Riders Of Vision

General => TechTalk => Topic started by: charlie h. on May 04, 2012, 06:38:44 AM

Title: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: charlie h. on May 04, 2012, 06:38:44 AM
Hi everyone,
   I am new to the forum but not to Visions, having purchased one new in 1982. Afrer 17k it lunched the cam when the timing gear bolt came loose...  :(
   I now have a low mile(6600) 82 Vision with the sport fairing, and also have several 1st gen Venture Royals which I love! My question is, will a Venture rear end fit the Vision, and would it raise the ratio for touring/ top end? I have a spare pig that I can use, and cursory inspection shows similar mounting. Anyone have any knowledge? I have a Tt600 shock that i will install shortly also! Thanks in advance for replies.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Lucky on May 04, 2012, 08:35:13 AM
We don't know of any conversion like that that will just bolt on, so you would be the first. Will it work? maybe. I guess it's fairly obvouis that you'll have to look everything over & see if everything lines up, including drive shaft. take lots of pictures for us..

There is a way to increase gearing for lower rpms at crusing speed: install an Euro clutch basket & driven gear. that works too...

Good luck, keep us posted.

--Lucky
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: jefferson on May 04, 2012, 05:24:50 PM
It is my understanding that all the diffs of that era were the same ratio wise. In order to change the gear ratio the ring gear would have to change diameter and there isn't room for it to get larger. A taller ratio might be possible as the ring gear would get smaller, but there might not be room for the pinion to get bigger. I think they will be the same. Manuals for both bikes might help. The one for the Vision lists the ratio as 3.07 but I think it is including the gears at the front.  It shows 19/18 times 32/11.

Jeff
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Prophet Of Doom on May 05, 2012, 12:57:46 AM
Doesn't the Venture have a 16" Rear wheel ?  That would change things a bit

Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rick G on May 05, 2012, 02:23:42 AM
It also had a bigger tyre . The diameter is close to the same.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: charlie h. on May 05, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
Well, you are all correct kinda, the vmax had a lower ratio rear gear which you could swap into the venture for more acceleration. I also looked at the Vision splines on the rear wheel and they look very similar to the spare rear wheel i have for the venture, so i would use the Vision wheel. The pigs are a little different, but the ratios may be different, as the venture redlines at 7,500rpm aand the vision at 10krpm. Now if the ring and pinion are interchangeable, it may be the taller ratio might fit into the vision pig.... then, the 750 virago has a pig that looks identical (81-83) to the vision and they are both monoshock swingarms with shaft drive.Same thing, lower redline on the 750. Might be a way to get taller gears for the vision with minimal muss and fuss. What do you think?
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: jefferson on May 05, 2012, 09:58:19 PM
I am going to go out on a limb and say that the gearing difference between the Vmax and Venture is somewhere other than the rearend. I am betting that the gears at the front of the driveshaft are different, or it could be the primary gears which I think would be most likely. Venture primary would be like our euro gears and the Vmax would be what we have stock.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rick G on May 05, 2012, 10:59:14 PM
This discussion was brought up years ago. All the ring and pinions are the same. Gearing differences are in the primary drive. I was told (but did not verify) that the "euro gears" are the same as the SR 500. The reason for this is that the primary drive gears are cheaper to produce than the ring and pinion.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Prophet Of Doom on May 06, 2012, 07:35:03 AM
XZv2 put a XV70 wheel on his bike "The 16 wheel has the same brake and it fits right into the XZ rear fork."

Check it out on http://xz550.nl/ under "The Sidecar"
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rikugun on May 06, 2012, 07:58:46 AM
I think he used  a Virago 750 wheel. I believe the wheel height was lower ie the circumference was less. He did that to mimic a numerically higher overall ratio to ease taking off from a stop with the additional weight of the side car. He did not mind losing top end as the rig was unstable at higher speeds anyway.  :(  I think the OP is looking for taller (numerically lower) overall ratio. I think it also lowered the back to match the front that he lowered.

Interestingly he also reversed the forks left to right to end up with a leading axle fork in the interest of adding stability to the handling characteristics. :) I'm considering trying this to see how it affects handling without the sidecar of course.  ;)
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rick G on May 06, 2012, 05:02:12 PM
I was going to try it when I bought my first XV. It puts the brake caliper on the front of the right fork leg , which is less desirable .
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rikugun on May 06, 2012, 06:58:21 PM
Yup, I've considered the various functional and aesthetic repercussions and am OK with them depending on the positives.  :) Plus, it's reversible.  ;)
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Walt_M. on May 06, 2012, 07:13:35 PM
It would be reversible provided you survive the test ride. Reversing the forks will reduce the trail over an inch! Not a good thing for an already quick handling bike.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rikugun on May 07, 2012, 10:13:06 AM
Walt you curmudgeonly old fart I knew you cared!   :-*  :-*

I agree on paper it looks wrong. What's confusing to me is another bike of mine with the same castor angle  and 3/4" less trail has a completely different feel to it.  I'd describe it as rock solid vs. the V's rather twitchy, wobble prone nature.  :o  :(
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: treedragon on May 07, 2012, 04:38:01 PM
I know someone who tried forks around the other way.

After the first, and only, ride he came back looking very pale and avowed that the standard setup worked really well all things considered...................  ;D  ;D

 
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rikugun on May 07, 2012, 08:45:24 PM
Thanks for the report Treedragon.  :)

Oh, and my apologies to charlie h for taking this off topic!  :-[  :)
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rick G on May 08, 2012, 01:41:45 AM
I do not find the  VX "twitchey", nor does it have a " wobbly prone nature". Perhaps yours need repair???
It handles marvelously quickly in any situation . At speeds over 80 mph , in a large radius sweeper it runs out of horsepower, to drive out of the curve , but is not the least unsettling.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rikugun on May 08, 2012, 09:09:28 AM
It's all a matter of perspective and degrees Rick. As with any topic there will be those with various positions. I've been fortunate and had the opportunity to ride many bikes of various types and as I'm sure you are aware some are inherently more stable than others. On the other hand, some folks have much less exposure so their perspective is limited and others will never push the bike to experience it's limits.

In another thread someone posts his concern about a high speed wobble. At the time my position in that thread was challenged, 60% of the respondents site having experienced some degree of headshake or wobble. That is significant. Thirty percent don't say one way or the other but if you read between the lines I suspect a number of them have experienced some unsettling event at some point or another. Only one respondent claims the platform to be rock solid.  These are simply not the stats of a rock solid handling bike.

No bike is perfect. When the V is pushed it can reveal handling deficiencies. Stack up a few problems and you've got a potentially dangerous situation when the bike is pushed hard.  :o Why do you suppose aftermarket shocks and fork braces are so coveted and Progressive fork springs a requirement?  In a magazine test from late '82, four half litre bikes are compared in various modes from running errands to track time. Only the Vision received comments concerning handling woes that could not be addressed with adjustments provided in stock trim. Perhaps the opinion of professional cycle testers carries more weight than my assessments.   :)

For those that would question my loyalty to the bike let me assure you I would not invest the time and money if I didn't love this bike! It has many great qualities. When you're smitten you can even accept minor faults as "charming quirks"  :D Marvelously quick handling does not necessarily a stable bike make. Smitten, absolutely. Blinded by love, not by a long shot!  ;D 
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rick G on May 08, 2012, 07:32:45 PM
I can agree with a great deal of what you said . I was an active wrench from 1963 to 1980 and continued as an owner/mechanic . Went back to it when I first retired in OR. in a greasy hole. (lots of old wobbly bikes there! I've owned way over a hundred and 25, bikes (lost count)  and as a wrench have ridden thousands of bikes on test rides. Many bikes resent being pushed hard on a twisty road.I don't  find the XZ one of those, it seems to enjoy it. I've pulled stuff that I wouldn't try on anything less that a modern sport bike , but my XZ handles it fine.
OK its not stock , there are spacers on the fork springs (didn't like the Progressives ) Tapered rollers on the T stem, and an '83 shock. and the bars are different. But those add a small measure of comfort . I have the four bike comparison article and can say I didn't agree with all of it , I've ridden all of the bikes tested at one time or another. It may be, that I do NOT like four cylinder bikes. I may be biased against them as I had to work on them, but to me there power band is to far up the rpm scale , not enough low rpm torque.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: fret not on May 09, 2012, 01:21:51 AM
1981 GS 1100.  The cheap one with wire spoke wheels.  Bags of low RPM torque.

Regarding whether the venture and XZ read drives can swap, I doubt it but really don't know.  The Venture is about twice the size of the Vision, so logic tells me probably not.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Lucky on May 09, 2012, 07:28:19 AM
Kinda touchy there Riku. :) :)  no one is upset or is questioning your 'loyalty'... it's all good bro.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rikugun on May 09, 2012, 12:34:56 PM
Kinda touchy there Riku. :) :)  no one is upset or is questioning your 'loyalty'... it's all good bro.

Not touchy at all, don't read too much into it. The loyalty comment was a preemptive thing as there are some who can easily be offended!   :)
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rick G on May 09, 2012, 09:08:35 PM
Fret ,  the GS110 should have lots of torque , the engine is certainly big enough. I was referring to bikes in the Visions size.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: fret not on May 09, 2012, 11:47:57 PM
Years ago I have had Honda 4s in the 350, 500, and 750 sizes, and all could use more torque at lower RPMs.  I put GRIZZLY exhaust systems on all of them and got an immediate and welcome increase in low end torque but nothing like the box stock GS 1100.  Now I wonder what a GRIZZLY exhaust system would do for the Suzuki.  A big part of the effect as explained to me by the designer were the small diameter header pipes leading to the collector.  Higher RPMs are great if you are racing but for the street I much prefer power at lower range where the motor doesn't have to work so hard yet still can push you down the road at a good rate.  I still dream of a 750 XZ and think that Yamaha missed the boat by not making the Vision 750 cc.

Oh, and to help keep this thread on track, I checked the part number for the rear drive case of the Vision on the Ron Ayers site and found no number listed.  I carefully double checked the number and still no go, so it is unlikely the parts would interchange, as the venture series is a much longer running model and a superseded number from the XZ would show up related to the newer application.   Pretty obvious there is no crossover.  Similar looking design of the parts but just try mixing them up.  Now go prove me wrong and make it work. ;)
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: QBS on May 10, 2012, 12:18:36 AM
fret nut, I can certainly identify with your desire for 200 more cc's.  I've often thought the same thing.  However, after much cogitation, I've come to think that only 100 more would be a better bike.  A xz750 would be scary fast, especially in the 0-70 mph range.  Kinda like a 500 or 750 kawasaki triple.
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rikugun on May 10, 2012, 09:39:10 AM
Quote
Kinda like a 500 or 750 kawasaki triple
  Sure, they could wheelie at highway speed but talk about evil handling!  :o The Vision handles like a dream compared to thoses beasts  :D   :D
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: fret not on May 11, 2012, 12:44:05 AM
When the Kawasaki triples hit the market (500 first) the racing organization that held our races made a rule that even in the box stock class the H1s had to have other than stock rear shocks.  Owners of other brands of bikes complained and then they all were allowed to have Koni , Girling,  S&W, or what ever they wanted.  Yes, they were evil handling, but any bike can be scarey if pushed hard enough.  "Bamboo frames" is what they called them.  They would pass in the straights and you would get them back in the turns.  That made for a bit more action and a lot more smoke. :D
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rikugun on May 11, 2012, 08:39:07 AM
We called them "twisto-flex" frames  :D
Title: Re: 1982 Vision and Venture rear end
Post by: Rick G on May 11, 2012, 10:53:48 PM
When I did test rides on H1's I used a corner with a run off , so that when the  thing (with its ball joint frame ) required that I quit pushing it , I had some where to go. Customers get so testy when you drop their bike!
 On one test ride on the Riverside Freeway , I was passing the cars at an indicated 118 mph . Motorists were cranking there heads around to see what was howling and of course I was long gone , by then.
I had the job of exchanging the frame on a three fifty Kwaker , rotary valve twin and we compared it to the H1 . It was nearly identical except for the brackets. The H1 frame was badly over stressed.
When Evon Duhamel rode them he crashed a lot . Later he admitted the handled horribly and it took massive bribery to get him to ride them.
At night if you looked under the tank you would see sparks flying every where under there . We replaced the horrible  Japanese plug wire, with Packard 440 or Belden wire.
The first ones came back with seized cylinders . No preference as to which one , a differant one on each bike, would be seized. The explanation was the , when the cylinders were being finish honed , too much pressure was being applied to keep them in place and this was distorting them . They were coming out of the fixture out of round.