Like the title says, iv recently started doing track days so went with the majority and upped the rear to 44T so to get better acceleration, Apart from me not changing the chain which meant the bigger rear sprocket pulled the back wheel forward meaning i lost a couple of inches of valuable wheel base, i thought it lost its pull and grunt, i then got chatting to a guy at donnington who does a lot of road racing on a blade and owns a bike shop with a dyno, i asked about using a 520 chain and what sprockets to use, the first thing he noticed on my bike was the wheel pulled forward and called my bike "unrideable" i showed him my dyno printout and he pointed out the blades strengths and weaknesses, a nice torque curve but poor power which withers early in the rev range, he then pointed out his extended swing arm and told me the gearing he ran, which was lower than standard not higher !! admittdly his 2010 had a lot of engine work and was pushing out 200 bhp but he strongly suggested i atleast go back to standard gearing or even try 1 up at front or down at rear and always keep the back wheel as far back as possible as the blade as standard needs more wheel base, your thoughts please
Just one down on the front would keep the rear wheel where it is or move it slightly further back wouldn't it? Going up on the front or down at the rear would just give you more speed per gear, higher top speed but accelleration would be slower. With 200bhp i'm sure that's fine but not on a standard blade i wouldn't think! Just my opinion of course!
Yes one down on the front would move the rear wheel back but also alter the gearing "the wrong way" again i think one down on the front is the equivelent to going up 2.25ish on the rear, and yes more teeth back less front gives you less top end, doing the opposite will give you more, but my question is will it actually accelerate faster ?? or is the blades torquey not so revey engine better suited to standard gearing on track ?
the blade definatley performs better with lower gearing.-1 front is the same as about +2.7 on the rear. -1 front +2,3 or 4 rear is the general gearing,i found -1+3 suited me a most tracks,only real issue was valencia where it topped out on the s/f straight quite early (about 165mph top speed),only other track it would be an issue is maybe almeria,and definatley aragon.theres not many UK tracks your doing more than that speed,and not for long apart from maybe snett. as for the wheel base,again it's all down to rider preference,the ideal wheel base for the blade is 595mm from swingarm pivot to centre rear sprocket with about 5mm showing through the top yokes.so you if you want to keep this wheelbase,when you change gearing,you might need to change links in the chain. but,it is all down to how you like your bike to handle,if you like a fast tip in,then shorten the wheelbase,but make sthe bike flighty and unstable at high speed,or if you prefer a more stable slower turning bike,lengthen the wheelbase,helps keep the front down and more stable in the corners,but needs man handling a bit more. it's all trail and error,i personnaly like a longer whelbase as i like the front wheel on the ground and not so twitchy mid corner.
I personally find that -1f +2r gives a nice boost in acceleration needed for track but also keeps the swing arm around the same length as std (not measured, just going by chain length) feels better to me, but increasing the gearing, as in going up on front and down on rear would make the gearing a little to long for most uk tracks, I would have thought? I might even try +3r one of these days
I assume when you say +3 on the rear that's on a RR4/RR5 so +1 on an RR6/RR7? I'm about to go one down on the front of mine which everyone says makes a HUGE difference so surprised to read your comments Robbo!
I run a 15 front (-1) 2006 and there is very little will pass you on the straight with that.. so 15 / 42
My RR6 is 15F(-1) / 44R(+2) on a 520 chain. As far as the straights go, at Cadders on Saturday I only got passed by an R1 pulling a massive wheelie as he went by. I can only assume that he also had some mental gearing. I say mental, but really it's tameable, as we all know Traction Control is in the wrist
I think that longer gearing for road racing makes sense, as (for the TT at least) they'll be on full chat for longer periods and so need the top end. Plus added stability from the increased wheelbase wouldn't go a miss on roads either. On short tracks however, it probably makes sense to go the other way and as per conventional wisdom with shorter gearing and a shorter wheelbase for more agility.
didn't we work out it's actually -1f (15) +4r (46) for your wheelie machine what size chain is that 520 in links btw, thinking of trying the +4R on mine, do you reckon it will now need an extra link (115)? std is 114 on 04-07 **EDIT** ok scratch that, just found a chain length calc and says i will need an extra two links, so will order 116
Yeah I must have written that from memory, which is how I miscounted Length wise, you could try the bigger sprocket if you're not at the maximum adjustment. Failing that, order the longer chain and you can then cut it down if it's too long. Short of counting every link I really couldn't tell you what mine is. Edit - Just changed my sig so there's no confusion
wow +4 FFS!! I bought a 44T (+2) for the bike and was shitting myself to put it on as I already run 15T front.. May have to grow a set and try it
Near sure my gearing is 15-45 if not its deffo 44. HRC Throttle too. Just be smooth and it doesnt wheelie but pulls fast and hard
Yeah checked the gearing on gear commander and with the 55 profile tyre nulling +1 on rear it means mine has dropped to +1 rear, so thought I would go to +4 as it's used mostly on track these days where max speed is not so important will order the 116 link chain, can alwayp take out a link if Ness How much weaker is the 520 compared to 530 for a 1000 litre bike? We looking at a new chain every year based on 10 track days plus a little road? Been hearing of some snapping if not changed early?
