Headnig toward the Dark Side
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Motorcycle GPS
Next: Nothing person...it's just hockey.
From: S'mee on 21 Feb 2010 18:39 On Feb 21, 2:26 pm, krusty kritter <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 12:12 pm, "S'meetard" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Krusty you are an uneducated idiot adn even the least informed here > > knows more than you do. > > Yabbot, you sure do love to chat with me, don't you? actually no, no I don't. It isn't chatting you imbecile it's me pointing out you are wrong adn or DOING what you say can't be done. > You cannot deny that I fill a certain ineffable inner *need* that > you've always felt. a need to beat down stupid people? yep I love pointing out the stupidity of people like you... > You don't know exactly what that need is, though. so you just keep > coming back. Oh I have a need...I just don't indulge it, mostly because the state frowns on people necklacing racist deviants such as yourself.
From: tomorrow on 21 Feb 2010 20:58 On Feb 21, 11:13 am, krusty kritter <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 7:44 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > > Gentleman) wrote: > > krusty kritter <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Old style two valve motors take as much as 90 degrees of crankshaft > > > rotation to fully burn the mixture, while modern four valve engines > > > only take about 32 degrees of rotation. > > > Has it occured to you that this is entirely dependent on engine speed? > > > Answer: no. > > WRONG! Even though I didn't state at what specific RPM it takes "x" > degrees of crankshaft rotation for combustion to be completed, I most > certainly know that this is at higher RPM. And yet you were claiming in the same post that it was obvious that this would help the OP when his Harley was IDLING, which of course has NOTHING to do with "higher RPM." You contradict yourself in defense of yourself.
From: S'mee on 21 Feb 2010 21:07 On Feb 21, 6:58 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:13 am, krusty kritter <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 7:44 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > > > Gentleman) wrote: > > > krusty kritter <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Old style two valve motors take as much as 90 degrees of crankshaft > > > > rotation to fully burn the mixture, while modern four valve engines > > > > only take about 32 degrees of rotation. > > > > Has it occured to you that this is entirely dependent on engine speed? > > > > Answer: no. > > > WRONG! Even though I didn't state at what specific RPM it takes "x" > > degrees of crankshaft rotation for combustion to be completed, I most > > certainly know that this is at higher RPM. > > And yet you were claiming in the same post that it was obvious that > this would help the OP when his Harley was IDLING, which of course has > NOTHING to do with "higher RPM." > > You contradict yourself in defense of yourself. Thus proving he doesn't know a thing and can't even understand the things he cut and pastes...
From: Road Glidin' Don on 21 Feb 2010 22:59 On Feb 21, 8:36 pm, Robert Bolton <robertboltond...(a)gci.net> wrote: > I don't want plugs fouling and pistons carbonning, but having zero oil > pressure and an illuminated OIL warning light once last summer really > did stress me a bit. Leave the bike alone and fuggetaboutit! When the oil gets hot and runs like water it requires hardly any pressure to push through the engine's innards, so of course the pressure drops to (what reads out on the gauge as) zero. I don't think there's anything to worry about. The oil's still flowing. It's happened many times on my Road Glide, which is still running fine after >200K kms. Plus, you live in Alaska, man! If your bike getting real hot on occasion is a concern, having synthetic oil in it would be a good idea. I've always used Mobil 1 15w/50 synthetic, FWIW.
From: Robert Bolton on 21 Feb 2010 23:20
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:12:30 -0600, Mark Olson <olsonm(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:41:25 -0800 (PST), saddlebag >> <saddlebag(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 20, 5:39 am, Robert Bolton <robertboltond...(a)gci.net> wrote: > >>>> it), but am wondering if there are aftermarket shapes that would >>>> reduce passenger buffeting. We wear flip-ups, and the wife muse use >>>> the chin insert to prevent updraft from entering under the chin bar > >>>> Anyone have experience with the Vstream, or other turbulence reducing >>>> shield? > >>> I have one on my FJR and it is fantastic. > >I have nothing against the Vstream, from what I hear they work good on >the FJR. I just want to point out that means little to Robert since >he rides a different bike. Turbulence is complicated and the only way >to tell what works on your particular setup is to try it, or hope to >find someone else who has a very similar bike and similar sized rider >and passenger, and get their input. The shield and its shape are only >one part of the whole system that generates turbulence. > Yup. Especially when I've got that batwing fairing. >My former ZG1000 Concours had a reputation for turbulence that was >difficult to mitigate. I tried the stock shield and a Rifle shield >but wasn't happy with either one. I sold it before I figured out how >to fix it. My wife had wind entering via the bottom of her helmet on our Concours too, so it may be that the turbulence is something pillions just have to live with when the bike has some genuine wind protection up front. The following link is what got me to consider the Vstream. It's just a sales brochure, but it at least displays the theory behind the design. The brochure doesn't have a lot to say about passengers though, and you never know how it will interact with airflow around the batwing. http://www.nationalcycle.com/catalogue/VStream.shtml Robert |