pug Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Actually, from what I gather, sag is the SINGLE most inportant thing as far as suspension setup... Ride height and sag are two totally different things. Though sag may effect ride height, it's a different animal. Ajust sag for your weight, then fine tune the ride height. Your mistake is apparently thinking ride height and sag are one and the same. Absolutlely not the case. Sag sets where the suspension is in it's total travel with the rider aboard. Once that's sorted by ajusting spring preload front (via spacer length) and rear (via that double lock ring on the stock shock), you ajust ride height by moving the triple clamp and/or ajusting the rear via shims (or shock length if you have an aftermarket shock that is ride height ajustable). Generally agree, BUT when you change ride height you might affect F to R weight (mass) distribution and then this will affect your sag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
testrider Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 So from what you are saying, if I remove my fork springs, put in 2 solid steel bars inside the fork tube, then adjust the chassis to have the same height as before, it'll be fine? False. Most of the race teams are now using balsa wood. It's much lighter, and once it absorbs enough fork oil, provides a much smoother ride over steel bars. After reading your reply, I have switched from solid steel bars to solid particle wood bars (as I ran out of balsa wood), now it does ride a lot better! (after of course resetting the ride height by moving the fork around to keep the chassis the same height as before) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonox Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 i thought i'd go one step further - i've never really been that comfortable with right hand turns, so i moved the right fork up more than the left one and now my right turns are better than rossi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pug Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 i thought i'd go one step further - i've never really been that comfortable with right hand turns, so i moved the right fork up more than the left one and now my right turns are better than rossi! You could remove your LHS rear wheel spacer so it would go around right hand turns forever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo50jeff Posted May 1, 2006 Author Share Posted May 1, 2006 I'm done trying, dude. Read something besides the Hyperpro installation instructions (I've disagreed with some of their recommendations in the past, BTW, but you're not up to that conversation) and try and gain some understanding of the difference between suspension travel (sag) and chassis geometry (ride height) and we'll discuss this further. I'll say this one more time- the two are related but are absolutely not the same thing. Understand that and you may see the light. Read the link Pete took the time to find and post. I did read the post from Pete. It was very helpful. I understand the difference between suspension travel and chassis geometry, I'm not a moron. I've installed the springs front and rear, but haven't put the bike back together yet (waiting for new tires). I'd like to point out that most of you that have used spacers to acheive the correct sag are very heavy compared to me. I'm 180lbs in full gear. Most of you are about 100lbs more than me which would require some spacers to adjust preload for the correct amount of sag. I'd bet that after the bike is back together, without any spacers I'm going to be very close to the 30-35mm of sag that is desired. I DID do the 5mm washer shim under the rear shock. I don't agree with the directions from hyperpro 100% either! They sent me 7.5 weight oil. I used 5 weight oil instead, after I read several hundred posts from fellow riders. I don't want an overly damped fork anymore! It's too bone jarring! Thank you for all of your help Redbird! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartonmd Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 I will say, however, that saying "I don't need to adjust sag because I'm the weight the springs are made for" is different from saying "sag doesn't matter, adjust the forks in the clamps to make up for it" Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcrich Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 I'd like to point out that most of you that have used spacers to acheive the correct sag are very heavy compared to me. I'm 180lbs in full gear. Most of you are about 100lbs more than me which would require some spacers to adjust preload for the correct amount of sag. I'd bet that after the bike is back together, without any spacers I'm going to be very close to the 30-35mm of sag that is desired. You would be incorrect on that bet. I weigh 160lbs, and although I used Traxxion Dynamics springs ( linear, not a progressive spring) you still require spacers of some length. You may not be a moron, but you sound as if you really do not understand the internals of the forks on the XX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockmeupto125 Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 "Static sag, total sag DOESN'T matter" May not matter to you, all or in part because you fit into the rider profile the springs were designed for. Some of us know better, want the components of our bikes to work as fully as possible, and adjust them accordingly. Obviously you already subscribe to the same concept....as you are modifying your XX from the design parameter that the manufacturer built it to. Frankly, I think you just wanted to call us all a bunch of fat asses. Jason.....the Hyperpro springs are progressive? Are you sure? Testrider............NO! Do NOT use particle board! It will separate once the resins dissolve in the fork oil. Use only dried maple. Balsa is fine for light 600cc track bikes, but it needs replacing after each race. The maple is much suited for street bike use. Its funny how design and materials evolve. We used to put fine grind sawdust (that's sawdust from finishing and preparing lumber, not the chips and bark from roughcutting) into the forks for a smoother ride. Today's tolerances are so much tighter that we are using solid wood. Its a funny world, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcrich Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 "Use only dried maple. Balsa is fine for light 600cc track bikes, but it needs replacing after each race. The maple is much suited for street bike use. Would a nice oak work as well or would that be too pithy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
testrider Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Testrider............NO! Do NOT use particle board! It will separate once the resins dissolve in the fork oil. Use only dried maple. Balsa is fine for light 600cc track bikes, but it needs replacing after each race. The maple is much suited for street bike use. Its funny how design and materials evolve. We used to put fine grind sawdust (that's sawdust from finishing and preparing lumber, not the chips and bark from roughcutting) into the forks for a smoother ride. Today's tolerances are so much tighter that we are using solid wood. Its a funny world, isn't it? Thanks again. But actually I am pretty smart. I figured that since I put in particle wood stick, the fork doesn't compress anymore so I didn't add any fork oil at all and save myself not just the cost of fork springs but I don't have to buy fork oil ever again! I do like the idea of using maple wood as it looks better. Now that I don't have fork oil, I can make my fork into skeleton that the wood will show thru! Man, it'll be cool! Am I a genius? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockmeupto125 Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Actually, all this talk had deciduously given me ..........an idea. (hah, hah....you thought I was gonna say "woody." didn't you, you sick fuckers....) Following your line of thought......why not just put a solid steel cast tube in place of the forks? You might have some referred high frequency vibration from the forks, but that could be quelled by line boring the tube and filling it with lead to absorb the vibration. It would be heavy, but that would help the tires stick to the road better and help cornering...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dion Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Man you guy's are silly :icon_duh: You all know the maple block is only for the rear suspension. If you stop and think about it the only way to get maximum performance from the front end without adding a ton of weight is to just remove all of the internals. Break ou t the old Black and Decker and drill a 5/16(3/8 if you intended to do any "adventure" riding) hole straight through the inner and outer tubes. Then you just need a carriage bolt and wingnut. the best part about this is you can drill additional holes in the inner tube to allow you to adjust your suspension on the fly depending on road conditions, load and you general riding mood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northman Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Break ou t the old Black and Decker and drill a 5/16(3/8 if you intended to do any "adventure" riding) hole straight through the inner and outer tubes. Then you just need a carriage bolt and wingnut. the best part about this is you can drill additional holes in the inner tube to allow you to adjust your suspension on the fly depending on road conditions, load and you general riding mood. Fucking brilliant, Dion! :icon_clap: Although, you could take it one step further, and use a quick release pin for adjustments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dion Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Break ou t the old Black and Decker and drill a 5/16(3/8 if you intended to do any "adventure" riding) hole straight through the inner and outer tubes. Then you just need a carriage bolt and wingnut. the best part about this is you can drill additional holes in the inner tube to allow you to adjust your suspension on the fly depending on road conditions, load and you general riding mood. Fucking brilliant, Dion! :icon_clap: Although, you could take it one step further, and use a quick release pin for adjustments... I thought about that Chris but most race organizations would want the quick release setup safety wired and that just opens up a whole other pandora's box...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrick Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Man you guy's are silly :icon_duh: You all know the maple block is only for the rear suspension. If you stop and think about it the only way to get maximum performance from the front end without adding a ton of weight is to just remove all of the internals. Break ou t the old Black and Decker and drill a 5/16(3/8 if you intended to do any "adventure" riding) hole straight through the inner and outer tubes. Then you just need a carriage bolt and wingnut. the best part about this is you can drill additional holes in the inner tube to allow you to adjust your suspension on the fly depending on road conditions, load and you general riding mood. With this method, would you still be able to adjust sag at the triples? Or would it be compensated for with the extra adjusting holes? Or is that ride height? You guys throw too many terms around. I'm confused now. As I understand it, preload and ride height are two different things. Using preload to adjust ride height is like using tire pressure to adjust compression and rebound - it can be done to a certain degree, but it isn't the right adjustment for the desired effect. Correct spring rate/stiffness, and to a much lesser (but more easily adjustable) extent preload, places your suspension in the correct "zone" of travel (race sag) to be prepared for weighting and unweighting the suspension during dynamic operation. Ride height (if changed disproportionately at one end more than the other) affects geometry in that one can effectively alter the rake, causing faster or slower turn-in or greater or lesser straight line stability. Furthermore, preload measurements depend on spring free length compared with the fully extended fork tube length; some springs need no spacers to achieve 10mm preload, as they are already longer than the fork tube interior dimension and will compress upon assembly. Others require spacers as the free length is insufficient to meet the fork cap. I expect that this has something to do with coil diameter and the length at which a particular spring becomes "coil bound". All of this is likely to vary between spring manufacturers as most of them engineer a unique spring spec - diameter, progression, coil spacing, stiffness, all the stuff that goes into making a spring - the entire purpose behind changing springs from stock specs, and why one spring vendor claims a better spring than everyone else. I remain somewhat confused at the importance of static sag. As an extreme example, it seems to me that a 360+ pound rider would require springs that would "top out" static sag, or nearly so. Properly adjusted, the bike could achieve the proper race sag, but perhaps never the correct static sag. Conversely, a 90 pound rider would never be able to weight a bike sprung for her enough to achieve proper race sag and remain within static sag specs. Where am I going wrong here? My head hurts. Sorry for the seriousness in this otherwise humorous thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.