Clutch cable problem

[Joesmoe]

Tsk tsk @DodahMan - he's a master of the twisties and wants to avoid excessive replacement costs.

 

[DodahMan]

Tsk tsk @DodahMan - he's a master of the twisties and wants to avoid excessive replacement costs.

Whatever floats yer boat. The R3T simply feels like a minibike to me. Smallest big bike I have ever ridden in my life. Engineered for midgets.

 

[1olbull]

I just prefer not to reduce the lean angle.

I totally disagree. Many men much larger than average, including myself, ride the rocket and actually find it a little tall in the saddle for shorter legs.

Why don't you set it along side another bike, and then tell us it's made for midgets?
I know of no motorcycle brand that's made for King Kong.

 

[barbagris]

I already have a project for you guys . . . a complete refab of the R3T sidemount rails for the floorboard relocation. Lower and more forward.

Be easier to simply alter the seat and handlebars. I did.

 

[DodahMan]

I just prefer not to reduce the lean angle.

I totally disagree. Many men much larger than average, including myself, ride the rocket and actually find it a little tall in the saddle for shorter legs.

Why don't you set it along side another bike, and then tell us it's made for midgets?
I know of no motorcycle brand that's made for King Kong.

Ok, I will give you examples . . . Harley Davidson, Indian, Yamaha. Every one of these brands whose heavy cruiser bikes have floorboards place them lower and more forward that Triumph did. Personally, I love the taller stance of the R3 but considering its size, it does not offer much leg room. The others I mentioned are all lower in sitting height thus LOWER CG. As you know, there are advantages to a lower CG in terms of handling and cornering. Yes, you are correct. Lowering the floorboards DOES reduce cornering clearance. The R3 though has plenty of room to work with.

Direct comparison of my R3T and Roadstar place the R* 8 inches lower sitting height with floorboards 1.5 inches lower and just a half inch from touching the engine guard bars. Yes, I have scraped them on deep turns, no it's not a problem, and yes it offers better comfort.

I took my Rocket to a customs shop and they suggested I just get rid of the boards entirely and go to forward controls. It is a lot of custom fab work to build a set of new rails for the boards, they estimated $800 to make it work.

 

[Joesmoe]

I took my Rocket to a customs shop and they suggested I just get rid of the boards entirely and go to forward controls.

Aye, one of the huge plus aspects of the Rocket is how open it is, and how much real estate is available for making various mods, and much of the fourteen years' worth of experience captured in these pages deals with just that.

Continue your search, and include "forward controls" and you'll see this has been done many times, with varying flavors.

That you wish to tailor the bike to your liking is not a fault of the bike - it is in fact the opposite.

People who wear expensive suits, know they are only starting when they have the pants and jacket, and accept there will be additional time and effort to have them fit to their individual liking.

The process is the path to heightened satisfaction, and just is what it is.

Good luck, and keep us posted.

 

[barbagris]

As you know, there are advantages to a lower CG in terms of handling and cornering.

Actually a lower CofG means you have to lean more to take corners fast. A low CofG does make it easier to tip though. - It's plain Physics.

 

[1olbull]

Actually a lower CofG means you have to lean more to take corners fast. A low CofG does make it easier to tip though. - It's plain Physics.

This makes no sense to me, Amigo. At a given lean angle that angle from the CG to the road surface remains the same; however, the amount of movement increases the higher from the road surface you go. Therefor, the more movement available, the more control the rider has. CG height on a motor is somewhat overrated and has way more affect on vehicles with Ackermann steering and roll centers.

Balance a tall (high CG) broom handle on your finger.
Now balance a toothpick (low CG) on your finger.
Which is easier to control?

Food for thought:
Why do trials riders stand up on the pegs, raising the combined CG for better control?

 

[CrzystghndKC]

This makes no sense to me, Amigo. At a given lean angle that angle from the CG to the road surface remains the same; however, the amount of movement increases the higher from the road surface you go. Therefor, the more movement available, the more control the rider has. CG height on a motor is somewhat overrated and has way more affect on vehicles with Ackermann steering and roll centers.

Balance a tall (high CG) broom handle on your finger.
Now balance a toothpick (low CG) on your finger.
Which is easier to control?

Food for thought:
Why do trials riders stand up on the pegs, raising the combined CG for better control?

Ok I have a little insite on this. I have found in my opinion that my 2011 Rocket with it's more high and tucked in ( knees up) riding position really takes tight corners better than my lower (for me more comfortable) 2005. My 05 I am flat footed. 2011 not so much. Not sure if it's seat, shocks or what but they are not the same.

 

[DodahMan]

Actually a lower CofG means you have to lean more to take corners fast. A low CofG does make it easier to tip though. - It's plain Physics.

This posters explication makes sense.

I hear a lot of people talking about lowering your center of gravity when going around corners. Yes, lower center of gravity helps you turn faster, but higher center of gravity gets you around the corner with less lean angle. I see a lot of people confusing getting down and low with leaning off. Many people would be better off with higher bars, so that they can sit up more when going around corners, keep their center of gravity higher, and reduce their lean angle.

Center Of Gravity High Or Low