1. I'm sure it's some kinda alignment issue, the pads are definitely constantly rubbing against the discs for that kinda wear. Imagine the performance that's lost! And i've lowered the brake pedal to avoid accidental operation. Just imagine after 15k kms of virtually 100% front braking, the pads are about 1/2 worn, but the rear which i rarely touch are nearly gone. and the sad part is i dont think i can convince em to change the disc in warranty. they'll just say it's a consumable wear and tear item. things like this always come back to haunt me. when i bought the bike i wanted a rear drum, which early reviews of the fi said was optional. no luck. i was actually mulling a switch to a rear drum along with the 17" rear wheel. this will require a torque stay mount on the swingarm. dunno what else. but even the 180 has a rear disc standard so i guess i'm outta luck. i repeat, for my usage and the size of bike the rtr is, i prefer a rear drum. low maintenance.

2. When i say the Y is bad i mean i've seen loads of CBZs slip and slide on em but never on the geocruiser (the oem geo was called something else earlier). but you're right about tubeless 18"ers. I'll bet it'll be miles ahead of the tvs crappers though.

3. no no, you don't get it. the 180 was designed for the 17" and they would have definitely compensated by dropping the front, raising the rear and/or modding the swingarm. the 180 will be perfect. what i'm wondering is how switching to 17" on the 160 will affect it.

@nox orkut, post the shit here, now !!! i'm so pissed i missed it. hey that rhymes

JULIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After a very long time!!!
Welcome back to the thread brother.

How you lowered it?
I tried to do it but it only fits to the slot it came fitted to.

Julian,

1. From what u say, it looks so!

2. As of today(Gods grace) never faced any slip up man. It did slip a bit while riding on totally muddy roads. By muddy, I mean loose shifting sand about 3 - 4 inches which am sure u will never experience inside city. On rain or slush, I have not had any issues. Am actually satisfied with it. Lets see how this thing holds up! Never used the Geo-cruisers so cant say.

3. Thats true, there is bound to be some difference in the rake angle etc. See if u can get hold of some manual to see it all. Some member has done it here, see if u can get details from him!

@Julian: Why not stiffer springs?

Cheers Bro, It's good to be back.

About the pedal, quite a story. This was a boon really because it forced me to correctly position the pedal which thick-soled boots woud sometimes touch. Went to the dealer to renew my insurance (didnt want to bother with the ins co). It was really sunny outside so i decided to park the bike inside. Instead of riding it in though, i decided to wheel it in. However, the speed wasn't enough and it stopped right at the top of the ramp, and fell over on the right side! Picked it up to see the pedal bent (the only damage). Most people said that when bending it back out it breaks, but i figured thats because they use a very large ring spanner, which puts the load on just two small points. So i used brute strength and just pulled the lever outwards by hand. It's still like 5mm inwards but much better than what it was. But after riding it i realised that due to the shape of the pedal, it was also bent upwards. This meant it was now being engaged under normal riding. Now if you look at the splines that fit the pedal to the shaft, the first one is a key spline which locates the pedal at the correct position on the shaft. In order to rotate it one spline down, you will need to file down this key spline. Buy a small (~5mm) file for the purpose. About 5-10mins of elbow grease should do the trick. After fitting the pedal one spline down, you will see that it's way too low now. If you look at the linkage rod, you will see a couple of lock nuts, one inside and one outside the cage like thingy. It's the one inside that sets the position of the pedal. You cannot loosen this lock nut directly with a spanner, so loosen the one outside. now find the right position and turn the inside nut with your finger. finally tighten the outside lock nut to well, lock it!

As i said, it's probably a new sticky compound and much better than the old Y. But if i were to personally use it, i'm sure the psychological effect on my mind would be disatrous due to my old perceptions!

Well, I hope Sarab can post here if he's felt any differences after moving to the 17" but that's just it. What each person feels may be different. Which is why i want numbers, figures and specs to be sure. I doubt even the svc manuals will have such details. It would only be in the chassis schematics.

SP mate, i feel the rtr springs as it is are on the stiff side. I use the 3rd or 4th stiffest position usually. But stiffer springs alone won't compensate fr the 1" loss of height.

Ahhh, it's a lengthy process, i wont it more low cuz i have to keep my foot slightly on the out side at the pegs, cuz if i keep it on the peg completely my foot touches it and activates the brake lamp.
(But still the co. setting is lower than normal)



I run on 4 setting and after trying each setting individually (3, 4 and 5), i found it the best, though they are having little difference in affects, but on leans and coming out of it, one can easily make out the diff.

The stock company setting isn't low enough. First i lowered my gear lever. As usual, the svc guys said it's not possible. Then they said the same for the brake pedal. I didn't bother with that because it wasn't a problem till i dropped the bike. I used to do the foot outside thing too. But now i can nicely tuck into an ergonomic riding position. If anything, i want lower bars and rear(er) set footrests.

Yeah, i found 4 best too, but these days i'm in economy mode so i dont ride that hard and a softer setting on 3 is more comfy.

p.s. to save my taillight i've d/c the rear brake pedal switch. I do it on all my bikes.

Welcome back dude. BTW, what shall i post? ARE pics? will do it on sunday. RTR180 has same front as of RTR160. Regarding rear, 17" is mated to 20mm longer swing arm thats it. I havent noticed any major differance in ride of 160 and 180 (i havent ridden 180 on 60+ speeds though).

The RTR180 front is not exactly the same as the 160. The steering angle and caster angle are same at 41 and 25.5 deg but the RTR 180 has a 84.3mm trail vs 160's 81.3. The combination of a smaller trail angle, shorter wheel base and 17" tyre on a 160 would make it more eager and twitchy in the corners. Moreover the rear shocks are also different. Here's what the service manual for 180 says:

1. Shock Absorber LH : N9092250
Shock Absorber RH : N9092260
2. Shock absorber body colour changed to golden yellow for better aesthetics & the Spring rating is modified for better performance.
3. Not interchangeable with existing RTR 160 vehicles.

Then there's also the question of gearing when you move to smaller tyres ...

Pics, story, whatever you've got man!

Gearing is relatively simple to sort out. My gut feeling is that with the short(er) wheelbase and a downgrade to a 17" rear, stability would be affected, negatively. If someone can measure their 180s rear shocks for length we could compare and see if they've lengthened that to compensate for the 17.

That's what I meant when I said it might be more eager and twitchy in corners. I actually wouldn't mind that if the suspension settings are right, though it'll take a while to get used to. It should be ok in straight lines though. My bike is all covered up now, can check the length of the shocks tomorrow morning and let you know. BTW why would they lengthen the shocks, if the saddle height is the same.

Because the switch from 18" to 17" rear wheel would lower the rear of the bike by 1" ? Otherwise the saddle height would be 1" or 25mm lower than the 160s

And i thought they just painted them golden, that's it.
Intertchanging them with 160 will improve the cornering dianamics for sure i believe.

And if someone swaps the swingarm of 160 with 180 then i think the bike will be lowered from rear making the front light, as the position of the rear shocks mounting may be different too.

Changing rear alloy 18" to 17" will result a 12.7mm decrease in height of axle of rear alloy.
(12.7+12.7=25.4mm = 1 inch)
Furthermore, using 110/80 profile tire would mean 88mm tire wall height.

Now by switching from 100/80-18 to 110/80-17, the tire wall height will increase by 8.0mm. So, the net decrease in rear axle height will be (12.7-8.0) 4.7mm.

After these theoretical calculations, we came to conclusion that such a marginal change in height should not hamper bike's dynamics, ergonomics and handling to much extent.

Lets wait for Sarab's verdict after thorough ride, (though I haven't ridden his bike yet after alloy change).

uptill now 17' with IRC is performing upto the mark, but yes after a thorough i can say something. for tht this saturday m heading towards himachal pradesh it will b of 1000kms ride to n fro with xbhp delhi memebers(http://www.xbhp.com/talkies/xbhp-off...il-2010-a.html) . there i can check its stability and grip while leaning n bending.