I have been amazed at the transformation of the bike just from the weight. I think our weight loss leaders
@c10 and
@ROADTOAD1340 are definitely onto something.
Org Service Announcement: Now this is where this will become a long, rambling Willie post, so you can get off here if you like and just take away that less weight is better.
I still believe however all weight loss is not the same. If you recall, the modern age of the sport bikes has been defined by electronics, but just before that was the race for mass centralization. Getting weight close to the center of gravity reduces it's impact on the dynamics of the bike dramatically. But what's more interesting is there is an X and a Y axis running through the CG and where the weight is on these axis is important. Of course there is a z axis too, but that axis has more to do with the bike wheeling. This diagram shows the axes:
I'm guessing where the bike's CG is, but it's close enough for this discussion. To turn the bike is rotating around the X axis, or more precisely it translates around the X axis. Weight above the X axis is going to impact the lean of the bike more as it moves higher above the X Axis. Weight below the X axis is going to tend to impact the bike's willingness to lean less. Bikes aren't like airplanes and they don't exactly rotate around the CG. The fulcrum for the lean is the contact patch of the tires, Still weight below the X axis has less impact so the huge stock cans maybe don't slow the roll rate of the bike so much after all.
Note also that the wheels, axles, suspension are all very close to the X axis and should not impact the roll rate of the bike much at all when lighter parts are subsitituted. But a motorcycle is a very complex physical ballet of forces and reactions. The wheels impact is mostly in the gyroscopic effect that makes it harder to turn them around the axle, and left or right. Weight increases the gyro effect, so lighter wheels have a big impact even though their location is close to the X axis. They also require less HP to turn, so that is an additional benefit.
Aside from the gyroscopic effect of the engine spinning, the other major impact of weight is unsprung weight. That's weight that is not supported by the suspension springs. It includes wheels, bottom half of the forks, brakes, etc. When the bike hits a bump it accelerates upward and the heavier the unsprung parts are the more difficult it is for the suspension to stop the upward movement (compression) and then push the wheels back to the ground (rebound). This was also a surprise for me because the bike feels much more settled since the shop readjusted the suspension for the new parts.
So most of this is probably general information most of you already know. But I sort of went through this analysis after realizing my upgraded Busa is more of a top heavy biased bike. It's pretty subtle, but you can feel it, especially at slow speeds. After giving it some thought, most of my weight reduction came from at or below the X axis. In effect I have raised the bikes CG by changing the ratio of the amount of weight above the X axis to the amount below it.
I'm not complaining, the road speed+ handling of the bike is now pretty amazing. With the old bike, the bike would do what you wanted it to do, but you sort of had to plan the turn just right at higher speeds or things could get a bit hairy. Now, it seems the bike is willing to change lines even when you have committed to the apex. This makes you feel like superman, almost like a sport bike. I am however thinking about what I would get if I lightened the top of the bike. There are limited options here, maybe a lighter seat, Aluminum tank and/or lighter triple clamps.
I think the more I modify the Busa the more I realize what an amazingly well engineered bike it really is.