Bucket weight...

[speedpro]

OK, got some scales... 85kgs for the AX and 145kgs for the ZX

HOW did you manage to make the ZX sooooo heavy??

[Skunk]

Just what my scales say. 65kgs of the front, 80kgs on the rear. Total 145kgs.

Is there a flaw in that?

The ZX is missing as much as possible and I was surprised at the weight of both. I expected the AX to be around 70-75kgs.

[Trudes]

Ok, nobody jump down my throat, but are we sure this weighing method really works??
Seems to me that it would be a bit like standing on a scale with one foot on the floor, going, " ok I weight 50 kgs" then standing on the scale with the other foot on the floor and it weighing 50 kgs and then adding them and coming to the conclusion you weigh 100kgs.... just asking...

[Str8 Jacket]

FFS Trudy, you're a fucken idiot!

[Trudes]

Explain it to me then... I don't get it. Remember now, there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers.

[nudemetalz]

It does actually work, Trudes.

I weighed my bike's ends independently, then I got a stand and put that on the scales.
Zeroed the scales to allow for the weight of the stand and then balanced the bike on top of it.
Came to the same weight as before.

With weighing yourself by your legs independently, you can easily transfer your weight more or less on one foot to give different readings, whereas it's not possible on a bike (unless your adding or taking off weight as your weighing it).
That make sense?

[Skunk]

Ok, nobody jump down my throat, but are we sure this weighing method really works??
Seems to me that it would be a bit like standing on a scale with one foot on the floor, going, " ok I weight 50 kgs" then standing on the scale with the other foot on the floor and it weighing 50 kgs and then adding them and coming to the conclusion you weigh 100kgs.... just asking...

The weight each wheel puts on the ground is constant (when the bikes not moving). (Human bodies don't do that very well but something stiff like a bike does.) Well, there would be a slight discrepancy due to the suspension but not much.
It's quite valid.

[nudemetalz]

The weight each wheel puts on the ground is constant (when the bikes not moving). (Human bodies don't do that very well but something stiff like a bike does.) Well, there would be a slight discrepancy due to the suspension but not much.
It's quite valid.

errr...wasn't that what I just said, Mr Skunk ??
Sheez,..I dunno, these Kawasaki riders.....

[Skunk]

Well, I was typing my reply while you were posting your's so I didn't see your reply till after.

Sheez,..I dunno, these Guzzi riders.....

[speedpro]

Must be something in the water in Norf Welly

[Trudes]

Thanks Nudez and Skunk! Yes, makes sense to me now, and makes me feel better that you have tested it also by weighing the bike on the centre stand, which is a great idea. Cheers

[FROSTY:Me]

I thought you had to have the "other" wheel resting on a surface the same height as the scales for it to be semi accurate

[Sully60]

I thought you had to have the "other" wheel resting on a surface the same height as the scales for it to be semi accurate

Yeah I think you've got a point there Fosted one.

The other way of looking at it is the contact point of the tyre across the width of the scale would have to be consistent eveytime you did it.

With the one wheel on the ground the ground technique you are effectively measuring the force generated by the mass of the bike through a 2nd class lever. The fulcrum is the axle of the wheel on the ground , the bike is the load and the effort/force is what the number on the scales. If you move the wheel that sits on the scales the force will change as the relationship between the fulcrum and the effort point changes slightly. Frosty's idea alters the height of the fulcrum which can also affect the result.

In saying all this it's splitting hairs really as the width of a set of bathroom scales are relatively small as is the weight and length of the bike, so any inconsistencies are going to be even smaller.

So, as you were...

[nudemetalz]

Yes, I know what you guys are saying, but the difference is miniscule IMO.

However, I decided to test the theory. (yup, Mythbusters NZ-style ).

46kg's on the front wheel with rear wheel on the deck.
45kg's on the front wheel with the rear wheel level with the front.
(I assume the rear would do the same)

Not a lot of difference unless you're a MotoGP team.

(Oh and apologies Skunk)

[FROSTY:Me]

Yes, I know what you guys are saying, but the difference is miniscule IMO.

However, I decided to test the theory. (yup, Mythbusters NZ-style ).

46kg's on the front wheel with rear wheel on the deck.
45kg's on the front wheel with the rear wheel level with the front.
(I assume the rear would do the same)

Not a lot of difference unless you're a MotoGP team.

(Oh and apologies Skunk)

Just to humour an old man --could ya repeat the exersize for the back wheel.