MOT strife

[f90x]

Yes, it's just down to individual testers. When I had my bar backs on with the comfort bars the lug was neither hear nor there as there was no slot for them and the barbacks were just tightened onto the tubes poking through the top yolk and niether of the test stations i used ever mentioned them. They just took a firm grip and shoved the bike around hard on its brakes. They stayed firm so he was happy.

[slparry]

write/email VOSA asking them, mentioning that it's a factory option etc. Then if he's wrong they'll give an advisory to the MOT man in question.

I got in touch with them when I first had my K12 and a design flaw meant it wouldn't tickover less than 3k rpm after it had been on a motorway for a while. Made threading through traffic um interesting They were very helpful in making BMW GB jump a bit faster

[simon]

Like Blackal said, only perhaps a problem if you bin the bike. If you did that, the bloody handlebars would be the least of my worries.

.. TBH if the bars on mine when I came off had had more 'give' in them, the lock-stop on the head-stock might not have been chipped off by the top yoke and the ins. company might not have written off the bike...

[Blackal]

Like Blackal said, only perhaps a problem if you bin the bike. If you did that, the bloody handlebars would be the least of my worries.

Fighting for your life and subsequent recovery might be easier if you aren't fighting the insurance company at the same time.

Al

[Mike B]

imho i think things like this put young ones off biking, too much red tape!

Give me an old classic anyday! now they really baffle the testers.

Noise regs? what noise regs?

Emmissions? what you on about?

[simon]

.. once had an MOT tester try and 'bounce' the front-end with the brake on to test the suspension.. ".. that's really stiff" he says..

[dave the german]

Remember taking my k100rs for test. Tester couldn't find the indicator switch (singular)

[Blackal]

.. ".. that's really stiff"

Said the actress to the bishop...........

Al

[Merecat]

Just to resurrect this thread from last year. Booked the bike in for this years test at the place I normally use and should have done last year if they had answered the bloody phone.
Spoke to the guy about the advisorys from last year and asked his opinion,
he said "Are there two bolts in them? and is there enough of the tube to clamp em to?
Yes and yes.
"shouldnt be a problem then"
MOT next monday!

Mick

[Corvus]

Regarding the fork tubes raised through top yoke. This can't affect the geometry because of the Telelever system, true. But surely it will affect overlap? In my eyes this is a very important factor with Telelever. Still, if it is a factory option.....

Then why did they burden themselves with more weight than necessary, if they could get away with less overlap in the first place?

Just a thought. : )

[r550s]

The fork tube bears on an upper and lower bronze bush located inside the slider. With the forks fully extended, the tube still locates inside the lower bush, even with 'bars above the yoke'.

As for the handlebar locating lugs, the shear strength offered by the M6 bolt in the lug is irrelevant and unnecessary compared to the strength of the clamp. I think the lug is only there as a teutonic forbiddance against incorrectly angling the bars so they foul the bodywork etc.

[Corvus]

The fork tube bears on an upper and lower bronze bush located inside the slider. With the forks fully extended, the tube still locates inside the lower bush, even with 'bars above the yoke'......

Hi

My point wasn't so much that the tube wouldn't locate in the lower bush. I assumed it must or there would be severe problems to say the least! I just meant the smaller amount of overlap. In principle, as I see it, the smaller the overlap distance the tighter the tolerance needed to maintain stability.

If you think of the top yoke free to pivot any which way on its ball joint, what stops it, for example, just flopping side to side? The overlap/clearance between tube and bush.

If you were to keep raising the lower bush position, without reducing the clearance between tube and bush, there would be a point when the bike would become very unstable, flopping about on its ball joints. In my eyes, the overlap distance is what keeps it all together.

I'm not criticising the modification. Just offering food for thought.

Cheers.

[f90x]

check it out


http://www.suburban-machinery.com/R1100S2.htm

[Corvus]

Here's another thing to ponder on.

On the Telelever types where the bars are clip on style and the fork tubes are clamped by the yoke, the yoke is pivoted on a ball joint. It's a ball joint for a reason. This means the top yoke can pivot in an up and down sense as well as swing side to side.

The bars are attached to it so they must pivot too. I've ridden an r1100s a few times, over distance, and tried to feel this movemement but I can't. So either I'm completely wrong or the movemement is so small as to be undetectable. I believe it is the latter reason. Because of the position of the bars, relative to the pivot point. They kind of pivot on their own axis. Plus the yoke movement will be very small anyway.

If that's true, then as the bars are moved higher and higher, the yoke movement will be magnified. Theoretically, the movement should feel fore and aft.

I wondered if that is the reason why the R models have a different system, with the yoke not on a ball joint, but each tube on one instead. Or is there another, completely different reason?

Don't forget, the ball joint(s) is necessary to allow the fork tubes to swing forwards as the suspension compresses. (To accommodate movement of the A arm).

Cheers.

[Merecat]

All sorted. Straight through, no issues as it should have been last year.

Happy bunny

Mick