|
|
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
