RG500 HMM rebuild? No, but a freshen up, YEP!

[dangerous]

It solved the torque reaction issues by spinning them in opposite directions (geared together). Apparently this was a major issue with the single crank NSR.
Admittedly not an issue on 85/95hp roadies but when you're cranking out 160ish hp in 130kgs.....

understand... but what was this "torque reaction" I mean a spitfire with 2000hp will wana rotate the plane and keep the prop stationay right... but a bike's motor goes up n down, how does this affect the bike??? a rear example is the (dont farking lough) CX or Guzzi engine as it fights sideways through a drive shaft... even the BMW boxer fights its self and equals out... I dont get the inline torque reaction thing???

[ducatilover]

understand... but what was this "torque reaction" I mean a spitfire with 2000hp will wana rotate the plane and keep the prop stationay right... but a bike's motor goes up n down, how does this affect the bike??? a rear example is the (dont farking lough) CX or Guzzi engine as it fights sideways through a drive shaft... even the BMW boxer fights its self and equals out... I dont get the inline torque reaction thing???

AFAIK (which is fuck all) it's to help turn in and help engine smoothness.
The YZR-M1 uses a reverse rotating crank to supposedly help turn in


Sent from a packet of tasty pills

[imdying]

It solved the torque reaction issues by spinning them in opposite directions (geared together). Apparently this was a major issue with the single crank NSR.
Admittedly not an issue on 85/95hp roadies but when you're cranking out 160ish hp in 130kgs.....

Was it torque reaction, or the roundy roundy bits not wanting to change direction with the rest of the bike being nullified? Along the same lines as wheels not wanting to turn with the rest of the bike (which of course means the bike doesn't turn!). Or is that the same thing? Torque reaction makes me think 'anti-wheelie' is why I ask.

[nudemetalz]

Was it torque reaction, or the roundy roundy bits not wanting to change direction with the rest of the bike being nullified? Along the same lines as wheels not wanting to turn with the rest of the bike (which of course means the bike doesn't turn!). Or is that the same thing? Torque reaction makes me think 'anti-wheelie' is why I ask.

This link may help explain:-
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/NSR500.htm

"......Just as significantly, they also changed the direction of crankshaft rotation. Ever since '84 there had been dark mutterings about 'single-crank voodoo' and a growing belief that the crank's gyro effect was responsible for the bike's wayward handling. In other words, crankshaft inertia made it hard work to steer the bike from its current course. Yamaha ran contra-rotating cranks, which canceled out any gyro effect, HRC thought that was the reason the Yamaha handled better. Two years later these suspicions would push HRC into testing their own twin-crank motor (not long for life, alas, for the single crank was now The Honda Way) but for now a change of rotation would have to do. Before '87 the NSR crank rotated anti-clockwise, so when the rider opened the throttle, the front would go light, sending the bike disastrously wide on corner exits......"

[dangerous]

This link may help explain:-
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/NSR500.htm

"......Just as significantly, they also changed the direction of crankshaft rotation. Ever since '84 there had been dark mutterings about 'single-crank voodoo' and a growing belief that the crank's gyro effect was responsible for the bike's wayward handling. In other words, crankshaft inertia made it hard work to steer the bike from its current course. Yamaha ran contra-rotating cranks, which canceled out any gyro effect, HRC thought that was the reason the Yamaha handled better. Two years later these suspicions would push HRC into testing their own twin-crank motor (not long for life, alas, for the single crank was now The Honda Way) but for now a change of rotation would have to do. Before '87 the NSR crank rotated anti-clockwise, so when the rider opened the throttle, the front would go light, sending the bike disastrously wide on corner exits......"

cool... so hows it work wit todays GP bikes, ok eletronics n shit right? what bout the 200hp Vmax? Iv ridden a 180hp MV all in carbon so weighs sfa it dont have twin cranks or balance shafts that I know of...

[Kickaha]

Nice......but I always thought my old RZ500 looked better

So did I, rode one on a tour through the NI up to Dargaville and back down

[sugilite:Me]

I had both RZ500 and a RG400 and 5, the RG was the better bike, but I sooo loved the RZ more as it had fantastic character.

[gammaguy]

I had both RZ500 and a RG400 and 5, the RG was the better bike, but I sooo loved the RZ more as it had fantastic character.

So did mike vash.

Personally I love the RG because it steers superbly and feels just right,the RZ always felt a little more unrefined although yeah it had character how could it not........sigh....those were the days...

But wait....what's this in my garage

[nudemetalz]

One thing I remember about the RG5's was the bellypan would get a hard workout through the corners.

....and Gammaguy you luck bassstard....

[gammaguy]

One thing I remember about the RG5's was the bellypan would get a hard workout through the corners.

....and Gammaguy you luck bassstard....

cheers


the main reason people scraped the bellypans was because of the tyres

too many riders put on low profile rubber which dropped the bike down too far,remember the RG was fitted with 90 aspect ratio tyres

I have fitted a wider rear rim to mine and now run a massive 130/80

[ktm84mxc]

Have ridden both the RZ makes a lot more mechanical noise thus it feels more alive, the RG more silky and smooth but with a better ride loved riding them like a big bore mx bike a little clutch abuse and monster power stands . Did it along K rd in Auck on an RG drag racing from light to light nothing compares to a 2smoke at 9g in first and second gear, smoke noise smells .......