| Author | Message | ||
     Panshovevo |
I noticed the '08 and '09 Service Manuals state in the Troubleshooting section that handling irregularities can be caused by incorrect placement of the wheel balancing weights, and go on to say the weights should be placed on the same side as the brake rotor on the front wheel. Both of my bikes have the weights on the opposite side of the front wheel. Is the manual correct, and if so, what kind of effect is the balancing weight causing? (Message edited by Panshovevo on November 18, 2015) | ||
| Sprintst |
I'd be surprised. I certainly can't tell a difference, so it's beyond my skillset | ||
| Panshovevo |
I'm guessing that at the speeds most of us stay at or below, there probably isn't a noticeable difference. I have yet to fully explore the capabilities of these machines, but have gone far enough beyond the limits of previous ones to know that things change beyond the speeds I had previously experienced. | ||
| Froggy |
I have seen the same thing discussed before with no conclusive answer. Every Buell I've ever seen has the weights on the non rotor side. My 1190SX is on the original tires and has them on the non rotor side too. | ||
| Stevel |
Common sense says that counterbalance weights should reside opposite of the imbalance. Automotive balancing machines do discriminate the side the counterbalance weights should reside, but these wheels are much wider than a m/c wheel. The same machines cannot do the same for a m/c wheel. So, in my mind, if the machine cannot discriminate, neither could a rider. What does make sense is to spin-up the wheel without the tire mounted to determine where the wheel in out of balance first. Many new tires are marked where they are heaviest so that when mounting these, imbalances can be somewhat mitigated, reducing the total amount of counterbalance required and that does make a difference. In order to state that counterbalance weights must reside on the rotor side, the user is assuming that the rotor is the cause of the imbalance. If that is true, spinning up the wheel without tire would determine quickly if it is a concern and if so, resolving that issue first is prudent. | ||
| Panshovevo |
I know from my aircraft days that drag increases by a factor of 4 with an increase in speed. It may be that balance factors increase with speed also. I can picture something in my mind that I don't know how to explain, but I can see it causing a wheel to wobble if the balance weight wasn't inline with the opposing weight, and the rotational speed was great enough. When I get a chance, I'll see if I can find any info that explains it, or at least corroborates it. Maybe it has something to do with the gyroscopic force set up by the rotor, which because of it's diameter, is going to be greater than that of a conventional rotor, and the faster it turns, the stronger it is. Likewise, anything that disturbs it is going to have more of an effect on the wheel. Or maybe it's just the meds...  (Message edited by Panshovevo on November 19, 2015) | ||
| Nobuell |
I just pulled some pics of the race bike and found that the weights are located on the side opposite the rotor. They were installed that way by the track tire vendors. Well over 150 MPH with no problems. I expect that a narrow bike wheel with much less mass than a car does not have an issue. | ||
| Panshovevo |
It would definitely depend on how much balancing weight was needed (if it did in fact make a difference which side). So far, this picture in my mind is holding steady. I'm about to sleep (on it, not in it...) we'll see if it survives the night. Edited for corrections, and to say that thus far today, it's holding. It's early yet though. (Message edited by Panshovevo on November 20, 2015) | ||
| Skntpig |
My experience is the same as Nobuell. No issues on the track on the opposite side. |
