Start: Only In Neutral

[Retired At LAst]

Have a 1999 RT-P. Bike would always start either in neutral or in any gear as long as the clutch was not engaged.

(kickstand up)

 

 

Today all of a sudden it will only start in neutral.

A minor problem but bothersome never the less.

I f for some reason I was to stall at a stop sign at the top of a hill while in first gear I now have to shift into neutral before pressing the start button.

 

Any ideas???

Thanks, Allen

[RFW]

Have a 1999 RT-P. Bike would always start either in neutral or in any gear as long as the clutch was not engaged.

(kickstand up)

 

 

Today all of a sudden it will only start in neutral.

A minor problem but bothersome never the less.

I f for some reason I was to stall at a stop sign at the top of a hill while in first gear I now have to shift into neutral before pressing the start button.

 

Any ideas???

Thanks, Allen

 

Obviously the switch on the clutch (probably located on the clutch lever itself) is shot.

 

Unplug it from the wiring harness, and short out the 2 wiring harness contacts (to simulate a closed switch). If it now starts in gear, then you've found your problem.

 

Bob.

[russell_bynum]

The clutch switch failed.

 

There's a switch in the clutch lever that detects when the clutch lever is squeezed. As a quick fix, you can cut it's wires, splice them together, and the bike will start. Just be warned that it'll happily try to start even when it's in gear and the clutch is out.

 

Replacing the switch is relatively easy, but you might wind up needing to remove the nose of the bike to get to its connector. Cut the wire, slip an appropriate deep socket over the switch, unscrew it, screw in a new switch (I did it by hand, and tightened with a pair of needle-nosed pliers.), run the new wire along the same path as the old one, zip-tieing stuff as you go, unplug the old switch's connector and plug in the new one.

 

If it was me, I'd just short the switch and leave it that way until the next time I had the bike apart for some other maintenance.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

If you plan on keeping the bike awhile, you could always solder in a pair of coaxial connectors up near the clutch lever someplace. That way, a spare could be kept on the bike for emergencies. The things are only a couple of bucks at Radio Shack. Audio plug and jack available as an 'extender' cable.

 

Another example of BMW making the replacement of a simple component much more complicated than it needs to be.

[russell_bynum]

Another example of BMW making the replacement of a simple component much more complicated than it needs to be.

 

No kidding. All they'd have to do is move the connector a few inches so you could get to it without dissasembling the whole bike. No measurable increase in cost to BMW, and it would make this a 10 minute job.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

I have long held that the guys who design shit should be forced to work on them in the field before their final design is foisted on the public. A couple of cheeks nestled up to hot exhaust pipes or a knuckle or two skinned while trying to reach the right side throttle cable adjuster, or maybe a little water on the knee from trying to see the friggin' oil level while the bike is on the center stand would convince the silly bastards to think about service.

 

The company I work for has similar problems. I fight with engineering all the time over supid stuff like stacking fittings one on top of the other till you can't operate on the lowest ones without removing the uppers. On a high vacuum sytem where disturbing anything creates potential for leaks it is the very height of stupidity. You might create 4 leaks in an effor to fix one.

[RFW]

Another example of BMW making the replacement of a simple component much more complicated than it needs to be.

 

No kidding. All they'd have to do is move the connector a few inches so you could get to it without dissasembling the whole bike. No measurable increase in cost to BMW, and it would make this a 10 minute job.

 

....providing they used a more expensive and bulky waterproof connector. One of the reasons for the annoying location of the connector is to be able to use a normal type of connector, and then locate it in a place where water entry is not likely.

 

By the way, the reason for the switch failure is almost certainly because of water entry into the switch itself. These switches are supposed to be waterproof, but they really aren't so great in that respect.

 

The rear brake switch on my '86 K100RT is located right at the rear brake lever, and kept failing due to water entry. I got sick and tired of paying $35 for a crummy switch every so often. So I made a 100% waterproof version that has no switch contacts at all.

 

I inserted a small magnet into the stop bolt on the lever, and a tiny reed switch (a switch that is sensitive to magnetic field, and is hermetically sealed in glass) into the shell of the old brake switch.

 

The reed switch is only capable of switching a few milliamps, and also, the "sense" of the switching action is the reverse of what is required (the reed switch contacts close when the lever is released, and open when one steps on the pefal and the magnet moves away from the switch). So I made a simple electronic module that drives a relay with the correct switching "action" and potted it in a small block of polyurethane rubber. The relay contacts connect to the same connector that the old switch used to connect to. The potted module is only about 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" and is just strapped to the side frame member under the side panel.

 

A lot of work, but it works like a hot damn! No more problems with switches ruined by water entry!

 

Bob.

[BFish]

The company I work for has similar problems. I fight with engineering all the time over supid stuff...

 

 

really ed...i find that hard to believe...when did you come out of your shell?

[russell_bynum]

....providing they used a more expensive and bulky waterproof connector. One of the reasons for the annoying location of the connector is to be able to use a normal type of connector, and then locate it in a place where water entry is not likely.

 

Well sure, but it's a motorcycle...all of the electonics shouls be waterproofed. I know for a fact that water can (and does) get inside the nose of the bike. Hiding a non-waterproof connector in an area that's also not waterproof is not good engineering.

[RFW]

....providing they used a more expensive and bulky waterproof connector. One of the reasons for the annoying location of the connector is to be able to use a normal type of connector, and then locate it in a place where water entry is not likely.

 

Well sure, but it's a motorcycle...all of the electonics shouls be waterproofed. I know for a fact that water can (and does) get inside the nose of the bike. Hiding a non-waterproof connector in an area that's also not waterproof is not good engineering.

 

Agreed ....up to a point. Remember that waterproof connectors of this sort are significantly more bulky than the simple 2-pin non-waterproof types. Cost comes into the picture. A waterproof connector suitable for use here would cost 3 to 5 times more than the one they are using (I've designed in these things at work, so I am familiar with the costs).

 

Remember also that waterproof connectors of this sort are significantly more bulky that the simple 2-pin non-waterproof types. So aesthetics comes into the picture I suppose. If they put an unavoidably more bulky waterproof connector right out there where it was easy to replace, I'm sure that they would get a lot of people complaining that it looked like hell.

 

To me, the best solution is to concentrate on the switch, which usually fails because of water entry. Either make it more waterproof, or (better) use a hermetic reed switch (or similar) and eliminate the mechanical/water entry problems of the switch entirely. If the switch is now very reliable, hiding the connector where it is difficult to unplug becomes irrelivant. But again, this involves cost.

 

Like any true engineering problem this involves tradeoffs; there is no magic bullet.

 

Bob.

[russell_bynum]

Like any true engineering problem this involves tradeoffs; there is no magic bullet.

 

Naturally. And I agree...the main focus should be on the part that actually fails...the switch. But it wouldn't break my heart if they made it easier to replace when it does fail.