46u - 6/16/2010 11:34 AM
Why running in a lower gear if necessary do you think is so bad even if for miles. I am sure many running around town do not ever see high gear. Many times in the mountains even with my solo I never see high gear for miles. This is why motorcycles have more then on gear. Now I do see if first is so high it constantly puts a strain on the engine and drive train. I will say many times gearing is personal preference. Not trying to start a flame just making conversation.
Lugging an engine wirh a roller bearing lower end is not good for it. With higher hearing and a machine that weighs around half a ton, it's more likely that the bike will encounter lugging more frequently. Of course one may use the lower gears to overcome this.
With 3.15:1, low gear is indeed too high on a five speed transmission such as fitted to the 1992 Evo of the OP. Furthermore, the Evo is marginal on power with a sidecar. I put 50,000 miles on one in the 1990's. It will work out better with the original 24/37 gearing.
Gearing is a matter of personal preference...............until the lower end goes out. By the way, I was first aware of the reason for more than one gear when I got my first motorcycle, a 1948 125cc CZ.
RogerE - 6/16/2010 3:01 PM
ratcollector - 4/22/2010 7:53 PM
new to hacks, finally got it on and have been puttin on some miles. I used to get 40 on the old cb750 but now with the hack it's all the way down to 31. it was pretty windy but that was quite the drop. what are some of you getting out there. I have an old csc friendship 1
Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad 1700 alone was 36-37 MPG. Adding a Hannigan Astro GT sidecar dropped it to 30-32 mpg.
I should have also mentioned that I run in 5th gear (not 6th) on the highway to prevent the motor from lugging. The rig and I are comfortable indicating about 65 mph. I have to go WAY too fast to run it in 6th gear without lugging the engine.
I'm right there with everyone else - RK with TLE average is 35 +/-.
