Holy frijoles! 16 tooth!

[SF_Rider]

Just had new chain and sprockets installed. Went with the 16 up front. Man. If you thought the 990 was fast to begin with, hang on tight.

If your thinking of doing this just jump in. If you weren't thinking of doing this, start thinking of doing it!

[triplenickel]

Wait until you start playing with the back end.

[mousitsas]

I thought so myself until I started de-restricting the intake....

[Sporting Wood]

2004 called, said something about getting caught up.

[hooliken]

Originally Posted by Sporting Wood

2004 called, said something about getting caught up.

[BartG]

I went from 17 - 42 to 16 - 45... let me tell you, BIG difference!

No point in having a ADV that can do over 200KPH

[mousitsas]

Originally Posted by BartG

I went from 17 - 42 to 16 - 45... let me tell you, BIG difference!

No point in having a ADV that can do over 200KPH

Gearing on its own does not mean much. Goes hand to hand with how good fueling is. Based on my experience with the different setups I have tried on my SE, I would say that 1st with 16/45 is a necessity on a stock carb-ed 950 but pretty useless on the street with a better carb/exhaust setup. Right now I have 17/42 and my bike can climb my garage ramp (not too steep but steep enough) on 1st at idle.

[DrKayak]

I run crazy low gearing on my 450. 50MPH is maxed out in 6th. I considered going lower than 17/42 on my 950 but just can't see wanting it geared any lower on the street.

Once I was on some wicked technical stuff and the 950 got hot from slipping the clutch to go slow. On the other hand, I use 6th on the pavement every ride to milk more range out of the fuel hungry beast.

[rokklym]

Originally Posted by BartG

I went from 17 - 42 to 16 - 45... let me tell you, BIG difference!

No point in having a ADV that can do over 200KPH

I'm putting that on my bike soon, I've had the chain and sprockets a while, just haven't had a chance to do it yet. Can't wait!

[TheMuffinMan]

I run 16/42 and that feels a good mixed size. For all the mountains around me a 16/45 would be nicer for the technical climbs but I wouldn't want the deceased range brought on by the lower fuel economy at highway speeds (120-130 kph)

Then again after going to a .5 clutch oil jet slipping the clutch for an extended duration isn't an issue with 16/42.

[rokklym]

With the stock gearing I rarely use 6th, so I think I should be OK with the lower gearing for now. Next springs long trip might be much, but maybe I'll just throw on a 17 for that.

[triplenickel]

The gearing changes really don't have much effect on range I find, I'm at 16/47 and still get the damn near same as I did with stock and there's no comparing the 2 fun wise.

[Just Paul]

Originally Posted by sporting wood

2004 called, said something about getting caught up.

[Sporting Wood]

Originally Posted by triplenickel

The gearing changes really don't have much effect on range I find, I'm at 16/47 and still get the damn near same as I did with stock and there's no comparing the 2 fun wise.

+1
Its incorrect to associate lower rpm's at speed with better mileage. Its just an assumption, completely unsubstantiated, and a reflection of the posters misunderstanding of how motors work. If this were true, every vehicle would be geared to idle for cruise... Motor efficiency is a function of several factors, rpm being only a small part, torque curve being the biggest.

Since you have your bike geared to where your riding right in the meat of the LC8's torque, your mpg is no worse.

I personally found that running 16/45 slightly boosted my typical range over what I got when I first got my bike. Now typically getting the light around 180-190 miles, and running big fat 175 main jets to boot.

[Navin]

16-50 is the cat's pajamas. +1 on the MPG, has little to no effect. The wrist controls the fuel.