I rate the 2CTs for the 900ss/sls onto al least my 3 pair now, I don't really ride in the wet, but in the dry you can get right to the limit of the bike/tyres with confidence.
...also to consider, when you are searching for every last gram...fill the tyres with Helium. The effect will be negligible, but scientifically proven to make the bike lighter....rough envelope calculation is a 41 gram saving!!!
Seems to me that there are several interesting aspects to the weight thing... If you want to accelerate faster with the same power, then it's overall weight that's important. So eat fewer pies, and get rid of un-neccesary bits and bobs (there are a lot of them). If you want the bike to handle better (e.g. go round corners faster) then weight of wheels etc is important. That's why (for example) upside-down forks are a good idea. Rotating mass of wheels makes an enormous difference to handling. If you want an engine that has better power, to a better power curve, then weight of the internal components is key. Just thinking...
Wow, that’s quite a list... No expense spared. So basically because it’s highly modified for lightness rather than any great inherent difference.
Fitting Lithium Batteries to bikes that's charging systems are not design for them can lead to overheating of the charging system and the bike bursting into flames as has happened on several occasions - seemingly Ducati's are one of the worst - some models more likely than others - it has been discussed countless times on here so give it a search and have a read up on it Might be a small risk, but one I don't think is worth taking...
USD forks have a higher un-sprung mass as the steel fork tubes are moving as well as the axle clamp and all attachments, where conventional forks have only the aluminium bottom legs. Honda & Fireblades resisted the move to USD until fashion overtook them
Thanks - interesting. Newer Lithium batteries have management systems that older (or DIY !) ones don't have. I guess the problem is where the charging system goes over-voltage. I'll search and read, and having just got a Lithium battery from Amazon I shall consider returning it and getting a sealed old-school lead acid one. As you say, mixing technology from different eras is risky...thanks again.. ps.s it's in the post on its way back - as you say, it's a low risk, but why take it.
Well, you live and learn. I thought that the whole point of upside-down forks was to lower the un-sprung mass. I suppose you'd have to weigh and compare to really know. Actually, it's just occurred to me that 'un-sprung mass' isn't very good terminology (not blaming anyone here!) as you have a spring with weight at both ends - front of the bike at one end and the wheel etc. at the other. I remember at school calculating the period of car suspension, and our Physics teacher pointing out that there were two possibilities - the wheel as the oscillating weight if you regarded it as hanging on the suspension, or with the car as the oscillating weight if you considered the car sitting on top of the springs. So - what was/is the point of upside-down forks, then? Did the person who invented them get this wrong and bring the whole industry with them?
I think it was trying to improve rigidity between front axle/bottom and top yokes (twisting) and limiting the fore and aft rocking of the old sliders when 2 x 4 piston disc brakes were applied in anger and the bending of the legs themselves
I know of a recent Shori - (can't spell it but a market leader) firing too, so wise move - no matter how small the risk I think I always stick to Yuasa as I can spell it
Well the upside down forks are heavier than the normal forks, but they’re not about weight, well not until recently where they’ve started to explore thin wall sections and carbon wrapped stanchions. Do you remember when in the old days a fork brace was all the rage? You’re trying to limit flexion. A stiffer (thicker stanchion does this). The slider also gets shorter, which benefits the unsprung weight. So look at unsprung weight as anything below the spring and sprung weight as anything above it in the most simplistic way. The bit below is the dynamic weight and the bit above is the static as you say. With a set of upside down forks you’re looking at stiffness and overcoming flexion vs overall weight. A light set of forks are feck all use if you can’t control the bike, however that said in truth many real world mortal riders will be hard pushed to tell the difference with their level of riding talent. Yamaha and Bimota on some models even went as far as disguising the fork lowers to look like USD forks. In a nutshell, 99% of people won’t need them, but everyone wants them – because racebike innit.
Well, that's brilliant - thank you very much! I feel happier now. Since posting, I've been looking at these USD forks, and I'd sort of concluded that perhaps the unsprunk part is heavier and perhaps it isn't - there didn't seem to be much in it. Certainly, in pictures of old bikes the fork lowers were more bulky, but made of alloy rather than steel - so hard to say which is heavier. But what you say makes sense. I can quite see (looking at my 900SS) that the forks overall could easily be heavier - but they also seem stronger. If what you have clamped to the headstock is the fork tubes, then the narrower section at the top must be subjected to larger forces (i.e. bending moment etc.) whereas the narrow part is now at the bottom, so there is a lower bending moment there (on the steel sliders, because they're lower and also shorter) - and the alloy uppers are thicker and seem less fragile as there's more for the clamps to hold on to. However, what clinches to to me is what you say about stiffness Stiffer must be better (narf ,narf), and as you say, no-one now fits aftermarket fork braces. I wonder whether this is part of the reason that no-one worries about tank-slappers any more... but perhaps we shouldn't go there... Thanks again!
