we talking about?
~kurt - 20 Nov 2007 00:46 GMT > Alexey <inline_four@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nope, don't clean it, just spray on some lubricant, like Castrol Chain > Wax or anything similar. I don't understand this chain cleaning thing. I've never had a chain need cleaning. Maybe it is because I primarily use gear oil - that stuff just doesn't attract grit very well. I just oil it (or spary it when I use real "chain lube"), and then wipe it down. Maybe it is because I ride in the rain enough to clean everything off. Sometimes, that first lub job right after a good ride in the rain, the chain just looks *so* bright and clean and can't believe it.
- Kurt
Stephan Rose - 20 Nov 2007 20:21 GMT >> Alexey <inline_four@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, >> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that first lub job right after a good ride in the rain, the chain just > looks *so* bright and clean and can't believe it. It's the spray-on sticky crap that primarily causes a chain to get so dirty. It has the advantage that it sticks on the chain and doesn't fling off, but that also includes the dirt that adheres to it.
 Signature Stephan 2003 Yamaha R6
君の事思い出す日なんてないのは 君の事忘れたときがないから
Seth Hammond - 21 Nov 2007 20:18 GMT >> Alexey <inline_four@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, >> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Kurt I'm amazed to frequently hear dry chains before I see them. Riders approach stoplights with no throttle or gear as they shift down. Dry chains go crinkly clink unheard by the rider.
Carl Sundquist - 21 Nov 2007 22:31 GMT > Dry chains go crinkly clink unheard by the rider. I believe you misspelled "ignored" as "unheard".
Seth Hammond - 21 Nov 2007 23:21 GMT >> Dry chains go crinkly clink unheard by the rider. > > I believe you misspelled "ignored" as "unheard". There's a machine between noise and rider. It's much easier to hear from the side.
timeOday - 21 Nov 2007 04:55 GMT > Alexey <inline_four@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: >> I'm not gonna get into a religious debate about proper chain [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mike I consistently get 20K miles from my chains with nothing but very sporadic wd40. This is all city miles.
I believe this is because I live in a dry climate and put on 20K miles in not much more than 2 years.
pablo - 21 Nov 2007 07:17 GMT Geez, what a long thread.
Again, this is much ado about *nothing* - just maintain a chain properly, sticking to -conservative- guidelines, and it simply does not break. I have never heard about it. I have heard about sprockets being damaged because chains weren't properly maintained - they damage long before the chain breaks, and if you don't notice, you got other skills to worry about. I know in my broke student days I did damage a sprocket (once) because I simply let the chain go unchanged waaaaay past its shelflife.
Worry about cars turning left in front of you (adjust if you're UK based). Worry about hard objects, slippery surfaces and inattentive drivers.
If you worry about a chain breaking and wrapping around your foot at over 100mph, you should be more paranoid about being hit by lighting, or being snatched by a Great White as you ride too close to the ocean, really.
Vaughn - 21 Nov 2007 16:07 GMT > > Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: > >> I'm not gonna get into a religious debate about proper chain [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I've always heard ya should wipe down a chain after the WD-40 treatment, because the agents in WD-40 can penetrate the O-rings if left on, and actually clean them TOO well, removing the internal lubes. I use WD-40 or Kerosene to clean, and then spray when hot with PJ-1 Black (for long runs) or Dupont multi-purpose lube for most regular use.
I get 13,000-20,000 miles from my chains on ~100hp bikes, depending on use. When they start to stretch a lot, or any link binds, I change them right away. Always keep an extra on the shelf, with sprockets ready, too.
J. Clarke - 19 Nov 2007 14:43 GMT >> Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, >> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > a > street application. So how many _miles_ have you gotten on a chain treated in the manner you recommend?
 Signature -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alexey - 19 Nov 2007 17:31 GMT > >> Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, > >> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > So how many _miles_ have you gotten on a chain treated in the manner > you recommend? That's a misleading question. Firstly, because track miles are quite a bit different from street miles, and secondly because, as I mentioned, I was replacing those chains for performance reasons, not because they were unsafe or unfit for riding in general.
J. Clarke - 19 Nov 2007 18:35 GMT >>>> Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, >>>> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > mentioned, I was replacing those chains for performance reasons, not > because they were unsafe or unfit for riding in general. Then what relevance does it have to street riding?
 Signature -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Stephan Rose - 19 Nov 2007 19:30 GMT >>>>> Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, >>>>> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Then what relevance does it have to street riding? Absolutely none would be rather accurate I think.
 Signature Stephan 2003 Yamaha R6
君の事思い出す日なんてないのは 君の事忘れたときがないから
Alexey - 19 Nov 2007 20:10 GMT > >>>> Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, > >>>> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Then what relevance does it have to street riding? The relevance is that it can be seen as a kind of stress test for a chain. If you go to a track, you'll quickly see a number of components on your bike deteriorate or break at a much accelerated rate. To continue with the chain example, I used to ride with master links on the street without problems. When I tried using them on my F3, it worked fine on the east coast tracks, where the speeds are lower and the flow is a bit more uniform, but as soon as I started racing in Cali, master link clips started coming off until I switched to using riveted links. And if you think a track bike doesn't get dirty, that's not true. Firstly, I did have a number of run-offs and crashes during that time, which gets grit and dust absolutely everywhere it can go. And additionally, rubber components, such as seals, tend to suffer most from lack of use (dry rot), which a track bike sees a lot of as it sits between events.
Mike Schenk - 19 Nov 2007 20:44 GMT Alexey <inline_four@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike:
>The relevance is that it can be seen as a kind of stress test for a >chain. If you go to a track, you'll quickly see a number of >components on your bike deteriorate or break at a much accelerated >rate. To continue with the chain example, I used to ride with master But how much mileage do you get in a racing season? Without lubrication, any X/O ringed chain will last for for 5000-8000 miles without any problems. The difference is that a well lubricated chain will easily last double that distance.
Mike
BTW Your news agent is broken, it puts a comma and a space in between the newsgroups names in the Newsgroups: headers and that should only be a comma. See: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_UsenetMessageFormatandSpecialHeaders-2.htm
J. Clarke - 19 Nov 2007 23:35 GMT >>>>>> Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, >>>>>> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > seals, tend to suffer most from lack of use (dry rot), which a track > bike sees a lot of as it sits between events. So how many chains have you worn out on the race track? Or is it your contention that the primary reason for replacing chains on street bikes is something other than wear?
 Signature -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alexey - 20 Nov 2007 16:52 GMT > >>>>>> Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> writes in alt.motorcycles, > >>>>>> rec.motorcycles.racing, alt.motorcycle.sportbike: [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > contention that the primary reason for replacing chains on street > bikes is something other than wear? I'm not sure what you mean by "worn out" in the context of what I said about my reasons for replacing chains on track bikes. If you want to know how many I've replaced, it's probably around 4 or 5 since I started racing in late 2000.
J. Clarke - 20 Nov 2007 18:27 GMT >>>>>>> On Nov 18, 11:52 am, use...@dikkebrommer.nl (Mike Schenk) >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > know how many I've replaced, it's probably around 4 or 5 since I > started racing in late 2000. Worn to the point that standard published maintenance procedures specify replacement.
 Signature -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alexey - 20 Nov 2007 18:34 GMT > >>>>>>> On Nov 18, 11:52 am, use...@dikkebrommer.nl (Mike Schenk) > >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > Worn to the point that standard published maintenance procedures > specify replacement. In that case, the answer is none.
J. Clarke - 20 Nov 2007 21:02 GMT >>>>>>> On Nov 19, 9:43 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > > In that case, the answer is none. So how do you know that your recommendation to not lubricate the chain will not shorten its life?
 Signature -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Stephan Rose - 20 Nov 2007 23:46 GMT >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 18, 11:52 am, use...@dikkebrommer.nl (Mike Schenk) >>>>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > So how do you know that your recommendation to not lubricate the chain > will not shorten its life? Easy, he doesn't.
 Signature Stephan 2003 Yamaha R6
君の事思い出す日なんてないのは 君の事忘れたときがないから
Alexey - 20 Nov 2007 23:46 GMT > > >>>>>>> On Nov 18, 11:52 am, use...@dikkebrommer.nl (Mike Schenk) > > >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > > In that case, the answer is none. I don't know that, but I do know that in the track environment, where some of the stresses are exacerbated, there are no immediate failures of any kind. I have had chains last a very long time on the street, though I can't speak for specific mileage as I wasn't keeping track. Perhaps I'll start now.
Ken Abrams - 19 Nov 2007 19:35 GMT > I was replacing those chains for performance reasons, not > because they were unsafe or unfit for riding in general. So what the hell does that mean? The bike goes faster with a new chain?? Total bull sh.t.
Alexey - 19 Nov 2007 20:02 GMT > > I was replacing those chains for performance reasons, not > > because they were unsafe or unfit for riding in general. > > So what the hell does that mean? > The bike goes faster with a new chain?? > Total bull sh.t. No, not bullshit. If you have some tightness in the links as compared to a new chain, it increases power loss through the drive train. If you don't think it's noticeable, I've been told by guys running a dyno at a shop I used to frequent that they've seen simply a poorly adjusted chain claim as much as 3 hp as compared to the same exact setup with a properly adjusted one. When I was in California, tracks like Thunderhill and Buttonwillow included significant straightaway action that this kind of thing showed.
~kurt - 20 Nov 2007 00:39 GMT > So what the hell does that mean? > The bike goes faster with a new chain?? > Total bull sh.t. Not really - nothing feels nicer than a brand new chain. I don't know if top speed is affected. It would with worn sprockets. Since chains tend to get "tight spots" when they stretch you can't adjust them for optimal performance, so that might affect top speed. How well the sprockets mesh into the links affects the efficiency with which power gets transmitted to the rear wheel. Without a doubt, the difference in feel and responsiveness between the throttle and the rear wheel is enormous between new and old chains.
- Kurt
Carl Sundquist - 20 Nov 2007 01:31 GMT >> I was replacing those chains for performance reasons, not >> because they were unsafe or unfit for riding in general. > > So what the hell does that mean? > The bike goes faster with a new chain?? > Total bull sh.t. Don't be intentionally obtuse.
Champ - 19 Nov 2007 22:55 GMT >I'm not gonna get into a religious debate about proper chain >maintenance, but suffice it to say that the concept of O- and X-ring >chains not needing external lubricants was first communicated to me by >a guy teaching a bike maintenance course, who used to be a mechanic >for several BMW road race teams. Yeah, cos chain maintenance is a big issue on BMWs...
 Signature Champ
Ken Abrams - 18 Nov 2007 23:48 GMT > Chains only need to lubricated if they have no O- or X-rings, which > tend to be for racing applications only these days. Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but why then do you suppose that every manufacturer of bikes with chains (and a lot of them O-ring)still recommends cleaning AND lubrication ???? Do you think the sprockets will wear faster or slower without lube?
> That said, chains still > need maintenance, but it's more to do with cleaning than lubricating > it. Which came first, the chicken or the egg.............. Matters not which is more important; both are necessary.
Alexey - 19 Nov 2007 14:10 GMT > > Chains only need to lubricated if they have no O- or X-rings, which > > tend to be for racing applications only these days. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cleaning AND lubrication ???? > Do you think the sprockets will wear faster or slower without lube? So you have another product to buy.
> > That said, chains still > > need maintenance, but it's more to do with cleaning than lubricating > > it. > > Which came first, the chicken or the egg.............. > Matters not which is more important; both are necessary. My point was that lubricating an X- or O-ring chain does nothing. Cleaning it is another matter. If someone wants to do both, they can, but lubricating surfaces that fling the lubricant away the first time you hit anything like highway speeds is rather pointless.
Ken Abrams - 19 Nov 2007 19:30 GMT > My point was that lubricating an X- or O-ring chain does nothing. And my point was that you are simply wrong.
Excess lube is thrown off; the film that is left lubricates the barrels against the sprockets AND keeps the O rings from drying out (if you use plain oil like the mfg's recommend).
Let's try a little experiment: You clean your chain 'til it is sparkling clean and then run it for about 5K miles with only cleaning and no lube. Then get back to us and tell us what your sprockets look like.
Battleax - 21 Nov 2007 15:29 GMT >> > Chains only need to lubricated if they have no O- or X-rings, which >> > tend to be for racing applications only these days. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > but lubricating surfaces that fling the lubricant away the first time > you hit anything like highway speeds is rather pointless. You're completly ignoring the rollers and their pins. They do require some lubrication, and lubrication does not fling off if the correct product and correct amount is used. However if you prefer a dry chain then go for it.
Henry - 19 Nov 2007 08:08 GMT > >>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to > >>> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > breaking. And at that point in time, the only person to blame is the > owner / rider of the bike. [almost] totally agree, saw a CB750 (about 25 years ago) with a busted crankcase from a snapped chain. Would not have been fun around the foot
Timberwoof - 18 Nov 2007 00:22 GMT > Thank is amazing.. I know that, European drive so fast, I've seen it two > years ago on the southern France freeway. That reminds me of princess > Diana's death. If that tunnel had had proper "New Jersey" barriers instead of the central pillars, then the Mercedes would not have been so severely damaged. Had Her Highness been wearing her seat belt, she might have survived the crash for longer than she did. :(
> Thanks for increasing my confidence. I heard somewhere > people said they had their chain broken and it almost caused a big damage > the victim said. I suspect that chains breaking are a legend coming from early motorcycles. I remember a song from the '70s, "We'll see the world from my Harley." Its last words were, "... if the chain don't break." So we all "knew" that chains breaking is a major worry to motorcyclists. But it seems to happen pretty rarely these days.
 Signature Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
Champ - 18 Nov 2007 11:52 GMT >> Thank is amazing.. I know that, European drive so fast, I've seen it two >> years ago on the southern France freeway. That reminds me of princess [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >damaged. Had Her Highness been wearing her seat belt, she might have >survived the crash for longer than she did. :( If she had been wearing her seatbelt, she'd have survived without a scratch. The back of a S series Merc is about the safest place in the world, and definitely the place to be in an accident.
 Signature Champ
misterav8r - 17 Nov 2007 22:50 GMT I've never broken a chain. Period. But I had a valve break at (only) 70mph, and I've also had a front tire go out around 65 mph.
Terry
> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find > out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. pablo - 17 Nov 2007 23:01 GMT i have never heard of a chain ripping and doing damage. i have heard about them going lose and damaging sprockets and impeding progress. with proper maintenance chains don't break.
but yeah, it could take out your foot.
Tim - 18 Nov 2007 08:06 GMT > i have never heard of a chain ripping and doing damage. i have heard about > them going lose and damaging sprockets and impeding progress. with proper > maintenance chains don't break. > > but yeah, it could take out your foot. Very interesting. This is new to me.
alf - 17 Nov 2007 22:54 GMT > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to > find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? what bike, what year?
PC Paul - 18 Nov 2007 02:21 GMT > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to > find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. Totally irrelevant. My motorcycles do not have chains.
Champ - 18 Nov 2007 11:55 GMT >I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? I've had a couple of chains break over the last 25 years (always due to poor maintenance on my part),and it's never been a cause of drama or concern.
As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120.
 Signature Champ
Paul Carmichael - 18 Nov 2007 12:03 GMT > I've had a couple of chains break over the last 25 years (always due > to poor maintenance on my part),and it's never been a cause of drama > or concern. I saw someone throw a chain at Pembrey once and it ripped through the seat unit. I think the rider was already out of the seat by then though.
 Signature --
Paul. CBR1100XX SuperBlackbird (Buen mueble de patio) And a pushbike of some sort. BOTAFOT #4 BOTAFOF #30 MRO #24 OMF #15 UKRMMA #30
Ovejas y buitres: http://obscuredomainname.org
Cab - 18 Nov 2007 12:40 GMT > > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying > > to find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over > with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. Happened to an ex of mine once and it ripped off the indicator and number plate, but otherwise she was fine. She was more pissed off with the fact that it had damaged her bike as she'd spent the last six months rebuilding it.
 Signature Cab :^) - I'm dyslex-spic apparently Hah-hah! -> TDR 125 UKRMMA#10 (KOTL), IbW#015, BoB#4, POTM#3, SKA#1 email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org
Henry@FamKoplien.de - 18 Nov 2007 12:44 GMT > >I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find > >out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > I've had a couple of chains break over the last 25 years (always due > to poor maintenance on my part),and it's never been a cause of drama > or concern. Hmm. I had only one at 170 mph (270km/h), and it made a lot wreckage, but the bike kept stable and I on the bike. This chain broke due to faulty material. (Was only 5000 miles old!) In total also no drama... only money.
> As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In > the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on > the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over > with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. ;-) No concern in Germany.
Henry
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------- snail mail : Henry Koplien \|/ From the Center of Nowhere o(O O)o ---- eMail : Henry@FamKoplien.de ---------------ooOo---(_)---oOoo-------
deadmail@burnt.org.uk - 18 Nov 2007 13:01 GMT Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote in message <sr90k31jcd79u4ft25isgk6jn4ht041dci@4ax.com>:
>>I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >>out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > >I've had a couple of chains break over the last 25 years (always due >to poor maintenance on my part),and it's never been a cause of drama >or concern. Ditto; in one case though not due to *my* bad maintance but the previous owners. It's generally done some limited damage but basically shot out the back of the bike taking out things like chainguards and minor bits of crank casing on the way.
 Signature K75RT, K1100LT, ZXR750H1, 5TA, Z500/Velorex chair. ST1100.
"Feel sick and dirty more dead than alive"
sweller - 18 Nov 2007 17:45 GMT > > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying > > to find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to poor maintenance on my part),and it's never been a cause of drama > or concern. I had a CB750 sohc that had a chain take a large chunk out of the crankcase. Again that was down to (someone else's) poor maintenance.
> As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In > the UK, minimum speed for any motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on > the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over > with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. 90 - 110, with bursts at flat out of 120
 Signature Simon
doetnietcomputeren - 18 Nov 2007 18:37 GMT >> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >> out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > I've had a couple of chains break over the last 25 years (always due > to poor maintenance on my part),and it's never been a cause of drama > or concern. I've had two chains let go on me. The first was at about 100mph and tore chunks out of the seat unit. The drama was waiting for recovery in the pissing cold rain.
the second was in France, on a TogTour - the drama there was getting a replacement in a foreign country.
> As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In > the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on > the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over > with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. I've always found 100 to be a nice cruising speed.
 Signature Dnc
Rich B - 18 Nov 2007 19:50 GMT Sucking his keyboard for inspiration, doetnietcomputeren typed:
>>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying >>> to find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tore chunks out of the seat unit. The drama was waiting for recovery > in the pissing cold rain. I've never had a chain break on me, but someone I knew had, and it took a chunk out of the back of his left thigh. I've been a bit particular about chains ever since.
 Signature Rich B Ducati GT1000 Take out the obvious to email me.
Simian - 18 Nov 2007 19:54 GMT > > As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. > > In the UK, minimum speed for any motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 > > on the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit > > over with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. > > I've always found 100 to be a nice cruising speed. Depends on the bike. The GSXR750 is pleasant cruising at 106mph, the low vibe sweet spot in top gear, and gets 46mpg at the same time. Wind protection isn't good enough at 120+ to do long distances.
The GPZ550 is OK at 90, but is much less frantic and thirsty at 80.
<quiet voice> in the car, 90 seems to be a good balance between noise and tedium </quite voice>
Nige - 18 Nov 2007 18:48 GMT >> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying >> to find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over > with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. Depends on the bike for me, the zed is happiest at 90-110mph, the Ducati is happiest at anything over 120mph, the MT is happiest at 80mph.
I find it's not just about the rider, the bike 'feels' right at a certain speed.
My old Subaru wanted to do 100mph all the time, the ST3 is better at 80, it just feels right.
The Fireblade felt horrible over 100mph, as i'm a big bloke, it just didn't fit me.
My 2.5 Tdi discovery with mud tyres feels better at 85mph the RR 4.6 feels better at 70mph.
Personally, i love speed, but it can get tiresome quickly.
 Signature Nige, talking utter shite since 1967.
Ducati 916 ZZR1100 BMW K1100LT MT-03 Focus ST3 Land Rover Discovery Xtreme Range Rover 4.6 HSE
~kurt - 18 Nov 2007 19:22 GMT > As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In > the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on > the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over > with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. I think that was 70 mph, not kmph....
- Kurt
sweller - 18 Nov 2007 19:27 GMT > > As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In > > the UK, minimum speed for any motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on > > the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over > > with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. > > I think that was 70 mph, not kmph.... We're from the UK - it's MPH we're referring to.
 Signature Simon
doetnietcomputeren - 18 Nov 2007 19:40 GMT >> As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In >> the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on >> the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over >> with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. > > I think that was 70 mph, not kmph.... So were the numbers quoted by Champ.
 Signature Dnc
Champ - 18 Nov 2007 23:04 GMT >> As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In >> the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on >> the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit over >> with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. > >I think that was 70 mph, not kmph.... I was talking about mph.
 Signature Champ I don't know, but I been told, you never slow down, you never get old ZX10R | GPz750turbo | GSX-R600 (race) neal at champ dot org dot uk
John B - 19 Nov 2007 06:34 GMT > > As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. > > In the UK, minimum speed for any motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 > > on the motorway. Personally, I usually want to get the boring bit > > over with as quickly as possible, so usually ride at 110~120. > > I think that was 70 mph, not kmph.... AIUI it was all mph. It is in the UK, these people do not think kph.
 Signature John B
Simon Wilson - 19 Nov 2007 17:41 GMT >> As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In >> the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Kurt I'd be quite impressed if someone could build a bike that could do 1 kmph, that's about Mach 3 at sea level isn't it? CBA to Google.
 Signature /Simon
Mike Schenk - 19 Nov 2007 17:51 GMT Simon Wilson <siwilson@NODAMNSPAM.hotmail.com> writes in alt.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.racing,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,uk.rec.motorcycles:
>I'd be quite impressed if someone could build a bike that could do 1 >kmph, that's about Mach 3 at sea level isn't it? CBA to Google. Que?
Mike
doetnietcomputeren - 20 Nov 2007 03:19 GMT > Simon Wilson <siwilson@NODAMNSPAM.hotmail.com> writes in alt.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.racing,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,uk.rec.motorcycles: >> I'd be quite impressed if someone could build a bike that could do 1 >> kmph, that's about Mach 3 at sea level isn't it? CBA to Google. > > Que? 1kph != 1kmph
 Signature Dnc
Grimly Curmudgeon - 20 Nov 2007 13:56 GMT We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember doetnietcomputeren <doesnotcompute@gmail.com> saying something like:
>> Simon Wilson <siwilson@NODAMNSPAM.hotmail.com> writes in alt.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.racing,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,uk.rec.motorcycles: >>> I'd be quite impressed if someone could build a bike that could do 1 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >1kph != 1kmph Nor 1km/h
 Signature Dave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the river cleaned out in a day.
Dave Emerson - 19 Nov 2007 18:10 GMT >>> As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In >>> the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'd be quite impressed if someone could build a bike that could do 1 kmph, > that's about Mach 3 at sea level isn't it? CBA to Google. Mach 1 is ~760mph at sea level, assuming 15C ambient.
 Signature Dave ex Motorcycle Maintenance Workshop http://tinyurl.com/4mhaw
Catman - 19 Nov 2007 20:08 GMT >>> As for speed - well, I don't know anyone who goes as slowly as 70. In >>> the UK, minimum speed for *any* motorcycle seems to be about 90~95 on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'd be quite impressed if someone could build a bike that could do 1 > kmph, that's about Mach 3 at sea level isn't it? CBA to Google. Not quite Mach 1
 Signature Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3 Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply) 116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 156 TS 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2 Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see. www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
Pip Luscher - 19 Nov 2007 21:53 GMT >> I'd be quite impressed if someone could build a bike that could do 1 >> kmph, that's about Mach 3 at sea level isn't it? CBA to Google. > >Not quite Mach 1 1Kmph = 1000mph. As stated above, at sea level temps, Mach 1 is ~760mph, so about Mach 1.3.
 Signature -Pip
Mike Schenk - 19 Nov 2007 22:37 GMT pips.computer@spammers.foad.ntlworld.com writes in alt.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.racing,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,uk.rec.motorcycles:
>1Kmph = 1000mph. As stated above, at sea level temps, Mach 1 is >~760mph, so about Mach 1.3. 1Kmph is f.cking cold at a very low speed.
Mike
Bikini Whacks - 20 Nov 2007 22:35 GMT > pips.computer@spammers.foad.ntlworld.com writes in alt.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.racing,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,uk.rec.motorcycles: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mike What about if you're doing it over the equator?
Andrew - 22 Nov 2007 02:43 GMT >> pips.computer@spammers.foad.ntlworld.com writes in >> alt.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.racing,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,uk.rec.motorcycles: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > What about if you're doing it over the equator? It depends how high over the equator you are.
 Signature Andrew 00 Daytona 00 Speed Triple 71 Kawi H1 05 Kiddo
~kurt - 20 Nov 2007 00:33 GMT > I'd be quite impressed if someone could build a bike that could do 1 > kmph, that's about Mach 3 at sea level isn't it? CBA to Google. I don't think I have ever seen SI prefixes used on redneck units....
- Kurt
Broderick Crawford - 18 Nov 2007 14:01 GMT > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to > find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. I have a drive shaft. No worries, no noise.
Seth Hammond - 18 Nov 2007 19:50 GMT >> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? >> >> Thanks for your feedback. > > I have a drive shaft. No worries, no noise. Cars have pole-vaulted after losing a front u-joint.
Tom K. - 18 Nov 2007 21:13 GMT > Cars have pole-vaulted after losing a front u-joint. Really? Which ones?
Tom K.
Bikini Whacks - 18 Nov 2007 21:28 GMT > > Cars have pole-vaulted after losing a front u-joint. > > Really? Which ones? > > Tom K. Russian ones.
sweller - 18 Nov 2007 21:31 GMT > > > Cars have pole-vaulted after losing a front u-joint. > > > > Really? Which ones?
> Russian ones. I used to race bangers and have seen old BMC and Ford iron dig prop shafts in. Mildly amusing unless it's your car.
 Signature Simon
Seth Hammond - 18 Nov 2007 21:51 GMT >> Cars have pole-vaulted after losing a front u-joint. > > Really? Which ones? > > Tom K. I've broken several cage rear u-joints, myself. Am I on a list?
Broderick Crawford - 19 Nov 2007 14:29 GMT >>> Cars have pole-vaulted after losing a front u-joint. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've broken several cage rear u-joints, myself. Am I on a list? Some people could break an anvil.
Broderick Crawford - 19 Nov 2007 14:28 GMT >>> I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to >>> find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cars have pole-vaulted after losing a front u-joint. How high did you go?
sweller - 18 Nov 2007 21:11 GMT > I have a drive shaft. No worries, no noise. http://www.sweller.dynalias.org/t3beveldrive/
 Signature Simon
guig - 18 Nov 2007 16:51 GMT > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to > find out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. The one and only time I was on a freeway I sat at between 60 and 70, mind you it was a Hardly Ableson and took most of my journey to get up to that speed.
T3 - 19 Nov 2007 18:02 GMT >I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find >out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. Properly maintained and tensioned chains are one of the strongest parts of any bike, (if not "the" strongest) but like anything else, if neglected can cause some grief..
Do they break? Yeah, rarely, though again, mostly from neglect. Chain killers are sand/dirt, lack of lubrication and improper tensioning, which will cause stretching, not to mention wear and tear on sprockets. In over 40 years of riding and racing everything from R5's to full-on dragsters I've broken 3 and had 1 come off. 2 of them at the tree, the other, unfortunately (for me) near the traps. The one that just came off was due to the lack of a keeper/lock ring at the master link..
Can they tear stuff up when exiting? You betcha', but not always, in fact, most times they just snake down the road, though I have seen cases cracked, swing arms scratched and even road rash, but those are fairly rare occurrences, especially these days..
O ring chains were a quantum leap as far as maintenance and longevity, but they still need lubrication, as well as cleaning from time to time. The old stories about chain breaks and Harleys mostly date back to the years after WWII when there were no new chains. Back then they boiled old chains in oil to get a few more miles out of them and while modern chains resemble the old stuff, they are harder, stronger and ten/hundred times less likely to stretch out, or break, even on those big-inch torque monster's..
Bottom line on modern chains, take care of them periodically and worry about something else...
Bob Nixon - 21 Nov 2007 02:24 GMT > I am trying to find the range of safety, the reason is, I am trying to find > out if you ever have a chain broken while you're on the freeway? > > Thanks for your feedback. I've avoided this supid, widely crossposted thread until now. Someone mentions chains breaking back in the 70's. Back then they were ever larger or 630 pitch instead of the current standard 530 & 525 chains. I've ridden for literally 100s of miles at over 100 and the last thing I was worried about was busting the chani!.
Bob Nixon.
sweller - 22 Nov 2007 07:02 GMT > I've ridden for literally 100s of miles at over 100 and the last thing > I was worried about was busting the chani!. Ding. I'm usually more worried Officer Krupke and his radar gun.
 Signature Simon
|
|
|