Voltage Question..........again...sorry

[RT]

Installed my datel meter and went for a short ride to test it out.

Start up cold idle 13.5 - 13.7
40 mph 3000 RPM   13.5+
Higher speed, higher rpm's all good.

At the end of my ride I stopped at light and it dropped to around 12.6 - 12.7 at idle??????    Is this norm?    No extras on, not even high beams.  

Came right back up as I start away from light and dropped again below 13 when I pulled in garage.

Will voltage tend to drop as battery is charged?

No I have not done the Sasquatch upgrade.

Is this something to be concerned about??   Battery is not quite 2 years old.

[Stretch]

My idle voltage has been in that range throughout a variety of Stators, Regulators, and wiring.  You'll probably see somewhat of an increase if you do a Sasquatch Fix, but the idle voltage will remain about the same, since the Stator just doesn't put out much at idle.

[RT]

Thanks, was a bit concern.   May do the upgrade soon as hope to get in a road trip toward the end of the month.

[iansoady]

Mine shows over 14 at idle with the Sasquatch fix. That's with only 1 headlamp on though.

[Stretch]

Yeah, mine's 14.3 with the lights off.  (UK-spec 2003 headlight switch)

[Nimrod11]

Start up cold idle 13.5 - 13.7

At the end of my ride I stopped at light and it dropped to around 12.6 - 12.7 at idle??????    Is this norm?    No extras on, not even high beams.  

I've also noticed that with a cold engine, the voltage is in that range (13.5V)

After some time riding thought, the voltage drops a little and remains at 12.5 more or less with 1 headlight and 2 aux lights on. But then I did the fix.

I would say don't do the fix if that is what you are getting. Only if you put in aux lights or notice that is dropping, then do it.

[ackme]

I would say don't do the fix if that is what you are getting. Only if you put in aux lights or notice that is dropping, then do it.

Why do you think to hold off on the fix?  I have a very low mileage 05 and I just put the Datel on this past weekend.  On two rides of 80+ miles I was consistently getting 14.2v while running at speed.  Idle voltage was 12.5v.  I have not done the Sasquatch fix as I wanted to get a base line of what was going on.  

But if the root cause of the failure is heat, then even if there is no problem currently ( :roll: ), as hours pile up on the components the more they will degrade, eventually resulting in failure.  Although I would guess that it is wrong to say that every Tiger is fated to this outcome, it happens enough for me to think that proactive steps are better than waiting for symptoms to appear.

It seems like the design issues are, in order of impact, poor placement (no air flow), inferior component (SCR vs. MOSFET) and thirdly;undersize and excessive length in the wiring from the R/R to the battery.  I am sure some one here knows better than I if this is at all valid.


ack

[Nimrod11]

Why do you think to hold off on the fix?

Seems to me there is no reason to do the fix if you are getting those voltages. I did the fix because riding in town (slow, with many stops) with my aux lights on, I had the engine die on me and then had no battery to start up again. Didn't have the datel then but was getting down to almost 11V.

After the fix, I am at 12.5 at idle and ~14 at high RPM.

If you have the Datel and no extra loads, I think you are safe without the fix. Anyway, the fix also won't fix the airflow and mosfet problems.

If you are at 14V already, with the fix would you end up higher?

[ackme]

If you are at 14V already, with the fix would you end up higher?

That is something to consider.  If the R/R is designed to output no more than 14.7 or so (higher voltages than that would overcharge the battery) then the current wiring is not introducing any significant voltage drop and the fix would not change the voltage that is arriving at the battery.  It would however provide a wiring path with less resistance and as a result less heat.  In theory that would help delay the kinds of problems that Stretch and Tom Harold reported with connectors, wiring and fuse holders burning out.  As you point out it would not change the amount of air flow around the R/R or make the SCR work as efficiently as a MOSFET circuit.

OR, Triumph knew their harness and its convoluted path would introduce enough resistance to keep the voltage in the low 14's at best and even if a percentage of bikes ended up burning out their R/R at least the battery would not have to be replaced every 6 months because it overcharged!  :shock:

ack

[oxnsox]

If you are at 14V already, with the fix would you end up higher?

That is something to consider.  If the R/R is designed to output no more than 14.7 or so (higher voltages than that would overcharge the battery) then the current wiring is not introducing any significant voltage drop and the fix would not change the voltage that is arriving at the battery.  It would however provide a wiring path with less resistance and as a result less heat.  In theory that would help delay the kinds of problems that Stretch and Tom Harold reported with connectors, wiring and fuse holders burning out.  As you point out it would not change the amount of air flow around the R/R or make the SCR work as efficiently as a MOSFET circuit.

The problems with connectors and fuseholders are as a result of the current passing through what are appear to be bad (dirty) connections at those points.
With respect to the Connectors from the Stator it is probable that when the SCR Rec/Reg fails the resulting excessive current draw exceeds the capability of the connector resulting in its failure... and this all in concert with a stator winding failure.
The failure at the main fuse block is primarily about poor connections and contact points for the amount of current in the circuit.
 

OR, Triumph knew their harness and its convoluted path would introduce enough resistance to keep the voltage in the low 14's at best and even if a percentage of bikes ended up burning out their R/R at least the battery would not have to be replaced every 6 months because it overcharged!  :shock:

ack

It is possible, though unlikely, that the system is 'by design' lossy... ie: the wiring is designed to introduce some resistance in order to limit the charging voltage as you speculate.

[Stretch]

It is possible, though unlikely, that the system is 'by design' lossy... ie: the wiring is designed to introduce some resistance in order to limit the charging voltage as you speculate.

Although the small-gauge wiring used by Triumph to save a buck does function to limit a small amount of voltage, it wasn't designed that way.

The Regulator is designed to limit charging voltage, not the wiring.  The only purpose of the wiring is to carry the current, which it does, albeit marginally in some cases.

[ackme]

Sorry if it was not clear that I was being facetious about Triumph's design intentions.  :oops:


ack

[Bixxer Bob]

DOes anyone know whether Sasquatch's fix is based on, but also an improvement on, a certain Triumph Service Bulletin I, ermmmm, came by recently?  It seems to acknowledge the weakness of the wiring loom in the charging circuit area.

[Stretch]

I asked my Triumph Guru, Tom at Augusta (Georgia) Triumph-Ducati, that very question.  He told me the Service Bulletin was issued in 2003 or so, and regarded the length of wiring between the Stator and Regulator / Rectifier.  Early 955's had a few feet of wire running from the Stator to the bike's wiring harness, along the frame, and then back down to the R/R.  The service bulletin dealt with cutting that length of wire down to a more direct span, 18 inches or so, in order to reduce the amount of current lost to resistance in the wire.

In its stock form, my 2005 had a straight run of wire from the Stator cover to the R/R, so I guess the factory started running the shorter wires before the '05 model year.  With the Service Bulletin issued in 2003 (or maybe even 2002), they probably made the change in the production line in the '02 or '03 model year.

I specifically asked him if there were any other Service Bulletins that related to 955 Tiger charging systems, and he said that's the only one he has on record.

[oxnsox]

It is possible, though unlikely, that the system is 'by design' lossy... ie: the wiring is designed to introduce some resistance in order to limit the charging voltage as you speculate.

Although the small-gauge wiring used by Triumph to save a buck does function to limit a small amount of voltage, it wasn't designed that way.

I agree, but stick to my original point.  Historically there have been systems that have been designed this way... it's a British thing... :lol:

The Regulator is designed to limit charging voltage, not the wiring.  The only purpose of the wiring is to carry the current, which it does, albeit marginally in some cases.

May sound picky but this system really controls the current... albeit in a nasty way by shunting it to ground. The Mosfet systems are a more voltage oriented design.