Is the classic sport-touring motorcycle doomed to extinction?

I don't mind lubing a chain, but depeending on the chain and bike, frequently adjusting the chain can be a "chore,"
I came up with my own chain-adjustment method that minimizes slack, which should help maximize mileage, while avoiding over-tightening:

The factory recommends 3/4 to 1-1/2 inches of slack with the bike on the side-stand, but how accurate is that? The ideal slack is as little slack as possible without ever getting too tight, so I use my own procedure. I start by lubing it after a warm-up ride, then let it cool, maybe overnight, and on the center stand.

I remove the seat and route a tie-down strap over the bike frame, under the swing-arm on both sides, back over the bike frame, and hook the strap ends together. I then tighten the strap, compressing the rear springs, until the sprockets are in a straight line with the swing-arm pivot, which is where the chain will be tightest.

I then rotate the rear wheel several times while checking the chain for the least slack, as chains don't usually wear evenly. Once I find the position with the least slack, I adjust the chain for very little play, maybe 1/2 to 3/4 inch. That's as tight as it can be without the risk of it being too tight. Throttle response is crisp, too.
 
From the NH Forum, more detail. There were a couple of comments or questions which I omitted, which is why some of my comments appear to be responses:


And from another thread, which became more of a discussion:

Let me see if I can explain better: We agree that the chain, sprockets, and even bearings will suffer extreme wear and possible damage with the chain too tight. The following presumes that we have lubed the chain and found the tightest point in its rotation:

A chain connecting two fixed-in-place sprockets can be tightened well without damage, because the distance between them doesn't change during operation. The chain on a bike must cope with varying distances, because the swing-arm pivot is closer to the rear axle.

As the rear suspension moves, the rear sprocket moves in an arc. The two sprockets are the farthest apart when the two sprockets and the swing-arm pivot are in a straight line. No matter what movement happens, the sprockets will never be farther apart than that.

The 3/4" of slack spec is with the bike on the side stand, when the swing-arm pivot is nowhere near being in a straight line with the sprockets, which makes it an approximation at best. What happens on a bike with worn or different-than-stock length springs?

What I do is pull them into that straight line with a ratchet strap. I take the seat off, run the strap over the frame, under swing-arm on both sides, back over frame and hook the ends together. Then I tighten the strap until the straight line has been achieved.

Now, no matter how the suspension moves in operation, whether from load weight or aggressive riding, the chain will never be pulled tighter than it is at this point. If I adjust for minimal slack now, the tightest the chain will ever be in use is how tight I make it now.


If your point is, even knowing what I'm saying above is physically correct, that my 1/4" of slack is too little for a chain with fixed-distance sprockets, then that is a separate debate. I will do some research and report back with my findings. Until then . . .

Purposely avoiding motorcycle and bicycle sites, here's the first thing I found:

https://www.cisco-eagle.com/service...maintenance/conveyor-maintenance/belt-tension


And yes, as the chain wears, the pin-to-pin distance increases, which allows the rollers to ride higher on the sprocket teeth, which in turn increases chain wear, and the effect snowballs. That's why old sprockets cause new chains to wear faster.

I didn't read about doing this anywhere; it just came to me while thinking about it. I believe the tighter the chain, without being tight enough to increase friction or squeeze out the lubricant, the better. There's no advantage to the loose side flopping around.

An extremely-too-tight chain could even stop the suspension from compressing. Here's just about everything you could ever want to know about chains. There's even a motorcycle chain section in the index:

http://tsubaki.ca/pdf/library/the_Complete_guide_to_chain.pdf


On my '96, as well as my old '82, the suspension must be compressed for that alignment. It's strange to me yours doesn't. I'll have to look for pics of Nighthawks without mufflers.

Various thoughts:

1. Perhaps you have shorter-than-stock shock/spring units, but I can't imagine all of the suspension travel is only above the straight line. That would be such a waste of available travel.

2. I would expect to find the straightest alignment with the bike nominally loaded and with the suspension correctly adjusted for that amount of load, not at either end of range of motion.

3. A center-to-center change of 1/4" would, of course, result in a change of much, much more than 1/4" of chain slack. A quarter turn of the adjuster bolts can go from too loose to too tight.

4. I've had a 16-tooth sprocket on hand for some time, waiting for either the existing Regina chain to wear enough to fit, or wear enough to be replaced with the waiting 112-link chain.


HP is saying that, if you start with the three points in a straight line, that slack can only increase. We all agree on that. What's different is that he believes that those points are in line with the swing-arm at it's lowest position, i.e., with the bike on the center stand.

You and I obviously agree that the straight line occurs only with weight on the bike, which is what I mimic when ratcheting the swing-arm upward. I also do this with the bike on the center stand, otherwise the bike could fall to the right, pushed by the kick stand.

I think designing a bike with the swing-arm straight with no weight on it would be to intentionally waste 50% of the available suspension travel. As I said in a previous post, I think the straight line only occurs when the bike is well loaded, like with a passenger.


If the sprockets are at maximum distance apart, and the chain at the tightest place, the chain will never be tighter. So, what's "too tight" about 1/4" of play?


Only because, as rarely as a chain adjustment is needed, I would have to make sure that the bike is sitting exactly the same every time.

Plus, how do you make sure the chain is at the tightest place with the rear wheel on the ground?


I have seen such a setup accomplished in two different ways:

1. A custom frame was made with the swing-arm pivot points outboard of, and in line with the counter-shaft (front sprocket).

2. A dual sprocket was mounted on the swing-arm pivot shaft, and there were separate front and rear chains. This was made to allow for an extra-wide rear wheel.


To add, yes, the chain slackens a bit with the suspension either compressed or extended from the center, straight-line position.

The question is: by how much, exactly? How do we know that every '91-'03 NH750 is sitting with the rear compressed the same amount every time it's parked?

I believe the side-stand recommendation is based at least partly on the fact that the center stand was not standard equipment.

And, there is the previously-mentioned variations in wear along the length of used chains, which either must be found or allowed for.

I believe the goal is to have as little slack as possible without ever getting tighter. What works better to obtain than my method?


I merely meant that no one number applies to every bike, so the recommended slack is an average-based compromise, and my method applies to my chain on my sprockets on my bike. I'm concerned only with my bike, as I'm not responsible for writing a user's manual for everyone else's bike.

As long as that too-tight point is avoided, the best mechanical efficiency in transferring energy is achieved with a snug chain. I do spin he rear wheel around a few times in both directions and check for a missed tight spot after adusting.

To me, my method firstly avoids the possibility of making the chain tight enough to risk any of the above caveats, and secondly, otherwise allows me to get it as snug as practicable while avoiding "firstly."

http://chain-guide.com/basics/7-1-2-1-chain-slack.html

http://chain-guide.com/basics/2-1-2-engagement-with-sprockets.html


Additional food for thought:

I imagine that a bike's suspension (or any vehicle, really) would be designed so that, during normal load and usage, there is much more compression travel available than extension travel.

I have new Hagon shocks with springs selected by Dave Quinn (ret.) after discussing my weight, the full luggage system I added, tools and such I normally carry, and allowance for a passenger.

Combining the two lends me to believe I'll never ride an appreciable distance (if any) with the suspension compressed to the point of minimum chain slack.

The way I do it, there are no measurements and, right or wrong, the chain ends up being as snug as it can be while still assuring no chance of binding.
 
I came up with my own chain-adjustment method that minimizes slack, which should help maximize mileage, while avoiding over-tightening:

The factory recommends 3/4 to 1-1/2 inches of slack with the bike on the side-stand, but how accurate is that? The ideal slack is as little slack as possible without ever getting too tight, so I use my own procedure. I start by lubing it after a warm-up ride, then let it cool, maybe overnight, and on the center stand.

I remove the seat and route a tie-down strap over the bike frame, under the swing-arm on both sides, back over the bike frame, and hook the strap ends together. I then tighten the strap, compressing the rear springs, until the sprockets are in a straight line with the swing-arm pivot, which is where the chain will be tightest.

I then rotate the rear wheel several times while checking the chain for the least slack, as chains don't usually wear evenly. Once I find the position with the least slack, I adjust the chain for very little play, maybe 1/2 to 3/4 inch. That's as tight as it can be without the risk of it being too tight. Throttle response is crisp, too.
Great idea! Something I can try when alone in the garage. I've occasionally resorted to having someone heavier than I am sit on the bike while it's on it's stand to do just that.

Most of my bikes (performance) are suspended on the stiffer side. And getting to the subframe rail requires more than removing the seat. In some cases, the tailsection would have to be removed to do that. I will typically tighten the chain to the tighter end of the recommended slack (at the tightest point of the chain) and have found that it's just about right. I suspect that the hard acceleration and engine braking wear the chain/sprockets faster as well as the typical 520 conversion. But I do have a couple of more gentle rides that I can give your method a try. Thank you!
 
That might depend on your policy, annual miles ridden, and claims data for the Ninja 1000. For example, the cost of liability insurance for my ST1100 is almost half of what it costs for full coverage on one of my similar displacement Ducati's that makes close to 2.5 times the horsepower and costs over 40x that of the ST to replace. I suspect that for me, it would be somewhere in between for the Ninja 1000 for full coverage. YMMV
?Hmmm? Having owned a Ducati or 2 something doesn't sound right. Let's say your ST1100 is worth $2500. Multiply that by 40 and you're at $100,000. Yes there are expensive Ducatis but most are in the $30,000-$40,000 range.

Traditionally Ninja 1000 are expensive to insure. I think mostly because of the name and 1000cc. Insurance companies lump it in with 1000cc sport bikes.

A lot of times older bikes without ABS are comparatively higher to insure than newer bikes with ABS.
 
The factory recommends 3/4 to 1-1/2 inches of slack with the bike on the side-stand

Once I find the position with the least slack, I adjust the chain for very little play, maybe 1/2 to 3/4 inch.
Out curiosity, did you ever adjust the chain using the factory procedure and then compare that to how much slack you have measuring it using your procedure. I would be curious to know how they compare.
i.e. Adjust it to the minimum 3/4" specification using the factory procedure and then use your procedure to measure the slack. How close to the 1/2" to 3/4" that you want using your procedure is it? Is there a possibility that it comes so close to the same thing that it is easier to use the factory procedure setting it to the minimum end of the specification?
 
?Hmmm? Having owned a Ducati or 2 something doesn't sound right. Let's say your ST1100 is worth $2500. Multiply that by 40 and you're at $100,000. Yes there are expensive Ducatis but most are in the $30,000-$40,000 range.

Traditionally Ninja 1000 are expensive to insure. I think mostly because of the name and 1000cc. Insurance companies lump it in with 1000cc sport bikes.

A lot of times older bikes without ABS are comparatively higher to insure than newer bikes with ABS.
Maybe I should have said 16x? ;)

I try to keep specifics under the radar for personal reasons, but yes, it's $100k.

2021 Ducati Superleggera V4 -- (only pic on my computer) this particular one belonged to Ducati who was nice enough to let us ride it at Misano World Circuit Marco Simoncelli as a warm-up to riding Michael Rinaldi's factory World Superbike and Michele Pirro's factory MotoGP bike.
330367338_739118074390667_6050713014171436297_n.jpg

I don't ride mine often, less, than 500 miles annually, hence the very affordable insurance. I currently ride the ST a lot more, but still not that many miles. Still baffled by the insurance price delta.

About 370 lbs with a couple of gallons of gas, 235-ish hp currently. As you probably know, Superleggera means Superlight, which is why I call my beloved ST: Superpesante (Superheavy) ;)

p.s. I have the previous version SL as well which is a 1299cc twin, and it costs a little less to insure than the V4 version above. I just sent a 2004 Ninja ZX-10R (way more mental than the Ninja 1000SX) up to my son in WA for track use, but I was quoted even lower than the twin if I wanted to put it back on the road.
 
Last edited:
Out curiosity, did you ever adjust the chain using the factory procedure and then compare that to how much slack you have measuring it using your procedure. I would be curious to know how they compare.
No; while I don't claim it's the best way, I see no advantage to doing it any other way.

For example, how do you locate the least slack with the rear wheel on the ground?

If I lubed the chain after the warm-up ride, the bike will already be on the center stand.

This job is necessary so relatively rarely, it's really not a hassle to do it the way I do it.
 
Link to an article that details the author's explanation of why the the sport-touring motorcycle is doomed.
Are Classic Sport-Touring Motorcycles Dead?

I'm not sure if the motorcycles that they chose to feature in their photo is the result of them considering the ST line to be examples of superior sport-touring motorcycles or if they chose them because they consider them to be a symbol of what is wrong with sport-touring motorcycles and why they are doomed to extinction.

1727231515859.jpeg
This iteration of the sport tourer was made extinct by the new DCT GL. It does everything better than an ST, it was two bikes competing for the same rider. Honda covered the sport touring segment with the new GL thus it was phased out.
 
This iteration of the sport tourer was made extinct by the new DCT GL. It does everything better than an ST, it was two bikes competing for the same rider. Honda covered the sport touring segment with the new GL thus it was phased out.
I remain solidly UN-sold with the concept of DCT.
I wanna shift, darn it!
All the time, every time!
(Cue Another Brick In The Wall music...)
Hey, Honda! (and other OEMs!)
Leave the clutch alone!
 
This iteration of the sport tourer was made extinct by the new DCT GL. It does everything better than an ST, it was two bikes competing for the same rider. Honda covered the sport touring segment with the new GL thus it was phased out.

"two bikes competing for the same rider"

That's an excellent point. I've always felt that the demise of the ST1300/St1100 was because Honda couldn't improve their ST offerings without intruding on their flagship (Goldwing) where the bigger money was.

I've long been tempted to step up from my ST1300 to the Goldwing for all of its tech and comfort, but reluctant for 3 reasons. 1) I'm mostly happy with the touring capabilities of the ST1300 and 2) I really don't want a heavier motorcycle even thought the Goldwing is only about 100 pounds heavier than what I have and 3) The cost... If I sold my ST1300, I might get $4,000, but then I need to spend another 20K+ to get the best ever touring bike.

At my age - 70 - I need to carefully consider where my motorcycling "hobby" will be going forward. As much as I'd like to think that I'm good for more 500 mile days, the reality is that that I'm probably going to enjoy days on the bike about 1/2 that.
 
This iteration of the sport tourer was made extinct by the new DCT GL. It does everything better than an ST, it was two bikes competing for the same rider. Honda covered the sport touring segment with the new GL thus it was phased out.
I don’t totally agree with your assessment of the 2018+ GL1800 as a 1:1 replacement for the Honda ST series but when I bought a DCT NC700X in 2015 my thought was when Honda puts DCT in the Goldwing it would achieve its due and wide acceptance. It’s heavy but well balanced and easy to handle. At 69 years young I bought ours with an eye towards riding 10 more years.
 
I've always felt that the demise of the ST1300/St1100 was because Honda couldn't improve their ST offerings without intruding on their flagship (Goldwing) where the bigger money was.
Whilst a GL might work within a US road architecture, I wouldn't even know where to park such an aircraft carrier over here... Filtering? Totally out of the question...
Besides the fact that the base-price of € 43.490,- (€ 44.875,- with option kit) is simply repelling... :cautious:
 
Whilst a GL might work within a US road architecture, I wouldn't even know where to park such an aircraft carrier over here... Filtering? Totally out of the question...
Besides the fact that the base-price of € 43.490,- (€ 44.875,- with option kit) is simply repelling... :cautious:
And the same Goldwing in the US is $29,200. Talk about tariffs.
 
And the same Goldwing in the US is $29,200. Talk about tariffs.
Just slightly less than I paid for my new Camry last year, with weather protection, crash protection, heat, air conditioning, room for 4 and tons of cargo space, and pretty similar gas mileage.

Who could have imagined?
 
Whilst a GL might work within a US road architecture, I wouldn't even know where to park such an aircraft carrier over here... Filtering? Totally out of the question...
Besides the fact that the base-price of € 43.490,- (€ 44.875,- with option kit) is simply repelling... :cautious:
Last week I filtered through downtown Atlanta traffic for 5 or 6 miles. Anywhere your handlebars fit the rest follows. The ST1100 is a bit more than 1” wider than my 2018 DCT. Why so wide? Wing’s weight and CG is lower and it’s as easy or easier to manage at slow speeds than any big bike I’ve owned. Price? The cheap seat crowd knows to let someone else buy new and pay the depreciation tax.
 
Last week I filtered through downtown Atlanta traffic for 5 or 6 miles. Anywhere your handlebars fit the rest follows. The ST1100 is a bit more than 1” wider than my 2018 DCT. Why so wide? Wing’s weight and CG is lower and it’s as easy or easier to manage at slow speeds than any big bike I’ve owned. Price? The cheap seat crowd knows to let someone else buy new and pay the depreciation tax.
If Google can be trusted -

The Honda ST1100 (Pan European) has a width of 36.8 inches.
The Honda ST1100 (2002 model) weighs approximately 635 pounds (288 kg) dry.
  • Wet Weight (with full fuel tank): Approximately 700 pounds (sounds light - 736 pounds comes to my mind)

The 2018 Honda Gold Wing has a width of 36.4 inches.
The curb weight of the 2018 Honda Gold Wing varies depending on the model, but generally ranges from 787 to 842 pounds.

Interesting information.
 
Back
Top Bottom