Caramba

Your points are perfectly valid. I am quite happy to accept that I am out of touch with quite a lot of stuff as much has changed since I started, probably for the better. Although I did say that neutral is between first and second, on my Ducati there's loads of neutrals but not where I expect them. The one between fourth and fifth can be embarrassing!

errrr, no I didn't do my CBT. I passed my bike test in 1975. I agree about downshifting of course but it would never ever occur to me to downshift into first when moving. Only go down to second, stop, neutral. Only use first for pulling away. As I said that's why neutral is positioned where it is between first and second so you can get to it directly from second when stopping and you can go directly from it into first when starting off again. It needs to be accessible from both. If the method advised now is 6-5-4-3-2-1-neutral I wonder why they don't build gearboxes to enable that and move neutral "below" first. They didn't place it where it is just on a whim, there was a very compelling reason.

Thanks for clarifying that, I had no idea that people were actually taught to move down through the gears as far as first but if that's the case I've learned something. To me first is a gear for starting off only, I never downshift to first but I guess I can see some sense in going down to first with the clutch in rather than going into neutral. If it works then fine, I maybe try it.

Why shouldn't you go from 2nd into neutral? It's a perfectly legitimate action when coming to a halt. Going from any other gear to neutral seems bizarre to me. In fact that's why neutral is where it is, next to 2nd and not below 1st.

I use Silkolene Pro FST, about 100ml to each 12 litre tank full during the winter. The recommended mixture is I think 1-2% but that's over the top. They would suggest using more than is really required of course!

<sheepish face on> PICTURE_MAN it's clear from reading some of your other posts that you're more than a little experienced at this game and consequently everything I've written above is glaringly obvious to you. I now fell a bit sheepish but was only trying to help. <sheepish face off>

I can't asnwer your question from a position of definitive knowledge but applying a bit of logic the answer I would arrive at would be no unless you change more than the barrel. If as the anecdotal evidence suggest such a conversion would cause the bike to "go like stink" then one assumes that the capacity of the engine has somehow increased. There are only two factors that determine that, the bore and the stroke. If the 175 and 125 have the same bore then there isn't an increase in capacity, you're replacing like for like. If however the 175 has a bigger bore then the 125 piston is going to rattle around inside it and of course the engine won't work. If the bore is the same but the barrel is a bit longer in the 175 to give it the extra capacity then fitting it to a 125 bottom end will do nothing because the stroke is controlled not by the barrel but by the profile of the crank. Your swept volume (engine capacity) remains the same. So if the 175 barrel is longer than the 125 barrel (but same bore) you'd need a new crankshaft too. If the 175 barrel is the same length but bigger bore you'd need bigger pistons to fit the bigger bore. I don't know the engine but it's possible that the difference between the two is in both bore AND stroke so you're doubly stuffed. I'd find the specs for the two engines and get the bore and stroke dimensions. UPDATE Search in the Internet reveals that the 125 has a bore size of 56mm and the 175 is 66mm so your 125 piston would need changing. The stroke size however is identical at 50mm. So it suggests the bottom ends (including crank) are the same dimensionally. The wider barrel would of course require you to throw away the 56mm 125 piston and buy a 66m 175 one. The only problem then is whether the bigger piston will fit the top of the con rod. It's unlikely that the gudgeon pin will be different but that's something I can't tell you. Furthermore there's the question of whether the cylinder heads are identical and whether the bottom end bearings are stronger for the higher capacity engine. At least we have an answer. It isn't a straight swap as the pistons are different.

Valve clearances (assuming you mean the cam to valve stem clearances and not any of the other measurements such as the valve guide to body clearances): Measured cold with piston at TDC on the compression stroke: Inlet 0.08mm to 0.12mm Exhaust 0.10 mm to 0.14mm

I don't think there is a Haynes manual available yet for the YBR but I'd agree they're handy to have. Not brilliant but for many jobs they're fine.

Brilliant Nio, thank you

WD40 is a very effective cleaner and I use it a lot but there are those who worry about the possible unwanted side effects of using it to clean chains - http://www.webbikeworld.com/r3/motorcycle-chain-cleaner/ I'm not sure whether there is a real cause for worry and given that R1Mad has got 27k out of the chain suggests there's not much wrong with it! Whatever the "real" answer, regular cleaning and lubrication are to my mind more important than the choice of products.

Does anyone happen to know what the torque settings for the brake caliper are on a 2007 YBR125ED? Also, where's the best place to buy fork seals/brake caliper seals? Thanks all