Changed Final Drive Gearing 2013

[CIP57_imp]

I always felt the gearing had short legs on the 2013. I would often start out in 2nd on flat ground. Its almost is if they set it up for the Japanese market ( city traffic )

I changed to a 19 front and 38 back about 9% difference in torque and MPH's. With the longer gears it feels just about right taking off from a traffic light, there's less engine braking and a smoother transition in the top 3 gears. They only place where you notice the decrease in torque is when you lug the bike under 2500RPM's and roll ons from 60-80 in 5th are a bit slower .3

I though the bike would run faster times which it does, 0-60 is .2 faster and 0-100 is .3 faster. Very small gains but its positive not negative.

Note: I had a bad rear sprocket it was out of round 1/16th everything cleared up with the change. My chain is running true now.

Cheers

 

[DGShannon_imp]

I always felt the gearing had short legs on the 2013. I would often start out in 2nd on flat ground. Its almost is if they set it up for the Japanese market ( city traffic )

I changed to a 19 front and 38 back about 9% difference in torque and MPH's. With the longer gears it feels just about right taking off from a traffic light, there's less engine braking and a smoother transition in the top 3 gears. They only place where you notice the decrease in torque is when you lug the bike under 2500RPM's and roll ons from 60-80 in 5th are a bit slower .3

I though the bike would run faster times which it does, 0-60 is .2 faster and 0-100 is .3 faster. Very small gains but its positive not negative.

Note: I had a bad rear sprocket it was out of round 1/16th everything cleared up with the change. My chain is running true now.

Cheers

I have to agree with you! Glad that others, like yourself, have already done the change, and can report it's success. I can see this mod in my future.

I know you have mentioned the details elsewhere, but you might want to restate the details (part number, maker, etc.) on the two sprockets!

- Darrell

 

[CIP57_imp]

I always felt the gearing had short legs on the 2013. I would often start out in 2nd on flat ground. Its almost is if they set it up for the Japanese market ( city traffic )

I changed to a 19 front and 38 back about 9% difference in torque and MPH's. With the longer gears it feels just about right taking off from a traffic light, there's less engine braking and a smoother transition in the top 3 gears. They only place where you notice the decrease in torque is when you lug the bike under 2500RPM's and roll ons from 60-80 in 5th are a bit slower .3

I though the bike would run faster times which it does, 0-60 is .2 faster and 0-100 is .3 faster. Very small gains but its positive not negative.

Note: I had a bad rear sprocket it was out of round 1/16th everything cleared up with the change. My chain is running true now.

Cheers

I have to agree with you! Glad that others, like yourself, have already done the change, and can report it's success. I can see this mod in my future.

I know you have mentioned the details elsewhere, but you might want to restate the details (part number, maker, etc.) on the two sprockets!

- Darrell

I have to agree with you! Glad that others, like yourself, have already done the change, and can report it's success. I can see this mod in my future.

I know you have mentioned the details elsewhere, but you might want to restate the details (part number, maker, etc.) on the two sprockets!

- Darrell
Here you go:
Front:

[url=http://shop.pbisprockets.com/searchquick-submit.sc?keywords=377]http://shop.pbisprockets.com/searchquick-submit.sc?keywords=377

Rear:

http://shop.pbisprockets.com/product.sc?productId=153

 

[CB4ME_imp]

I always felt the gearing had short legs on the 2013. I would often start out in 2nd on flat ground. Its almost is if they set it up for the Japanese market ( city traffic )

I changed to a 19 front and 38 back about 9% difference in torque and MPH's. With the longer gears it feels just about right taking off from a traffic light, there's less engine braking and a smoother transition in the top 3 gears. They only place where you notice the decrease in torque is when you lug the bike under 2500RPM's and roll ons from 60-80 in 5th are a bit slower .3

I though the bike would run faster times which it does, 0-60 is .2 faster and 0-100 is .3 faster. Very small gains but its positive not negative.

Note: I had a bad rear sprocket it was out of round 1/16th everything cleared up with the change. My chain is running true now.

Cheers

Same change on my bike and I couldn't agree more!

 

[Dakota_imp]

I always felt the gearing had short legs on the 2013. I would often start out in 2nd on flat ground. Its almost is if they set it up for the Japanese market ( city traffic )

I changed to a 19 front and 38 back about 9% difference in torque and MPH's. With the longer gears it feels just about right taking off from a traffic light, there's less engine braking and a smoother transition in the top 3 gears. They only place where you notice the decrease in torque is when you lug the bike under 2500RPM's and roll ons from 60-80 in 5th are a bit slower .3

I though the bike would run faster times which it does, 0-60 is .2 faster and 0-100 is .3 faster. Very small gains but its positive not negative.

Note: I had a bad rear sprocket it was out of round 1/16th everything cleared up with the change. My chain is running true now.

Cheers

CIP, I am a bit surprised that taller gearing resulted in quicker acceleration as seems counter to what is done in the automotive world. Is because there is less shifting and more time with power to the ground?

 

[CIP57_imp]

[/QUOTE]

CIP, I am a bit surprised that taller gearing resulted in quicker acceleration as seems counter to what is done in the automotive world. Is because there is less shifting and more time with power to the ground?
[/QUOTE]

A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[AzBob_imp]

CIP, I am a bit surprised that taller gearing resulted in quicker acceleration as seems counter to what is done in the automotive world. Is because there is less shifting and more time with power to the ground?
[/QUOTE]

A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.

Hope this is helpful.
[/QUOTE]
A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.
The runs aren't comparable for a couple of reasons: 1. They weren't performed in the same weather (atmospheric density matters a ton, along with ambient air temperature) 2. They weren't performed on the same track/in the same area (inclination of the land and atmospheric density based on altitude) 3. They weren't performed by the same rider (variances in skill). 4. They weren't instrumented by a calibrated measuring device.

Higher gear ratios (lower numerically) make a vehicle accelerate SLOWER and lower gear ratios (higher numerically) make a vehicle accelerate FASTER. It's physics and there's no disputing it. I have raced cars for well over 20 years and this is the indisputable truth. You are mistaken in your assertion.

 

[CIP57_imp]

CIP, I am a bit surprised that taller gearing resulted in quicker acceleration as seems counter to what is done in the automotive world. Is because there is less shifting and more time with power to the ground?

A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.

Hope this is helpful.
[/QUOTE]
A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.
The runs aren't comparable for a couple of reasons: 1. They weren't performed in the same weather (atmospheric density matters a ton, along with ambient air temperature) 2. They weren't performed on the same track/in the same area (inclination of the land and atmospheric density based on altitude) 3. They weren't performed by the same rider (variances in skill). 4. They weren't instrumented by a calibrated measuring device.

Higher gear ratios (lower numerically) make a vehicle accelerate SLOWER and lower gear ratios (higher numerically) make a vehicle accelerate FASTER. It's physics and there's no disputing it. I have raced cars for well over 20 years and this is the indisputable truth. You are mistaken in your assertion.
[/QUOTE]
A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.
The runs aren't comparable for a couple of reasons: 1. They weren't performed in the same weather (atmospheric density matters a ton, along with ambient air temperature) 2. They weren't performed on the same track/in the same area (inclination of the land and atmospheric density based on altitude) 3. They weren't performed by the same rider (variances in skill). 4. They weren't instrumented by a calibrated measuring device.

Higher gear ratios (lower numerically) make a vehicle accelerate SLOWER and lower gear ratios (higher numerically) make a vehicle accelerate FASTER. It's physics and there's no disputing it. I have raced cars for well over 20 years and this is the indisputable truth. You are mistaken in your assertion.
Sorry Bob, but i disagree, put a set of low tractor gears in the CB and tell me what you run. The only thing you increase with lower gears is torque that's it, it may jump out of the hole, pull the wheels off the ground. There are equations used with different rears back in the day higher rears where not faster all the time, there is much more that goes into setting up for time.

BTW my runs where in the same area, temps may have varied a bit but all documented rather well.
Cheers

 

[AzBob_imp]

CIP, I am a bit surprised that taller gearing resulted in quicker acceleration as seems counter to what is done in the automotive world. Is because there is less shifting and more time with power to the ground?

A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.

Hope this is helpful.

A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.
The runs aren't comparable for a couple of reasons: 1. They weren't performed in the same weather (atmospheric density matters a ton, along with ambient air temperature) 2. They weren't performed on the same track/in the same area (inclination of the land and atmospheric density based on altitude) 3. They weren't performed by the same rider (variances in skill). 4. They weren't instrumented by a calibrated measuring device.

Higher gear ratios (lower numerically) make a vehicle accelerate SLOWER and lower gear ratios (higher numerically) make a vehicle accelerate FASTER. It's physics and there's no disputing it. I have raced cars for well over 20 years and this is the indisputable truth. You are mistaken in your assertion.
[/QUOTE]
A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.
The runs aren't comparable for a couple of reasons: 1. They weren't performed in the same weather (atmospheric density matters a ton, along with ambient air temperature) 2. They weren't performed on the same track/in the same area (inclination of the land and atmospheric density based on altitude) 3. They weren't performed by the same rider (variances in skill). 4. They weren't instrumented by a calibrated measuring device.

Higher gear ratios (lower numerically) make a vehicle accelerate SLOWER and lower gear ratios (higher numerically) make a vehicle accelerate FASTER. It's physics and there's no disputing it. I have raced cars for well over 20 years and this is the indisputable truth. You are mistaken in your assertion.
Sorry Bob, but i disagree, put a set of low tractor gears in the CB and tell me what you run. The only thing you increase with lower gears is torque that's it, it may jump out of the hole, pull the wheels off the ground. There are equations used with different rears back in the day higher rears where not faster all the time, there is much more that goes into setting up for time.

BTW my runs where in the same area, temps may have varied a bit but all documented rather well.
Cheers
[/QUOTE]
You may disagree if you like but you're still wrong. Again, it's physics, there's really no room for argument. Saying all it does is increase the torque is like saying all spinach does is make Popeye stronger. With increased torque, more work can be done, and the vehicle accelerates faster because it moves the weight easier and therefore more quickly. This is the reason that vehicles powered by electric motors accelerate so quickly -- 100% of the motor's torque is available at all times and you don't have to wait for it to get to a certain RPM before the motor is outputting maximum torque.

Of course there are other considerations when _racing_, such as transmission shift points/gear ratios, available engine RPM, how many shifts are required to make it to the end of a 1/4 mile, where the engine makes it's power, etc., which must be balanced when talking about a particular kind of race, but none of that changes the fact that a lower gear ratio (higher numerically) will accelerate the vehicle faster at any given engine RPM.

Of course, lowering the final drive gear ratio (raising it numerically) will lower the absolute top speed of the vehicle.

 

[CIP57_imp]

CIP, I am a bit surprised that taller gearing resulted in quicker acceleration as seems counter to what is done in the automotive world. Is because there is less shifting and more time with power to the ground?

A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.

Hope this is helpful.

A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.
The runs aren't comparable for a couple of reasons: 1. They weren't performed in the same weather (atmospheric density matters a ton, along with ambient air temperature) 2. They weren't performed on the same track/in the same area (inclination of the land and atmospheric density based on altitude) 3. They weren't performed by the same rider (variances in skill). 4. They weren't instrumented by a calibrated measuring device.

Higher gear ratios (lower numerically) make a vehicle accelerate SLOWER and lower gear ratios (higher numerically) make a vehicle accelerate FASTER. It's physics and there's no disputing it. I have raced cars for well over 20 years and this is the indisputable truth. You are mistaken in your assertion.

A member here posted a 17 tooth front sprocket run, you will spin up the tach faster but it slows down forward motion.

Sprocket change.

50-100 17 tooth 6.46 Shift point 42/68/90
Completely Stock 5.96 50/83
Yoshi Stock Gear 5.75 50/83
Gear change 19-38 5.61 60/95

This is a fair comparison since all runs are in the power-band and have two shift points. You can see how lower gears produce slower times.
The runs aren't comparable for a couple of reasons: 1. They weren't performed in the same weather (atmospheric density matters a ton, along with ambient air temperature) 2. They weren't performed on the same track/in the same area (inclination of the land and atmospheric density based on altitude) 3. They weren't performed by the same rider (variances in skill). 4. They weren't instrumented by a calibrated measuring device.

Higher gear ratios (lower numerically) make a vehicle accelerate SLOWER and lower gear ratios (higher numerically) make a vehicle accelerate FASTER. It's physics and there's no disputing it. I have raced cars for well over 20 years and this is the indisputable truth. You are mistaken in your assertion.
Sorry Bob, but i disagree, put a set of low tractor gears in the CB and tell me what you run. The only thing you increase with lower gears is torque that's it, it may jump out of the hole, pull the wheels off the ground. There are equations used with different rears back in the day higher rears where not faster all the time, there is much more that goes into setting up for time.

BTW my runs where in the same area, temps may have varied a bit but all documented rather well.
Cheers
[/QUOTE]
You may disagree if you like but you're still wrong. Again, it's physics, there's really no room for argument. Saying all it does is increase the torque is like saying all spinach does is make Popeye stronger. With increased torque, more work can be done, and the vehicle accelerates faster because it moves the weight easier and therefore more quickly. This is the reason that vehicles powered by electric motors accelerate so quickly -- 100% of the motor's torque is available at all times and you don't have to wait for it to get to a certain RPM before the motor is outputting maximum torque.

Of course there are other considerations when _racing_, such as transmission shift points/gear ratios, available engine RPM, how many shifts are required to make it to the end of a 1/4 mile, where the engine makes it's power, etc., which must be balanced when talking about a particular kind of race, but none of that changes the fact that a lower gear ratio (higher numerically) will accelerate the vehicle faster at any given engine RPM.

Of course, lowering the final drive gear ratio (raising it numerically) will lower the absolute top speed of the vehicle.
[/QUOTE]
You may disagree if you like but you're still wrong. Again, it's physics, there's really no room for argument. Saying all it does is increase the torque is like saying all spinach does is make Popeye stronger. With increased torque, more work can be done, and the vehicle accelerates faster because it moves the weight easier and therefore more quickly. This is the reason that vehicles powered by electric motors accelerate so quickly -- 100% of the motor's torque is available at all times and you don't have to wait for it to get to a certain RPM before the motor is outputting maximum torque.

Of course there are other considerations when _racing_, such as transmission shift points/gear ratios, available engine RPM, how many shifts are required to make it to the end of a 1/4 mile, where the engine makes it's power, etc., which must be balanced when talking about a particular kind of race, but none of that changes the fact that a lower gear ratio (higher numerically) will accelerate the vehicle faster at any given engine RPM.

Of course, lowering the final drive gear ratio (raising it numerically) will lower the absolute top speed of the vehicle.
Bob,

Lower gears are faster until they run out of legs, the CB runs out of legs with a 17 tooth front sprocket vs stock or 19-38 gears If we where talking 100ths or a couple tenths but a full second, no wind weather etc will make up that difference. Bob, PM me (if your interested) with your e-mail address and i would be more than happy to send you two video to prove my point, same rider, same road just different gearing. The CB does not lose a step with 19-38 gearing, I only had time for one run with the new gearing and bogged out of the hole and my 0-60 is still better.

I don't post something unless i have proof to back it up, if you don't want to take the time to look at it, then please don't tell me I'm mistaken in my assertion.

 

[ClassicVW_imp]

I also was a student of physics in school and as such, Bob's explanation(s) makes more sense to me.

 

[CIP57_imp]

I also was a student of physics in school and as such, Bob's explanation(s) makes more sense to me.

Hey, this is a great forum and everyone has a right to there opinion, even if its a modified single sentence

 

[ClassicVW_imp]

Yes, even sentences with grammar errors.

 

[the Ferret]

I think they are both right depending on circumstances and expected outcome. When I raced motocross I raced against a friend that geared his bike down a tooth because he never got to top gear in 5 th, whereas I geared mine taller because 2 nd, 3 rd and 4 th were all I needed to negotiate the course. I always beat him to the first turn because I took off in second and could wind it a long way before shifting to 3 rd . He on the other hand had his bike geared low, took off also in second, but could only go a shorter distance in each respective gear. On the start I shifted once, while he shifted twice.

Not sure what physics would say but in our case taller gearing made it easier to get into the first turn first....that or I had better reflexes and a better line lol

Hows that for convoluted logic?

 

[CB4ME_imp]

I made the same gearing changes as CIP57. I can't testify to the bike being slower or quicker but I like the gearing change and won't go back. I can't tell any seat-of-the-pants difference in acceleration - the bike still wants to pull your arms off when shifting at 8000 under full throttle. But ride characteristics have noticeability improved for general riding.

 

[CIP57_imp]

I think they are both right depending on circumstances and expected outcome. When I raced motocross I raced against a friend that geared his bike down a tooth because he never got to top gear in 5 th, whereas I geared mine taller because 2 nd, 3 rd and 4 th were all I needed to negotiate the course. I always beat him to the first turn because I took off in second and could wind it a long way before shifting to 3 rd . He on the other hand had his bike geared low, took off also in second, but could only go a shorter distance in each respective gear. On the start I shifted once, while he shifted twice.

Not sure what physics would say but in our case taller gearing made it easier to get into the first turn first....that or I had better reflexes and a better line lol

Hows that for convoluted logic?

Thanks for posting Mickey::

Motocross riders change gearing all the time to suit track conditions. Long straights require taller gearing even in the dirt. If shorter gears where faster they wouldn't change. The only time they go to shorter gears is on a tight loose track where torque is required. forward momentum is more important than torque. Here's a good read.

http://twostrokemotocross.com/2010/12/sprockets-and-gear-ratios-what-you-should-know/

 

[the Ferret]

This was the result of pondering on my ride yesterday after reading this discussion and wondering about where the tone was headed lol

I'm not sure what I posted proves anything one way or the other, more a personal philosophy about how to use the transmission on a closed course with a specific goal in mind. My brother was a flat tracker and carried a stack of front and rear sprockets for different tracks, but again not sure that says anything about physics other than certain combos of gears worked better on one track over another track due to specific conditions.

Generally I know in drag racing you gear down for say an eigth mile or quarter mile run, but not sure how that relates to a given circumstance as in a 60- 80 mph one gear acceleration test.

 

[Randy B]

This was the result of pondering on my ride yesterday after reading this discussion and wondering about where the tone was headed lol

I'm not sure what I posted proves anything one way or the other, more a personal philosophy about how to use the transmission on a closed course with a specific goal in mind. My brother was a flat tracker and carried a stack of front and rear sprockets for different tracks, but again not sure that says anything about physics other than certain combos of gears worked better on one track over another track due to specific conditions.

Generally I know in drag racing you gear down for say an eigth mile or quarter mile run, but not sure how that relates to a given circumstance as in a 60- 80 mph one gear acceleration test.

This boils down to the torque curve of that particular engine and where it is in that torque curve so it have a large relevance to it actually.
If you have an engine near the top of the curve and starting to head down before reaching the desired speed and one with the same curve but in the meat of it and won't drop off then it would be reasonable to presume that the second one was out accelerate the first is this given situation.

I dunno...I could be over analyzing this or just plain over thinking it due to lack of sleep. Man my sleep schedule is so far out of whack............ugh.

Carry on.

 

[CIP57_imp]

This was the result of pondering on my ride yesterday after reading this discussion and wondering about where the tone was headed lol

I'm not sure what I posted proves anything one way or the other, more a personal philosophy about how to use the transmission on a closed course with a specific goal in mind. My brother was a flat tracker and carried a stack of front and rear sprockets for different tracks, but again not sure that says anything about physics other than certain combos of gears worked better on one track over another track due to specific conditions.

Generally I know in drag racing you gear down for say an eigth mile or quarter mile run, but not sure how that relates to a given circumstance as in a 60- 80 mph one gear acceleration test.

Mickey, i think this thread has a lot of valuable information thats why it was created. Bob has some very interesting opinions regarding physics and history. But they are opinions and not facts for this particular application.

One of the premier tuners in the northeast (Ivans) does all his final testing on the road not on a mechanical dyno, or lets say real world test.

Its healthy to have these discussions as long as they don't get out of hand.

Please leave this thread up for people who are interested in the gearing of the CB1100, as far as any more discussion regarding the above I'll leave it to the facts which i can produce upon demand.

Cheers

 

[Red1100_imp]

CIP57, Is it necessary to slip the clutch in first with this change? What kind of rpm's are you pulling in 5th at 70 on a 2013? Thanks for the post.