Has anyone ever wished for a 6th gear?

[CamTom12]

I rode to the beach and back this weekend, first trip after putting the Cobras on.

Man it sounds nice!

I have to double check, but I think I have smaller than stock tires on.  I seemed to be reading a percentage less than actual speed.  Either that or everyone was doing ~80 in a 65!

I plan on new tires this summer and will throw a stock size on the front and a CT in the back (I want my cookie when the time comes!).  Other than the few hundred RPMs I'll drop with the right size tire, I was wondering if there was any other options to lower RPM at cruise, like a 6-speed or taller gears in the back.

[Robert]

Nothing available, Mario gears aka 6th is no longer offered and had poor reviews when it was. As for 80 in a 55 why should that be unusual?

[hueco]

My opinion, and I bet everyone else that owns a Valkyrie, is that the only fault with the Valkyrie is that it lacks a 6th gear. Good Lord. Just think how that would help gas mileage and top end.  But. Then Honda would have to have designed another speedometer. One that goes to 200mph.

[doubletee]

85 in a 65 isn't all that unusual. Plus, I am pretty sure my speedometer indicates about 3-5 miles per hour faster than actual, depending on velocity. i.e. It reads 85 mph when I'm actually only going 80-81 mph.

[98valk]

the options are;

installing the gear set from a 97 or newer GW GL1500 provides more OD in 5th, larger dia rear tire, E3 is slightly larger than OEM, CT some are larger dia, and there are some posts about getting custom rear gears made.

[CamTom12]

Ok, that's kinda what I was thinking.

So the 97 and up GW 1500's has a deeper 5th?  I'll look up the gear ratios and see where it'd put me at.

Thanks!

[John U.]

A 205/65 series car tire would be a bit taller than stock. Michelin Hydro Edge for example.

[CajunRider]

If you find out anything that works, be sure to let the rest of us know about it!!! 

I've been hunting for that 6th gear since I bought the bike.  I'd be happy with a taller final drive gear... 10 mph in first is a bit on the slow side also. 

[alph]

I drove a Victory Vision a couple of weeks ago, and other then the radio, the 6th gear was the one thing I wish my Valk had!! 

[Rams]

The only way I can think of to improve my Valkyrie would be to add a 6th gear or possibly go with a taller gearing but, my understanding is that is somewhat expensive.

blackrams

[CamTom12]

A 205/65 series car tire would be a bit taller than stock. Michelin Hydro Edge for example.

will that fit even with the nutcage mod?

[rmrc51]

I really don't need a 6th gear, but I do wish she had a reverse!! 

[98valk]

Ok, that's kinda what I was thinking.

So the 97 and up GW 1500's has a deeper 5th?  I'll look up the gear ratios and see where it'd put me at.

Thanks!

 According to Fred Rau in motorcycle consumer news june 05 article.
GL1500 3rd 1.272, 4th .964, 5th .758.
Valkyries 3rd 1.291, 4th 1.00, 5th .805. 1st and 2nd are the same.

early than '97 will not work, the GW shafts are smaller from my understanding and other posts from a few yrs ago.

[CamTom12]

Well, I did some calculations and here's what I came up with (the gear calculator I used listed Speed in reference to RPM, so that's why the Speeds don't all match up)...

Stock with a 205/60R16 - 3,300 RPM nets 72 MPH

Stock with a 205/65R16 - 3,200 RPM nets 72 MPH

GW gearset with 1st Tire - 3,100 RPM nets 71 MPH

GW gearset with 2nd Tire - 3,000 RPM nets 71 MPH



Dang, that'd be a lot of work and $$ for ~300 RPM, I don't know that there'd be any more than marginal MPG gains.

That explains why there's not more people doing it. 

I did see something about Mario's Gears but of the three reviews I found the 1st was not happy with the MPG and power loss in 5th (hill country), the 2nd review was well written and happy about it but seemed to live in the flat-lands, and the 3rd review was poorly written and the author seemed to have little mechanical knowledge.

[TearlessTom]

I think a better question would be :

Has anyone here NOT wished for a 6th gear?

[Cruzen]

The Valk motor is a relative short stroke motor like those in a Ferrari, Lotus or other exotic sports car.  Such motors are designed to run at higher RPM’s than Hardley or other twin V motors which are more like a truck or passenger car motor.  Big twin V’s or other long stroke motors need the overdrive to keep their RPM’s and piston speeds down to a less destructive level.  The Valk motor develops it’s HP and torque at higher RPM’s than the big twins. 

So the question I guess is why would you want to use a 6th gear that would drop the motor out of its power band.  As many of the guys with the 6th speed big bore bikes have to downshift when climbing our steep grades ( I-17 to Flagstaff or Route 87 to Payson ) here, adding a 6th speed to the Valk would lead to a lot of downshifting for climbing hills etc.  You won’t be saving or gaining anything by lowering the RPM.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, the Valk has 800 more RPM available (6500 verses 5700)  than the big bore V twins and that is one of its biggest assets.

[f6john]

     It has always been my understanding that the transmission gears in the Valk are straight cut while the Goldwing gears are helical cut gears and therefore would not work together. Did something change in 97 and no one told me, or have I been misinformed for all these years? New gears for the "pumpkin" would be the "cheapest" way of  having better gearing but to gain on the high side you have to give up something on the low side.

[CamTom12]

What I've taken out based on my research I've been doing is that it's uneconomical, not only in cost but also in efficiency.

In other words, I'm going to just get used to listening to ~3200 RPM 

[TearlessTom]

The Valk motor is a relative short stroke motor like those in a Ferrari, Lotus or other exotic sports car.  Such motors are designed to run at higher RPM’s than Hardley or other twin V motors which are more like a truck or passenger car motor.  Big twin V’s or other long stroke motors need the overdrive to keep their RPM’s and piston speeds down to a less destructive level.  The Valk motor develops it’s HP and torque at higher RPM’s than the big twins. 

So the question I guess is why would you want to use a 6th gear that would drop the motor out of its power band.  As many of the guys with the 6th speed big bore bikes have to downshift when climbing our steep grades ( I-17 to Flagstaff or Route 87 to Payson ) here, adding a 6th speed to the Valk would lead to a lot of downshifting for climbing hills etc.  You won’t be saving or gaining anything by lowering the RPM.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, the Valk has 800 more RPM available (6500 verses 5700)  than the big bore V twins and that is one of its biggest assets.

Your point is well made and well taken however; you are looking at it from only the point of view from the area you live.
Many of us are not privileged to live in mountainous areas that are so much fun to ride. Fortunately they are only a day’s ride away. The elevation where I live is 50 feet and I live on a hill.
Us FLATLANDERS who have miles and miles of open flat roads without a bend in sight tend to travel a bit faster and we all know that over 3000 rpm the Valk gets thirsty.
I would be happy to trade of a downshift to go up a mountain for cruising at hwy speeds below 3000rpm’s.

[CajunRider]

So the question I guess is why would you want to use a 6th gear that would drop the motor out of its power band. 

Mainly because a 900 pound Valkyrie doesn't need 100 horse power to maintain 70 - 80 mph on the interstate.  Hence various car manufacturers killing a couple of cylinders on their engines when running at a constant speed on flat ground. 

I don't mind downshifting to pass or go up mountains... shifting is part of the reason i ride bikes... it's just more fun that way. 

I'd just like the engine to feel more relaxed at speed... running at half it's red-line just isn't needed. 

I have a V-Strom 1000 that has a VERY useful overdrive.  RPM at speed is about the same as the Valk... but the Strom red-lines at 10,000 RPM.  So 3400 RPM at 75 is BARELY inside the power band of the engine... and it holds that speed VERY well. 

I see no reason to run 3400 RPM constantly on the Valk when the motor has PLENTY of power at 2500 RPM.

Ideally, I think a 700 RPM drop at speed would be perfect... but I'd be happy with 500.

[franco6]

i often find myself searching for a sixth gear 
so i went with the 65 hydro edge. at 36 psi there is no difference in rpm s .i haven t tryed the 40s psi yet . there is a good deal of improvement in acceleration though.also no grinding after nutcage mod (thinks to GEARJAMMER who took care of that while we were getting the tire installed)i even lowered the 416 s to 38 psi.its all smooth as silk even two-up
on another front i lowered the oil temp 20-25 degrees with the addition of water weter 
somewhere on the board i read some one changing gear at 2000 rpm
isn t that a little hard on the engine-drive train? guess its ok if you just want to go 50 mph
ok i m done for the day   good night!
Fred

[Robert]

If you guys would search the archives you may find some more info out so as not to try to reinvent the wheel.
http://www.bigbf.com/bigbf_shop/transmission/final.htm

[CamTom12]

Yeah, that was one of the reviews I found.

[john]

we all did at first ... 
big bf  showed us why we should not go there  ...   

[Gryphon]

we all did at first ... 
big bf  showed us why we should not go there  ...   

I don't think it is so much a case of we shouldn't go there as one of there is no practical way to get there.  If there had been a six speed alternative that fit and could be swapped with relative ease, say a GL1500 six speed that would bolt up, I'm betting a lot of the riders from the "flatlands" would have jumped on it in a heartbeat.  I know tht my Valk spends the majority of its time on the road around 3500 rpm.  I realize it doesn't hurt it, but I'm sure another gear would help my fuel consumption.  70 -80, indicated, is normal traveling speed in this region and I find myself trying to shift to a gear that doesn't exist from time to time.  Just an opinion, of course. 

Gryphon

[MP]

Actually, I do not think it would help fuel mileage much, just a little.  The biggest culpret is SPEED, wind resistance, not the rpm's that take down the mpg's.

Wind resistance increases dramitically with speed.  We all talk about 3000 rpm being the "magic" number, but that is because that is the SPEED at which fuel mileage goes down, not because of the rpm's.  At least not much.

MP

[Rams]

I agree with the post above but, I also think the Valk is a torque monster and would be more efficient if the top gear reduced normal driving rpm by a few hundred if not more.  Yes, aerodynamics play a big role and so does terrain but, you can't have everything, once in a while you're gonna have to down shift for something.  If that's too much of a bother then maybe it's time to get back into four wheels with an automatic.  Just my opinion. 

blackrams

[Mildew]

I think 18" wheels would make everyone happy. Anyone know the specs on the 1800f vs the 1800. One of them has 18" wheels and the other has 16"