gl1000 - alternator rpm ?

[dontwantapickle]

I've never experienced torquing left while riding on a Goldwing but I have in an airplane.
I had a 1977 R75/7 BMW that really cammed over when I hit the gas. Different designs?

I think ol' Sir Issac Newton probably explained it best.

I would be interested on knowing exactly how much the counterrotating alternator rotor effects the
rotational inertia of the gl1000 engine.

[Sidecar Bob]

You could remove the rotor and see how much difference that makes but 1) it would be a lot of work, 2) it wouldn't tell you how much more there would be if the rotor turned the same way as the engine and 3) the engine probably wouldn't run well with the flywheel removed.

BTW, I am interested in this thread for a couple of reasons but mostly because of my experiments with GL1000/1100 stators in CX/GL500/650 bikes.
The TI models in the CX/GL500/650 family have a very similar alternator but rated at 252W (no that's not a typo). For many years I ran a GL500 with a GL1000 stator and later a CX650E with a GL1100 stator to provide a bit more power in the coldest & darkest part of winter when I often ran the handlebar heaters on high and the 2nd headlight (on the sidecar). I always felt that the GL1000 stator in the GL500 engine produced more than the original stator but less than it did in the GL1000 engine (same for the 1100 stator in 650 engine).
With CX flywheel mounted on the crankshaft it turns at engine RPM and I knew that the GoldWing's rotor/flywheel turns faster than the crankshaft (but not by how much) but also that above idle the GoldWing engines turn slower than the CX engines; I figured that the 'Wing's flywheel must be turning at perhaps 50% faster than the crank (which would spin the alternator faster than on the CX) and that must make up some of the alternator's higher rating.

When the GL1100 stator in the CX650E engine failed in 2015 I put a stock stator in temporarily and in 2016 I rewound the 1100 stator and learned that the 300W stator has 3 more turns per pole and one gauge heavier wire than the 252W one.
Based on Pickle's finding that the 'Wing flywheel only turns about 14% faster than the flywheel it seems that the GoldWing's alternator actually turns about the same RPM as the CX and maybe a bit slower at highway speed so (assuming the same magnet strength, clearance &c) the GL1000/1100 stator should be able to produce the same 300W max output in both engines.
And now that I've hijacked the thread for all of that I should admit that when I installed the GL500 engine into Eccles 5 years ago I did not open it up so AFAIK it still has the 252W alternator, which has proven quite adequate now that I can mostly chose which days I go out on it.

FWIW, one of the fellows on cx500forum is currently experimenting with lightening flywheels for a couple of his bikes too. It will be interesting to see if that has the effect he hopes for (mostly quicker revving).

[dontwantapickle]

From what I have experienced...I don't think it would be much work Bob.
Just unbolt it.
It would definitely take a lot of weight off of the end of the crank.

here are pics of what I'm thinking. shown both with and without the alternator, sprag, starter.

gl1000 - Copy (2).jpg

gl1000 alt. - Copy (2).jpg

[CYBORG]

You are correct sir. I guess if you have been riding long enough you just correct automaticly

[Sidecar Bob]

It sounds simple but IIRC you would have to remove the engine and open it up to get at those parts. And the engine might not run very well without the flywheel. Not to mention that you'd have to push it to even find out if it would start like that.

[dontwantapickle]

Kickstarter

I first considered this when I started thinking about forced induction on my racing bike.
I thought about taking off the alternator and replacing it with a centrifugal supercharger.
(That's one reason that I was curious about the overdriven speed ratio of the rotor.)

After more thought, if I do decide to build a blown engine, I figure that I'll just use a turbo.
It would be the simplest way to go.

[Sidecar Bob]

I think I managed to kick start my 1000 engine twice in all the time I had it. I wouldn't want to have to depend on it.

[Shadowjack]

If you look at dontwantapickle's first photo in this thread, you can see the rotor shaft lying next to the block. It just unbolts from the block as a unit. The shaft assembly has a vibration damper inside consisting of some steel balls that oscillate as the engine runs and dampen the vibration. I once got a great deal on a 1200 that had those balls seized up, make the engine rattle so hard on deceleration the PO thought he had a rod bearing out. Engine out and $20 on Ebay for a new damper and we were away.

[redglbx]

In my experience, about 100yrs ago pre-wing years and I was riding with the BMW brothers on my very hot rodded cl350 when one of them would really get on it their BMW would actually be leaned over slightly, but I never ever noticed it when actually riding the bike. Years later after the G-Wings were invented and sold and riding with my group of wings I never seen one do that lean, so the counter balancing must do something even though I don’t think the rider would notice one way or the other. The only thing I ever noticed on a wing when you crank it on is the rear of the bike jacking up (drive shaft) when you wick the throttle on.

Supercharger vs Turbocharger,,,, I’ve built a few supercharged bikes & cars over the years, on the Wings back when Carl Hinsey was doing them he enlisted my friend Jim Hugh’s who asked me to help. The Magnuson supercharger on the Wings did exactly what a supercharger was supposed to do. I got to ride a number of them, they would give you a terrific low/mid range hit but as they spun up-to the redline range the power required to drive the supercharger really offset the power gained by using the supercharger.

So imho a turbocharger is a better way to go, basically free horsepower but you really have to work to control the boost but better than a supercharger in my opinion. Packaging the turbo has always been the problem with them, Carl did have a turbo’d GW but the plumbing was just something else, not sure it was really a rideable piece. But your application is a bit different.

On the first supercharged bike we built (the Emotional Rescue bike) Carl & Jim were sure it was the very fastest thing ever, I offered numerous times to face off with my 80 CBX which I had spent many dyno hours on and was confident it would’ve mopped up. Being that the Wing was probably 100-150lbs heavier than the CBX and I always thought the supercharged bikes needed more carb than the single Weber. I would do more to verify that now.

This has been one of those “great” threads ! Don, I think removing the starter and alternator will probably have minimal effect but being that the mass of the GW crank is so much greater than that of the BMW twins of old it may be noticeable but you’ll only know if you try it. Those old Beemers had a quite heavy flywheel on the end of the crank so I truly don’t know.The BMW brothers did have one bike that they had stuck a VW engine in which was not an uncommon thing back then. They ran a 2800cc VW motor and then a 2400cc and finally settled on a 1600cc piece, the bigger motors were simply too much. I don’t remember them being any problem due to the torquing over but that’s been some time ago. The “big” motor really put a gleam in their eye’s but quite frankly was a little terrifying to ride between the power & weight, not Kawasaki h2 750 terrifying but definitely not a lot of fun either. My 02