The Falclimber - a stripping yarn...

Message

BenWah · #1 Post by **BenWah** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:09 pm

Following on from the swingarm weight thread, as I strip bits off the Falclimber in an effort to save weight I'll put my findings in here.

Tonight I've removed the following:

LH radiator - 900g (plus ~300g coolant)
Oil cooler - 510g (plus oil - not measured)

That little lot makes up for the 1kg of additional weight from using the RSV arm and shock.

There's not a whole lot left...

And no, Running without the flywheel or sprag gear isn't a weight saving mod - I'll be putting the flywheel back on once I've repaired the woodruff keyway and replaced the sprag.

B

Aladinsaneuk · #2 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:46 pm

cool thanks ben

Andy asked me if loosing two stone in weight would help his falco be as fast as the fast black ones - what do you think?

I do have some spare enemas i can send him to help

BenWah · #3 Post by **BenWah** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:48 am

Some more info carried over from the swingarm weight thread:

Falco swingarm including linkage - 5.96kg
RSV swingarm including linkage - 6.66kg

BenWah · #4 Post by **BenWah** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:52 am

Rear suspension weights:

RSV white spring Sachs weighs 3.09kg
Falco blue spring Sachs weighs 2.73kg

In total, swapping a Falco swingarm and shock for an RSV swinger and shock comes with a 1.06kg weight increase for the additional compression damping, length adjustment and clearance for the RSV exhaust.

dyzio · #5 Post by **dyzio** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:16 am

Sorry... but what is this climbing thing you're on about?

D-Rider · #6 Post by **D-Rider** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:38 am

How much do those natty little castors save over the hulking great wheel you seem to have scrapped?

... and I'm not doubting your figures but even allowing for the limitations of my weighing equipment I'm scratching my head as to how I failed to measure 0.7kg difference between the two when I weighed them. I'm worried now.

BenWah · #7 Post by **BenWah** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:54 am

dyzio wrote:Sorry... but what is this climbing thing you're on about?

Speed hill climbs - a point to point race on a thin tarmac road. Measured with timing lights. Normally lined with trees, armco or hedges.

B

BenWah · #8 Post by **BenWah** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:59 am

D-Rider wrote:How much do those natty little castors save over the hulking great wheel you seem to have scrapped?

... and I'm not doubting your figures but even allowing for the limitations of my weighing equipment I'm scratching my head as to how I failed to measure 0.7kg difference between the two when I weighed them. I'm worried now.

The castors are a good weight saving. But they've made the handling a little dubious... So, I'm getting tyres fitted to the OZ wheels today - ready for this weekend.

In the interest of science, I've calibrated (sort of) my scales. They're digital fishing scales and weigh to within a 10g tolerance (alledgedly). A 1kg bag of sugar weighs 1.01kg on my digital kitchen scales - and 1.01kg on the workshop scales. Yours may be a little out...

D-Rider · #9 Post by **D-Rider** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:29 am

BenWah wrote:
D-Rider wrote:How much do those natty little castors save over the hulking great wheel you seem to have scrapped?

... and I'm not doubting your figures but even allowing for the limitations of my weighing equipment I'm scratching my head as to how I failed to measure 0.7kg difference between the two when I weighed them. I'm worried now.

The castors are a good weight saving. But they've made the handling a little dubious... So, I'm getting tyres fitted to the OZ wheels today - ready for this weekend.

In the interest of science, I've calibrated (sort of) my scales. They're digital fishing scales and weigh to within a 10g tolerance (alledgedly). A 1kg bag of sugar weighs 1.01kg on my digital kitchen scales - and 1.01kg on the workshop scales. Yours may be a little out...

Yes - not so worried about the absolute values - mine two swingers were weighed on the same scales that normally are very consistent - so it's my failure to note a difference that bothers me ..... I'm thinking I must have screwed up ..... though I'm not pulling my swinger off the bike to check that out by weighing it again.

BenWah · #10 Post by **BenWah** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:53 am

D-Rider wrote: though I'm not pulling my swinger off the bike to check that out by weighing it again.

Pffft! Lack of commitment...

Samray · #11 Post by **Samray** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:01 am

Didn't use bathroom scales did you D-Rider?
What are you under the impression you weigh?

HowardQ · #12 Post by **HowardQ** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:17 pm

I heard he stood starkers on the bathroom scales and weighed himself, then asked the missus to pass him first the Falco swingarm then the RSV one and measured the differences.
Our Andy is always meticulous with things like this!

He knows the bathroom scales are accurate, as he's always weighed 9 st 6 lbs since he got them.

D-Rider · #13 Post by **D-Rider** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:28 pm

1) If I stood starkers on the scales, the Mrs would not enter the same county - let alone the same room.
2) This scenario wouldn't happen as the Mrs knows I've not made any changes to the bike (can't understand why you've all changed yours) - so what different swingarm?

3) The bathroom scales do give different numbers for things of different weights
4) Suitcases weighed on them correlate well with thw recorded weights from the scales at airport check-ins

HowardQ · #14 Post by **HowardQ** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:36 pm

I can empathise with most of your reply, but the sad thing for me is my bathroom scales have never measured 9st 6lbs when I've stood on them in recent years, and always weigh suitcases a bit below the airport checkins, I thought all bathroom scales did!
Then again, if I had had bathroon scales when I first started biking at 16 I would have probably got under that figure!!

BenWah · #15 Post by **BenWah** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:51 am

I can tell you that the chopping off the pillion section of the rear subframe saves 0.7kg - or 1.54lbs for those of you still working in Imperial.

It was interesting to see how much strain there was in the rear part of the subframe. During the welding process it must have distorted because once one of the frame rails was cut, the rest of the rear frame released slightly.

BW