My voltage readings are opposite of what I'd expect!!

[chuckycheese]

Wiring

Wiring

On both of my bikes (stock), the R/R connects to a wire that branches off. One way, it goes up to the ignition and the other way, it goes to the fuse box. This is confirmed by the schematics for both bikes.8-[

 

[posplayr]

psyguy

psyguy

i think it might save some people some money (and head-scratching) if this info could be included in the original stator papers ​

(it is actually mentioned there but more implicitly)​

Well I think I would go much further that this statement. If you go to this link and read what it says:

The Stator Papers V
Why do charging systems on bikes fail at all,
and why is it so hard to get them fixed?

​

If you do need replacements of any of these, check out ElectroSport Industries. They make stators and regulators for most bikes that are cheaper than OEM units and are designed significantly better and are much cheaper than Suzuki replacements.
​

I think this is an erroneous statement and not serving the GS community very well, at least with regard to the R/R design.

The Electrosport is a 5 wire design with only local voltage sensing. Electrosport R/R may be better than OEM in some regard, but it will suffer similar fold back/low output if there is resistance in the + regulator output to the battery.

The stator is probably a fine replacement and I have one in my bike that I have no qualms about. I also have a new Electrosport R/R I'm convinced I will not install. I also have the Honda unit (I am about to checkout) at the very least should not have the same problem due to the separate high impedance + batt sensing wire.

Posplayr

 

[posplayr]

Chucky

Chucky

I scanned some of the schematic in my Clymer GS750 manual and there seems to be variations in the connection between R/R out and the battery. Note when the R and R are separate the output is from the rectifier not the regulator.

1978 GS750C & EC; Direct 15A fused wire between R/R + and Battery

1979 GS750N & EN: Direct through 15A fuse in the fuse box.

1979 GS750LN: same as EN

1980 GS750ET:I don't know I got lost in the connections. There is only a large lead for the starter solenoid coming from the + batt. ?????

1980 GS750LT:OK we get a connection from R/R through the fuse box 15 amp to the battery

1981 GS750EX: R/R output daisy chains through the 15 amp fuse in fuse box to the to the starter solenoid and then to the battery???

1981 GS750LX:Thru 15 amp fuse in fuse box to the battery

1982 GS750EZ: Thur 15 amp fuse in fuse box to the battery

1982 GS750TZ: same as EZ


With the year to year changes in the + output it is no surprise that the electrical design team was confused on the GS.

As a standard remedy, I think I nice fat 10-12 gauge wire with crimped and soldered ring lugs on both ends with an inline 15 amp fuse would be a nice upgrade to any of these bike. It would also not be a bad idea for the Honda unit even though it is not as compelling.

That 1980 GS750ET is a real mystery through will have to look at my parts bike.

Posplayr

 

[bakalorz]

Ohhhh MYYYYY GAWWWWWWD !!!!

Why Posplayr why ...

I literally had to go walk around the building a few times when I read your post.

It is SO filled with inaccuracies and bull**** it just makes me want to cry.
There is correct information in it too, but mixed in is a LOT of stuff that is just plain wrong. and it seems to be because you OBVIOUSLY don't really understand how the regulators actually work internally.
Suzuki's manuals describe how they work (you even forwarded a page that describes it in another thread), I have tried to describe it to you before, but you just don't understand it.

I've said before that I don't wan't to pick on you, but that I will stomp out inaccuracies and bull**** when I see them. And your post is just chock full.

Sigh ... on to the specifics:

The comments about voltage drop applies only to the GS Suzuki OEM R/R or or separated R and R. As best I can tell the issues of voltage drop is one of the "design defects " referred to but not explicitly identified. The Honda unit at least fixed the problem to be described below.

The "honda fix" as you describe it is not nearly as big a deal as you seem to think

From an electrical engineering perspective (but with some uncertainty as I have never actually seen a Honda schematic) it is clear why the Honda regulator has the 6th sense wire. It is to provide a design feature that makes the voltage regulation independent of the positive voltage drop on the Regulator + supply out.

This bit is correct

From an electrical circuit and harness design perspective, not having at least a sense wire, represents "amateur and inexperienced" charging system design.

NO Absolutely not. You are just speculating here, and you don't know what your talking about; you are "amateur and inexperienced".

The ONLY thing that a sense wire does is compensate for the voltage drop due to resistance in the positive lead (and fuse etc.)
With good connections everywhere this is absolutely TINY and NO BIG DEAL (and can be compensated for just as well by setting the setpoint .1 volt (or whatever it is) higher)

Ahh Haa you say, but when the connecions are bad it compensates and is better ... Well, yes and no; it will maintain a better voltage at the battery, but to do this it will end up raising the system voltage everywhere else.
So all your lights blow out early ... if the positive connection is bad enough, maybe it raises the voltage enough to fry the ignition circuit.

The correct answer (and something that should be and is harped on here at the GSR) is ensure you have good connections and low resistance everywhere.

I don't try to keep track, but my understanding is that the newer honda regulators DON'T tend to use the sense wire anymore. Maybe the acctual designers know something you don't.

Note: I am not saying they are BAD (blowing lights, etc up wont happen unless the positive connection gets really bad) but that they provide such a limited benefit that they are barely worth the extra wiring, complexity, and cost.

At least I would bet that is the considered opinion of most any experienced design engineer. In fact a well thought out and robust design would probably have a full differential battery voltage measurement (i.e. sense wire for ground and sense wire for battery).

When I designed and built my regulator, I had the availability to use full diff measurement; all it would have cost is running the wires out instead of connecting internally. I chose not to bother unless I saw a need later.=

None of the OEMs seem to think its worth going that far. I think you are pontificating into the wind, and making up solutions to imaginary problems here.

As I have discussed , the R/R operation further with another engineer, it seems pretty clear that while voltage fold back is possible from some mysterious form of Stator shorting, except for this condition any other fold back is due purely to the in line resistance. I should note that any shorted condition is not likley to be stable and wont last long. Teh resistance build up is due primarily to corrosion which takes longer and is not as subject to heating or current flow.

The R/R regulation (control) performance is loose and it can't cause fold back. This is for several reasons.

a.) The Regulator does not control the output voltage at the battery or even the output of the regulator. It controls the voltage at the center of one of the legs of the rectifier. So there is always an uncontrolled forward drop of the rectifier bridge diodes. This probably goes from +0.5 volts at low RPM charging to over +1.0 volt at max current demand (diode is at max forward bias voltage).

I have some problems with this part, but will let it go for now.

b.) The regulator does not operate on average voltage, it operates on instantaneous voltage. When the stator output approaches the zenor limit (on a cycle by cycle basis), it only clips the tops of the cycles.

NO NO NO

This is absolutely positively horribly wrong.

And it is absolutely crucial to understanding the details of the way the regulator works.

Posplayer, you claim to be an EE. I just find that to be unbelievable, cause any even halfway competent EE should not screw this part up.

Get your most basic EE book, (the one that tells you what resistors and capacitors are)
LOOK UP SCR. Read how they work, read it again, read it till you actually understand it.

Now look at the circuits for the regulator again, and try to understand how it works.
When an SCR fires, it totally shorts that leg of the stator out. (the other bridge diode prevents it from shorting the battery too)

It will provide absolutely no charging current or voltage. NONE. ZIP. ZERO. Not until the SCR turns off again.

It does not clip the top. the voltage at that point falls to the battery's resting/discharging voltage, and remains there till the next stator leg starts to charge.

Work through how this works until you understand it, cause it is absolutely crucial to understanding the charging system.

If you need it I can provide pictures of the voltage waveforms.

As the current and voltage increases, more of the top is clipped but the average current/voltage is actually still increasing asymptotically toward the zenor voltage limit.

Your initial assumptions above are totaly wrong, so this is total bull

In other words, the output voltage "sneaks" up on the upper limit in a form of soft indirect control of the output voltage.

Your initial assumptions above are totaly wrong, so this is total bull

c.) In addition to the instantaneous control, there is also no filtering on the senses voltage.

This much is correct.

d.) There is no filtering or integral control on the zenor reference. This would at least tighten the control up.

This much is kind of right, but irrelevant because your initial assumptions above are totaly wrong. (and learn to spell zener damnit)

ADVANCED ONLY: Even if for perfect Type 1 integral control, the control would not over control but hold to a fixed voltage even for increasing RPM/stator voltage.

Try to get the very very basic stuff right before you go theorizing and pontificating into the wind

Bottom line for the R/R is that it is an effective means of voltage control , but it is weak and indirect control that exhibits a positive error as RPM is increased.

Your initial assumptions above are totally wrong, so this is total bull
The error CAN be positive, but it can be decreasing as RPM increases. I can find posts where this happens if you don't believe me.

So there is really no way the OEM regulator can cause voltage fold back.

So we are left with the inescapable, low output voltage or voltage fold back can be directly attributable to inline resistance and getting the battery to R/R terminal voltages to match as best as possible at 5000 RPM is the first order of business in trouble shooting.

Ummm, Im not sure what you are trying to say so wont comment.

As to the Honda R/R, it is in fact a significant upgrade relative to the GS OEM. It at least controls the regulation based on sensed voltage (i.e. the sense wire) that is not sensitive to the current supplied or the resistance connection to the + side of the battery. It still needs a good ground.

I addressed that above. The sense part is at BEST a minor upgrade. Honda R/Rs in general are more robust than GS series regulators

If any one has a Honda schematic of not only the R/R but also the harness it would be interesting to see.
Posplayr

Posplayer, you do a good job on stuff you actually understand, but please don't bull**** about stuff you DONT understand.

 

[Guest]

On both of my bikes (stock), the R/R connects to a wire that branches off. One way, it goes up to the ignition and the other way, it goes to the fuse box. This is confirmed by the schematics for both bikes.8-[

yup, thats what i was saying a few posts back - it is the stock setup on my bike too (same production year btw, that may be the reason for the exact setup?)

 

[earlfor]

The charging system will operate more efficiently and with less potential for problems if you bypass the wiring harness connections and connect the R/R DC output directly to battery.

Earl

yup, thats what i was saying a few posts back - it is the stock setup on my bike too (same production year btw, that may be the reason for the exact setup?)

 

[Guest]

The charging system will operate more efficiently and with less potential for problems if you bypass the wiring harness connections and connect the R/R DC output directly to battery.

Earl

thanks earl
i do have a modified system that works well, i posted the mod a few posts earlier (post#21)
the last one was just a confirmation for chuckycheese of the factory system (that i no longer have)

 

[chuckycheese]

Be nice!!

Be nice!!

Bakalorz, I'm going to go out 'on a limb' a little bit here.....I have appreciated your help with my problem and I would imagine others may have benefited, as well (or will, in the future, if they do searches).

But....why do you seem so mean spirited towards posplayr? He's also been extremely helpful and I just don't understand why you insist on belittling him. He's taken quite a a bit of time to offer up suggestions and, while I don't have the expertise to understand all of it, it has been really useful for me.

I know everyone on the forum means well but it all seems to work better when we respect differences of opinion and sort it out for ourselves, without malice. :-D

 

[Guest]

i'll second that!

check out the cool smilies too !

Bakalorz, I'm going to go out 'on a limb' a little bit here.....I have appreciated your help with my problem and I would imagine others may have benefited, as well (or will, in the future, if they do searches).

But....why do you seem so mean spirited towards posplayr? He's also been extremely helpful and I just don't understand why you insist on belittling him. He's taken quite a a bit of time to offer up suggestions and, while I don't have the expertise to understand all of it, it has been really useful for me.

I know everyone on the forum means well but it all seems to work better when we respect differences of opinion and sort it out for ourselves, without malice. :-D

 

[bakalorz]

Bakalorz, I'm going to go out 'on a limb' a little bit here.....I have appreciated your help with my problem and I would imagine others may have benefited, as well (or will, in the future, if they do searches).

But....why do you seem so mean spirited towards posplayr? He's also been extremely helpful and I just don't understand why you insist on belittling him. He's taken quite a a bit of time to offer up suggestions and, while I don't have the expertise to understand all of it, it has been really useful for me.

I know everyone on the forum means well but it all seems to work better when we respect differences of opinion and sort it out for ourselves, without malice. :-D

Sigh ...

I learned about the GSR when My R/R on my first bike turned out hosed.
After I fixed it, I kept reading to learn about mechanical tips, and occasionally help in the electrical threads.
I often don't have as much time as I'd like to participate, so even the electrical threads I tend to skim and to only chime in if I think I have a unique viewpoint, or if I see some stuff thats really off.
And believe me, theres a LOT of stuff thats said in the electrical threads that JUST AINT RIGHT. Most by far I try to ignore, though it bugs me a little bit to do so. But If I see something potentially damaging, or someone leading someone else to do things that will just absolutely confuse their troubleshooting efforts then I'll probably step in. And check my posting history, I try to be tactful about it most times ...

So lets step back to a little bit more than a week back.

In this thread, Posplayer gave the OP some suggestions
A, B, C, (and d which was a variation of C)
C would have totally wasted the guys time, and I said so.
We had a long reasonably respectful back and forth.
Toward the end of it all, I re-read the original, and realized that B was potentially damaging to the guys $$$ part. But if he hadn't done it yet, he was unlikely to, and the thread was more or less dead, so I let it lie.

There was also some other thread that posplayer participated in where I thought some of his info was BS, but it was fairly benign, so I was tactful and withheld comment (find that hard to believe ... don't you)
But since his username was in my memory from the other thread, it bumped up the idea "posplayer can be a BS artist"

So then we get to this thread
Andrew says he has some charging problems.
He recently did the coil relay mod from another thread, could that be the cause of his problems?
And I think to myself: no, that cant possibly be the problem, lets see what the other people in the thread come up with as other things to check.
So I get to posplayers reply ... and I just about go to bang my head on the wall.

Andrew did some wiring work, and it was probably a good thing, and posplayer is basically telling him he needs to rip it out.
FOR NO VALID REASON AT ALL.
He did put some weasel words in to check and make sure of the coil resistance of the relay, but if the OP is asking the question he won't know how to do that.

And if Pos has any clue about automotive relays at all, he should have been able to guess WAY closer to the right #.
And if he doesn't, why is he providing an opinion
But even if he doesn't know offhand, radioshhack.com, or pepboys.com, or google(automotive relay) could provide him an answer in seconds.
And if your going to bother to post, you owe it to the guy to at least give a reasonable answer, not a wild flying guess.
But its even worse, later we find out that pos had in his possession a relay, but just didn't bother to measure it before he posted.

So he is posting horribly wrong information, that will cause a guy to screw up something good he did. Because he is too lazy to check the #s first.
WHAT THE F___ IS UP WITH THAT... WHY POST AT ALL IF YOU DONT HAVE A DECENT ANSWER TO GIVE.

So right below his bogus #s I wrote
No way, absolutely not !!!
In giant red letters
And told him not to take wild flying guesses when he didn't know the answer.

... I absolutely Stand By That.








Now, you may think I overreacted, but let me give you an analogy that might make more sense to the non-electrical guys.

Suppose you read a post that went:​

Hey, I just put these things called PODS on my bike.​

I just took it for a ride, and it ran GREAT, but ...​

I think I had a full tank of gas, but after only 40 miles I ran out of gas.​

Could the PODs have been the reason.​

And one of the replies reads:​

Well, check your #s to be sure, but the pods can cause a reduction of 10mpg per pod. since you probably put on one per carb, that would be a total reduction of approx 40 mpg. So its very likely to be the source of your problems.​

Now that sounds like an exaggeration, but in electrical terms, his answer was just that stupid, and just that harmful.

So in such a case would you respond with "sir, may I respectfuly suggest you recheck your numbers"

Or would you say "no way absolutely not."

Posplayr didn't like that, and replied that I had no tact, he would no longer reply to me, and some other things.

I replied in a like manner, but there are two points I would like to make.
First, I mainly complained about the accuracy of his information, rather than personal attacks on his charachter.
Second, I told him If he doesn't post inaccurate info I will leave him alone.
If he posts Bull**** I will rip it apart.

To some extent the same rules apply to everyone:
If you post bull****, I will probably rip it apart too ...
but since I like you, I will try to be gentle and polite about it.\\/
But bull**** artists get no such slack.

So after that, I checked his posting history, and there sure enough there were other posts where he was shooting off the cuff, and taking guesses, guesses that could cost people time or money.
I'm not saying he doesn't have good suggestions too. He does, lots of them.

But when he doesn't know the answer he guesses. I won't let that go by anymore. I will stomp all over it with the biggest red magic marker I can find. If I could make it blink and flash I would.

When he pontificates on things he doesn't understand, I won't let that go by anymore either. I will stomp all over it with the biggest red magic marker I can find.

Posplayer has represented himself as very knowledgeable.
I consider him a semi-knowledable BS artist. As such he gets much less slack than people I don't consider BS artists.
He does well with the simpler things, but he Bull****s constantly on anything more complex. I hope that will stop. I will try in my gentle way to encourage him to stop.

The post of his I ripped apart above, I ripped apart on the facts.
I wasn't polite about it, but I attacked his arguments more than his character.
His post was full of bull, through and through. Thats why I replied to it. He was correct about a couple of the minor points, but all the major points he was completely incorrect about.
You'll note he hasn't said I was wrong about any of it.
Other occasions I have tried to explain the operation of the R/R in gentler terms, he has ignored and continued to spew misinformation.
He had many other posts in the thread. Most I left alone. But that one was pure unadulterated bull****. And I will no longer pussyfoot around bull**** from Posplayr, he has ****ed away that privledge.

So had someone else posted that, would I have replied. Absolutely yes, it was bad info that needed refuting
Would I have been more tactful. yes.
If Posplayer wants to refute any of what I wrote, have at it, I stand by every word I said.
If Posplayer doesn't want me to rip up his posts, tell him not to post incorrect bull****.
If Posplayer wants me to be nice when I point out his errors, maybe I'll mellow as time passes... but only if the error rate goes down.

 

[duaneage]

For What It's Worth I have plenty of inventory on Honda RR kits.

 

[duaneage]

The charging system will operate more efficiently and with less potential for problems if you bypass the wiring harness connections and connect the R/R DC output directly to battery.

Earl

Make sure a 10 amp fuse is used between the battery and RR if you go this route, safety first.

 

[posplayr]

Mr. Berserk

Mr. Berserk

I will keep this as clear as possible.

* You are very rude, obnoxious and are trying to turn GSresources into a Yahoo message board.

Initially I was not going to respond to you and still have not even read your post on the other thread. I was told in PM that you seemed to be going off of the deep end. Now you are invading this thread with your filth. It is entirely inappropriate and that is why people are asking you "politely" to refrain.

You just don't get it; that is plain to see and that is not my purpose to have you get it. My purpose is to get you to stop posting in the vulgar style that you favor and to expose you for the loud mouth that you are.

You have continually posted technical details which have little to do with the premise of this thread. In fact if not all ,then most of your arguments would lead one to conclude the opposite of the truth. Your posts are not only rude, they are disruptive to the normal flow of technical information and in fact can be damaging in that in your seal to protect your own defective regulator design you are disseminating false information. Contrary to your assertions:

Voltage Fold back is not normal OEM behavior!!!​

I won't go through you "editorial review of my posts". I said before.

It would be one thing for you to point out what you though might be wrong, but your insistence at doing sentence by sentence critiques to the point where you are leaving the impression that you need to "approve" any statements posted is very arrogant. As I said before, "Arrogance begets Ignorance". You are a very good example of this. There is a tone to your posts that is simply foul and distasteful.

Now lets get to the technical discussion and see if you can defend yourself:

You have directly or indirectly made statements that voltage fold back is (i.e. a decreasing voltage level at 5000 RPM ,13.0V, from say 2500 RPM ,13.5V), are a normal part of OEM R/R behavior). I put it in red because that is your style, but I would not stoop to your behavior and use the large RED fonts.

I am stating it in this way as I have literally and purposefully said the said the opposite. A normal OEM GS R/R should not fold back like this and I provided several factors which would cause the intrinsic design of the R/R to not fold back.

You were right on the SCR. I either forgot what an SCR was or never knew. I assumed it was acting like a simple FET with zener control. As it turns out this is a very much more crude form of control than I had anticipated. The "crowbar" control is more likely see in an application to do overvoltage shunt protection and not a feed back control of a DC supplu voltage. This is a detail that is really irrelevant as anybody following this post will soon figure out.

Some of your other comments are not worth discussing because you appear to have a very possessive affliction for your own Regulator design and since you basically patterned it after the OEM topology you apparently feel since there is "guilt by association" you have to defend the Suzuki design as if some one was assailing your own personnel design.

This makes perfect sense since you could not see clear to avoid some of the same obvious error conditions and faults that the OEM regulator has, you need to defend that design in order to defend your own design. You are doing this to the point of even dismissing the Honda design. You stated:

[Mr Berserk] Quote: "The "honda fix" as you describe it is not nearly as big a deal as you seem to think"​

Well the Honda design may not be designed correctly, but at least they knew enough to not sense battery voltage through the same wire they were providing current to the battery with. That is why experienced engineers designing fault tolerant designs use differential inputs to sense remote voltages. With the normal connection corrosion and the location of the R/R relative to the battery they are basically removed and the battery is "remote".

Lets look at the technical facts:

FACT # 1.) The R/R outputs positive current to the battery and motor cycle loads. Since it is fused for 15 amp, I will use 10 amps (P=IV=120 watts) as a nominal 5000 RPM output current under full load. It might be 7 or it might be 12 amps the analysis is not going to change much.

FACT #2.) Resistance between the R/R red + lead output and the battery positive post will cause a positive drop in voltage according to ohms law (V=IR) as measured from the R/R output to the battery. Since it is impossible for there to be zero ohms resistance between R/R and Batt the battery + is always at a lower voltage than the R/R (in a charging condition).

FACT #3.) It has been demonstrated by several (including me) and most recently by Chuckycheese that by diligently reducing the forward drop (i.e. resistance ) he has increased the charging voltage at 5000 RPM.
I believe he even did this in stages so he observed a direct correlation that incremental reduction on the voltage difference between R/R and the battery caused incremental increases in his 5000 RPM charging voltage. In fact he took a fold back condition and fully corrected it without changing out and any electrical components.


FACT #4.) The various Suzuki manuals describe the 5000 rpm regulator test as requiring between 14V-15.5V battery charging voltage essentially measured at the battery. If it is either lower than this or higher than this the regulator is faulty. Apparently they did not consider the effects of resistance so we have to assume this is for a working system with clean connections.


Mr Berserk, you have steadfastly made the argument that fold back is normal, well there is no basis for this assertion.

By logical deduction, FACT #4 says expect 14.0V-15.5V output (i.e. normal operation). An open circuit healthy battery will have about 12.8V so the R/R has to increase from 12.8 up 1.2 to 2.7 volts above the battery. There is probably some non linearity in the voltage rise with rising engine RPM, and as you pointed out with the SCR CROWBAR operation there can be a jump in non monotonicity of same, but it really doesn't matter much because you still need to get to 14.0 to 15.5 volts at 5000 RPM. Anything else is an irrelevant detail (this is your specialty I know) that obfuscates the obvious.

So the facts lead us to conclude that a standard and properly operating OEM R/R will exhibit (with perfect connections) on average a loose form of type 0 control (type 0 means in this context there is a positive voltage set point error at high current output). With increasing charging voltage across the battery.

If you don't understand basic control theory I will stop using it as I don't want to explain what it means. While you might think this is "pontificating", the Regulator is a "controller" and some basic knowledge of feedback control theory is helpful as there are conclusions that can be drawn from control theory irrespective of how Suzuki implemented the regulator or you designed your own "pet rock" regulator.

So since it is clear that normal R/R operation does not fold back, and from Fact #3 there is one to one demonstrated correlation between incremental drops in forward voltage drop across the power feed wire and the battery charging voltage. From Fact #2 we see that resistance has to make the battery voltage drop.

The obvious conclusion is:
While this may not be the only way to cause voltage fold back, resistance in the charging wire will cause fold back and improper charging battery voltage drops (my point in the beginning).

We can by pure logic disprove Mr. Berserk's contention. If foldback can be removed by reduction of resistance (which it has been proven it does), then foldback can't be part of normal operation. QED.

So Mr. Berserk all of you red letters and enlarged fonts and technical arguments are leading you to support the completely wrong conclusion. This same twisted though process is what probably lead you to simply adopt the same Suzuki OEM charging system topology and coupled with your arrogance is what make you so obnoxious.

As I said before Arrogance begets Ignorance because you are too busy telling other people how good you are that you are not spending any time trying to learn. This is your problem in a nutshell.

I don't think there are any questions left on this subject. I don't thank you have anything to add. I don't want to have to read your spewing now and potential reconciliatory "back tracking" (fat chance).

Don't expect any further response from me.

Posplayr


4) The OEM R/R only means of sensing output voltage (at the battery) is through the same power supply line that charging current is supplied.

 

[earlfor]

Considering the main fuse in the fuseblock is 15 amps, I would use the same rating if I were installing a fuse between the RR and battery.

Earl

Make sure a 10 amp fuse is used between the battery and RR if you go this route, safety first.

 

[posplayr]

The problem is

The problem is

Depending upon your bike specifics, if you add an additional fuse in parallel to the stock one (probably in the fusebox) then you now have twice the current capability (fuses are in parallel and will tend to share current depending upon other Resistance in the circuit).

If the Fuse box fuse is really a dedicated line to the battery, it might be better to reduce or entirely remove it if you go for a full 15 amp on the new inline.

Another consideration.....

Posplayr

 

[posplayr]

duaneage

duaneage

I already have one for my GS750EX, but probably want another for my GS1100ED. Do you have either a typical Honda wiring harness schematic or a R/R schematic for the ones you supply?
TIA
Posplayr

 

[earlfor]

Actually, I have read this thread in its entirety a few times and I have found nothing that remotely qualifies as "filth". As far as refraining, I dont see any need to overlook technical points in contention as no one is served by that approach. I would prefer to see factual and technical explanations by the involved parties satisfy the questions rather than complaints about criticism.


Earl

I will keep this as clear as possible.


Initially I was not going to respond to you and still have not even read your post on the other thread. I was told in PM that you seemed to be going off of the deep end. Now you are invading this thread with your filth. It is entirely inappropriate and that is why people are asking you "politely" to refrain.

 

[earlfor]

I intended a 15 amp fuse inline/series on the R/R DC + output which would not double the capacity, as in my intent, the R/R output is connected directly to battery. I made that suggestion as a minimal consideration if that was as someone wished to do. However, the output capacity of the stator is approximately 25 amps, and most GS's require about 15-20 amps in a normal running state lights on, charging system etc.,so I have some doubt that would be sufficient. Putting two 15 amp fuses in parallel feeding the fusebox would not serve any purpose as power from the battery goes directly to the fusebox and then the multiple fuses take power in increments of 15, 10, 10, 10,10 from that main line. There is no fuse on any GS between the fuse box and the battery. There is fuse box capacity for as much as 55 amps to be running through the box.

Earl

Depending upon your bike specifics, if you add an additional fuse in parallel to the stock one (probably in the fusebox) then you now have twice the current capability (fuses are in parallel and will tend to share current depending upon other Resistance in the circuit).

If the Fuse box fuse is really a dedicated line to the battery, it might be better to reduce or entirely remove it if you go for a full 15 amp on the new inline.

Another consideration.....

Posplayr

 

[posplayr]

earlfor

earlfor

I guess I was not clear; adding "capacity" to the fuse is like using a copper penny in a fuse box. As you note the wires would fry before the "enhanced" capacity fuse would blow.

While not trying to put words in Duaneage's mouth , but I think with his recommendation to drop the fuse rating to 10 amp, v,s, the stock 15 amps he was alluding to the parallel paths likely with adding the additional wire and unintended consequences of parallel fuses.

I hope that is clearer.

Posplayr

 

[posplayr]

earlfor

earlfor

Actually, I have read this thread in its entirety a few times and I have found nothing that remotely qualifies as "filth".

​

http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/showthread.php?t=122402&page=2

Since were here as well, i assume you are including this thread as well.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion; no argument there. It takes all kinds.

​

​

As far as refraining, I don't see any need to overlook technical points in contention as no one is served by that approach.

​

Maybe it is my delivery, but I took great care to clearly delineate a set of facts that prove the primary technical point that voltage fold back is not normal behavior. While there can be supporting analysis, most of it does not matter and is in fact irrelevant.

Part of mature technical development is the ability to abstract or generalize problem solving so that a solution can be developed without getting confused with irrelevant detail. In fact most analysis that I conduct in involves the determination of critical determinative factors and not a regurgitation of irrelevant factors.

I would prefer to see factual and technical explanations by the involved parties satisfy the questions rather than complaints about criticism.
​

While you may like to see technical banter, when it is irrelevant to the topic, I would suggest it is distracting and in the case of Mr. Berserk it is intended primarily to demean (my opinion). There are also at least two other documented opinions with the same bent on this thread.

I have had many technical conversation (in the last 30 years) both orally, written and via e-mail and I have never seen any type of communication that is as Mr. Berserk is conducting himself to be anything but as I describe.

Posplayr

​