Handlebar vibration solution

[shinyribs]

* This is not meant to be a comprehensive DIY tutorial with a complete tools, materials and process list. It's just a proof of concept in case anyone else wants to attempt something similar.

My FZ had dead smooth bars stock. But I didn't like the rubber isolator mounts (too floppy), so I locked the bars solid. This ended up giving me a shudder in the bars when lugging the engine. It only happened when lugging, so I wasn't too worried about it, but I ended up moving on to a different set of bars altogether. Swapping over to ProTapers left me with tingly bars. It wasn't bad, the mirrors didn't even move, but no point dealing with it if you absolutely don't have to. It wasn't a heavy vibration, but more of an intense tingle. I guess that would mean it was a high frequency? 

 

First thing I decided to do was to isolate the bars from the top clamp again. This time I replaced my solid metal washers with urethane washers. These are heavy density and the bars only have the slightest amount of give to them now. You really have to yank on the bars to create any movement. While this eliminated about 60-70% of the shudder through the bars while lugging the engine, it did nothing for the buzzing at highway speeds. 

 

I had some urethane sway bar end links left over from old projects, so I just trimmed them in to washers. I put a washer both above and below the top yoke. You can get these at any auto parts store. You can also get the in black, I just happened to have red on hand.

 

This is what I used...

 

 

...and this is what I ended up with.

 

 

It was a good start, but I still wanted to chase the buzz away. We've all heard about different tricks to deal with this, but I wasn't up for anything goofy ( bars full of sand, bars pumped full of silicone,etc). I started doing some research and found something call Vibranators. Seemed like a solid theory, but the company is dead now. In short, they were devices (just looked like brass tubes) that went inside your bars and, to a degree, free floated on one end. The idea being the insert/mass could vibrate at the same frequency inside your bar, but in a different direction, and therefore cancel out any vibrations. At least, that's how I understood it. 

 

Armed with that idea ( or at least my interpretation of it) I started digging around the shop and came up with this. It was too easy. I honestly barely had to pick up a tool. 

 

-Some 1/2" o.d. aluminum tubing from Lowe's. No idea what the i.d. is
- 1/8" pipe plugs
- Hose barb fitting with 1/8" thread
- Lead shot ( gutted shotgun shells)
- Leftover internal bar pincher mount thingys from some cheap handguards

Whatever the i.d. of the tubing is, it was a perfect fit for an 1/8" plug tap. Dumb luck. I tapped both ends, but I went extra deep on one end. This let the plug thread down far enough to not interfere with the barb fitting, which is obviously hollow and would let the shot spill out. 

The hose barb portion of the barb fitting was the perfect size to run a 8mm x1.25 die over it, which allowed it  to thread on to the leftover internal bar pincher thingys. Dumb luck again.

Filled it not quite full with the shot. Didn't want to pack it tight as I figured the mass ( the shot) needed to be able to move around to do it's frequency cancelling voodoo. Actually a little over-full in this pic.I poured a few shot out. 

Then stuck a plug in the other end for obvious reasons. Not that you need a picture of it, but I was just surprised how nicely these random bits fit together. 

Assembled the whole contraption with loctite and ended up putting a couple laps of electrical tape over the far end of the thing so it would wedge snugly in to the bar. Didn't want the whole thing vibrating, just the lead shot inside. 

Stuck the whole mess on to the bike with some cheap barend mirrors I had laying around and was surprised to see that the little barends with their convex glass actually gave a larger field of view than the massive stock bunny ears ( the pic is slightly deceiving on this).

Not only that, but they stuck out less, too. Win-win. 

If you read all that you're more boring than me, but I can say this. These little guys pleasantly surprised me by COMPLETELY eliminating my buzzing bars. This was just a shot in the dark. I made the aluminum tubes as long as would fit in there and I guess I got lucky with length, amount of shot, etc.

 

If you got buzzy bars, maybe give it a shot. Bad pun ... 😐

[norcal616]

Hmmm... you do know the front OEM chain sprocket is a major culprit of the bike vibrations?

 

The OEM style one don't let the chain "roll" nicely 'round the sprocket by only letting the outside chain links ride on the rubber damping... removing the OEM one for an aftermarket one w/o the rubber damping ring made a world of difference , now the actual inner chain rollers ride on the sprocket rather than using the outside chain links... 

you can see that the front of the link pushes further into the rubber than the back of the link... this produced a odd clunky rhythmic bass like sensation to me that amplified with rpms.. now that im using a plain jane sprocket the odd bass rhythm is gone...

[shinyribs]

I did not know that, and I've even changed my chain! But I never took the sprocket cover off. Just threaded the new chain in with the old. These bikes have the weirdest chain noise ever and this may be why. I'll look in to this. Thanks for the heads up, man. Been thinking about going up a tooth on the front sprocket anyway, but never looked to see if it had clearance for that. 

[markstertt]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 4:23 PM, shinyribs said:

I did not know that, and I've even changed my chain! But I never took the sprocket cover off. Just threaded the new chain in with the old. These bikes have the weirdest chain noise ever and this may be why. I'll look in to this. Thanks for the heads up, man. Been thinking about going up a tooth on the front sprocket anyway, but never looked to see if it had clearance for that. 

Going up one tooth on the front is no problem and makes a nice difference...first gear pulls further through intersections, a little lower rpm at cruise etc.

[shinyribs]

2 hours ago, markstertt said:

Going up one tooth on the front is no problem and makes a nice difference...first gear pulls further through intersections, a little lower rpm at cruise etc.

You fit a 17t  up front without removing the case saver? I was in there over the weekend and it didn't appear to have any room. 

[markstertt]

27 minutes ago, shinyribs said:

You fit a 17t  up front without removing the case saver? I was in there over the weekend and it didn't appear to have any room. 

Yes, 520 vortex conversion from Bellisimoto, 17t. front fits perfect with case saver and 44t. rear steel....slightly taller gearing than stock (16/43) but I like the longer run out in first and can't tell any difference or loss of acceleration, still pulls great. I have yet to check odo with gps to see if speedo is moved in more accurate direction...it was implied here on the forum that the ratio change in this direction would do this, win/win.

[DewMan]

If I understand correctly, the only size difference between 520 & 525 is that the 520 fits on a thinner sprocket. The distance between rollers/pins is the same. Shouldn't the sprockets still have the same diameter regardless?

 

[rick]

I have a 17T, 525 sprocket at the wait for just this conversion. Was hoping to do this w/o any other mods - guess I'll find out. 

[gregjet]

" If I understand correctly, the only size difference between 520 & 525 is that the 520 fits on a thinner sprocket. The distance between rollers/pins is the same. Shouldn't the sprockets still have the same diameter regardless?"

520 and 525 have the same pitch ( distance c/c of the pins). The chain is wider and fits a wider sprocket. As an engineer friend of mine said the 525 will be WEAKER unless the diameter of the pin is increases because it is longer, but it has a greater surface area on the chain/teeth so has less pressure ( force per UNIT area), so should last longer. 525s also heavier and so are the sprokets so slower acc. but greater flywheel effect when cruising ( swings and roundabouts).

A 525 and 520 sprockets will be the same daimeter for the same number of teeth .

The big thing about 520 is there is a greater availability of high quality sprockets and chains.

Edited April 30, 2018 by gregjet

[shinyribs]

1 hour ago, DewMan said:

If I understand correctly, the only size difference between 520 & 525 is that the 520 fits on a thinner sprocket. The distance between rollers/pins is the same. Shouldn't the sprockets still have the same diameter regardless?

 

Correct, all 500 series chains are the same pitch ( aka: distance between pins). The size difference is in the width. 520 being the narrowest, 530 being the widest. So, yes, the sprocket diameter won't change. 

 

Oops. All I did was repeat gregjet. Sorry, page didn't load fully.

Edited April 30, 2018 by shinyribs

[DewMan]

Thanks to both @shinyribs & @gregjet .

So the space center to center on the pins and the diameter of the rollers will be the same on 530/525/520 chains as well, with the only standard dimension that is different is the distance between the inner plates. 

 

But I am seeing that inner and outer plate thickness can vary even within the same brand's line of chains depending on the chain size according to the specs found on page 15 of this DID Chain specs PDF file.

 

Trivia: 532 chains are not the same matching dimension as the other 5## chains according to this helpful link I found.

 

I've forgotten a lot of minutiae over the intervening years of not owning/wrenching on bikes. Thank goodness for Google. 😀

 

Sorry for the hijack OP.

[shinyribs]

Chain dimensions are all in 1/8's of an inch.

 

400 series measures four 1/8's from pin to pin. 500 series measures five 1/8's from pin to pin. 600 series measures six 1/8's from on to pin, and so on. 

 

The second number is the width between the innermost links.

 

20= two 1/8's (1/4")

25= two and a half 1/8's (5/16")

30= three 1/8's(3/8")

 

Variances in outside width dimensions can mean the manufacturer is either building a beefy chain with strong, thick plates, or ... they're using junk metal which dictates them using extra thickness to gain back strength. Kind of a Catch 22 there. It could go either way. 

 

Similarly, AN hose is represented in 1/16's. 

 

-4AN = 1/4"

-8AN= 1/2" etc...

 

Imperial FTW.

 

And I am the OP, and also part of the derail, so...

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by shinyribs

[markstertt]

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 2:04 PM, rick said:

I have a 17T, 525 sprocket at the wait for just this conversion. Was hoping to do this w/o any other mods - guess I'll find out. 

17t. fits without any other mods...not much more to say other than you'll have to adjust chain to front of axle slot, so shorter wheel base.

 

Shinyribs....the Vibranator is cantilevered inside the handlebar so works by other than just damping as you did, by the addition of lead shot. I can't argue with your results but was wondering if you think there would be any difference with your method vs. simply plugging the handlebar and adding some lead shot in the remaining small chamber just past the threaded insert for the bar end weight. This is assuming a person could get past the threaded insert to plug the bar...I'm just lazy and would like to duplicate your results but with less work. Thoughts? 

Edited May 2, 2018 by markstertt

[gregjet]

While the shot will do a little " vibration cancelling voodoo" by virtue of being loose and non sonorous ( google it), the big thing you have doe here is to lower the resonant frequency by adding weight at the occillating end.

Basics. The bars vibrate annoyingly because they are a long tuning fork type piece of metal. The vibration will be worse at specific frequencies but primarily the frequency and amplitude is dependant on the length and the mass PLUS the elasticity of the material. Aluminium will be transmit less vibration than a steel bar of the same weight because it it less sonorous ( OK there are some AL alloys that are very ringy but most aren't). But being light their frequency will be higher. Higher is more annoying. Bar end weights increase the mass at the end of the bar where the vibration occurs so lower the frequency, hopefully to less annoying.

 

Renthal uses as particularly low sonorous Aluminium ( it's sprockets certainly aren't) and adds a flexi ureathane rod down the middle to absorb the waves as they travel up the bars ( also a little mass increase).

 

The best vibration damper would be a chamber on the end of the bars with a viscous fluid and a flexible suspended mass inside. Like what they use to help stop buildings swaying ( probably not as big would be a good though , I suspect). Next would be a heavish rod inside the bars that is held in place by annular high hysteresis polymer to damp the vibration, both transmission and resonance.  I had to do something like that for a tiny racing bike I had that vibrated so much it used to crack the engine mounts and made my hands numb by the end of a race . It was only 100cctwo stroke so size doesn't matter... Hollow aloy clipons, so I took the plug out of the end, and used 2 ureathane swaybar rubbers ( like shown above and turned down to fit inside the bars) in each end with a steel rod in the middle. Fixed my hands but the engine mounts still cracked. Adds mass though.

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by gregjet

[shinyribs]

On 5/2/2018 at 12:08 PM, markstertt said:

17t. fits without any other mods...not much more to say other than you'll have to adjust chain to front of axle slot, so shorter wheel base.

 

Shinyribs....the Vibranator is cantilevered inside the handlebar so works by other than just damping as you did, by the addition of lead shot. I can't argue with your results but was wondering if you think there would be any difference with your method vs. simply plugging the handlebar and adding some lead shot in the remaining small chamber just past the threaded insert for the bar end weight. This is assuming a person could get past the threaded insert to plug the bar...I'm just lazy and would like to duplicate your results but with less work. Thoughts? 

Sorry chief, I wish I had an answer for you. As you can tell, you (and gregjet)have a better grasp of what a Vibranator actual is vs my understanding of it. I got lucky, but vibrations and harmonics are very weird things. I'm perfectly happy with how my inserts are working. I didn't really have that big of a complaint about the slight buzziness before, but it's sooo much more comfy with it gone. However, with my Arrow exhaust, vibrations on the bike are odd. The amount of bar vibrations with the db killer in or out were always the same. Now, with the db killer in the bars are perfectly smooth like stated above. However, with the db killer out, the bars have gone from a slight buzziness to actually hammering. It's so weird. 

 

On the rare occasion I take the db killer out and go hooning around it won't bother me, but on longer trips were I'd be rocking the db killer anyway, the bars will be smooth. I'm cool with that. 

[markstertt]

12 hours ago, shinyribs said:

Sorry chief, I wish I had an answer for you. As you can tell, you (and gregjet)have a better grasp of what a Vibranator actual is vs my understanding of it. I got lucky, but vibrations and harmonics are very weird things. I'm perfectly happy with how my inserts are working. I didn't really have that big of a complaint about the slight buzziness before, but it's sooo much more comfy with it gone. However, with my Arrow exhaust, vibrations on the bike are odd. The amount of bar vibrations with the db killer in or out were always the same. Now, with the db killer in the bars are perfectly smooth like stated above. However, with the db killer out, the bars have gone from a slight buzziness to actually hammering. It's so weird. 

 

On the rare occasion I take the db killer out and go hooning around it won't bother me, but on longer trips were I'd be rocking the db killer anyway, the bars will be smooth. I'm cool with that. 

Thanks...that is weird about the difference with DB killer in or out...beyond my pay grade I'm afraid but interesting for sure. 

 

Side note...I replaced metal bars on my big bore and buzzy DRZ with composite bars that reduced the vibes a fair amount, better than most other methods I tried. They come in different bends but only in 1 1/8" diameter so to try on FZ-07 one would need different mounts. My FZ doesn't buzz enough to bother but I do like to experiment so appreciate what you've done. I may have to try that shot idea though, very cost effective.

[shinyribs]

Reviving this old thread. 

I'm still rocking these inserts, but I feel like the bars are more getting  more vibey. I removed a small portion of the shot from each insert in the attempt to allow the shot to move around more freely and hopefully absorb more vibration. It made an obvious difference, which surprised me!

Anyway, I have heard about some bikes where ( I'm using other people's terms here) the engine gets "tight" in the frame after miles add up due to flexing and such, so the engine mounting bolts need to be slacked to allow things to relax. Upon retightening it's supposed to cure the newfound vibes. 

Anyone have any insight or personal experience with this particular flavor of voodoo?

p.s.- I recently took a ride on a Royal Enfield Himalayan. You know, their very basic thumper. I was blown away by how incredibly smooth that bike was. Riding my 07 home was quite uncomfortable in comparison. It was shocking and a bit heartbreaking. My bike was electric smooth when it was new. I want that back. 

[mtyamyam]

Sorry slightly off topic..... I clicked this thread thinking this could be a simple solution to the problem that I have. Which is my bars vibrating my iPhone to death, but it looks far too involved and complicated haha. Luckily I reported back to guys who make my motorcycle mount (QUAD LOCK) and they're in the process of making a damper and added me to the testing list. Unless anyone knows another solution???

[shinyribs]

On 4/25/2018 at 4:19 PM, norcal616 said:

Hmmm... you do know the front OEM chain sprocket is a major culprit of the bike vibrations?

 

The OEM style one don't let the chain "roll" nicely 'round the sprocket by only letting the outside chain links ride on the rubber damping... removing the OEM one for an aftermarket one w/o the rubber damping ring made a world of difference , now the actual inner chain rollers ride on the sprocket rather than using the outside chain links... 

you can see that the front of the link pushes further into the rubber than the back of the link... this produced a odd clunky rhythmic bass like sensation to me that amplified with rpms.. now that im using a plain jane sprocket the odd bass rhythm is gone...

No doubt you are correct about this, and I am still using the stock front sprocket ( at times- pop on a 17T for long trips). Decided to test this today. Unfortunately not my issue. Pull in the clutch at speed and the vibes go away completely. Must be the engine itself. 

[norcal616]

3 hours ago, shinyribs said:

No doubt you are correct about this, and I am still using the stock front sprocket ( at times- pop on a 17T for long trips). Decided to test this today. Unfortunately not my issue. Pull in the clutch at speed and the vibes go away completely. Must be the engine itself. 

Clutch basket worn out, cush drive worn out, just installed new spark plugs, chain to tight are usually the main suspects in my experience..

Probably more noticeable with higher mileage? I'm talking over 35-40k miles without doing any engine checks such as valve lash, valves, TB synch, dirty TB, just some stuff that needs some help staying in shape over time...

[00RAH]

Has anyone figured out how to use the stock bar end weights with aftermarket bars? 

[JayMT07]

12 minutes ago, 00RAH said:

Has anyone figured out how to use the stock bar end weights with aftermarket bars? 

I've got a Renthal Ultra Low and drilled the end and then used a 16x1.5mm tap. 

[00RAH]

sorry im not sure what you mean, did you drill the bar-end weight all the way through? do the weights screw into the renthals like the stock bars? did you tap threads into the renthals?

Edited July 10, 2020 by 00RAH

[JayMT07]

1 hour ago, 00RAH said:

sorry im not sure what you mean, did you drill the bar-end weight all the way through? do the weights screw into the renthals like the stock bars? did you tap threads into the renthals?

Drilled the end of the bar, tapped it, then screwed the bar end weights into the bar.  There's a thread on the Renthal bar on here explaining.