kz1000s handle wierd since they were new...

Back in my younger days...well, I was going on 30, I got a KZ1300. It didn't last long, which turned out to be a blessing in disguize (I'm pretty sure the bike was sabotaged -- that's a long story). I was certainly headed to becoming a public spectacle. It was my sole means of transportation and I went everywhere on it.

My normal cruising speed on the freeways and highways was between 100 and 120 on the speedometer. I never paid much attention to the tach; I mostly went by ear. So much of the time I was drunk or high or both.

As time has gone on, I've reflected alot on that kind of riding and have felt embarrased, ashamed and scared of the danger I was putting myself and others in.

My greatest "feat" on that '79 1300 was to top the 210 bypass in Lake Charles, La showing just under 150 (I call it 147) with a buddy on the back hollering: "Faster! Faster!". If someting had gone wrong at that speed "they" would have been picking us up with tweezers.

Couple of years later I made a lot of changes in my life. One of the things I had to give up was my fascination with fast bikes ( I was scared of myself mostly).

Now, I'm getting back into bikes (I'm 57) and I hope I'll have a little more sense about me.

Don't know what that's got to do with anything. Just thought I'd share.

76Z900 wrote:

OK - so I had a KZ900 25 years ago, and again now. I would agree that riding along for any distance at 100mph takes either a) some youthful bravado, or b) some real stones. 100 IS fast; the end result of any kind of misfortune at that rate of speed versus a more sedate pace is, IMHO, amplified geometrically.

Hey, more power to you if you want to do it; I pushed my KZ900 (then) up to 100 +/-, but surely wouldn't do so now -- way too many middle aged rider fatalities already.

I also grew up in an era (70s) when Detroit's finest cars weighed 2 tons or better with massive V8s. I did 120 or so ONCE in a car...until a slight bump/dip in the freeway sent us wallowing over three lanes before we could bring the 440 powered Plymouth back in line. Thank goodness it was late at night, which BTW was when most real fun happened back then.

Point is, fast is fast and bad things can happen quickly -- but I respect that it's your decision on how you ride.

thats my point i guess,just because some of the new bikes like gsxrs and zxs are capable of 150 doesnt mean you need to do it

KZErider wrote:

Back in my younger days...well, I was going on 30, I got a KZ1300. It didn't last long, which turned out to be a blessing in disguize (I'm pretty sure the bike was sabotaged -- that's a long story). I was certainly headed to becoming a public spectacle. It was my sole means of transportation and I went everywhere on it.

My normal cruising speed on the freeways and highways was between 100 and 120 on the speedometer. I never paid much attention to the tach; I mostly went by ear. So much of the time I was drunk or high or both.

As time has gone on, I've reflected alot on that kind of riding and have felt embarrased, ashamed and scared of the danger I was putting myself and others in.

My greatest "feat" on that '79 1300 was to top the 210 bypass in Lake Charles, La showing just under 150 (I call it 147) with a buddy on the back hollering: "Faster! Faster!". If someting had gone wrong at that speed "they" would have been picking us up with tweezers.

Couple of years later I made a lot of changes in my life. One of the things I had to give up was my fascination with fast bikes ( I was scared of myself mostly).

Now, I'm getting back into bikes (I'm 57) and I hope I'll have a little more sense about me.

Don't know what that's got to do with anything. Just thought I'd share.

Hey Gang - Last night I was out for an evening ride on my bike. This is always my preferred time to go for a spin as there are fewer people on the road.

I had just gassed up to end the night and took a ride down the road leading out of town which loops around to my place. Up ahead I noticed a few cop cars and the highway ramps blocked off. Nobody was getting through so I turned around.

This morning I found out a 27 year old guy had plowed his Firebird into a rock cut at 120 mph (201 kmph.) The news stated that the guy had been clocked at this speed so I assume that he passed a cop who had the speed gun on him when the Firebird lost control on a gently dip in the road.

The young driver was killed instantly as rock cuts don't bend.

Not to get sidetracked on this post but I don't care if my bike will do 120, 130 or 180 like some of the crotch rockets. Playing at these types of speed on public roads are for those with a death wish. Top speed testing for bike magazines or manufactureres is for the pros, on closed tracks.

Personally, every once in a while I will give a little extra throttle for a quick little squirt up to 60 mph but the days of needing or caring about top speed runs are decades behind me. If I need to go any quicker than highway speed I will take it to the track.

Not trying to be judgemental here, just passing on my own personal version of common sense and an inherent desire to meet my grandkids one day. Back when I was young, foolish and had more testosterone than brains, I used to feel the need for speed every time I turned on the ignition on my bike or car.

Colin Firth-Ontario Canada

Archimitis:

Well, sounds like you've addressed most of the things that are the traditional culprits for your handling gremlin (bearings). With that much work done I'm sure your wheels are properly balanced so I won't offer that. You spoke earlier about stock steering heads being "out" from the factory, and it is true that race teams re-attached their steering heads for a couple reasons. It is feasable that your steering head is not out of alignment HOWEVER ... (1) it'd be costlyto send your frame off to Computrack and (2) normally misaligned frames tend to make a bike handle better when turning one direction and worse when turning the opposite direction, and that is not your complaint. My next suggestion: you seem to be mechanically competent, perhaps you can string test the alignment of your front and rear wheels.

Lightening the bike is big, taking the starter motor off the bike is BIG for power gains. I'm suprised that you haven't smoked your tach, yet. The reduction in internal reciprocating mass with the starter removed has a big impact in the power output of those bikes. I have no doubt about your top speed. If you ever install smoothbore carbs, take off your stock tachometer before you rev it, the tach won't be able to keep up and one rev will kill it.

Personal note: I've been 27 also and done the things that you do, and did them with the same regularity that you do...same with pretty much everybody here. They're offering you the 'personal advice' b/c they like what they see in you and they'd like to make sure you are able to stay on the forum for the long haul. Take their parable-oriented advice for what it is: friendly. We like ya, so let's see if we can figure out what's goin' on with your bike.

-KR

I've never owned a KZ1000, but I believe one of the most noticable design weaknesses of the '70's was the rear shocks. My '77 KZ650C1 shocks were whipped after about 10,000 miles. This did not noticably affect straight line driving, but it did make things somewhat unstable in fast turns. I replaced the shocks with S&W's and the bike was transformed. If your shocks are original or not in really good shape, you may consider replacing them with new, quality units. It may not solve all your handling problems, but it can't hurt. Ed

I'm curious how removing the starter makes any power gain. Nothing in the starter is turning when the engine is running as the starter clutch won't allow it, so it looks to me like the exact same gears are turning in the engine regardless of whether the starter motor is there.

FACT! hahaha this post is a bit ridiculus....

I think removing the starter was proposed as a weight savings issue.

When I pulled the starter off my Z-1 (I don't think I pulled anything else...hmmmm...makes me wonder about what exactly I did to it 20 yrs ago...)...anyway it made the motor spin way faster than before and I "spun" the tach into oblivion. Is there a 'starter clutch' that you can disengage when you remove the starter (old Z motors, I'm talking about)?

Dont' want to appear to be an idiot (...oops, too late! :lol: ) but I haven't been in the bottom end of a bike since way back then (and you can't really count removing a starter as 'getting into the motor') ... anybody gonna bail me out here...what else did I do that made the thing 'zing'...had to have been something simple if I did it when I was in college...but the difference was huge.

Post edited by: Bad Kaw, at: 2007/07/19 16:10

Just guessin, did you pull the alt. off the end of the crank? That will make a BIG difference.

archemitis wrote:

. . . another article said the frames flex so bad because they are under built that they flex like mad . . .so my bike snakes down the highway, wont go straight, just kind of long slow wobbles from side to side. i can go 140 mph and it isnt bad enough to kill me, but it feels pretty wierd . . .basically my question is... are the 1000s just too much motor in too flimsy of a frame, or is something wrong with the wobbly ones?

From a coffee table book titled "The Ultimate Motorcycle Book," by Hugo Wilson, ISBN 1-56458-303-1
Dewey Decimal # A629.2275 WIL Copyright 1993, p.121:

"Early frames had a tendancy to flex around the steering head. Bracing was added, but the handling was never ideal."

The rated top speed of the machine per Kawasaki specifications was 131 mph. (probably with a bitty Japanese test rider in a full tuck, holding his handlebars with one hand, and his ass with the other as the bike undulated, doing long slow wobbles from side to side.)

Lots of pretty pictures of bikes and useful information, too.



Post edited by: KaZooCruiser, at: 2007/07/19 18:43

Z1R rider wrote:

Just guessin, did you pull the alt. off the end of the crank? That will make a BIG difference.

Probably, huh! Man, it's been 20 years...I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday, but that sounds reasonable. It wouldn't have been anything that required true mechanical skill (obviously) ...and I did convert it over to strictly drag-racing for a while... ...I dunno... You're probably right. Thanks!