|
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | Just looking to fill my curiosity.
Dunlop E3's have a total load rating (max weight the tires can carry) of 1,592 lbs
Front 63 = 600 lbs Rear 80 = 992 lbs TOTAL 1,592
Metzler's, Avon's (and apparently Bridgestone's) have a total load rating of 1,427 lbs
Front 63 = 600 lbs Rear 74 = 827 lbs TOTAL 1,427 lbs.
According to Victory's 2011 spec sheets the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) is 1,414 lbs.
So the question is ......... considering that the GVWR is 1,414 for the Vision, what's the big issue about the lower load rating for the Metzler's, Avon's etc, when both tires are within the GVWR of the bike??
| |
| | |
Cruiser
Posts: 208
Edmonton Alberta, Canada | motorcycle = 850#
myself = 275#
pylon = 180#
leather = 80#
std gear stowed = 20#
pylon's gear
(purse, snacks,
water, gatorade
etc) = 20#
_________
Total =1405#
That would leave a 22# safety window, now when we travel we carry probally more than 60# of gear. Maybe just me but I prefer a little bit more of a safty factor! However on that, I will be going darkside when my dunlop elite wears out. I may have to change my riding style, however I have never kept my cages on OEM tires and in many cases I have gained either in wear, traction, or handling.
Just my personal opinion.
| |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | norcan, that's not the question. The Gross Vehicle load rating is 1,414 lbs. Exceeding that is as dangerous as exceeding the tire load rating. Having tires with a 20,000 lb load rating does not change the load factor of the bike. You are only 9 lbs from the vehicles max load bearing ability REGARDLESS of the tires load capacity!!
Edited by MaddMAx2u 2012-04-28 9:16 AM
| |
| | |
Tourer
Posts: 500
| norcan...Assuming your bike is a Vision Tour it weighs more than 850lbs....Dry weight is 869lbs. + a tank of fuel, etc. puts your bikes weight at 900lbs...I would be careful how much you are, or think you are, loading on your tires/bike JMHO.....Sorry I do not have an answer to Maxx's question.....
Edited by opas ride 2012-04-28 11:04 AM
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA...
Edited by varyder 2012-04-28 11:31 AM
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | An issue that has been overlooked, is that the Victory Vision has almost a 50/50 weight distribution between front and back. Unlike most cruiser motorcycles that are closer to 55/45 (R/F). If a front tire is rated to 600#, then, on a Vision, your max weight should be 1200#. For a 55/45 cruiser that would be 1333#.
I know that most of the weight over 1200# is passenger and saddlebag stuff centered over the rear tire, but has anyone actually taken their bike fully loaded to a scale to see how much weight is on the front tire? | |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 742
North Orange County CA | http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmc...
If I am reading this article correctly, it appears that a tire that has a higher load rating has passed tests that demonstrate that it has a greater ability to withstand punctures and blowouts than a tire with a lower load rating.
| |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 742
North Orange County CA | http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmc...
If I am reading this article correctly, it appears that a tire that has a higher load rating has passed tests that demonstrate that it has a greater ability to withstand punctures and blowouts than a tire with a lower load rating.
| |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | Thanks to all that replied~ | |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 612
| varyder - 2012-04-28 11:30 AM
I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA...
+1 | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | Nozzledog - 2012-04-28 1:18 PM
An issue that has been overlooked, is that the Victory Vision has almost a 50/50 weight distribution between front and back. Unlike most cruiser motorcycles that are closer to 55/45 (R/F). If a front tire is rated to 600#, then, on a Vision, your max weight should be 1200#. For a 55/45 cruiser that would be 1333#.
I know that most of the weight over 1200# is passenger and saddlebag stuff centered over the rear tire, but has anyone actually taken their bike fully loaded to a scale to see how much weight is on the front tire?
Well, sort of. When we were coming home from our last trip together, my buddy and I pulled our fully loaded bikes onto the truck scales in town. They ride a GL1800. We had been on a 10 day trip and both bikes were loaded to the gills, trunks full, saddlebags full, luggage rack bags full. We both had about a half tank of gas left. He outweighs me by about 10 pounds. I weigh about 210. The weights of the individual women are a closely guarded secret, but they probably weigh about the same as each other. We weighed the bikes with rider and passenger aboard, just as they roll down the highway.
The Goldwing weighed 1290 pounds. The Vision weighed 1280 pounds. We had also weighed both bikes completely empty and alone before going on the trip. The Goldwing weighed 900 pounds and the Vision weighed 890 pounds on the same set of scales.
Point being, the bikes weighed less than 1300 pounds fully loaded and with 200+ pound riders and a pillion passenger each. Any of the tire brands can handle that load without a problem.
Secondary point concerning luggage capacity of the Vision vs the Goldwing. We had just as much stuff, that weighed just as many pounds, in/on our Vision as they did their Goldwing. It just takes slightly more effort to pack it on the Vision. Using a couple of stuff sacks per saddlebag, instead of the bag liners, is the key. The Vision's bag openings are the problem, being smaller than the bag itself. The saddlebags actually hold a lot. They don't appear to, due to the small openings. To best use the capacity requires using 2 or 3 stuff sacks per bag or reserving the bag space for jackets, raingear, etc.
No, we didn't weigh the front and rear wheel loads separately.
Ronnie
| |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio |
No, we didn't weigh the front and rear wheel loads separately.
Ronnie
This will give us the million dollar answer. It's not as simple as looking at the total weight of the bike.
Let's assume nozzledog's theory that the bike has a true 50/50 split. Let's also assume that anything past the motor, rearward, is rear justified. The reality is some of the rear weight spills forward (but let's not go there unless we have a math major help us). 903lbs for ABS bike or 869lbs for non-ABS bike / 2 = ~435-450lbs on each tire.
Add 225lbs for rider with gear on, 150lbs for passenger (you know they won't tell you their weight) and another 75lbs for trunk and sidebag stuff.
450+225+150+75= 900lbs of rear justified tire weighting.
E3 or Darkside....
Edited by ScoreBo 2012-04-29 1:42 PM
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | ScoreBo - 2012-04-29 1:26 PM
No, we didn't weigh the front and rear wheel loads separately.
Ronnie
This will give us the million dollar answer. It's not as simple as looking at the total weight of the bike.
Let's assume nozzledog's theory that the bike has a true 50/50 split. Let's also assume that anything past the motor, rearward, is rear justified. The reality is some of the rear weight spills forward (but let's not go there unless we have a math major help us). 903lbs for ABS bike or 869lbs for non-ABS bike / 2 = ~435-450lbs on each tire.
Add 225lbs for rider with gear on, 150lbs for passenger (you know they won't tell you their weight) and another 75lbs for trunk and sidebag stuff.
450+225+150+75= 900lbs of rear justified tire weighting.
E3 or Darkside....
The driver's weight will be divided between the front and rear; I expect nearly equally. I think you're off by about 110-115 pounds<> on the rear tire loading. Most of the passenger's weight, and the luggage weight, will be on the rear. I'll weigh the front and rear separately when I get the chance. Inquiring minds (mine) want to know the truth. We'll see. I'll try to get front and rear weights of the bike alone, bike and rider, and bike, rider and passenger. I'll have to get somebody to go with me to get the scale readings as we make the transitions, and we'll have to do it when the scales aren't busy. I'll probably have to get one of my buddies to serve as the passenger, since my wife isn't going to take any chances that we'll figure out what she weighs.  I'll report back.
Ronnie | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Thank you so much, it will be greatly appreciated. Most every other manufacturer I have been able to find out what the weight distribution is, all but Victories. I only have magazine reviews that have said it is 50/50, and none of the articles or specs say what it is with a rear passenger (or gear). I was a little suprised to see such a low load rating for the front tire compaired to the rear for a bike with an even distibution of weight.
I an currently using a Metzeler Marathon 880XXL 140/70R-18 with a 67H(677#) rating, but it doesn't fit under the fender.
Edited by Nozzledog 2012-04-30 12:03 AM
| |
| | |
Cruiser
Posts: 157
| Goldwings also run on E3's | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | The GAWR is front: 513 lbs and rear: 901 lbs on the '08 Vision.
I too believe there is a 50/50 weight distribution while the bike is sitting alone without cargo. So my assuption would be that the front weights 445 lbs with fuel and 445 lbs in the rear with the trunk mounted. When you sit, and your pillion, and your luggage loaded, the weight distribution shifts toward the rear. We can all continue to guess at this, but until the hard data is got from the weigh station, we'll never know. E3 Front has a 600lb rating at 41psi and the rear 992 lbs at 41psi, exceeding the over all GAWR for the Vision. All is well and at rest. | |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio | Ronnie,
You are right about some of the rearward weight being distributed to the front. I stated that in my reply. "The reality is some of the rear weight spills forward (but let's not go there unless we have a math major help us)."
Also, my numbers are probably low for some folks. The numbers can continue to go up if you have a trunk rack with a bag, are heavier than my example numbers or pull a trailer. Lower if you are running without the trunk, without a passenger / ride solo all the time, etc. Every situation will be different... In my mind, I am over-limit (or pretty darn close) on a 74 rear tire. I am 6'4" @ 250# - geared up at ~265#. Even if I went on the "stop eating, you fat bastard" diet, I will never be below 210# (225# w/gear).
In order to put this debate to rest, if you have the time, can you please make sure your front and rear weight add up to the bike's total weight (or pretty close)?
Victory, if you are reading this and can provide us the weight distribution information, it would be greatly appreciated.
Edited by ScoreBo 2012-04-30 8:30 AM
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | texasgrumpy - 2012-04-30 7:01 AM
Goldwings also run on E3's
They used to. Honda is using the Bridgestone Excedra G704 and G709 as OEM tires now. They carry the 74H rating...........
Ronnie | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | ScoreBo - 2012-04-30 8:29 AM
Ronnie,
You are right about some of the rearward weight being distributed to the front. I stated that in my reply. "The reality is some of the rear weight spills forward (but let's not go there unless we have a math major help us)."
Also, my numbers are probably low for some folks. The numbers can continue to go up if you have a trunk rack with a bag, are heavier than my example numbers or pull a trailer. Lower if you are running without the trunk, without a passenger / ride solo all the time, etc. Every situation will be different... In my mind, I am over-limit (or pretty darn close) on a 74 rear tire. I am 6'4" @ 250# - geared up at ~265#. Even if I went on the "stop eating, you fat bastard" diet, I will never be below 210# (225# w/gear).
In order to put this debate to rest, if you have the time, can you please make sure your front and rear weight add up to the bike's total weight (or pretty close)?
I'll do my best sir. I really think the rider's weight, however much it is, is fairly evenly distributed between the front and rear. Many years of experience loading large trucks has given me a bit of insight into where the loads are carried. Any weight carried BETWEEN two sets of axles gets distributed between the two. The percentage of distribution, forward or rearward, changes as the weight is shifted forward or backwards, but it never reaches 100% until you go PAST an axle. The luggage added to a Vision is probably all on the rear axle, as a trailer would be. The weight of both the rider and passenger will be distributed between the front and rear, especially the rider's weight. Realize: the torso and head weights of the rider and passenger is applied to the seat where they set, but the weight of the rider's and passenger's arms and legs extend forward towards the front axle. Your 265# is not all resting on the seat. The percentage of your weight that is your arms and legs extends forward and gets added to the front axle. Since you're sitting between the axles, even your torso weight is divided between the axles. It's not as simple as considering the total weight of the load.
In any case, I'll put my bike on the scales, as soon as I can round up some help, and do some load distribution tests and report the results. Maybe I'll be the one who is surprised.
Ronnie | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | varyder - 2012-04-30 9:27 AM The GAWR is front: 513 lbs and rear: 901 lbs on the '08 Vision. I too believe there is a 50/50 weight distribution while the bike is sitting alone without cargo. So my assuption would be that the front weights 445 lbs with fuel and 445 lbs in the rear with the trunk mounted. When you sit, and your pillion, and your luggage loaded, the weight distribution shifts toward the rear. We can all continue to guess at this, but until the hard data is got from the weigh station, we'll never know. E3 Front has a 600lb rating at 41psi and the rear 992 lbs at 41psi, exceeding the over all GAWR for the Vision. All is well and at rest. Bump I think the first line enters into the equation... | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 2118
Pitt Meadows, BC Canada | Turk - 2012-04-29 8:05 AM varyder - 2012-04-28 11:30 AM I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA... +1 Agreed. Winter is just too long for some people  Life's TOO short .... | |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio | donetracey - 2012-04-30 2:29 PM
Turk - 2012-04-29 8:05 AM varyder - 2012-04-28 11:30 AM I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA... +1 Agreed. Winter is just too long for some people??? ? Life's TOO short .... ? ?
And it may be shorten more (for some) if we don't investigate this more thoroughly. To me, this is about safety. Plain and simple.
I, too, like the E3s. They perform well, but I hate the noise after a few thousand miles. What I dislike the most is not knowing if I have another choice without sacrificing safety.
Hopefully Ronnie will be able to get the magical data some of us need to make a safe & sound decision. | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | Personally, the investigation is over for me. With over 150,000 miles on both bias and radial E3s, they win. Reading every word of what other people say about other tires convinces me that I've got what I want. | |
| | |
Cruiser
Posts: 157
| ScoreBo - 2012-05-01 4:41 PM
donetracey - 2012-04-30 2:29 PM
Turk - 2012-04-29 8:05 AM varyder - 2012-04-28 11:30 AM I'm sticking with the Dunlap E3s. They run great, exceed my expectations, never seen anything yet in print that disproves that, and it requires a lot less thinking... Go ride, go ride, go ride, or watch SOA... +1 Agreed. Winter is just too long for some people??? ? Life's TOO short .... ? ?
And it may be shorten more (for some) if we don't investigate this more thoroughly. To me, this is about safety. Plain and simple.
I, too, like the E3s. They perform well, but I hate the noise after a few thousand miles. What I dislike the most is not knowing if I have another choice without sacrificing safety.
Hopefully Ronnie will be able to get the magical data some of us need to make a safe & sound decision.
That was my problem I would like something else but I will not drop down in load rating to get it.If it was just me on the bike that is one thing but if the wife is on the bike and I'm towing the trailer that's the load.
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | varyder - 2012-05-01 6:44 PM
Personally, the investigation is over for me. With over 150,000 miles on both bias and radial E3s, they win. Reading every word of what other people say about other tires convinces me that I've got what I want.
and Ma Vic would never put out a bike with a front tire not rated for a load the bike is rated for.... | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | I'm not tracking on your assessment ND...
Edited by varyder 2012-05-01 10:20 PM
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | If the GVWR for the Vision is 1414#, and the front tire can only handle 600#, then the rear tire must take up the other 814#, giving a weight distibution of 42/58. Since most magazine reviews state the bike has about a 50/50 weight distribution, then 1414# would be overloading the front tire. This is why we want to find out what the REAL weight distribution is at GVWR, because it may need to be lower than what Ma Vic told us we can do. Granted, tires will perform well beyond what they are meant to do, but by doing that, you have crossed a safety line that, after reading many of your CT posts, leads me to believe you would be inclined to want to stay on the safe side of that line. Is that line where Ma Vic says it is? or where the Tire manufacture says it is?
Everyone should know their limits, especially when breaking them.
If the 513#/901# is accurate (36/64), then we have nothing to worry about.
Edited by Nozzledog 2012-05-01 11:08 PM
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | Thanks. The 513/901 is what is on the data label for load. The 50/50 distro is sitting by itself, I believe with tank full and trunk. As soon as you sit on the bike, the weight distro moves rearward. This is what I see and know and I didn't take physics. I dreamt that I bought a portable scale and figured this out. So it must be right. | |
| | |
Tourer
Posts: 494
Akron Ohio area | Safety
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)
WARNING! Exceeding the gross vehicle weight rating of your motorcycle can reduce stability and han- dling and could cause loss of control. NEVER exceed the GVWR of your motorcycle.
The maximum load capacity of your motorcycle is the maximum weight you may add to your motorcycle without exceeding the GVWR. This capacity is determined by calculating the difference between your motorcycle?s GVWR and wet weight.
Refer to the specification section of this manual or the Manufacturing Information/VIN label on the motorcycle frame for model-specific information. Refer to the ?Safety and Informa- tion Labels? section in this manual for location on the motorcycle.
When determining the weight you will be adding to your motorcycle, and to ensure you do not exceed the maximum load capacity, include the following:
? operator body weight
? passenger body weight
? weight of all riders? apparel and items in or on apparel
? weight of any accessories and their contents
? weight of any additional cargo on the motorcycle | |
| | |
Tourer
Posts: 494
Akron Ohio area | The new Dulop Elite E3 for the rear is rated at 992 pounds, the front tire is still rated at 600 pounds. | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | Don't forget the GAWR - Gross Axle Weight Rating, that's the 513/901, but what's the difference, right? | |
| | |
Tourer
Posts: 494
Akron Ohio area | I agree with you on the axle weight (GAWR) as being the most important as far as handling goes.
Someone brought up a car tire and thought it would by itself increase the safe carry weight. | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | ...you just can't do anything with deviants... | |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | I started this as I was curious as to what others thought. I have enjoyed all the opinions and commentary. Thanks to everyone.
The whole point to me is that while the E3's have a higher rear load limit than Avon's Metzler's Etc....... all of these tires have a greater load limit than the GVWR of the Bike itself. And if you load your bike with more than the GVWR, you are exceeding the safety limit of the bike itself. Therefore, ANY tire set whose load limit exceeds the GVWR is more than enough. Having an extra 90 lbs of load limit from the E3's does not change the load limit of the bike itself. Having tires with a load limit of 3,000 lbs does not make it safer to overload you ride by exceeding the GVWR. And the GVWR for the Vision, trunk or no trunk is 1,414 lbs.
Edited by MaddMAx2u 2012-05-02 1:35 PM
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | I agree, and when I saw that your question had been answered early on, I kinda hijacked the thread about the load distribution. Sorry. | |
| | |
Tourer
Posts: 444
Bay of Gigs, WA | But you could carry more on Mars, less on Saturn.
| |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio | George, you are right. Never exceed the GVWR, which is 1,414 lbs. Given this simple concept, running any 63 front and 74 rear will handle the load. However, just using GVWR doesn't take into account how this weight is distributed front-to-rear. If you took into account the GAWR, the 901lb rear axle limit, the 74# rear tires are, ironically, 74lbs under capacity for the maximum rear GAWR. (901 rear GAWR - 827 for a 74# rear tire = 74lbs difference). Given the fact that we have only two tires, the conditions our tires are subject to and the lives we entrust to them, make me overly concerned with this subject. Also, the 827lb limit only applies to tires inflated to maximum pressure. If you want to run less pressure for better handling, etc, you are lowering the weight limit of the tire even more.
| |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | ScoreBo, I can't argue with that. Where did you guys find the GAWR?
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | varyder - 2012-05-02 2:10 PM Don't forget the GAWR - Gross Axle Weight Rating, that's the 513/901, but what's the difference, right? under the console... | |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio | What Chris said. There is a sticker under the cover in front of the seat. | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | That's where it was! In front of my nose the whole time. Now let's see if the GAVW's coinside with the actual weight distributions. i.e. will a bike, gas, rider, passenger, and gear equaling 1414# be distributed in a 513/901 division? I may just have to take 50# out of my dash bag for this to work. | |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | Ok, if you guys wish to assume that the distribution is directly related to the GAWR then the approximate distribution is 36/64. Of course there may be absolutely no relationship between the GAWR and the weight distribution of the Vision, but if you want to go there............ what the hay. On the other hand, it could be exactly that. Hey Vision Engineers, where are you?? LOL | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | I think that Vision riders are getting just as bad as Beamer and Wingers. But what do I expect, I'm sure most of those worried about this stuff are ex-Beaners and Winger....
Ride hard, Ride long, Ride safe.... | |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio | George, I went there a few years ago and I just couldn't get my head around that assumption. It seems excessive on the rear. I mean, granted, the mufflers, rear tipovers, trunk & sidebags (fully loaded), rear tail lights (they weigh nothing..) and plastic do add up to some weight, it can't be that much... Can it?
All these numbers and assumed weight distributions just don't compute.
Jeff, if you are listening, can you see if you can get MaVic to help us? I know their answer will be to run E3s.  It's all about liability... Seriously, they can make the disclaimer, just please give us the data we need so we can put this next oil thread to rest. | |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1229
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Boy, all from such a little nagging question in my brain...
My philosophy has always been that of a skeptic, find out answers for yourself, not on faith alone. I know from riding the Vision that it is a much more evenly distributed bike than any other touring bike I've ridden, and was impressed by such a high GVWR. It really started to boil up when I saw how much lower the front tire was rated compaired to the rear and not knowing what the distibution really was. In the fire service, we have broken many an axle while staying within the manufacturers guidlines because 'physics' didn't read the manual. It was my 'Load Master' buddy in the Air Force who's stories warped my brain into bringing this one up. So, I put it out there. Not that MaVic may have made a mistake, but that I prefer facts over faith.
Knowing what we can't do, is the best way to know what we can do.
| |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 880
Orlando, FL | I hear ya John, I was just crunching the numbers. I really never expected all this to get so complicated. But I am finding it very intriguing. I think manufacturors are overly conservative when giving numbers like these to keep people on the safe side. I would not be surprised to see the numbers for all these load factors to be much higher with independent testing.
Gotta run, my Vision is feeling ignored and whining about not being ridden. Claims I'm on Vision Riders way too much! LOL I think I'll make her happy, load my bike to the gills and just
ride......
somewhere......
anywhere......
cause it ain't the destination......
IT'S THE RIDE!!
Edited by MaddMAx2u 2012-05-05 8:51 AM
| |
| | |
Visionary
Posts: 1632
Jasper, MO | Nozzledog - 2012-05-04 12:58 AM
Boy, all from such a little nagging question in my brain...
My philosophy has always been that of a skeptic, find out answers for yourself, not on faith alone.
Same here. I hesitate to post again about this subject, since I haven't yet been able to round up enough helpers to do the test the way I want to, and the scales I used last night aren't ideal for the test. We used semi-truck scales that "break" every 20 pounds. This means that 491 to 509 pounds reads as 500, but 511 to 529 pounds reads as 520. You NEVER get a reading of 10's, 5's, or 1's only 20's. That's really not a fine enough measurement for what we all want to know. I know where there is an older (non-electronic) set of scales that will measure down to <5 pounds, but the owner is too busy to help me right now.
What I've done so far, with one helper and no passenger, is weigh my Vision and his GL1800 on the truck scales. It turns out that the bikes weigh almost exactly the same and have almost exactly the same weight distribution, at least as close as we can determine with 20 pound increment scales.
Bike alone and on sidestand, both wheels on the scales=900 pounds.
Bike alone, front wheel on scales and balanced by hand from the side=400 pounds=45% <>.
Bike alone, rear wheel on scales and balanced by hand from the side=500 pounds =55% <>.
Bike and 200# rider, both wheels on the scales = 1100 pounds.
Bike and 200# rider, front wheel on scales, sitting, feet on the scales as lightly as possible =440 pounds.
Bike and 200# rider, front wheel on scales, sitting, feet on floorboards, helper balancing from side= 460 pounds. 20 pounds<> shifted forward with feet up.
Bike and 200# rider, rear wheel on scales, sitting, feet on scales lightly=660 pounds.
bike and 200# rider, rear wheel on scales, sitting, feet on floorboards, helper balancing from the side=640 pounds. 20 pounds<>shifted forward with the feet up in riding position.
Bike on sidestand with one wheel on the scales throws everything WAY off. You have to balance the bike from the side with the helper off the scales. Rider's feet in the riding position vs feet in the stoplight position makes a significant difference, about 10% of the body weight as seen by the front and rear tires.
We got about the same results with the Goldwing.
The unladen weight bias appears to be front 45%<> and rear 55%<>.
The bias with just a rider in the riding position appears to be 42%/58% <>.
With a 240# rider in the saddle, the total weight on either bike was 1140#. The percentages of bias front and rear held steady, reflecting the higher total weight.
We haven't tried with a passenger yet. We need more accurate/finer increment scales.
I'm expecting that most of the passenger's weight will be added to the rear wheel, but not all of it, with the feet on the floorboards, since the passenger's feet/weight also goes towards the front, just as the rider's does. I'm "guessing" 8% to 10% of the passenger's weight goes forward, since the torso sits above the rear axle, but the feet/legs are carried in between the axles. We shall see. It's pretty obvious that luggage weight will be carried on the rear, just by looking at the bike.
That's the hard numbers I have so far.
My "educated guess", for what it's worth (not much) is that a combined rider/passenger weight of 420 pounds (240 + 180) will put about 300 pounds on the rear tire. I'll try to put that theory to the test too.
Ronnie
Edited by rdbudd 2012-05-05 3:01 PM
| |
| | |
Iron Butt
Posts: 1117
Northeast Ohio | Somehow I missed your post, Ronnie. This is good stuff. | |
| |
|
Tire Load Enlightenment