roadcraft site

"Peter" <someone DeleteThis @microsoft.com> wrote:

> "Advantages of the clutchless gear change is that it is quicker, smoother
> and less wearing on the mechanics of the bike."

From the "nothing new under the sun" file:

http://tinyurl.com/kfd1



big

--
Its now day 1700 of Harsh Week on Usenet
http://tinyurl.com/kfd1
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

>
>>I think it is good for practice and helps keep the mind alert but not sure
>>on the "less wearing on the mechanics of the bike" when I do it.
> Good for practicing ... what?

Ooops.
On the same page it talks about riding smoothly.


 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

Jordan wrote:
> Zebee wrote

>> Not on Guzzi's it's not. Or so people I trust tell me.

> Shafted Guzzis I think have a direct connection from crankshaft to
> gearbox input shaft, so the gears spin faster than on bikes with
> primary reduction gearing. That gives characteristic clunky change,
> and less time for gear selection dogs to do their stuff.

That's a common myth, so common I believed it myself for a while. The clutch
on a Guzzi certainly spins at engine speed, but the gearbox input shaft is
immediately reduced to the gear-shafts, so that the shafts on which the
shifting takes place are turning no faster than in any UJM. The 5 speed
Guzzi is just a clunky box, partly because of the massive bits of metal
rotating around inside it. The 6 speed, as fitted to the Norge, is
"Japanese" quiet and smooth, but the clutch and input shaft still turn at
engine speed.

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:11:41 +1100, "John Dwyer"
<dwyerjd.RemoveThis@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname.RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:61pai6F20qi5qU1@mid.individual.net...
>> John Dwyer wrote:
>>> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnfr7ros.ovg.zebeej@gmail.com...
>>>> http://www.datacraftsystems.co.uk/techniques/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Interesting stuff, especially for new riders.
>>>>
>>>> Zebee
>>>
>>> I have reservations about the reference to the Two Second Rule on this
>>> site. I completed the NSW Pre-Learner's Course some time ago. They
>>> stated that Crash Avoidance Space consisted of Reaction Time and Braking
>>> Time. They stated that reaction time was an average of 1.5 seconds.
>>> Leaving a two second gap allows only a 0.5 second gap in which to give
>>> yourself the space to stop (my interpretation). You travel at 27.8 m/s
>>> at 100 km/h. A 0.5 second gap means that you have allowed only 13.9
>>> metres to stop at 100 km/h. May the Force be with you.
>>
>> I think you've oversimplified. Don't forget that you are following a
>> vehicle who also will take time to come to a stop. You don't only have the
>> immediate gap between you and he, you also have that extra space taken for
>> him to come to stop. A two second gap is more than adequate for those with
>> average reaction times and reasonable stopping skills.
>
>Not always. The car ahead of you can collide with an object and stop almost
>immediately. Staying only two seconds behind will ensure that you will
>become part of what has just happened ahead of you at some stage. You are
>relying on external intervention that may defy the laws of physics if you
>maintain a two second gap.

Which can be mitigated by watching the traffic ahead, and giving
yourself an escape route if things get tight. I'm far more concerned
about some dickhead rear-ending me than I am of running up some-ones
arse.

>
>John Dwyer.
>>
>> As it is, a 2 second gap is taken up by people merging, thus putting you
>> in a position of having to drop back even further to maintain that 2
>> second gap, which opens up a slot for someone else to merge and........
>>
>> Having said all that, if road/weather conditions are a problem, I do tend
>> to drop back even further.
>

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

"bill_h" <bill_h.RemoveThis@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:dg9fr3h7lfr4j9n5ru0bjl8647vui7gnq9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:11:41 +1100, "John Dwyer"
> <dwyerjd.RemoveThis@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname.RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>news:61pai6F20qi5qU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> John Dwyer wrote:
>>>> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnfr7ros.ovg.zebeej@gmail.com...
>>>>> http://www.datacraftsystems.co.uk/techniques/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting stuff, especially for new riders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Zebee
>>>>
>>>> I have reservations about the reference to the Two Second Rule on this
>>>> site. I completed the NSW Pre-Learner's Course some time ago. They
>>>> stated that Crash Avoidance Space consisted of Reaction Time and
>>>> Braking
>>>> Time. They stated that reaction time was an average of 1.5 seconds.
>>>> Leaving a two second gap allows only a 0.5 second gap in which to give
>>>> yourself the space to stop (my interpretation). You travel at 27.8 m/s
>>>> at 100 km/h. A 0.5 second gap means that you have allowed only 13.9
>>>> metres to stop at 100 km/h. May the Force be with you.
>>>
>>> I think you've oversimplified. Don't forget that you are following a
>>> vehicle who also will take time to come to a stop. You don't only have
>>> the
>>> immediate gap between you and he, you also have that extra space taken
>>> for
>>> him to come to stop. A two second gap is more than adequate for those
>>> with
>>> average reaction times and reasonable stopping skills.
>>
>>Not always. The car ahead of you can collide with an object and stop
>>almost
>>immediately. Staying only two seconds behind will ensure that you will
>>become part of what has just happened ahead of you at some stage. You are
>>relying on external intervention that may defy the laws of physics if you
>>maintain a two second gap.
>
> Which can be mitigated by watching the traffic ahead, and giving
> yourself an escape route if things get tight. I'm far more concerned
> about some dickhead rear-ending me than I am of running up some-ones
> arse.

All fair enough, but your anticipation must be error free or you will still
run up the back of the person in front of you. Looking ahead of you still
leaves the possiblility of a vehicle entering from a side street, with
visibility being obscured by buildings or shrubbery. Being tail gated is
another issue that is not dealt with by the two second rule, the issue that
started this part of this thread.

John Dwyer.
>
>>
>>John Dwyer.
>>>
>>> As it is, a 2 second gap is taken up by people merging, thus putting you
>>> in a position of having to drop back even further to maintain that 2
>>> second gap, which opens up a slot for someone else to merge and........
>>>
>>> Having said all that, if road/weather conditions are a problem, I do
>>> tend
>>> to drop back even further.
>>
>
> Bill
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

On Feb 18, 12:54 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:45:23 -0800 (PST)
>
> lemmiwinks... DeleteThis @gmail.com <lemmiwinks... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also not good for the selector forks, I've seen them turned blue from
> > overheating (not my bike). I only do it when riding off road and I
> > can't spare the fingers for the clutch cause I'm too busy hanging on,
> > or I've got arm pump.
>
> I've done it when the clutch cable broke, it is good to know how to do
> it in case of emergency.
>
> But it is only for emergencies...
>
> Zebee

My first ride on the (now my) venerable IT250 was sans clutch cable.
I think the young fella that owned it at the time had been giving it a
gutfull of revs, stomping it into gear and letting wheelspin take care
of the rest. He was quite enamored with my method of pushing the bike
up to jogging speed then jumping on and gently selecting a gear.
Stopping was a bugger if you couldn't find neutral in time.
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:45:23 -0800 (PST)
lemmiwinks.au DeleteThis @gmail.com <lemmiwinks.au DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also not good for the selector forks, I've seen them turned blue from
> overheating (not my bike). I only do it when riding off road and I
> can't spare the fingers for the clutch cause I'm too busy hanging on,
> or I've got arm pump.

I've done it when the clutch cable broke, it is good to know how to do
it in case of emergency.

But it is only for emergencies...

Zebee
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:45:23 -0800 (PST)
> lemmiwinks.au RemoveThis @gmail.com <lemmiwinks.au RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also not good for the selector forks, I've seen them turned blue from
>> overheating (not my bike). I only do it when riding off road and I
>> can't spare the fingers for the clutch cause I'm too busy hanging on,
>> or I've got arm pump.
>
> I've done it when the clutch cable broke, it is good to know how to do
> it in case of emergency.
>
> But it is only for emergencies...
>
> Zebee
I used to power shift my modded water bottle when racing all the time ,
it had a gut full of BelRay and lots of practise , most bikes wont last
so well.
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

>> Shafted Guzzis I think have a direct connection from crankshaft to
>> gearbox input shaft, so the gears spin faster than on bikes with
>> primary reduction gearing.
>
> That's a common myth, so common I believed it myself for a while. The clutch
> on a Guzzi certainly spins at engine speed, but the gearbox input shaft is
> immediately reduced to the gear-shafts, so that the shafts on which the
> shifting takes place are turning no faster than in any UJM.
> Theo
>

You're right - there is a reduction gearset. But I'm not so sure it's as
big a reduction as you suggest. Normally it varies between 2:1 and 3:1
on other bikes. Do we know what is the Guzzi ratio?
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

Jordan wrote:
> theo wrote

>> That's a common myth, so common I believed it myself for a while.
>> The clutch on a Guzzi certainly spins at engine speed, but the
>> gearbox input shaft is immediately reduced to the gear-shafts, so
>> that the shafts on which the shifting takes place are turning no
>> faster than in any UJM.

> You're right - there is a reduction gearset. But I'm not so sure it's
> as big a reduction as you suggest. Normally it varies between 2:1 and
> 3:1 on other bikes. Do we know what is the Guzzi ratio?

Just checked and it's not much 1.235 with a rear ratio of 4.125. No idea
what Jap bikes run. The Cali runs the 1.235 and has the clunky 5 speed, the
Norge runs 1.458 and is silky smooth.

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

Do we know what is the Guzzi ratio?
>
> Just checked and it's not much 1.235 with a rear ratio of 4.125. No idea
> what Jap bikes run. The Cali runs the 1.235 and has the clunky 5 speed, the
> Norge runs 1.458 and is silky smooth.
>
> Theo
>
>
No so different. Wonder what tricks Guzzi used for the smooth shifter.
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:48:21 +1100
John Dwyer <dwyerjd.DeleteThis@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
>
> What is the likelihood of this situation changing? Low with present
> policies. Riders/drivers who were originally licenced more than 20 years ago
> were probably not formally taught to ride or drive. They have no concept of

Funny how "20 years ago" is code for "a very long time" isn't it.

I got my car licence in 1980. THere was a flourishing driving school
industry even in backwards Perth. I failed the first driving test, my
instructor said it was fairly common to do so and he wasn't the kind
to lie to make someone feel better.

The problem isn't that people aren't taught things, or even that they
don't get tested.

The problem is that crashes are rare.

So that most people learn by experience that they don't need to keep
big buffer zones, especially as if they do they are disadvantaged.

Percentages hide so much. How many of these rear enders are at slow
speed? How many are injury crashes? What was the actual cause, what
made the rear-ender happen?

Zebee
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site 

By definition the only component of "space" is exactly that - space.
Generally it's only referred to as such when empty.

So if you want to get pedantic on our asses, start mentioning the "size"
of the space. Otherwise your average tailgating P plater can say they
leave "space" even if it is only 100cm of it.

John Dwyer wrote:
> "bill_h" <bill_h.RemoveThis@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:bdtir39vn8gtft4b9320m0h0hmrdn6rif6@4ax.com...

> ...They have no concept of
> the components that make up the required space that is required between a
> given vehicle and the one ahead.
 >> Stay informed about: roadcraft site