https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/blog.php/23932-Philip-s-Ravings Kiwi Biker - New Zealand motorcycle community en Thu, 21 May 2026 00:26:35 GMT vBulletin 20 https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/BP-Brown/misc/rss.jpg https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/blog.php/23932-Philip-s-Ravings https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/5995-MOSFET-regulator-rectifier-on-a-Honda-CB1000R-Predator Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:32:43 GMT The regulator/rectifier terminated itself on my bike (Honda CB1000R Predator). It also damaged the battery so that it was unable to hold a charge. It's the second bike I have owned that this has happened to.

I went down to the local Honda parts dealer. I don't know why, but I assumed since they were such a common part they would be readily available in the country. I was really hoping to get the bike going again, so when I was told that it would takes 2 weeks and it would come in from Japan I decided to look at other options.

I've used Econohonda in Hamilton quite a few times in the past. So I sent them an email. Malcolm came back offering me an "upgraded" regulator/rectifier and it also cost less. The bit I was more interested in was the fact it was in the country and available the next day. So I ordered it.

The new regulator/rectifier was a MOSFET unit. Not knowing much about regulator/rectifiers this didn't mean much to me. So I did a quick Google and found most bikes come with an inefficient diode based regulator/recifier based on technology from the 1960's. There are several replacement options but a popular option was using a MOSFET based unit. Basically these are transistor based, have a substantially longer lifetime than diode based units, provide a far more stable voltage output, and if they do fail they don't trend to terminate batteries. I saw some talk about them being kinder on the stator, but the reasoning behind this doesn't add up to me. So I discount this "advantage".

The longer lifetime and being kinder to the battery were two big pluses for me. The problem with the regulator/rectifier failing and killing the battery is that it never seems to happen in a convenient place (like home). For me it happens when I take the bike somewhere and then it leaves me stranded.

The new MOSFET unit look similar to the old unit, but had the mounting holes maybe 5mm closer together than the OEM unit. So I used a file and "slotted" the existing holes so it could mount in the same place.

Now the more painful bit. The connectors were completely different. Malcolm supplied a kit with new connectors using spade fittings. So I took the plunge and cut the old fittings off, crimped and soldered on the new spade connectors. I decided to solder them as well because a lot of current can flow through these wires, and I wanted to minimize any losses. I want my charging system to be as good as it can be.

Now the test. At idle I was now getting 14.1VDC at the battery terminals. At 5,000 RPM I also got 14.1VDC at the battery terminals. Impressive! Completely flat and regulated output regardless of RPM. This also means if I do commuting at "low" RPM the battery will still get a nice slow charge. And that is the other bit I like. At 14.1VDC it will always be a nice slow charge. This is going to be real good for the battery lifetime.


After this experience I will never fit the older technology diode based regulator/rectifier to another bike again. These MOSFET units are just so much better.
]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/5995-MOSFET-regulator-rectifier-on-a-Honda-CB1000R-Predator https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/2517-What-size-road-bike-should-I-buy-(or-should-I-buy-a-1000cc-bike) Tue, 15 May 2012 08:04:30 GMT I've come to realise if you ask this question then your approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

There is something known as the man-machine interface. The basic concept is that your sensory experiences can be extended by tools.

For example, while operating a hammer your senses can extend to where the face of the hammer strikes the nail. You don't think of how you operate your hand, but instead of how the hammer will strike. Once your interface has extended like this you can become an expert in using the hammer.

The motorcycle is just a more complicated "tool". To truely become an expert rider you need to bond with the motorcycle. You need your sensory experience to push out to where the wheels meet the ground (to feel traction), of the throttle response (as opposed to your hand on the throttle), to feel the space around the motorcycle (as opposed to considering the space around you and the motorcycle like they are two seperate things). I hope you get the concept I'm trying to get across.

So what are you looking for in a road bike? If you want to have that "magic" flying experience, of being one with the machine, they you need to find a machine you can "bond" with. One that feels "natural" for you.

Now the ability to extend your sensory experience on a motorcycle is not a natural experience for the majority of us. The last 60,000 years of brain development never prepapred us for something like a two wheeled vehicle. It is something that is learnt through repetition. You need to put in lots of riding time, and you need to be doing riding that requires you and the machine to move together (so not just lots of straight line riding). You need to make sure your senses are extended over a broad range of riding - slow, fast, braking, leaning, turning, cornering, etc.

So what does this mean? You really need to take a bike for a ride, and see if it feels "right". Perhaps you'll experience this in a 1200cc cruiser, or perhaps on a 250cc Japanese import, or perhaps on that 1000cc superbike - but choose the bike that you think you'll be able to bond to. It's like a marriage, and to be a truely accompolished rider you need to reach a point where you can be one with the machine and you don't think about operating it, you just think about what you want to happen and somehow as if by magic the bike just seems to respond and it happens. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/2517-What-size-road-bike-should-I-buy-(or-should-I-buy-a-1000cc-bike) https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1988-Honda-CBR600-with-stuck-throttle-when-turning-right Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:58:25 GMT I regularly attend NASS (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/77111-North-Auckland-Street-Skills-NASS), and one of the things I have been poor at is slow full lock turns. Recently it felt like I have been getting worse, not better. At a recent session I noticed I can do left full... I regularly attend NASS, and one of the things I have been poor at is slow full lock turns. Recently it felt like I have been getting worse, not better.

At a recent session I noticed I can do left full lock turns much better than I can do right full lock turns. Which got me wondering if it might not just be me.

So for an experiment, while the bike was stationery, I tried holding the throttle open a little bit against the bar end, so that I was confident that the throttle would not move. And as I approach right full lock the throttle started increasing. Aha I thought. When I did let go of the throttle I also noticed that it did not "snap" closed. It was stuck open.

I have Oxford grips fitted, and one of the others present said it might be possible that the grips are rubbing against the throttle body and getting stuck open.


So I waited for the weekend to come around so I had some time to play. First I tried squirting in a little bit of silicone between the grip and the throttle body, in the hope that it would make it slip better.
Well, after a couple of minutes the Oxford grip started rotating freely around the throttle. So I guess something in the silicone spray disolves the super glue used to hold on the Oxford grip. No matter. I re-tested my issue, and it was exactly the same, so now I knew it was nothing to do with the Oxford grip.

Next I examined the throttle cables. There were two of them. There were no kinks, obstructions, and the cable exteriors looked fine. I did discover though that when the throttle was stuck if I wiggled the throttle cables the throttle released.
Then I did a bit of a search on You Tube, and found a video explaining how to lubricate the throttle cables, and how to adjust them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jywZRVuJnYY

I was a bit scared about adjusting the cables, but lubricating them sound ok, so I went down to Cycletreads and bought some lubricant for the throttle cables. I must say, it looks a lot like CRC or WD40 ...

Anyway, I took the throttle assembly apart and squirted in the lubricant, and played with the throttle. I did this until I could just start to see the lubricant come out of the bottom of the cables (on the right hand side of the fuel tank). Alas, it seemed no better.

The YouTube video said the throttle cable nearest the front of the bike was responsible for making the throttle "snap" back again. I tried wiggling just this throttle cable when the throttle was stuck, and the throttle released, confirming it was indeed this cable.

I got the bike's user manual out, and tried adjusting the throttle cable where the cable attaches to the bar throttle assembly. Alas their didn't seem to be enough adjustment to make a difference. So I came to the conclusion I needed to adjust the other end of the throttle cable. The other end of the cable is on the lower right hand side of the fuel tank.

I read the user manual, and discovered you can remove the front two bolts from the fuel tank, and it lifts up like the bonnet of a car. You then put a wedge in (that comes in the tool kit) and it stays up. From there I had easy access to the cable. I loosed the nut that holds the adjustment in place, and started turning the adjustment one way (figured I would try one way and then the other). Luckily the issues started resolving itself almost straight away to my relief.
I then checked the throttle could open all the way and snap closed at left full lock, centre and right full lock. Then did up the locking nut again, and rechecked. I was feeling very happy!

I put the bike back together, and went down to Cycletreads again to get some grip glue. I then came back and cleaned up the silicone I had applied to lubricate the grip originally, applied a liberal does around the throttle and grip, stuck it back together again, and left it for the night to dry.


Gave the throttle a test once dry, and everything is working great. I think I have had this problem for a while, but it has been gradually and slowly getting worse so I didn't notice it "just happen". The throttle seems very responsive now. If feels like the throttle is instantly closing when I let go of the grip now. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1988-Honda-CBR600-with-stuck-throttle-when-turning-right https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1780-Car-driving-skills-don-t-convert-to-motorcycle-road-riding-skills Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:46:05 GMT You often hear new riders who are experienced car drivers complaining that they have to go through the full licence process to get a motorcycle licence. Their primary argument is that their years of car driving experience transfers across to riding a motorcycle, so they should be able to get to a... You often hear new riders who are experienced car drivers complaining that they have to go through the full licence process to get a motorcycle licence. Their primary argument is that their years of car driving experience transfers across to riding a motorcycle, so they should be able to get to a full licence in a shorter period of time.

My personal opinion is that riding a motorcycle requires a different set of skills to driving a car, and that the dangers experienced riding a motorcycle are also different. As a result, having only car driving skills does not sufficiently equip you to ride a motorcycle to the extent that the period of time to complete getting a motorcycle licence should be shortened.

You often get car drivers asking why? So here are some examples of why I think car driving skills don't convert to motorcycle road riding skills:

• Cars can't vary there position greatly in most lanes, especially while cornering. Motorcycles are much narrower and can. So straight away you have a choice of lane position on a bike that doesn't exist in a car.
  
• Throttle control in a car while cornering is not so crucial. In an automatic car you have even less control. On a motorcycle good throttle control while cornering improves your stability on the bike, and how tight you can make your cornering line (or rather, affects your ability to vary the corner line and make it tighter).
  
• Car drivers don't need to plan out cornering lines in advance to the extent motorcycle riders do. Most times a car can simply come up to a corner, set their entry speed, and their done.
  When your on a motorcycle, especially if there are two or more corners in a row, you really need to be looking ahead to plan out where you want to be on each corner (entry, during and exit).
  
• Riding a motorcycle creates more intense feelings of fear when things start going wrong which make new riders want to instinctively do the wrong thing. For example, if you start going wide in a corner throttling off, engaging the front brake and looking at the corner is completely the wrong thing to do. It requires time to learn the skills to override these fear responses and do the right thing.
  
• There is no such thing as counter-steering in a car. This is a fundamental skill required for cornering on a motorcycle.
  
• In a car you can effectively emergency brake by pushing down hard and stabbing the front brake pedal. Most cars have ABS and will take care of the braking process for you. On a motorcycle emergency braking requires more steps that have to be carefully executed to avoid an off, and the majority of motorcycles on the road have no ABS or assisted braking systems.
  
• In a car you rarely need to co-ordinate the use of all four of your limbs at the same time. Most of the time your two hands are on the steering wheel and one of your feet is resting on the floor. Blipping the throttle while braking, engaging the clutch and changing down requires a lot more co-ordination.
  

There are also many dangers on a motorcycle that need to be planned for while riding that can be largely ignored when driving a car.

• Gravel on the outside or inside of a corner. Doesn't affect most car drivers. Can be very difficult for a motorcycle.
  
• Cars are more visible than motorcycles, simply because of their size. So when your on a motorcycle your more likely to be hit because of this.
  
• If another car runs into you, and comparing the case of you being the driver in the car that gets hit and a rider on a motorbike that gets hit - your probably going to come off worse on a motorcycle.
  
• You can't come "off" a car while driving. If you come off riding a motorcycle your likely to go for a slide, or worse, hit some road furniture. Car drivers don't have to plan or be concerned with abrasion resistance or impact resistance for their clothing.
  
• It's not possible to go around a corner in a car staying in your lane while still putting your body at risk. You can go around a right hand corner on a motorcycle, have the motorcycle completely in the left lane, yet have your body exposed to impact by leaning sufficiently to be substantially in the oncoming lane. It's a risk car drivers never have to consider.
  

]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1780-Car-driving-skills-don-t-convert-to-motorcycle-road-riding-skills https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1646-L-Plates-They-re-just-a-sign Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:22:42 GMT The topic of L Plates comes up frequently, predominately about weather complying with the learner licence conditions and using the L plate increase the danger of the rider on the road. The best place to start is by considering why we have L plates, and what they aim to do. When the majority... The topic of L Plates comes up frequently, predominately about weather complying with the learner licence conditions and using the L plate increase the danger of the rider on the road.

The best place to start is by considering why we have L plates, and what they aim to do.

When the majority of people first start riding a motorcycle they will have little or no machine handling skills. This includes basic but critical abilities such as counter-steering, emergency braking, brake and evade, throttle control, "looking", etc.
The other key skill they will be lacking is situational awareness. Even if you have had a car licence for 30 years your situational awareness skills for using a motorcycle will be insufficient. That's simply because the dangers of being on a motorcycle are quite different to being in a car.

The other major issue is attention span. Keith Code talks about this quite a bit in his motorcycle books. We have a limited amount of it.
If 80% of your attention is spent on machine handling skills (changing gear, "steering", throttle control, etc), then that only leaves 20% for you to be aware of the situation you are in - and importantly - that you are heading in.

And this is where L plates riders often feeling that using an L plate makes things more dangerous. They think other road users are suddenly targeting them because they have an L plate on.
The vast majority of road users don't want to have an accident with an L plate rider - or anyone else. The vast majority of road users wont suddenly become more aggressive because of a yellow sign on the back of your bike. Why would they suddenly want to risk having an accident because of a yellow piece of plastic?

What tends to happen is the learners rider attention is being consumed by machine handling skills that have not yet become automatic. As a result, they fail to observe the situation around them and take appropriate action, until suddenly they are right in the thick of the action.
It's not so much that the road user has acted aggressively towards the rider - it's that the rider has only just noticed the locality of the road user relative to themselves when they should have noticed it much sooner.

The other common complaint is that it is dangerous to ride at 70km/h on a 100km/h. Think carefully about this. What it means is that the learner rider has chosen to place themselves in that dangerous situation. This is not a choice that any rider should be making - to deliberately place themselves in danger. It reflects on their ability to read safe situations (situational awareness again).

The risky bit is when you are travelling at a drastically different speed to the rest of the road users. So yes, riding at 70km/h on some 100km/h roads can be risky, on others it is just fine. If your riding on a quiet 100km/h road at 70km/h, and you observe another road user approaching from behind at a much greater speed simply pull over and let them pass.

The other option leaner riders choose is to ignore the 70km/h licence restriction and travel at the same speed as the traffic. This does remove the danger created from travelling at a greatly different speed to the traffic - but the reason why there is an 70km/h restriction is because many machine control skills have not been learnt sufficiently that they occur automatically without any conscious thought being required (and hence it subtracts from your available attention span).

Some learner riders say they "have to" ride at 100km/h because that is the only way to get to destination "x". This is simply not true. No one makes you get on your bike and exceed the learner licence restrictions except the rider. An alternative perspective is that the route to the destination is not yet safe for the learner to use until they their skills have become automatic.

The best way to make riding skills become second nature is simply more riding time. Some learner riders will only ride infrequently, while others will commute daily. So different riders making machine handling skills become automatic at different rates.

The aim of the 70km/h licence restriction is reduce the seriousness of an accident should the rider's attention span become overwhelmed with processing information about their machine and the situation around them. Slowly down simply means that the brain doesn't have to process information as fast.

The learner licence restriction is only 6 months. I feel new riders should take the time to enjoy their introduction to riding, and allow the time that is required to for the new skills they are acquiring to become automatic. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1646-L-Plates-They-re-just-a-sign https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1562-Choosing-a-Motorcycle-Helmet Tue, 25 May 2010 09:47:01 GMT Overview

Rather like emergency braking, a discussion on helmets can be like a discussion on religion. People often take polarised views. Unlike emergency braking you don't really want to practice coming off your bike and having head impacts to test which is the best kind of helmet for you.

So short of repeated practical experience you have to learn a little bit about helmets to help you make a choice that is only like to be tested once.

One thing you'll notice when helmet shopping is there is a huge variation in price. One thing is certain - there is no correlation between price and protection.
Factors that can affect the price of a helmet (other than protection) include electronics, being light weight, pinlock visors, brand, breath guards, noise insulation, etc.

Another thing that is certain - there is no perfect helmet. A helmet manufacturer decides what kind of accidents they want to protect against and designs their helmet to limit the risks for those kinds of accidents. And often being good in one area implies a helmet wont be so good in another, as their are often trade offs involved.

One important thing to note is that most developed countries (including New Zealand) don't permit a motorcycle helmet for public road use to be sold unless it meets some well known standard. As a result, you can not buy an "unsafe" helmet.

What do you want a helmet for?

This might sound like a dumb question, but it is very important. For example, some riders spend most of their time in 50km/h urban zones, some spend most of their time on open roads, while others only visit the track.
Why do I mention this? Because it affects the likely impact speeds your head is going to be involved in - which affects the material you want the outer shell of your helmet to be made out of, and how many 'G' forces your going to want your helmet to cope with.

Another thing you need to consider is how concerned you are about hard head impacts (as helmet designers often have to make concessions to make helmets capable of standing really hard hits). For example, do the areas you ride a lot in have a lot of road furniture around corners (bus stops, power poles, etc), so you are concerned about having your head rammed into something like this, or are you more worried about having a slide and then a "soft" impact (perhaps hitting a curb for example after your jacket and pants have scrubbed off some of your speed).


How a Helmet Works

Helmets have two main parts to them that are designed to protect you. An outer hard shell, and then an inner energy absorbing foam.

The hard outer shell is designed to prevent something penetrating the helmet and entering your head, and also to dissipate the initial impact energy by dispersing as much as it can around the outside of the shell.

The inner energy absorbing foam is their to absorb as much of the impact energy as possible without transferring it into your head and brain. It does this by compressing. It can only compress once.

One thing that is really important with a helmet is a tight fit. Let me repeat that because it is so critical. A helmet should be a tight fit. The reason this is so critical is you do not want your head bouncing around inside the helmet during the impact. If something has to have a 100km/h impact speed, let it be the outer shell of the helmet, and not your "unprotected" head against the inner shell of the helmet.

One important thing you should note - the materials used in the helmet break down with time. You just can't tell when the inner energy absorbing foam (which you can't usually see) has lost a critical amount of that energy absorbing quality. Also the foam can break down in the presence of petroleum based chemicals, such as paint, petrol, glues, etc (so be careful were you store a helmet).
Most helmet manufacturers recommend that you replace helmets every 2 to 5 years because of this.

Also note that the energy absorbing foam is a "single use" item (in much the same way you can only detonate a grenade once). Once it compresses once that's it. That's one of the main reasons why if you have an accident you have to throw the helmet away.
It is also why you must be very careful not to drop a helmet onto a hard surface. You can not visually inspect the foam. There is just no safe way to tell if the foam has partially compressed.
Put it this way. Say you had a grenade with a 7s fuse. You knocked the pin out by accident and quickly put it back in again. Would you want to risk using that single use grenade now that your not quite sure how long the fuse is?

Types of helmets
There are four main materials used for the outer shell of a helmet.

Plastic: Compared to the other types of outer shell material plastic is relatively soft. They sometimes even breakup during impacts. In my personal opinion plastic shell helmets are particularly good at low speed (50km/h) soft impacts. In my opinion, this is because the plastic tends to flex a lot, causing it to absorb a lot of energy. And you should not take concern over the potential issue of the helmet cracking in an impact. Would you rather a helmet cracked because of the amount of energy it had absorbed, or you head because the helmet has a super strong shell and transferred so many 'G' forces into your skull that it cracked instead?

Polycarbonate: Polycarbonate is a bit like plastic, but much stronger while still retaining the flexing characteristics of plastic. As a result, the outer shell can absorb a lot of the impact energy before transferring it into the inner foam.

Fibreglass: Fibreglass helmets tend to be very hard. They are capable of sustaining a considerable impact. However they don't tend to flex. In my opinion, as a result, they have to rely on the internal energy absorbing foam and as a result they tend to transfer more energy into your brain. In my opinion, the harder shells are more suitable for higher speed accidents (such as 100km/h).

Carbon Fibre: Carbon fibre helmets are like Firebglass helmets, but harder still and even more rigid (aka, even more energy transfer into the inside of the helmet). Because these helmets are super hard I personally believe they are well suited to high speed track use, or people concerned about really hard impacts to the head, or hard double impacts. My personal belief is that by making this choice you are accepting that more energy is going to be transferred to your brain (more about this later in the standards).

Composite: Composite helmets (made from a resin/fiber mix such as fiberglass, carbon fiber and/or Kevlar) are the toughest to talk about. Effectively the manufacturer can choose the flex and energy transfer characteristics. So for the kind of accidents a manufacturer is trying to target they can choose the optimal parameters. Is that the same kind of accident you are worried about? Who knows. In my personal opinion, polycarbonate helmets can offer the best of everything. You need to give some consideration to the testing standard results (below) to work out it is is going to suit you.

Helmet Standards

DOT:
Also known as the Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218. Although a very mature standard (first issued in 1974) the DOT standard is often considered the baseline (or should I say minimum requirement) for helmet protection. However don't let this fool you into believing that a helmet that only has a DOT certification is in some way inferior. In deed, some people believe that the DOT standard is superior for certain types of accidents.

Some criticism has been raised over DOT being a self certified system. It is up to the manufacturer to decide if their helmet meets the DOT standard, and if they feel it does, they can proclaim the fact. There is also no requirement for ongoing testing of helmets rolling off the production line.

SNELL: The Snell Foundation has a number of standards that have evolved over time, usually named after the year the revision was released in, such as M2000, M2005 and M2010. I'll be blunt, I am not a fan of the SNELL standards.

Way back when the Snell Foundation was formed they had to differentiate themselves from the DOT standard. One of the things they did was to include in the test an incredibly hard double impact test on the helmet. A test I personally don't think you'll likely to see that often in real life (aka, a rapid hard double impact to the same spot on the helmet).

The helmet manufacturers responded by making helmets with a super hard shell. Fibreglass and then Carbon fibre helmets started appearing. However there was a downside. These super hard shells didn't flex. The result was that more of the impact energy was transmitted into the energy absorbing foam in the helmet and then into the riders skull.
Snell specified that energy transfer to the brain was to be limited to 300g. The problem is a lot of people (including myself) don't believe the brain can sustain a 300g impact. In fact, many people consider anything from 300g and above to be fatal.

So now you have these super hard helmets with the Snell sticker that can leave you a vegetable (or dead) if you do suffer a hard hit.

Other people such as the Europeans believed the danger was so great they legislated that the energy transfer has to be limited to 275g (known as ECE 22-05). Even 275g is high, but it is safer on the brain than 300g. You are more likely to get a non-permanent brain injury than a permanent brain injury.
A lot of the ECE 22-05 helmets are made from a softer material, so that the outer shell can flex, hence reducing the amount of energy the inner foam has to absorb.

The Snell Foundation get around 50c from every sticker that a manufacturer puts on a Snell tested helmet. Snell suddenly lost all of the revenue from helmets being sold in Europe. So finally in 2010 Snell revised their "standard". It is called Snell 2010, and it now stipulates the the energy transfer is to be limited to 275g. Now the stickers can go back on the helmets being sold in Europe.
The cynic in me says that Snell did this purely to get the revenue back, as opposed to suddenly deciding the 300g limit that they had previously used was no longer safe.

You can read more about the M2010 variant of the Snell standard here:
http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcyc...0-standard.htm

You can read a famous scathing appraisal of the SNELL tests here:
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/ge...iew/index.html


ECE 22-05: ECE 22-05 is a European helmet standard, and is a legal requirement in around 50 countries. As a result a lot of helmets are made to this standard (especially helmets manufactured in Europe). ECE 22-05 is almost a complimentary standard to DOT, and the vast majority of helmets that pass the ECE 22-05 standard would also meet the DOT standard.

Unlike DOT, ECE 22-05 mandates compulsory batch testing of helmets coming off the production line.

ECE 22-05 limits the amount of energy that can be transferred into your brain to 275g.

SHARP: SHARP is a UK Government initiative to provide an independent way of comparing the protection offered by helmets. It is not a test standard. SHARP gives helmets a 1 to 5 (5 being the best) rating so you can see how much more protection one type of helmet offers over another.

SHARP document on their web site the overall testing methodology on their web site, but don't give specifics. As a result some people discredit the SHARP system because the results can not be independently verified. However on the whole the SHARP comparative ratings are well regarded and I personally consider them to be a valuable source of information and would strongly recommend checking the SHARP score of any helmet being purchased.

I personally support the SHARP test rating system. The issue with just having a test standard such as ECE 22-05 is that it does not reward manufacturers who want to make a helmet that exceeds the standard. Consumers simply can not tell by reading marketing material how much brand "x" of helmet exceeds a set standard compared to brand "y".

SHARP helmet testing results are available for public viewing at the SHARP web site:
http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

Conclusion

Because you can not buy a motorcycle helmet for use on a public road that does not meet a well known standard your first concern should not be picking a helmet made to a particular standard, but to choosing a helmet this is a tight (yet comfortable) fit.

Personally I then look for a helmet that meets the ECE 22-05 standard (and most helmets do).

And then I look for a helmet with a 4 or 5 star SHARP rating.

And then lastly consider the extras that you want, such as:
* Helmet weight
* Visor options, such as pinlock, half tint, etc.
* Electronics blue tooth or an intercom
* Noise insulation
* Price

If you follow these guidelines then can rest assured you have done all that you can reasonably do to choose a helmet that offers you a good degree of protection. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1562-Choosing-a-Motorcycle-Helmet https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1529-Fitting-Oxford-HotGrips Tue, 04 May 2010 13:16:22 GMT With another winter approaching and my woman complaining of my freezing cold hands after each ride (which I was sure to rush in when finished riding, rip my gloves off, and promptly place on her nice warm stomach) I decided it was time to look at the options available. I have very limited... With another winter approaching and my woman complaining of my freezing cold hands after each ride (which I was sure to rush in when finished riding, rip my gloves off, and promptly place on her nice warm stomach) I decided it was time to look at the options available.

I have very limited mechanical abilities myself (to help you place your skills alongside mine if you’re going to do this yourself). But I have a lot of patience and perseverance and I try not to let the fear of making a mistake get in the way!

Heated grips seemed like the best solution. Oxford makes two products that suit, Heated Overgrips, and HotGrips. Overgrips fit over your existing grips. They are "easy" to put on (look a bit like a rolled up bandage), and take off if you sell your bike (or even if you just want to use them for the winter season only).
The look of the OverGrips didn't take my fancy. I also didn't like the idea of the OverGrips potentially slipping on the main grips.

HotGrips replace your existing grips, and you super-glue them in place. So they are permanent. If you put these on don't plan on ever taking them off your bike. There are a couple of styles, "original" and "sports". I have a sports bike so decided to get the sports variety. The original and sports differ only in their grip styling - nothing else.

When I got the HotGrips home I studied the instructions, and read lots of comments on line. The manual instructs you to wire the grips directly to the battery terminals. The HotGrips controller has a voltage detector and only runs while the voltage is above a preset level. I didn't like this idea, as if you stop the bike and forget to turn the HotGrips off they will continue to flatten the battery until it gets down to the preset voltage. Will this leave enough power in the battery to start the bike on a cold morning? To resolve this problem the manual suggests you buy an Oxford battery trickle charger.

Altogether it was not an approach I wanted to take. I decided I wanted the HotGrips to use an ignition switched source, so if the bike was off the power to the grips would also be cut off.

So I headed down to JayCar electronics, and bought a 15A automotive relay, and 3m of wire for minor cabling. I already had crimps and a crimping tool to terminate the wire that I would need to add.


So onto the main attraction. First job, remove the old grips. I had to remove the bar end weights first. Left hand side came off okay. Right hand side was a real bitch. The bolt just kept rotating and wouldn't undo. Spoke to someone about this and they said they had seen this before, and you have to use brute force and pull the whole mechanism out.
Well it took a lot of force, but I got it out. Discovered the internal bar weight was broken in two. Decided to take out the left hand internal bar weight, and low and behold, it was also broken in two as well. Compared the two broken pieces, and discovered that someone had replaced the bolt from the right hand bar end with the wrong bolt. It was oversize and too long. Probably contributed to it breaking.

Anyway, contacted Econohonda (on-line parts dealer in NZ for Honda parts) and they had everything I needed in stock, and sent up the replacement parts overnight.

Now back to the main job, removing the old grips. Tried several things, but what worked best was to squirt CRC between the grip and the bar. Seemed to dissolve the existing glue, and the existing grips slid off easily after that.

The manual said to remove any existing glue or residual as you want a tight fit. So I did this using sand paper. Tested the right hand grip and while it was firm it slid on nicely.
Onto the left hand grip. Even applying a lot of force I could not get the bastard on. Read the manual and it says the grip is designed for a bar with a 22mm diameter. It said if the grip is too tight check the inside of the grip for left over rubber from manufacturing (did that, couldn't see any) and make sure the bar is smooth (it was, just sanded it).
So now I had an issue with only two likely answers. Either the left bar was oversize, or the grip was under size.

So I went down to Repco and splashed out on some callipers so I could measure the two. The Oxford HotGrips had an internal diameter of exactly 22mm. So they were fine.
The bar had a diameter around 22.3mm. Bastard. The bar was painted black, and I bet the paint was causing the issue.
So I went back to sanding the left bar, and by the time I had sanded all the paint off the bar diameter had dropped down to just over 22mm. Tried the left HotGrip again. Very tight, but it did slide on, so decided to leave it at that. Would rather have it slightly tight that slightly loose.

You need to spend some time considering the actual placement of the right throttle grip, as that is also where your front brake lever is. You need a position for the grip so that when the throttle is rotated 100% open that the wire that comes out of the grip does not prevent the brake from operating at its maximum power (aka, you can still squeeze the brake lever all the way in). You also want to make sure you can operate the starter button ok. So spend some time thinking about this.
I ended up positioning the right hand grip so that when the throttle was closed the wire sticks almost straight towards the rear of the bike.

Now the cabling. When you run the cabling from the bars you need to choose a cable run that allows the throttle to fully open and close, and also still allow you to run the bars from full left lock to full right lock with no impediments. I screwed this up the first time. I ran some of the cables around the front of the left fork, and found the cables prevented the bars from obtaining full left lock easily (or would probably result in long term damage to the cables).
So I ended up re-laying the cables so they went around the outside of my forks, and then back down the side of the bike.

I removed the left fairing, and I cable tied all the excess cable and the controller module to the frame, in a little gap where there was another relay already (used for the horn).
I wired the "negative" lead to a ground point on the bike (same grounding point as used by the horn as it turns out).

Now the tough part. Where to break into a switched ignition cable. Headlight and tail light seemed good candidates as they both turn on and off when the key is turned on and off. I decided if something went "wrong" while I was riding I would rather lose my tail light than my head light.

I have the user manual for my bike, which includes an electrical schematic. Basically power goes from the battery into a 30A fuse, then into the ignition system, and then splits into 4 separate 10A circuits for "low power" circuits on the bike. I calculated the maximum loading of the lights fed from the stop light fuse, and it came to 3.9A. The HotGrips pull a maximum of 4A. So if I fed the HotGrips directly from this circuit it would peak out at 7.9A, or 79% of the fuses rated capacity.
I pulled out the fuse and stuck a multimeter across the fuse socket and measured the current being drawn. Only about 2A was being used with everything turned on (so several things obviously don't run at their full rated capacity).

So at this point I decided there was no point using a separate relay to switch the load. The ignition switched circuit I was planning on using had plenty of spare capacity.
So I ran a wire from the rear tail light at the back of the bike along the existing wiring loom to where I had located the controller. I crimped all the wires, which means I can unplug everything at a later date in case I need to service something.
I then used insulation tape and wrapped all connectors (both the crimped connectors I had added, and the HotGrip connectors) to make them more water resistant, and potentially stop any electrical "accident" from happening.

Now it was test time. Put the key in the bike, and turned the key to on. The Oxford controller came to life, and showed a blue flashing light. Checked the manual, and this means the battery is below the "preset" level, and it has turned off to save the battery. Seems well set for my bike.
Hit the starter button, headlight went off, and nothing. Hit the starter again, nothing. Fuck.
Then remember I had engaged the engine kill switch. I always do this when servicing the bike just in case an "accident" happens.
So with the switch in the run position, started the bike fine this time.

Blue light stayed on fine. Waited five minutes and the HotGrips got nice and warm.
Turned the bike back off.

Now I know everything was working it was time to super glue the grips on. I noted the angle of the cable of the left hand HotGrip relative to other things on the left bar. Pulled the left grip off. Ran super glue around the inside and outside of the bar, and then several lines up and down. Then shoved the grip back on, and quickly aligned it to the marks I had noted previously. You can't mess around at this stage. The super glue sets quickly. So make sure you are clear in your mind where you want the HotGrip positioned BEFORE sliding it on.

Repeated the process on the right hand Hot Grip. While the glue was setting I started cable tying everything up. Mostly I was just cable tying the new cables to the existing wiring loom.

Tested the throttle grip about 5 minutes later and it was resistant to moving. Fuck.
On closer examination what had happened was a bit of Super Glue had squeezed out between the grip and the end of the bar where the controls are. I have a fine thin file (a bit like an emery board or a nail file), so I slipped it in and gave it a file hoping to remove the excess glue. Fortunately this worked. Throttle can now rotate between fully open and fully close with no resistance or sticking.
So when you do it, be careful not to put too much glue near the inside of the right hand bar (the throttle bar) to avoid my issue.


And that concluded my experience. I hope the little traps and experience I have shared will help prevent you running into some of the problems that I did. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1529-Fitting-Oxford-HotGrips https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1453-Motorcycle-Emergency-Braking Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:34:29 GMT Emergency Braking is a contentious discussion topic. Many people have different views - and often they are all right - in certain circumstances. Often views vary from country to country as different methods are taught, and people like to (rightly or wrongly) defend what they have learnt and... Emergency Braking is a contentious discussion topic. Many people have different views - and often they are all right - in certain circumstances. Often views vary from country to country as different methods are taught, and people like to (rightly or wrongly) defend what they have learnt and practised over the years.

What is emergency braking?
Emergency braking is the act of bringing a motorbike to a complete halt in the minimum amount of distance.

Overview
Often when a country develops an emergency braking training philosophy based on method "x" it is because they have to develop a single consistent message that they can teach to every rider on every road going bike. That method has to be based on the mix of the motorcycle fleet in their country, and so may not suit another country as a result. And I sympathise with them to some degree - that is about the only way you can teach something on a national scale.

My personal opinion is that the required technique for emergency braking depends on the rider and the bike involved. For example, classic bikes can have front drum brakes while modern bikes nearly always have disc brakes. This changes the time to transfer the weight onto the front tyre drastically. And even newer bikes have ABS and/or integrated braking. Integrated braking means you can forget about operating the rear brake - it's done automatically for you.

Theory of Emergency Braking

Perhaps "theory" might be a strong word.

Basically somewhere between 10% and 30% of your bikes braking force comes from the rear brake, and the rest from the front brake.

Why does this number vary so much? It's all to do with the weight on the rear tyre. The more weight the greater the grip it has with the ground, and the more friction it can apply. If you have a pillion on board obviously more weight will be on the back tyre.
Cruisers tend to have a longer wheel base (and sometimes with saddle bags and the like), so they tend to have more weight on the rear tyre when compared to a sports bike, which are typically designed for a 50%/50% weight distribution.

But the weight on the rear tyre changes rapidly once you apply your front brake in an emergency. Consider the extreme case where you have the front brake applying the maximum force it can where your bike is up on the front wheel (a stoppie) balancing between the point of going over and falling back down. In this case 100% of the bikes weight has been transferred to the front tyre, and because the back wheel has zero weight on it the braking force it exerts is zero. Absolutely nothing.

The important bit to note here is that the braking force from the rear tyre becomes less as the weight transfers to the front tyre once braking has started. Also note that the amount of time the rear brake remains effective for will be dependent on your bike (sports versus cruiser for example). Even where you sit on your bike can effect it (do you sit in the middle of your seat, or with your bottom jammed against the back of the seat (like on a sports bike).

Also note that emergency braking technique is speed sensitive (mostly because speed affects the time for weight to transfer from the rear to front wheel - at higher speed the transfer occurs in less time), so the method used on a track from 200km/h is not likely to be as effective as performing an emergency stop from 100km/h or even 50km/h. At high speed the transfer can occur so quickly that it exceeds the time for human reflexes to react.

The last point to be aware of is that the likelihood of a tyre locking up under braking is reduced the more weight it has on it. A front wheel lock-up is considered the most serious, as it removes you ability to steer the bike.

Summary of Commonly Taught Methods

1. The Promocycle Foundation did a large study consisting of 820 emergency braking tests across a couple of different bikes (sports and a cruiser) to isolate out all the different factors.
   http://www.fmq.qc.ca/pdf/amorce-freinage_eng.pdf
   The Promocycle Foundation concluded that you should:
   
   • Close throttle and apply rear brake at the same time
   • Bring the bike vertical, brace arms, torso - basically stabilise and equalise bike
   • Apply front brake and de-clutch
   • Adjust front and rear brake pressure
   
   
2. In the United Kingdom the DSA control the guidelines, and they recommend:
   
   • Close the throttle
   • Engage the front brake, and then the rear brake
   • Progressively increase the pressure on both brakes
   • Pull in the clutch just before you stop, to afford maximum engine braking
   
   I emailed the DSA about the research that had gone into this technique. The DSA have not researched this, and the process is the result of consultations with experienced riders.
   
3. In the USA the American Motorcycle Safety Foundation teach:
   http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcyc...aking-tips.htm
   
   • Apply the rear brake hard and forget about it. Let it lock if it wants to.
   • Apply the front brake progressively harder and harder (they brake it into four stages)
   
   The AMSF approach is based more on research of psychology. Their research has indicated that our brains are not capable of managing both brakes at the same time. So that is why they say apply the rear brake with maximum force and forget about it. Then spend the remainder of your concentration on the front brake and bike control.
   
4. There is also a school of thought that you should use the front brake only (forget the rear brake). This seems to mostly originate from the personal experience of the rider involved. I can not locate any studies on this particular method. Track riders often promote this technique (the majority of track riders don't use the rear brake for braking effect).
   My personal impression is that the use of the front brake only will work better from high speed (aka 200km/h plus) since the rear brake has such a small amount of time that it can contribute anything to the net braking force of the bike.
   
5. There is a school of thought that you should be changing down while emergency braking. This is more related to another technique called brake and escape, as opposed to emergency braking (which I have stated the definition as being to bring the motorcycle to a complete halt in the shortest distance possible). Proponents of changing down for emergency braking suggest that engine braking can assist the emergency stopping procedure. My personal thoughts are that the front brake will provide more braking force than the engine can apply through changing down. If you risk leaving the engine engaged and changing down you run the far higher risk of having the engine drive against the brakes - increasing your braking distance. I have observed riders having trouble fully closing the throttle while performing an emergency braking session.

My personal thoughts are that newer riders should concentrate on emergency braking first, and then move onto learning about brake and escape.

So how do you do emergency braking?

I can't tell you an answer. I don't believe there is one technique that is effective for all riders for all bikes. I can tell you though that you need to select a method that you can execute without thinking. You must be able to do it second nature. When in an emergency your brain is likely to be overloaded. Fear can easily consume 90% of your cognitive thinking power.

However I suggest you consider the braking system for your bike (drum, disc, ABS or integrated), the amount of weight normally on the rear tyre (which is affected by your bike, luggage, pillion's, and where you sit), and then determine how effective your rear brake will be. It is also possible you may run into issues trying to co-ordinate the use the front and rear brake at the same time - and if so you need to take this into your emergency braking plan.
And then go practice the different techniques (front brake only, front first then rear, rear first then front, and playing with using the clutch straight away or delaying the clutch till the end).

You also need to consider the probability of locking the front wheel and how to deal with it. The techniques that engage the rear brake first tend to allow more front wheel brake pressure to be applied, because as soon as the rear brake is applied weight starts transferring onto the front wheel. And once again, the more weight on a wheel the less likely it is to lock.

I can tell you that people who I have helped with emergency braking never end up all using one single technique. And I hope this blog entry helps to explain why a "one size" does not fit all. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1453-Motorcycle-Emergency-Braking https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1211-IntraLase-LASIK-(aka-laser-eye-surgery) Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:40:56 GMT I had my eyes lasered yesterday (3/12/2009) to correct my short sighted vision (myopia). I had an astigmatism and both my eyes were around -4.

I decided to get it done mostly because of my motorcycling. I can't wear contact lenses on a track, because the forces keep pulling them off the centre of my eyeballs, leaving me blinded for 30 to 45 second or so. Have you tried approaching a corner, braking hard, and then almost loosing all vision? You have to do the rest of the corner based on your memory of it.
Glasses are a pain. It often feels like two bits of wire being shoved in my face real hard. Glasses were not comfortable.

Playing squash was also difficult. I often found my contact lenses would drift off centre, and so in the middle of a game I would be left unable to focus on the ball for 30s to 45s at a time. Usually I just lost the round when that happened. You just can't take your eye of the ball for that long! And glasses had their own problems.

Swimming. Well I often wore goggles and contacts. But I have also lost contact lenses several times when the goggles came off or got filled with water. And you can't wear glasses while swimming.

So I decided it was time to correct these issues so I wouldn't have any more obstructions to enjoying life.

The whole process started about three weeks ago when I went along to my first visit to the Auckland Eye Clinic.

They sat me in front of a couple of fancy machines, and effectively created a 3D map of my eyes. They did a few more measurements, and then told me I was a good candidate for having my eyes lasered. They explained the risks, and what the procedure involved.
They then said to have a think about it, and if I was still interested to call back.

This whole procedure was done by someone with the job title of "technician".

About a week later I gave them a call back, and said I would like to proceed. One thing to note is that you can't wear contact lenses for at least two days prior to having the scans done, as it affects the shape of your eyes.
I had exactly the same scans and measurements done again (however the data from these scans are put onto their "production" system). This was also done by a technician.

However this time I was then sent to a surgeon (Dr Sue Ormond), who examined the scans, and did a simple eye chart test.
She then explain the risks again, the likely outcome, the procedure, and a little bit about what would happen after the operation.

So my appointment for the surgery was booked in about three weeks later.
I had pretty much decided to only wear glasses after my first appointment, but you can't wear contact lenses for at least two pays prior to the surgery.


So yesterday I arrived at Auckland Eye ready for my operation (aka, laser eye surgery).

At this point you fork over your cash ($5900 to get two eyes done).
Then you wait a short while, and a nurse comes and gets you.

You get the normal nurse check list (are you allergic to anything, ...). She explained what was about to happen.
I was given a cup with about 5 pills in it, can't remember what they all were except one. You can optionally choose to have a sedative. After surgery, till the next morning, you aren't allowed to read, watch TV, use a computer - basically use your eyes. The sedative dumbs downs your senses, so you can sit like a vegetable or sleep easier (I chose sleep).

If you take the sedative you should have someone with you for the following 12 hours. This is because your brain is not running in top gear, and you might do something dumb like burn yourself on the stove due to your slowed reflexes.
In my case, I didn't have anyone to look after myself, but I told the nurse I understood the risks, and would like to accept them anyway. I was planning on sleeping when I got home.

I also had what felt like a zillion eye drops put in my eyes. Basically they start putting bits of your eyes to sleep so you don't feel any pain.

The nurses also gives me a gown to put on, which goes over your clothes and shoes. I asked if it was to keep the filth from the operating theatre off my shoes, but apparently it is the other way around.


Next the nurse lead me into a room adjacent to the operating theatre. A short wait entailed, and then I was taken into the theatre. As expected, there is a bed you lie down on.

I was feeling a bit dis-orientated by this stage. I'm sure another zillion drops were put into my eyes.

Over the bed are two lasers. One cuts your eye, and the other does the actual zapping to fix your vision.

So they position you under the cutting laser first. I might not have the order of everything right here.

But basically they tape back your eyelids and lower eyebrow. A suction cup machine gets inserted on top of your eyeball. Thanks to all the drops, this does not hurt.
They turn on the suction cup machines, and you eyeball is sucked flat against a plate. At this point in time, you pretty much loose vision in your eye.
Next the cutting laser runs for around 20s. You can hear it working.
Then they turn off the suction cup machine (at which time I regained some vision), and remove the suction cup from your eye.

At this point in time you now have a "flap" cut into your eye.

The table you are lying on rotates, and they spin it around a little so you are now lying under the second laser.

All sorts of shit was squirted into my eye. I think they might have been cleaning it.

While looking up I could see red and green lights. They tell me to look into the middle of the red lights.
The laser kicks in, and you can hear it running. There was a faint smell of burning, but only faint.
I would guess it took about 20s, and it was done.

Then a whole lot of stuff got squirted into my eye again. More eye drops. And it felt like they were brushing my eye with a cotton bud. I'm sure it was something a bit flasher.
At this point you can see.

The whole procedure is repeated for the second eye.

Next a set of plastic "cups" are taped over your eyes. This is to prevent you from touching them.


Now your done, and they take you out to wait in another room. You're offered a tea or coffee. I was feeling a bit dis-orientated, so I asked to just still still for a couple of minutes.
After that, a nurse took me back out to meet the person who was giving me a lift home.

The whole procedure took around 20 minutes.


You can not drive home after the procedure!


As expected, when I got home I went to bed. It was easy to sleep with the sedative. I would estimate I slept for 19 hours, although I did wake up a few times in between (I was real hungry!).

I was given some pain killers (paracetamol+codeine), but didn't really need them. It felt like wearing contacts for just a little bit too long. A little irritating, but not too bad.

Anyway when I woke up in the morning I took off the taped on plastic covers from my eyes.
My vision was noticeably sharp, but a little cloudy.

During the next couple of hours the cloudiness slowly disappeared.
At this point in time I would say my vision is pretty good, but not perfect.

Next I had the follow up appointment with the surgeon (about 24 hours after the procedure). She checked my vision, and said it was close to 20/20, but would get closer and closer to it over the next week or so. She booked me in for another check in two weeks time, so she could make sure my vision was now perfect.

She also gave me an eye site certificate so I could get the endorsement removed from my licence.

I have goggles to wear to bed at night time for one week, to make sure I don't poke or rub my eyes while sleeping.
I also have to avoid swimming and sports for a week. Basically I just need to take it easy for a week while my eyes continue to heal.


And that brings me to now. One day after the laser eye surgery. Things are pretty good. I'm really happy with my investment of $5900, and can't wait to start enjoying like more without the hassles of contact lenses or glasses.


If your thinking about it - just do it! ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1211-IntraLase-LASIK-(aka-laser-eye-surgery) https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1034-Auckland-Harbour-Bridge Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:43:57 GMT I was riding over the AHB from the North Shore to Central Auckland this morning around 9am. The traffic was unusually heavy for that time, and while I was at the bridge apex it came to a complete stand still. What a bonus. The view was great. But the wind - it was very blustery. While the bike... I was riding over the AHB from the North Shore to Central Auckland this morning around 9am. The traffic was unusually heavy for that time, and while I was at the bridge apex it came to a complete stand still.

What a bonus. The view was great. But the wind - it was very blustery. While the bike is moving it doesn't seem so bad, but being stationery at the top of of the bridge was very notcable. The bike was being pushed from side to side.

Now I think I can appreciate what it is like for the Wellingtonians who have to deal with their bikes being blown over while parked.

Funny how the effects of the wind seems worse while being stationary. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1034-Auckland-Harbour-Bridge https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1008-West-Coast-Road-(North-of-Auckland) Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:19:33 GMT I was keen to go for a ride today, but alas my normal riding companions all had something on.

So I checked out kiwibiker, and saw there was a normal Sunday ride starting just north of Auckland from the Caltex on SH16.
I'm always a bit cautious about riding with new people, as I'm a bit risk adverse when riding. If someone wants some fun I'd rather they take off ahead, and I'll catch up in my own good time.

So I headed over and met up with yachtie10 and outforaduck. Both were quite a bit more experienced than me, but they didn't seem to mind.

We headed up SH16 and then through to a road I've never been on before, West Coast Road, which pops out by Wellsford (no, not the one in West Auckland).
Everyone was riding in a sensible and safe manner.

I would describe the road as needing intermediate skills and above. The road is sealed, but there are a couple of 30km/h corners, loose metal in several places, and clay and cow shit on the seal in places (this road could be lethal in the wet). If the road was wet then I would say you would need to be an advanced rider.
I would say the road is one of the more challenging I have been on so far.

outforaduck asked if I would like some tips, which I eagerly accepted. He gave me some great tips for improving my line through the corners, and tips on better throttle control. What a difference it made. Now I just need to spend some more hours using the new skills.

We stopped at Wellsford for a coffee and a chat, before heading back again.

I understand outforaduck and yachtie10 are regular attendees as the ATRN. So I might look a attending some time. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/1008-West-Coast-Road-(North-of-Auckland) https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/995-My-first-time-servicing-a-bike Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:48:29 GMT Well I decided to take the plunge and start doing simple servicing on my bike, a Honda CBR600.

The first step was laying my hands on a service manual. This tells you what needs to be done when. The Honda manual also identified stuff by difficulty, so I've decided I'm going to start doing the basic stuff, and only use a bike mechanic for those difficult jobs, or those jobs requiring expensive specialist tools.

So this weekend I set about changing the oil and oil filter.
I headed down to Cycletreads in Takapuna (Auckland). I told them it was my first time servicing my bike, and I needed some help. They showed me how to look up which oil filter to use, and then helped with oil selection (ended up going with a semi-synthetic middle of the road oil).
I also got a special tool that goes on the end of a wrench which is used to remove/install the oil filter.

Next was a trip to Repco to buy a torque wrench. I also got an tray to collect the oil in, and a "spout" to make pouring the oil in easier.

Then finally I headed home. I read over the instructions a couple of times to make sure everything was clear in my head.

Next came the most difficult bit. Getting the fairings off. I slowly worked through the instructions in the service manual, and after about 2 hours I had them completely off (will probably only take 10 mins next time!). I was making sure to note which kinds of bolts went where, and putting them carefully aside so as to lose nothing.

The service manual said to warm the engine up before changing the oil. So I started the bike up and left it running.

While the engine was warming up I decided to wash both sides of the fairings. They are so much easier to clean when they are off the bike.

By the time I had done the fairings the temperature gauge showed the engine was at normal working temperature. I turned the bike off, put the tray under the bike, and removed the sump plug. I then removed the plug where you put the oil in, and proceeded to remove the oil filter.

I probably left everything draining out of the bike for about at hour.

When I came back I got the new oil filter out, put some new oil on its black gasket, and then screwed it back on. I finished it off with the torque wrench, as recommend in the service manual.

Next I put the sump plug back in, with the torque wrench again.

The service manual said to put in 3.3 litres of oil. The side of the oil container had a strip showing how much oil was in the container. So I got the funnel and then put in roughly 3.3 litres.
Shortly after adding the oil I was thinking I probably shouldn't have put the whole lot in straight away in case it was too much. Too late now.

The service manual said to put the bike on its centre stand now on a level service and start the bike up. I took a quick peak at the oil sight glass before starting, and it was completely full. Was wonderng if I had done a cock up now.

I cleaned up the excess oil form as many bits as I could.

Anyway started the bike, and after about three minutes the oil level in the site glass had lowered down to about half way. Some of the old oil had gotten on the exhaust when I removed the old oil filter, and it was now smoking nicely. Gave the bike some revs and it soon all burned off.
I let the bike run for a couple more minutes and then turned it off. After about another three minutes the sight glass filled back up to the full line. Checked it a bit later and it had remained at that level. Yay, the perfect amount of oil.


I put the fairing back on again. And that concluded my experience of my first bike service. I have to say the idea of doing the service was worse than the actual execution. Next time will be so much easier. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/995-My-first-time-servicing-a-bike https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/993-Port-Waikato Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:03:34 GMT I went for a ride from the North Shore of Auckland out to Port Waikato today, for no other reason than I haven't been to Port Waikato before.
Port Waikato is at the head of the Waikato river in the Franklin district on the West Coast.

Although a little cool the weather was perfect. The initial trip out on the motorway was your normal motorway trip (yawn).

However the fun starts at Pokeno. The road, while not maintained to the same degree as city roads, was in good condition. Fully sealed.

I very much got the impression in years gone by this would have been a very busy road and key to the areas trade.

The corners are easy and sweeping. Perfect for someone on a restricted licence to practice on (mostly 100Km/h road), or a bit of fun for a more experienced rider.

The scenery on the trip looks great, and is so typical of NZ. You also spend a bit of time travelling along beside water, which I quite enjoyed.

There is an old wharf you can stop off at, and I guess this was once a major point for coastal shipping, but appears to only be used by recreational boaters now.

On the way you pass some big warning signs saying the sand dunes are not a motocross course, and keep your bike off the sand dunes all you will be reported to the Police. I guess they don't like motorcycle riders on the sand dunes then.

The houses in the area are more like your traditional NZ batch. Simple construction. Modest.

Carry further on and you go past a camping ground, and then eventually finish off at a patrolled beach (although probably not in Winter!), and a flash looking fish and chip shop. A great place to stop as the mid-point of the journey.

The ride back towards Pokeno was just as much fun as the ride in. But as soon as I was back on the motorway the fun was sucked away. I just can't get excited about riding in a straight line at a constant speed for long periods of time. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/993-Port-Waikato https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/943-Riding-in-the-fog Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:57:49 GMT For the first time in ages the North Shore of Auckland was enveloped in a fog for the entire day (Saturday 27/6/2009). I had to do a job for work early in the morning (5am, ahhhh), then I helped a friend shift. Next decided it was time for a nap. When I woke back up around 4pm the fog was... For the first time in ages the North Shore of Auckland was enveloped in a fog for the entire day (Saturday 27/6/2009).

I had to do a job for work early in the morning (5am, ahhhh), then I helped a friend shift. Next decided it was time for a nap.
When I woke back up around 4pm the fog was still about, so decided it would be good to take the bike out.
Visibility was limited, so I decided to wear a high-viz vest. It is always good when you come back from a ride with no injuries. :)

It was the first time I had ridden in fog like this for a very long time, and I really enjoyed it. I felt like I was riding in a blanket or a cloud. I found the experience quite exhilarating. Looking forward to doing it again now! ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/943-Riding-in-the-fog https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/920-Choosing-the-right-safety-gear Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:14:00 GMT My jacket and pants are about 10 years old now, and in need of replacement. But trying to decide what to replace them with has been challenging as their are so many options. First I decided what I wanted the gear for. I mostly ride on the streets, and want to go to track days and be safe. So... My jacket and pants are about 10 years old now, and in need of replacement. But trying to decide what to replace them with has been challenging as their are so many options.

First I decided what I wanted the gear for. I mostly ride on the streets, and want to go to track days and be safe.
So I decided I wanted a two piece that can be zipped together. Because I do mostly street riding, and New Zealand being what it is, I also want something that will keep be dry for at least 30 minutes in rain.

During the week I work. So I also want something that I can slip over my work clothes.

Oh yeah, the budget. I don't want to spend more than $1,000 on the lot.

First the choice of jacket. Cordura or leather. What a really tough decision. Cordura has superior water resistance, but leather offers superior protection and is repairable - plus leather looks cooler. Now I know some Cordura says it offers similar abrasion resistance to Leather ... but that's only the top end stuff and like I said, I have a budget.

I also found you can get a mix of Cordura and Leather jackets as well. Also, several leather jackets now come with waterproof membranes on the inside.

Oh the decisions. At the moment, I'm leaning towards a leather jacket. This is because I ran across www.1tonne.co.nz after several references on this web site. Their kit looks like good, has all the safety ratings, and is SUBSTANTIALY cheaper.


Now the pants. The problem with leather pants is that they are generally not made to be worn over other clothes. Where as Cordura can easily go over work trousers.
But the gear at 1tonne is so well priced. I think I could afford to get both a pair of leather pants (for weekend cruising and track days) and Cordura (for during the week when I work).


Now the issue of colour. I was tempted to try and get something with a splash of red or yellow in it. But just about all nice bike gear is black. While talking to other people there is very much a mixed opinion about what the colour of your gear does for safety.
So I'll probably be sticking with the run of the mill black. ]]> p.dath https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/entry.php/920-Choosing-the-right-safety-gear