It is time...

[rjs987]

I WAS thinking of waiting until I just showed up at LOCSTOC... but I just had to say something.

A very few of you noticed I changed my avatar pic. There's a reason for that.
On Friday I did a RIDE and RIDE. No I didn't ride my AK and trade it in. I still have the Kymco. But I did ride with @ardykay54 who volunteered to drive all the way from Eastern Iowa to Central Iowa, then give me a ride half way between us.... well, a little closer to Russ than to me actually.

My wife told me she wanted me to have a more common brand that has a dealership in town. So this is HER fault! Yeah, I'm going with that.
The local Honda shop closed down and there is now a new one on the far side of the metro area as part of a multi-brand dealership. But Honda doesn't have anything I'm interested in right now. I want to stay with the same weight and similar engine size class as my AK and a low seat height. There are no Super Scooters around other than my AK so that means going back to throwing my leg over a seat... thus the desire for a low seat height. After looking around for a few weeks one bike seemed to stand out to me. Though I'd have to violate several preferences I've adopted. One is not having a step through in front of the seat to save my hips and knees. Another is going back to a manual transmission (I've really enjoyed no shifting). And the big one is to avoid a chain final drive. And another big one is having forward foot controls. I've just had no desire to deal with a chain. I know it can be less costly and more efficient, but there is constant regular maintenance cleaning/lubing the chain as well as adjusting more often than a belt final drive. A drive shaft final drive is the easiest for maintenance but the worse for efficiency (not that it matters for conservative riding). A belt final drive is a little bit of maintenance and in the middle for efficiency. Chain final drive is more minor maintenance but the most efficient.

After searching all around within 200 miles (figured I would find something within that range) I found the lowest pricing on a NEW hold over 2024 model in Cedar Rapids. Though I don't recommend doing business with that dealer unless you really pay attention to the details and are willing to give a little to get ANYTHING. Their price was lower than the 2022 models I found with reasonably low miles. It beat any other bike for the same model year by almost $1500 (though much of that difference was made up for by the excessive markup this dealer demanded). And this bike only had 26+ test ride miles. I made it 34 miles.

I bought a Kawasaki Vulcan S ABS sport cruiser.
It does have a chain final drive but I've read that chains are a lot better than they were the last time I had a chain final drive on a bike (my first bike in 1980 and second bike in 2002). It also has forward foot controls but they are not as forward as many other cruisers. I'd say at the back end of the range for forward foot controls. It is 498 lbs wet. I rode it home 136 miles Friday afternoon. No windshield but it really didn't feel like I needed one. No buffeting even though there was some wind. Just a smooth stream of air... forceful but not bad. I've had worse on bikes WITH a shield. This Vulcan S has a 649cc Ninja 650 engine, thus the SPORT cruiser designation. And it really likes to rev high. It is a 6 speed transmission. Though I did have to keep the RPM under 4000 (53 MPH) so I kept to county roads all the way home. Break-in is 250 miles under 4000 RPM, up to 400 miles under 6000 RPM (slower Interstate speeds!), and moderate riding up to 600 miles for the initial oil/filter change to dump the factory cut-in oil. I now have another 50 miles to go to keep it under 4000 RPM. And it is really hard to keep it under that! It just wants to go faster. The seat is very comfortable, but not as comfy as the Corbin seat I had previously. I didn't feel the need to stop all the way home, though I did in order to answer a text from my wife a few times (I keep telling her to do a phone call if she wants to contact me when I'm riding). A low seat at 27.9 inches so I don't have to lift my leg much to climb on. It's a solo rider so no passengers.

Already ordered Shad side cases and mounts as well as luggage rack with rider back rest. I needed to also order replacement rear frame tubes that includes the passenger foot peg bracket for the Shad mounting. But I found an open box new set on eBay for a very reasonable price. Just need the peg mount to be there but don't need the pegs.
I'm debating what to do for a tank bag. Thinking a smaller magnetic one is enough for what I need.

 

[rjs987]

Still won't be ready for FerrySTOC though.

 

[W0QNX]

Nice looking bike Bob. Enjoy it!!

 

[dduelin]

Congratulations on the new machine!

 

[rjs987]

I just took a bit of time to lower the handlebar about 1.5 inches. The grips seemed just a little high to me but otherwise in a good position. Now better.

 

[SMSW]

Have you considered an automatic chain oiler? I got a Tutoro for my VStrom and I've moved it to my NC750x. It works by engine/road vibration wiggling an internal weight. You adjust the flow with a valve at the bottom. I refill the reservoir roughly every 1000 miles. No oil on the tire and the chain stays clean. It doesn't leak in my garage, either.

 

[rjs987]

I've thought about it but no more than that. I thought I would try Dupont wax based chain cleaner/lube first and go from there.

 

[Daboo]

I highly recommend one of these. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KK6DP5B?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_4&th=1



It's a semi-automatic chain oiler. You fill the black container with 80-90W gear oil. A plastic tube runs from it to your chain. Turning the cap a quarter turn will cause oil to drip onto the chain for about 3 minutes. No mess. No fuss.

I have almost 10,000 miles on my XR now. There's no wear on the chain and I haven't even needed to adjust it.

Chris

 

[Larry Fine]

If I may, from the old Nighthawk forum:

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 as possible without ever getting 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 wear evenly. Once I find the position with the least slack, I adjust the chain for very little play, maybe 1/4 to 1/2 inch. That's as tight as it can be without the risk of it being too tight.

 

[Daboo]

You'll want to check the specific bike model's instructions. They are probably much closer than mine would be. I was surprised when I checked the sticker on the swing arm for my own bike. It's like almost 2 inches of slack! But then I have almost 7 inches of suspension travel.

 

[Larry Fine]

And from another thread, which became more of a discussion, which is why there are gaps and some of my comments are responses:

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 already 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 can 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 using old sprockets can 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 having the loose side flopping around.

An extremely-too-tight chain could even stop the suspension from compressing past a certain point. 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 always 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.

 

[Larry Fine]

You'll want to check the specific bike model's instructions. They are probably much closer than mine would be. I was surprised when I checked the sticker on the swing arm for my own bike. It's like almost 2 inches of slack! But then I have almost 7 inches of suspension travel.

But, do you have any idea what that measurement is with the chain at minimum slack?

 

[Daboo]

Larry, I'm going by this:



That comes out to be about 1.4-1.7 inches of slack. My gut says that's too loose. It must be flopping around down there.

Yet my eyes say it must be working. With just shy of 10,000 miles, I see no wear on the teeth. None. Nada. If I pull on the chain, there's no slack from worn o-rings. I'm taking the philosophy of, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it".

And I don't believe that I am an expert on chains. This is my first chain driven bike in 45 years. I'm just muddling along trying to keep from screwing things up and costing myself a ton of money and heartache.

BTW, thanks for that Master's Thesis on chain adjustment above. I want to sit back and digest that some more.

Chris

 

[Nashcat]

Motion Pro sells an inexpensive tool to check alignment. I bought one, and found out that my “eyeball alignment” is about a half-bubble off level. The tool is small enough to pack on the bike and takes less than a minute to set up and use.

John

 

[MidLife]

............adjust the chain for very little play, maybe 1/4 to 1/2 inch. .......

Also note to observe the chain on the top when checking slack on the bottom. The top shouldn't move (straighten up) when checking the bottom slack, measurement should be taken just before the top starts to lift.

The factory recommends 3/4 to 1-1/2 inches of slack with the bike on the side-stand, but how accurate is that?

Good question. Did you find the recommendation was accurate or not?

 

[the Ferret]

Congrats Robert. I'm sure you will enjoy it.

As far as chains go both of my bikes are chain driven, and get ridden a lot in all kinds of weather. I got 37,000 miles on my original chain on the CB and have over 40,00 on it's replacement. It's a 530 chain.

I got 23,000 miles out of the original chain on the NC, 19,000 out of it's 1st replacement and have 16,000 so far on it's 3rd chain. It's a 520.

520 chains don't last as long as 530 chains. They are not as "beefy". Check what size you have and adjust expectations for longevity.

I just make sure my chains are not banjo tight, or floppy loose. I never measure and in 17 years in the MC industry never saw a mechanic measure one with a ruler either. In fact, my chains rarely need adjustment between rear tire changes when they get automatically adjusted when putting the wheel back on.

To lubricate, I clean with a rag soaked with WD40 run along the lower track, and then dry with a dry rag and then apply 80/90 gear oil with another rag..... but spray on lube works too. It's just messier. Honestly if you don't ride in a lot of wet conditions you could probably get away with no lube at all and still get near maximum life out of the chain since they are all internally lubricated (O-ring chains) these days. Most of the external lube is to keep side plates from rusting.

Sometimes, motorcyclists like to make everything so complicated.