2009 Ninja EX500r
Edit. Never mind. Good Luck with your search.
"No comment" other than to say if it's redundant why did Kawasaki put one on other than my previous post, if it's good enough for the manufacturer it's good enough for me.all in all total silliness. unless the chain breaks the front sprocket can't come off. making the whole lock plate redundant
Raced for 12 years with3 bikes never used a lock plate
when a manufacturer makes something I mean everything it has to be "idiot proof" because some idiot is going to use it sometime and if anything goes wrong and it's proved that it could have been avoided. yeah compensation claims are expensive.
a race bike doesn't have to be idiot proof and can be rebuilt after every race weekend
hey yorkie do you have any write ups detailing the changes to your gen 2 bike? id be curious to learn more what all you did. As I seem to be doing similar mods any info would be appreciated. As for the instability while braking in the wet it has me thinking 2 things. first did you do any rear suspension mods to allow for a proper sprung to unsprung ratio as fog mentioned, did you run and aftermarket shock or spring things like that. I bring up suspension because it plays a huge role in braking in any condition due to traction being limited by suspension reaction. the second thing that has come to mind is the possibility of the rear brake now being too powerful for the lighter rear end. It sounds counter intuitive but a less intense brake on the rear could help braking by limiting the ease at which the rear tire locks up. If it locks up too easy then it will be next to pointless to press on the rear brake with any amount of pressure. Last thing that I just thought about would be your tire size and pressure you run as a lighter rear end could bring up the potential need of a smaller tire too allow for a smaller contact patch but greater pressure. Again these are all just thoughts Ive had mulling around most of which was brought up by riding bicycles alot before ever riding motorcycles where even though the bike was many many times lighter I never had a problem breaking in the wet. I am looking forward to your reply or any one else that can chime in on the subjecthi, no problem we all have to learn, there is nothing like the enthusiasm of youth we have all been there. many if not most of the older members have lifetime of experience behind them. not easy to replicate with new ideas (which maybe not all are that new), in a sensible discussion far more can be gained than a shouting match with no winners.
we are all here on voluntary basis to help those who need it, the more the better both for members and this particular bike which is rapidly becoming rarer and more obsolete.
on the bike front while weight saving will no doubt achieve some of the goals you aim for remember that it is not the whole picture as different scenarios have to be considered, for example. I have two EX's (GPZ's in Europe) one is a rebuilt stock gen 1 (with improvements) bike, while the other a naked (highly modified) streetfighter type rat bike gen 2, despite the gen 2 being some 30+ kilos lighter than the gen 1 guess which one is quicker, easier to ride and handles better, yup the gen 1.
now the gen 2 is a nice bike but it lacks the finer points of the gen 1, wind resistance at 100mph is brutal, being so light on the rear end makes it prone to drifting while braking especially in the wet. because the front forks are lighter and softer bottoming out was a problem until I fitted anti dive springs. all issues associated with weight loss in one way or another. worth considering as a whole.
also while I'm here, in the photo of the engine sprocket I noticed you have nuts on the outside of the locking ring with what looks like bolts through the sprocket, seems strange.
how are you going to locate the locking ring on the shaft once the sprocket is in place when you have to turn the ring 1/4 of a turn to lock it in, surely the bolts will get in the way of fitting it onto the shaft. just a thought.
how would you say this applies to riding in the rain and rear wheel slippage? Do you think and smaller caliper with less pad material would help in the rain? Also what are your thoughts on different tire sizes and ratios? I appreciate the info and would like to further pick your brainYes the rear brake is too powerful. For aggressive braking or racing you need to limit the rear brake. We removed over 1/2 of the pad material to eliminate the possibility of rear lock up.
‘actually I only used the brake at one spot . At London ther was a over the hill turn that you needed a stab at the rear to set the front down to make it turn, or at least stick better.
otherwise the brake was unnecessary.
That is certainly an interesting project, it is definitely satisfying to seem a project come together. I wish i could parse out what is making the rear unload, hard part is that there are so many variables considering the random assortment of parts used. BTW very cool to build a bike from the parts bin, i love hearing about projects like that. As i ride my bike more Ill try to look out for the rear unloading and let you know my experience. Something i really wish to test out is to ride a stock 500 and my bike back to back to see and feel what differences there are.hi, to answer your questions first, yes I have done some write ups although they may not be what you think I'll find them and post a link, the second is the (gen 2) is a general term for being different to the gen 1 it's not a gen 2 bike never was, it's built by me at home from nothing but spare parts from the ground up. the only parts gen 2 are the main frame and engine I put in it, everything else is whatever fit at the time of building. a lot of the parts I couldn't even guess which bike they came from (my spare parts boxes goes back decades) if it fit and worked it went on the bike (refurbed of course).
the original idea in my head was to build a cruiser type bike. took two years to complete the first stage, but it was only ever meant to be a ongoing (probably never finished) project bike.
in the end I got the bike I wanted to build with the annoying result it was far too heavy and (underpowered) fully loaded, so that phase came to an end and I put it on a drastic diet, absolute maximum weight loss wasn't a priority as it still had to be practical. but still managed to shed 50kilos. in some ways the bike now seems tool light on the rear the ratio front to back has been altered so much from the original concept it doesn't help.
when I say drifting I don't mean locking up although that's easy with the 12in rear drum it's more a feeling of the rear unloading and tyre losing traction, could be partly due to the new (un-scrubbed) rear tyre which is a harder compound than I use on the gen 1. and the stiffer rear shock (SV650) that I left on the bike, the tyre is a 130/90/16 same size as the gen 1, so I doubt it is that. by the way I still run a 530 104link drive chain.
the front forks have been changed to lighter ones but the springs seemed underrated and too soft.
with modifications I have managed to make it more stable and fitting anti dive springs also helps but it still unloads the rear sometimes.
here is a rather long thread on it, some of it goes off topic so skip over them gives you a general idea though.
cruiser revamp | Ex-500.com - The home of the Kawasaki EX500 / Ninja 500R
I posted the weight on my build post. My weight distribution was pretty much dead even 50/50 I'm curious where our differences are. Also I nearly made my goal of 100lbs of weight savings!yeah there is nothing quite like riding a bike you built yourself, for yourself. the puzzlement on fellow bikers faces when parked up trying to work out what the hell it is, and being totally wrong is somehow kind of satisfying in weird sort of way and then after you tell them, the reaction of "wish I could do that" confirms you did a pretty good job of assembling all those random parts.
of course in doing so you always have to make some compromises, and these are the ones that cause issues at some point, the unloading of the rear while not critical is unfortunate, I believe it's mainly due to the weight loss as it never did it before when it weighed some 210kg and had a front to back balance of around 55/45 percent front to rear.
now it's more like 145kg with a ratio of 70/30 it has make a huge difference, (the Gen 1 is 178kg btw with a ratio more or less 60/40) although these weights are an estimate as it is difficult to get accurate readings only using one weight source, but they are near enough I think.
as for difference between the two bikes there is no real comparison. as they are two completely different animals like compering a Horse with a Zebra kind of looks like the same bits. but way different as a whole,