Building a GPZ1150 from a CSR1000

Here is some more info on my gear ratio at this time. I just wish i could change first gear a bit. It is just too high. I have to slip the clutch too much during roll-on from a stop. But I do love the ratios in all the other gears.

otakar wrote:

I just found it on the web. I don't think it is patented, but they trademarked (@) the name ArmorGlide@.
www.amateurmx.com/new1/index.php?option=...oducts&Itemid=800119



I personally have been doing this process for about 4 years now, along with the Ceramic crowns.

My question is pretty straight forward. Why would you go to all the trouble of coating the piston crown but leave all those sharp edges on it?


And what is the actual final drive on the bike? I see photos of 630 chain.....read talk of converting to 530 but see 625 used in the gearing calculations.

Theres a huge difference between 18/40 -630 vs 18/40-530.

larrycavan wrote:

otakar wrote:

I just found it on the web. I don't think it is patented, but they trademarked (@) the name ArmorGlide@.
www.amateurmx.com/new1/index.php?option=...oducts&Itemid=800119



I personally have been doing this process for about 4 years now, along with the Ceramic crowns.

My question is pretty straight forward. Why would you go to all the trouble of coating the piston crown but leave all those sharp edges on it?


And what is the actual final drive on the bike? I see photos of 630 chain.....read talk of converting to 530 but see 625 used in the gearing calculations.

Theres a huge difference between 18/40 -630 vs 18/40-530.

Come on Larry, you surprise me. First of all what is the pitch on a 530 chain? = .625 What is the pitch ona 630 chain? = .750 If it was a 430 chain the pitch would be .250 Also it makes no difference in ratios weather it is 530 or 630, if it is 18/40 the ratio is still the same. Now granted, the sprockets would be much larger on the 630 than the 530, The chain would be longer on the 630, but the ratio is still the same. The reason I left the pistons without rounding them off is multi fold. #1 I did not want to change the mass of them to the negative. #2 I did round the edges a bit when I media blasted them. #3 When you put the ceramic on them the edges get a bit softer anyways. #3 I did not want to decrease the compression at all by removing material. #5 The more facets in the combustion chamber, the slower the flame front, and the more efficient the burn. This is why I also left the sharp edges inside the combustion chamber, short of polishing it some. I just have my own theories and they seam to work just fine for my applications. I am not saying they are right or wrong, they just have always worked for me.

otakar wrote:

larrycavan wrote:

otakar wrote:

I just found it on the web. I don't think it is patented, but they trademarked (@) the name ArmorGlide@.
www.amateurmx.com/new1/index.php?option=...oducts&Itemid=800119



I personally have been doing this process for about 4 years now, along with the Ceramic crowns.

My question is pretty straight forward. Why would you go to all the trouble of coating the piston crown but leave all those sharp edges on it?


And what is the actual final drive on the bike? I see photos of 630 chain.....read talk of converting to 530 but see 625 used in the gearing calculations.

Theres a huge difference between 18/40 -630 vs 18/40-530.

Come on Larry, you surprise me. First of all what is the pitch on a 530 chain? = .625 What is the pitch ona 630 chain? = .750 If it was a 430 chain the pitch would be .250 Also it makes no difference in ratios weather it is 530 or 630, if it is 18/40 the ratio is still the same. Now granted, the sprockets would be much larger on the 630 than the 530, The chain would be longer on the 630, but the ratio is still the same. The reason I left the pistons without rounding them off is multi fold. #1 I did not want to change the mass of them to the negative. #2 I did round the edges a bit when I media blasted them. #3 When you put the ceramic on them the edges get a bit softer anyways. #3 I did not want to decrease the compression at all by removing material. #5 The more facets in the combustion chamber, the slower the flame front, and the more efficient the burn. This is why I also left the sharp edges inside the combustion chamber, short of polishing it some. I just have my own theories and they seam to work just fine for my applications. I am not saying they are right or wrong, they just have always worked for me.

Otto....you're missing my point.

Of course the numbers work out the same. 18 goes into 41 the same no matter what.

It's the difference in sprocket diameters that matter. Every time you convert from a 630 to a 530 chain, you're going to end up with larger sprocket tooth count in the process.

Stock J is 15/41 with 630.
Converted to 530 it's 18/49.

You're running 18/40 which is taller than stock conversion. Factor in the 16 vs 18" rear wheel and that takes you back the other way. So overall, yes you're geared higher than stock J.

But had you had 18/40 in a 630 chain, which is what I thought you had, it would be even higher gearing.

As for the piston theory...... whatever... it goes against all commonly accepted hemi chamber thinking but if you think it works in your bike...so be it.

Larry C

like driving a lincoln continental up a steep mountain with 2.73 gears,downshift and toss grandma out the door to save weight! :laugh:

here he comes ladys and gentlemen! :woohoo:
oopsies,had to downshift/resize! :laugh:

With the considerably bigger rear tire, the OD of the wheels is virtually identical to the 18" wheel and tire. It is 26.4" on the 18" tire and 25.5" on the 16" tire. That makes my tire only 3.5% smaller than the 18" tire. You will notice that i am turning 4200Revs at 79MPH. with the stock ratio I used to turn "about" 6000 at that speed. you can see that the 18 tooth sprocket in the front is the largest that will fit besides I believe it is the largest available. With the other picture you can see how small the rear sprocket is.

OK guys... Otto, I'm seriously not busting your balls here but I just don't get this.... Truly, I'm confused here and I do want to understand for knowledge/updating the brain....

I get the confusion due to posting of the 530 to 630 conversions/sprockets sizes/numbers used for a final ratio of 2.22... Yeah I get the math folks.... I'm getting old, sure but I'm not that freaking stupid... Not yet anyways... :laugh:

You have a large displacement pistons (unknown to me what compression ratio), large lift cams, highly ported head and most likely 34mmm carbs and you have to down shift at 60mph, to 3rd/2nd gear yet for passing... :blink: Wholly shit, I don't get this....

What I'm not understanding is the need to slip the clutch thus low torque in your build designed for top end speeds... OK I get that but.... the front end comes off the ground in (If I remember correctly) 4th gear when twisting it hard at 90-100mph....

Again mi amigo, I just don't understand how this is....

Ok, WTF am I missing here? :blink: :blush:

OK slipping the clutch is when I go from a complete stop, because the gear ratio is so high in first gear. The "J" motor is a much higher first gear than the KZ motors. The reason I downshift to second when I pass at 70 MPH is because "I CAN :woohoo: " The acceleration is just ungodly when I do that. Without a doubt I can pass without down shifting, But it is just much more fun to do it in second gear. You have to realize that my 4th gear ratio is almost identical to what my 5th gear ratio used to be. I believe that even you would down shift to 4th or third when you get on it. Plus your gear box has a much wider spread than mine do. Take a look at the individual gear ratios in the chart and compare that to the one in your manual.

otakar wrote:

OK slipping the clutch is when I go from a complete stop, because the gear ratio is so high in first gear. The "J" motor is a much higher first gear than the KZ motors. The reason I downshift to second when I pass at 70 MPH is because "I CAN :woohoo: " The acceleration is just ungodly when I do that. Without a doubt I can pass without down shifting, But it is just much more fun to do it in second gear. You have to realize that my 4th gear ratio is almost identical to what my 5th gear ratio used to be. I believe that even you would down shift to 4th or third when you get on it. Plus your gear box has a much wider spread than mine do. Take a look at the individual gear ratios in the chart and compare that to the one in your manual.

I wouldn't run that kind of gearing unless I was driving out to see Jim or Dave ...but I see where you're at now anyway. Been a long....frustrating week with dam little sleep and too many hours spent at the hospital. Family member very seriously injured Sunday night in a crash. Not been a great week around here

I did it because I use the bike for commuting to and from work all season from April to November. It was 41Mi one way.

Just picked up a MSD ignition for the bike. This should solve any questions of voltage at the coils. (Not that I have ever had an issue) The MSD is supposed to supply the coils with 400V instead of the usual 12V. I will be curious to see what this will do. They recommend 1.2 Ohm coils instead of my 2.2 Ohm coils.