Kawasaki Ninja 1000 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just confirming a very popular mod. Makes a nice bike nicer. Changed mine out this week and wow what a difference. No more searching for the imaginary 7th gear, I'm riding for a hundred yards from standing still till I shift to 2nd ( instead of 100 feet). Bought the JT sprocket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
The Kawi one has the rubber dampener on it and is very quiet. Not much difference in price. One of the great things about this mod is you don't really sacrifice anything in respect to peak acceleration and your top speed will go up. Rollon drops a bit in 6th but still very solid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Sorry if this has been asked before, but does this mod improve 20015/2016 models? A lot of the posts regarding this change are quite old and related to the older models of Z1k.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Sorry if this has been asked before, but does this mod improve 20015/2016 models? A lot of the posts regarding this change are quite old and related to the older models of Z1k.
As far as I know, the sprockets on all N1Ks and Z1000s all have the same sprockets so yes, this mod will improve your top end by changing the gear ratio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,228 Posts
Improve is not really a great word to describe this mod. Change is.

This gearing mod takes away a lot of low end snap. What it "improves" is ones personal feeling that the bike is spinning too many rpm, at 70 mph.

The bike is fine spinning all day long at 5000, 6000 or even 9000 rpm.

If you like the lower rpms, then great, but it doesn't improve anything except ones peace of mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
How much was the cost on the Sprocket and Install?

Also whats the RPM @ 70MPH? 500 Diff?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
You are right rcannon about the peace of mind.Personally I prefer the 'overdrive' effect of higher gearing,because of decades of operating tractors and trucks and machinery.I certainly like a motorcycle engine functioning at what is felt its most economical rate,sufficient for ' normal' acceleration in top gear provided it has with a touch with the toe the lower gear with the extra power for passing. As mentioned before in other posts my 15<16 and 41>39 suits my style of riding/touring.Also have considered making the next change of rear sprockets from 39>37 as an experiment.This would or could not even be considered if the bike was underpowered.I have never been the type that has to the first off the lights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,228 Posts
Donfre, thats the fun part here is having all that torque to manage through these sprocket changes.

I always found it rather pointless to go so far as making 2nd feel like 3rd.

plus, on this bike our issue is not sprockets. Our issue is 4.5.and. 6 are too close together. Best set up would be those three gears from the versys 1000.
Also, dont assume lower rpm means better fuel consumption. By the time a motorcycle gets up to 60mph, most of its power is used to go through the wind. It takes x amount of energy to do this.

Lowering the rpm may, or may not help. Best efficiency is often times found at half the redline.

The concoirs 14 has a real, overdrive 6th. At 70, ots spinning 3300rpm..maybe 3500, but nowhere near 4000.

Your brain says the mieliage has to be amazing. Reality says 38...just like you got in 5th gear at 4500 rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
How much was the cost on the Sprocket and Install?

Also whats the RPM @ 70MPH? 500 Diff?
My aftermarket Sprocket from JT was about 25 bucks. Did it myself with the assistance of a 65 inch cheater bar on my 1/2 inch drive 27 mm socket. I'm not sure I could've done it with 64 inch bar either. That ******* was the tightest front sprocket nut I've ever seen. Used my entire extensive vocabulary of expletives on it. A shop could do it in half an hour, depending on their vocabulary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,228 Posts
As you pulled on that 65in bar, didn't you wish you had the 90in model?

Can you imagine the poor dude trying to restore one of these in 20 years if its an original sprocket?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
In 20 years the guy will just pull out his 38 volt DeWalt impact that is the size of an I-Phone 4 and just pop it right off....lol

I did the 16 as well, and now with the 190/55 i find my speedo reads a little slower than actual which i think is pretty funny.

Even at that 5mph in 1st gear I can gas it and it pops right up. I love this bike :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
rcannon,you are right about the fun part,it is an interesting exercise balancing fuel economy against getting the 'best' performance power wise from an engine. A simple example I experienced many years ago was transporting a rainwater tank with a diameter of 10 ft. with a weight of several cwt. on an Morris LC5 25 cwt. traytop. The wind resistance nearly doubled the fuel consumption in 4th gear ,in 3rd it was nearly normal..Overloading an engine has little benefit.A Vincent rider in the 50's got a higher top speed by dropping a cog in top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,228 Posts
Donfre, you know whats strange., or proves our points.

If you go back to a 1980s era Cycle World magazine. Find something with a kz1000 , kz 1100, or gs1100 test in it.

Now, our bikes have another 40 hp (stock) and weigh 80lbs less. Still, overall fuel mileage. Most of that style bike was good for 38-40's, or just what we get now.

Best mileage I ever got was on my 79xs11 Yamaha. A performance bike, for its day.

My friend was a brand new rider, and his grandma made him start with a small bike. She bought him a Yamaha 50, special.....Yes, not 650, not 850.....just plain 50.

I followed him around a 200mile loop of our city. This means the same 50 mile loop, four times. We never exceeded 50 mph (he topped out at 49mph).

I thought my fuel gauge was busted as it still showed a high fuel level. No, no issues. I got 85mpg, he was well over 90.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
It all comes down to aerodynamics over about 45 mph. So if it takes 45 HP to go 65 mph, it doesn't matter too much what your motor is (unless a 2 stroke or rotary) but generally you are going to use the same amount of fuel to make a given HP - BUT best fuel efficiency will be if you can keep the motor at its torque peak. That is why CVTs work well.

Below the 45 mph, a lot more variables come into play as rolling resistance and internal drag are significant factors, not just aero. Drag from rolling is linear, aero is exponential so it rises much more quickly with speed and quickly dwarfs the power requirement of rolling resistance. Aero drag goes up by the square of speed but HP required goes up by the cube.

If I ride my K16 at about 45 mph, I can get over 55 mpg. I would have a range of almost 400 miles then. My BMW's fueling was spot on at almost all speeds, my Ninja not so much. So you can see what that does to fuel consumption when you ride fast and how quickly you reach your top speed wall. Best way to go fast and/or get great highway mileage is to improve aero (either improve drag coefficient or reduce frontal area; ideally both).

Ideally for economy, and pretty much for steady state load, I'd love to have an EGT be able to tune the motor to peak EGT, back off a bit (on the rich side) and leave it there. All is great as long as my load doesn't change too much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
The Kawi one has the rubber dampener on it and is very quiet. Not much difference in price. One of the great things about this mod is you don't really sacrifice anything in respect to peak acceleration and your top speed will go up. Rollon drops a bit in 6th but still very solid.
The difference in acceleration is noticeable tho.
I went back to OEM teeth because of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Peak acceleration, from a standing start, is virtually identical. Roll-on is a bit reduced. If I am that much of a hurry, I can downshift. For me the benefits outweighed the slight loss of roll-on power. I did a lot of modeling on the times and you might lose like a .3 seconds in the 60-80 (100kph to 130kph) mph roll-on vs. stock in 6th gear. I can live with that. If you do go with the /55 rear tire, it takes a little more of a hit.

When I did the performance modeling for the 1/4 mile. The 16T typically affected the time about .12-18 seconds. Not a huge difference but the bike had a bigger sweet spot to be able to launch it quickly. So if you hit the 15T just right, every time it would be marginally faster than the 16T and you had to hit it perfectly. To launch the 16T quickly you had a wide range of clutch/rpm combos so it was easier to be consistently quick. I'll go for the easier to launch every time rather than relying on almost perfection EVERY time to have the quicker run. In other words, if you blew the launch just a little bit on the 15T, the 16T was going to be quicker and easier to launch. YMMV of course.

My personal experience showed that it was in fact easier to launch with the 16T. Basically hold the revs at about 4k, and let out the clutch while adding throttle until everything was hooked up and away you go. Virtually the same time as revving and dumping the clutch and shock loading the driveline a lot more. The 16T does give several MPH to the top speed if you so desire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Peak acceleration, from a standing start, is virtually identical. Roll-on is a bit reduced. If I am that much of a hurry, I can downshift. For me the benefits outweighed the slight loss of roll-on power. I did a lot of modeling on the times and you might lose like a .3 seconds in the 60-80 (100kph to 130kph) mph roll-on vs. stock in 6th gear. I can live with that. If you do go with the /55 rear tire, it takes a little more of a hit.

When I did the performance modeling for the 1/4 mile. The 16T typically affected the time about .12-18 seconds. Not a huge difference but the bike had a bigger sweet spot to be able to launch it quickly. So if you hit the 15T just right, every time it would be marginally faster than the 16T and you had to hit it perfectly. To launch the 16T quickly you had a wide range of clutch/rpm combos so it was easier to be consistently quick. I'll go for the easier to launch every time rather than relying on almost perfection EVERY time to have the quicker run. In other words, if you blew the launch just a little bit on the 15T, the 16T was going to be quicker and easier to launch. YMMV of course.

My personal experience showed that it was in fact easier to launch with the 16T. Basically hold the revs at about 4k, and let out the clutch while adding throttle until everything was hooked up and away you go. Virtually the same time as revving and dumping the clutch and shock loading the driveline a lot more. The 16T does give several MPH to the top speed if you so desire.
Not trying to be a butt hat, but I have to assume you have never drag strip launched either gear. they do not have the same acceleration rates to be honest, but this bike is so short wheelbase it's hard to tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Yes, I have launched it pretty hard in a variety of conditions. I spent a lot of years engaged in all kinds of racing, including drag racing. I did quite a few launches, with TC and without. The 15T and 16T both. I tried high RPM launches, babying it off the line, putting my boots under the swingarm to unload it so easier to spin rather than hooking up and wheelieing away. SO no, I guess I put no thought into it at all.

A huge shock loading to the drive train doesn't necessarily make a good dragstrip launch. So if you think just revving it up and dumping the clutch is the only way to go, then you are mistaken. You don't have to believe the modeling. I ran a bunch of scenarios and I replicated what it suggested against a consistent baseline vehicle after I had refined a few of its suggestions.

Maybe you've never used modeling software but the industry I came from, aerospace, used it to keep a lot of people from dying and wasting a lot of money. It all comes down to physics and at some point making some educated guesses about information you don't have concrete values for. So what it allowed me to do is play a lot of what if scenarios and weed out the ones with low chances of success without destroying my equipment on along the way. If you are smaller/heavier than me, then what is best for you may be different.

Pretty amazing though when the scenario says my top speed will be 160 with the taller gearing and that is what I hit and with stock gearing it said 155 and I was just over 154. It means I was pretty **** close on the HP, TQ and frontal area and drag numbers. Yes, I went to the trouble of shining a light on the front of the bike with a person on it and calculating the frontal area from the shadow after I traced it to be as accurate as possible. I made a good estimate of its drag coefficient and took the time to map dyno plots and entered all the gearing values, primary, final drive. I factored in tire sizes such as 190/55 or the stock 190/50 as they affect gearing. But hey, I am just talking out my rectum here... I have no basis in reality.

So I don't go by seat of the pants results, your butt dyno is often wrong. The N1k has a broad torque curve and that gives it more flexibility in gearing choices. Anyway I am done with this topic. Believe what you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Without prejudice ,I believe you have posted some very enlightened scenarios in regard to various aspects of gears ,EUs etc. DT, and I for one have appreciated the information I have gained from them.Your experiences have also added another interesting aspect to your posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,228 Posts
I'm running the stock 15, up front, but 39 rear.

The best part of this is because you can find a z1000 cush drive, on ebay, for 20.00 shipped.

I cans witch rear "sprockets" in a just a few minutes . The 39 rear was from a new, take off 2014 zx10 and was 10.00.

The 41-39 switch is not as drastic, but still a decent change.

I'm not entirely sold on the change. The low end feel is not as nice. The snap, right off idle is missing.

Plus, spinning 4750 rpm as opposed to 5000 is a "whatever".

The z 1000's (10-13) stock gearing was a 15/42 so its not like a few more rpm hurts the bike.

I'm at 4500 feet elevation, so a stock bike is much closer to 100hp than 120.
 
1 - 20 of 97 Posts
Top