View Full Version : Front & rear suspension settings
I'm about to fit a tank bag & tail pack and would like to know the recommended front and rear suspension settings. I'm average weight (11st) but have experienced occasional bottoming out of the front forks even without the extra luggage.
Blue_SV650S
07-07-06, 10:39 AM
Hiya, you didn’t mention which model you had. If you have an early curvy like mine there are no bits to twiddle (except rear preload I suppose). So you are kinda stuck with what you have unless you start putting new oil, springs etc in.
A cheaper alternative is to raise the oil level in the forks (reduce air-gap). As it is a sealed system, the air in the forks kinda works as a pneumatic spring. When the forks go down (the nose of the bike dives) you are effectively compressing the air in the forks, the less air you have to start with, the more compressed it becomes as the movement is the same. This compressed air is obviously going to have the effect of trying to extend the forks, you are therefore in this manner increasing spring (pneumatic) strength at the top of the fork travel range, which is probably the effect you are after??!
Make sense?
[quote="Blue_SV650S"]Hiya, you didn’t mention which model you had. quote]
Thanks for your soultion, but sorry, I should have metioned it was a new model with the adjustable front forks. I've not had this option on a bike before so am pretty clueless as to what the settings mean.
Not much mate. Not 100% where 11stone fits in but if thats more than 70kg your fork springs are too light. What you are aiming for is a difference of 25-30mm in ride height difference from the bike sitting under its own weight to you being on it with both feet up. Handy to have another person or two to do this!
That said, once you've set this up right you really shouldn't need to worry about any other changes just because you've put on a tank bag and rack.
21QUEST
08-07-06, 09:15 AM
Not much mate. Not 100% where 11stone fits in but if thats more than 70kg your fork springs are too light. What you are aiming for is a difference of 25-30mm in ride height difference from the bike sitting under its own weight to you being on it with both feet up. Handy to have another person or two to do this!
That said, once you've set this up right you really shouldn't need to worry about any other changes just because you've put on a tank bag and rack.
PeterM , can you please clarify that as from how I read the above that is seriously wrong.
Cheers
Ben
Okay.
You sit the bike vertical on its tyres and measure from the ground to a fixed point on the bike near the line with the axle, front and rear.
From there have somebody hold the bike vertical and climb on board, assume the normal riding position. Have a 3rd person re-measure from the ground to those points.
There should be the 25mm difference between these two measurements.
This is simply referred to as setting the sag, I have never come across anyone who breaks it up into 'bike' and 'rider' sag as the only one that matters is with the rider on board. Logically this is because the weight of the bike is a constant but the rider weight changes and the suspension needs to be set up to compensate for this.
http://www.gostar-racing.com/club/motorcycle_suspension_set-up.htm#SET%20UP%20BIKE%20TO%20YOUR%20WEIGHT
check it out.
21QUEST
09-07-06, 12:51 AM
Okay.
You sit the bike vertical on its tyres and measure from the ground to a fixed point on the bike near the line with the axle, front and rear.
From there have somebody hold the bike vertical and climb on board, assume the normal riding position. Have a 3rd person re-measure from the ground to those points.
There should be the 25mm difference between these two measurements.
This is simply referred to as setting the sag, I have never come across anyone who breaks it up into 'bike' and 'rider' sag as the only one that matters is with the rider on board. Logically this is because the weight of the bike is a constant but the rider weight changes and the suspension needs to be set up to compensate for this.
Wrong again.
Okay lets go with rider sag. What you are looking for the the difference between the measurements of the suspension unloaded(topped out) and the suspension loaded(rider)
Front : USD> measure the distance from the dust seal to the bottom of the stanchions . For RWU forks(sv etc)> measure from the dust seal to the bottom of the bottom yoke.
Rear vertical measurement from the axle to anywhere above say seat unit subframe etc.
Now plunk the rider on board and take measurement at same points. Difference is your rider sag.
As an aside it is agueable that bike sag is more important than rider sag . Think about it :wink:
Cheers
Ben
Okay.
You sit the bike vertical on its tyres and measure from the ground to a fixed point on the bike near the line with the axle, front and rear.
From there have somebody hold the bike vertical and climb on board, assume the normal riding position. Have a 3rd person re-measure from the ground to those points.
There should be the 25mm difference between these two measurements.
This is simply referred to as setting the sag, I have never come across anyone who breaks it up into 'bike' and 'rider' sag as the only one that matters is with the rider on board. Logically this is because the weight of the bike is a constant but the rider weight changes and the suspension needs to be set up to compensate for this.
Wrong again. Oh really?
Okay lets go with rider sag. What you are looking for the the difference between the measurements of the suspension unloaded(topped out) and the suspension loaded(rider)
Front : USD> measure the distance from the dust seal to the bottom of the stanchions . For RWU forks(sv etc)> measure from the dust seal to the bottom of the bottom yoke.
Rear vertical measurement from the axle to anywhere above say seat unit subframe etc.
Now plunk the rider on board and take measurement at same points. Difference is your rider sag.
As an aside it is agueable that bike sag is more important than rider sag . Think about it :wink:
Cheers
Ben
Firstly, thanks to bikeageboy for putting that link up, now I understand what you are all on about when referring to static and rider sag. Us simple Australians by and large don't bother about getting sag set until you have the correct weight springs installed in the first place.
Silly me, I thought that we might use the collective research that has already been put into spring rates by suspension companies and have at least worked out whether we have springs of an adequate rate in our bike or whether different ones are required. This MUST be your starting point. Like jetting, if your mains are wrong you are wasting your time doing anything else.
Funnily enough, reading through that link confirmed the measurements that I listed in the first post, assuming the correct spring rate is fitted. Therefore I'm not really sure why there has been the huge carry-on and to say that what I posted was "dangerous" is farcical.
GSPEN - according to the racetech website, for normal street riding you would be looking at 0.745kg/mm springs, stock are 0.706 kg/mm. The softest springs listed by them are 0.8 kg/mm but perhaps another manufacturer has a softer one.
RingDing
09-07-06, 10:06 AM
Funnily enough, reading through that link confirmed the measurements that I listed in the first post, assuming the correct spring rate is fitted. Therefore I'm not really sure why there has been the huge carry-on and to say that what I posted was "dangerous" is farcical.
Yes you're right in that it confirms the amount of rider sag to set for. However, your method of measurement (included below cause this is getting confusing!) does not give rider sag, or static sag for that matter. It gives the difference between the two. That could, potentially, be dangerous as all you are doing is trying to set some degree of sag at some point in the suspension travel. Your reference, which is the static sag, could be anything. It is extremely unlikely to be an issue (and won't be if you already have the correct spring rate) but if you are only going to set rider sag then you should still do it with reference to the UNLOADED suspension length. That is the standard method of measurement, as the article bears out.
You sit the bike vertical on its tyres and measure from the ground to a fixed point on the bike near the line with the axle, front and rear.
From there have somebody hold the bike vertical and climb on board, assume the normal riding position. Have a 3rd person re-measure from the ground to those points.
There should be the 25mm difference between these two measurements.
As for the rest of your disagreements with 21Quest... I'm keeping out of it! :lol
21QUEST
09-07-06, 11:08 AM
Funnily enough, reading through that link confirmed the measurements that I listed in the first post, assuming the correct spring rate is fitted. Therefore I'm not really sure why there has been the huge carry-on and to say that what I posted was "dangerous" is farcical.
Yes you're right in that it confirms the amount of rider sag to set for. However, your method of measurement (included below cause this is getting confusing!) does not give rider sag, or static sag for that matter. It gives the difference between the two. That could, potentially, be dangerous as all you are doing is trying to set some degree of sag at some point in the suspension travel. Your reference, which is the static sag, could be anything. It is extremely unlikely to be an issue (and won't be if you already have the correct spring rate) but if you are only going to set rider sag then you should still do it with reference to the UNLOADED suspension length. That is the standard method of measurement, as the article bears out.
You sit the bike vertical on its tyres and measure from the ground to a fixed point on the bike near the line with the axle, front and rear.
From there have somebody hold the bike vertical and climb on board, assume the normal riding position. Have a 3rd person re-measure from the ground to those points.
There should be the 25mm difference between these two measurements.
As for the rest of your disagreements with 21Quest... I'm keeping out of it! :lol
Thank you RingDing. Maybe now someone else has pointed that out PeterM can begin to do things the right way. If only he'll admit to his mumbo jumbo :roll: .
With reference to the highlighted bit , it's okay you are welcome to join :lol: .
Cheers
Ben
PS: Lol. Another thing for you(PeterM) to think about is this question. You talk about adequate springs so how do you arrive to that point(apart form the collective reasearch blah , blah.
Hint: I believe the guy leading the thunderbike series(so must be fast) runs springs softer(lower rate) than a lot of tuners would probably recommend in mind for racing. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay I'm being a bit mischievous but I'm only trying to make you think. :wink:
Funnily enough, reading through that link confirmed the measurements that I listed in the first post, assuming the correct spring rate is fitted. Therefore I'm not really sure why there has been the huge carry-on and to say that what I posted was "dangerous" is farcical.
Yes you're right in that it confirms the amount of rider sag to set for. However, your method of measurement (included below cause this is getting confusing!) does not give rider sag, or static sag for that matter. It gives the difference between the two. That could, potentially, be dangerous as all you are doing is trying to set some degree of sag at some point in the suspension travel. Your reference, which is the static sag, could be anything. It is extremely unlikely to be an issue (and won't be if you already have the correct spring rate) but if you are only going to set rider sag then you should still do it with reference to the UNLOADED suspension length. That is the standard method of measurement, as the article bears out.
You sit the bike vertical on its tyres and measure from the ground to a fixed point on the bike near the line with the axle, front and rear.
From there have somebody hold the bike vertical and climb on board, assume the normal riding position. Have a 3rd person re-measure from the ground to those points.
There should be the 25mm difference between these two measurements.
As for the rest of your disagreements with 21Quest... I'm keeping out of it! :lol
No probs with that mate. As you've worked out I'm coming at this from already having the appropriate springs fitted. Whenever anyone asks a question about their suspension on the Aust site we always point them in the direction of getting the right springs fitted first and then work from there. An error on my behalf to assume that the same approach is always taken here but since it's a different site then I should've been more particular. 8)
Thank you RingDing. Maybe now someone else has pointed that out PeterM can begin to do things the right way. If only he'll admit to his mumbo jumbo :roll: .
PS: Lol. Another thing for you(PeterM) to think about is this question. You talk about adequate springs so how do you arrive to that point(apart form the collective reasearch blah , blah.
Hint: I believe the guy leading the thunderbike series(so must be fast) runs springs softer(lower rate) than a lot of tuners would probably recommend in mind for racing. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Are you for real? The "right way". Get stuffed you sanctimonious wind bag. Call it speaking in a different dialect if you like but if the same question was posed on the Aust site you'd get an answer like mine. As i said in my response to RingDing, I will have to be more mindful of the conventions here to prevent sagas such as this.
Most suspension companies have poured significant funds into calculating what springs are appropriate for riders of a given weight for a given bike. These people often have substantial experience in such things and so I hope you'll excuse me if I defer to their expertise.
Since you've decided to take things to the racetrack well then.......Each rider has a different style and preference that tends to dictate how their bike is set up. Throw a leg over Troy Bayliss's bike and then compare to Lorenzo Lanzi, or any other two teammates in the world and you will likely find the bikes set up differently. These are people with a much higher level of skill than your average road rider and therefore do things that work for them.
Yes, softer than what some may recommend works for him, great. Bully for him. We are talking about people riding on the street with not the same skill level and we have no idea on their level of expertise or skill. Therefore it is logical to use the path of best fit for general advice.
21QUEST
11-07-06, 10:41 AM
Thank you RingDing. Maybe now someone else has pointed that out PeterM can begin to do things the right way. If only he'll admit to his mumbo jumbo :roll: .
PS: Lol. Another thing for you(PeterM) to think about is this question. You talk about adequate springs so how do you arrive to that point(apart form the collective reasearch blah , blah.
Hint: I believe the guy leading the thunderbike series(so must be fast) runs springs softer(lower rate) than a lot of tuners would probably recommend in mind for racing. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Are you for real? The "right way". Get stuffed you sanctimonious wind bag. Call it speaking in a different dialect if you like but if the same question was posed on the Aust site you'd get an answer like mine. As i said in my response to RingDing, I will have to be more mindful of the conventions here to prevent sagas such as this.
Most suspension companies have poured significant funds into calculating what springs are appropriate for riders of a given weight for a given bike. These people often have substantial experience in such things and so I hope you'll excuse me if I defer to their expertise.
Since you've decided to take things to the racetrack well then.......Each rider has a different style and preference that tends to dictate how their bike is set up. Throw a leg over Troy Bayliss's bike and then compare to Lorenzo Lanzi, or any other two teammates in the world and you will likely find the bikes set up differently. These are people with a much higher level of skill than your average road rider and therefore do things that work for them.
Yes, softer than what some may recommend works for him, great. Bully for him. We are talking about people riding on the street with not the same skill level and we have no idea on their level of expertise or skill. Therefore it is logical to use the path of best fit for general advice.
Like I said in the on the thread , we just have to agree that you are the man.
Peace
Ben
Quit being patronising. Would it kill you to concede that you understand what I'm saying and the intent behind it?
Flamin_Squirrel
11-07-06, 02:09 PM
Quit being patronising. Would it kill you to concede that you understand what I'm saying and the intent behind it?
The original power asked about setting the suspension on, presumably, a stock bike. Where did he ever mention having the correct springs?
You made alot of assumptions, why get anoyed when this was pointed out?
wheelnut
11-07-06, 04:00 PM
Quit being patronising. Would it kill you to concede that you understand what I'm saying and the intent behind it?
The original power asked about setting the suspension on, presumably, a stock bike. Where did he ever mention having the correct springs?
You made alot of assumptions, why get anoyed when this was pointed out?
I thought the same, poor lad only asked if he should adjust his preload because he was going to put some soft luggage on his bike :P He is probably on his holidays by now
21QUEST
11-07-06, 08:41 PM
Ok , not to carry on what appears to be a ****ing contest but I decided to revisit one more time.
People interested or with indeed better knowledge are welcome to point out to me where I've got it wrong with regards to PeterM posts quoted below.
Particular attention should be given to the highlighted bit
Right then. Do the maths for the differences in the figures quoted for static and rider sag. Lo and behold it comes pretty close to the 25-30mm difference I gave in the first place. Still with me? Understanding are we?
The reference I made to 'sag' was to refer to the difference between static and rider sag.
The figures I'll be working with have be taken from two different web sites. GOSTAR RACING AND RACETECH.
Note that we are assumming that the springs are correct as worked out by the Racetech spring calculator. It is therefore it is safe to also assume that the numbers for Bike and Rider sag should be within the general acceptable limits.
For sake of clarity/simplicity an average of the range of figures given would be used ie that of upper and lower limits.
RACETECH
Front Rider Sag 30-35= 32.5 average Front Bike Sag -no figures given
Rear Rider Sag 30-35=32.5 average Rear Bike Sag 0-5=2.5 average
GOSTAR-RACING
Front Rider Sag 35-48=41.5 average Front Bike Sag 25-30=27.5average
Rear Rider Sag 30-40=35 average Rear Bike Sag 5-10=7.5 average
Initial post which has since been clarified above(highlighted) was
From the bike sitting there under it's own weight to you being on it, both feet on the pegs, the suspension should settle 25-30mm for general road use. Obviously it is very handy to have at least one other person available to help with all this.
If we apply the above logic , you get
REAR
Racetech=32.5mm(rider sag) minus 2.5mm(bikebike sag)=30mm
Gostar-racing=35mm(rider sag) minus 7.5mm(bike sag)=27.5mm
At this point point you think yep nothing wrong with the above ie The difference in both case applying said method are quite close to the general acceptable range. ..but hold on a sec as we are yet to do the front.
Front
Racetech=N/A as no bike sag given
Gostar-racing 41.5mm(rider sag) minus 27.5mm(bike sag)=14mm
I think it is clear to see that the difference we got using the above logic for the rear which appears to be correct was purely by luck and the figures for the front ie 14mm is so far out that it is more than just unlucky.
To add to what I've been trying to say below is a piece from the traxxion dynamics site. Click on the link for more
4. Setting the Sag:
First you need a fully extended measurement. I've found that the only way to get this measurement with any consistency, is to make sure the front wheel actually leaves the ground slightly. You can do this with a jack under the pipes or a couple of helpers. Measure the exposed area of the fork slider. On a conventional fork, this will be from the bottom of the lower triple tree to the top of the dust seal on the slider. For an inverted fork, this will be from the dust seal down to the top edge of the axle clamp (See Figure 6). Record this measurement on your log sheet. Push down on the fork hard three times to settle the suspension. Now measure the same two points again. Subtract this number from the fully extended number to get your "bike sag" or "free sag" number. Finally, you get on the bike and push down three more times, while a friend balances the bike. Have your friend with the tape take the final measurement. Subtract that from the fully extended number to get your "rider sag". The measurement we are looking for on the front fork is 35mm. If your spring is of the correct rate, the static sag should be about sixty percent of the rider sag, or about 20mm. The front fork has to have a great deal of static sag so that the front wheel may move down into a hole as well as over a bump. If your fork has too much sag, turn the preload adjuster in. If you don't have preload adjusters, then you will have to remove your fork spacers and cut longer preload spacers. Adjust in five-millimeter increments. These numbers and this method represent a guideline for you to get a starting point.
Again using PeterM logic , the difference in the numbers given for the front bike and rider sag is 15mm which is nowhere close to 25-30mm.
http://www.traxxion.com/technical.forkspr.install.shtml
The only way that logic would work to get a true rider sag of 25mm is if you are basically running zero bike sag which if followed logically would mean the spring is the wrong rate.
Therefore even assumming that one has chosen the correct spring rate in the first place, it remains incorrect.
As previously mentioned , please feel free to point out where I've got it wrong.
Cheers
Ben
The original power asked about setting the suspension on, presumably, a stock bike. Where did he ever mention having the correct springs?
You made alot of assumptions, why get anoyed when this was pointed out?
Please check out my first response. I mentioned that the stock springs were most likely too light for him.
Wheelnut, you're right, hope he sends a postcard and has a safe and enjoyable trip. :lol:
Ben, I commend you on your research but I can assure you that it isn't dumb luck that the figure for the rear rider-static sag figure was correct.
Regarding the front, yes you'd want that down to 14-15mm for the track, no argument there. It's interesting (but not unexpected) to see Gostar-Racing and Traxxion give different figures though, no doubt personal preference of whever wrote the notes. Applying that to the road isn't really appropriate though is it? I wish roads had a surface as nice as the track but that's not going to happen. That extra little bit could come in handy on a less than perfect road. This is how it was explained to me when my bike was set up for me by a suspension professional who does both road and track work. That's why I've been a bit dogged here, actually working with someone to get the right setup rather than purely going from the written word without any interaction was very helpful and informative.
As always, it will end up coming down to rider preference though.
21QUEST
16-07-06, 08:17 AM
Ben, I commend you on your research but I can assure you that it isn't dumb luck that the figure for the rear rider-static sag figure was correct.
Regarding the front, yes you'd want that down to 14-15mm for the track, no argument there. It's interesting (but not unexpected) to see Gostar-Racing and Traxxion give different figures though, no doubt personal preference of whever wrote the notes. Applying that to the road isn't really appropriate though is it? I wish roads had a surface as nice as the track but that's not going to happen. That extra little bit could come in handy on a less than perfect road. This is how it was explained to me when my bike was set up for me by a suspension professional who does both road and track work. That's why I've been a bit dogged here, actually working with someone to get the right setup rather than purely going from the written word without any interaction was very helpful and informative.
As always, it will end up coming down to rider preference though.
For Petes :roll: sake I give up. Frankly we have a better chance of Skippy being able understand the concept and point.
You are a complete buffoon with the processing power of an amoeba and more stories than on Jackanory.
At this juncture I will leave you to wallow in your ignorance whilst basking in the glory of your perceived knowledge and understanding.
Peeps will be well advised to ignore your moronic trash.
Cheers
Ben
Don't worry you can have the last word :wink:
timwilky
16-07-06, 08:42 AM
Would things not be a damm site easier, if instead of giving advice. simply state, If you do not know what you are doing consult somebody who does.
I was taught how to set my sag by Elmer Fud. The guy teaches suspension for a living. I would rather be shown how to do it by someone knowledgeable than try to work it out by following all the advice given in this thread.
I ain't going to add to this debate by giving the method and dimensions Elmer and now I use as it is adding to the confusion. Perhaps it is time to draw a line under this one.
21QUEST
16-07-06, 08:53 AM
Would things not be a damm site easier, if instead of giving advice. simply state, If you do not know what you are doing consult somebody who does.
Tim , I agree with you to a very large extent.
That is why in a lot of cases why I do not readily give advice or make sure the advice is qualified.
Sometimes , what works for me may be the complete opposite of what most might advice.
Having said that sometimes people come up with stuff which IMO is not based on real understanding as in this case.
Cheers
Ben
Blue_SV650S
16-07-06, 09:46 AM
Would things not be a damm site easier, if instead of giving advice. simply state, If you do not know what you are doing consult somebody who does.
....
Isn’t that what is being done on a forum???
However, if you mean go visit a professional I disagree!!! Setting up suspension (like many things in life) is not something that requires a professional. What it does require is a lot of research and understanding of what is going on and what all the different bits do, there is a deluge of information out there on the net regarding this. Choosing a source like a suspension site; Ohlins etc, would seem a logical choice to get some ‘expert’ definitions. If you are not prepared to do the legwork, then the easy option is to get someone else to do it. Forums are also a great method of getting information, but the information should be caveat with the fact that it may be misinformed or ill written. The beauty of a forum is that you can have input from many people, so chances are there is a ‘failsafe’ if an error has been made or confusion given by a particular post/reply.
21QUEST has explained the traditional method/definition of ‘rider sag’. “What you are looking for the difference between the measurements of the suspension unloaded(topped out) and the suspension loaded(rider)” ‘Static sag‘ is the same but just under the bikes own weight rather than with the rider plonked on top. You need two beefcakes to hand or a front stand that goes under/in the bottom yoke to measure this. These as far as I am aware are the most commonly used measurements.
Measuring the difference between rider and static sag is what PeterM ‘s measurement is, if I am understanding him correctly. This is something else, but I can see, it is a way of determining if the springs are ‘strong’ enough for you. There is some logic behind this as lets face it a weaker spring will compress more with the same weight added (the rider). But as Robw#70 said in another thread, in isolation it isn’t giving you much and might be misleading if you have the incorrect springs fitted and start messing with preload.
Anyway, back to the original post, setting the ‘sag’ isn’t going to give you jack here, all the sag sets is the preload on the springs. All this effects is the point at which the springs start moving, it will not affect (directly) the overall travel or eliminate bottoming out. This will require new springs or as I mentioned another way to help prevent ‘bottoming out’ is to raise the oil level/reduce the air gap.
Ben, I commend you on your research but I can assure you that it isn't dumb luck that the figure for the rear rider-static sag figure was correct.
Regarding the front, yes you'd want that down to 14-15mm for the track, no argument there. It's interesting (but not unexpected) to see Gostar-Racing and Traxxion give different figures though, no doubt personal preference of whever wrote the notes. Applying that to the road isn't really appropriate though is it? I wish roads had a surface as nice as the track but that's not going to happen. That extra little bit could come in handy on a less than perfect road. This is how it was explained to me when my bike was set up for me by a suspension professional who does both road and track work. That's why I've been a bit dogged here, actually working with someone to get the right setup rather than purely going from the written word without any interaction was very helpful and informative.
As always, it will end up coming down to rider preference though.
For Petes :roll: sake I give up. Frankly we have a better chance of Skippy being able understand the concept and point.
You are a complete buffoon with the processing power of an amoeba and more stories than on Jackanory.
At this juncture I will leave you to wallow in your ignorance whilst basking in the glory of your perceived knowledge and understanding.
Peeps will be well advised to ignore your moronic trash.
Cheers
Ben
Don't worry you can have the last word :wink:
Ben,
You have demonstrated a complete lack of manners and very little ability in comprehension of the English language and its subtleties. The post that I made was intended to be conciliatory in it's approach but you have chosen to become offensive and rude.
I know what my abilities to process information, learn, research etc. are and my IQ. None of your diatribe or summation come close. A moron is someone with and IQ of around the 15 mark, nowhere near it. Stories? Well what else do you call accounts based on personal experiences and knowledge?
Get a grip on reality, it appears you already have a firm grip on something else, for you seem quite adept at typing with one hand.
You have demonstrated a complete lack of manners and very little ability in comprehension of the English language and it's subtleties.
Couldn't help myself..."it's" in the above sentence is a possessive pronoun, so it shouldn't have an apostrophe in the middle...
Ooops :oops: . My apologies and duly corrected!
Flamin_Squirrel
20-07-06, 09:53 AM
The original power asked about setting the suspension on, presumably, a stock bike. Where did he ever mention having the correct springs?
You made alot of assumptions, why get anoyed when this was pointed out?
Please check out my first response. I mentioned that the stock springs were most likely too light for him.
Who cares? That's what he was asking for advice on.
Ben is right - it doesnt matter how knowledgable you are, if you completely miss the point in the first place then why bother?
Without having the right springs to start with you're really wasting your time. Like jetting you've got to have the right size mains first don't you?
You and I both know that fiddling with anything else isn't going to fix any problems, maybe disguise them a little but if you're going to do something right.... Might as well present the options for the guy to consider at least eh? 8)
Flamin_Squirrel
20-07-06, 10:28 AM
Without having the right springs to start with you're really wasting your time. Like jetting you've got to have the right size mains first don't you?
You and I both know that fiddling with anything else isn't going to fix any problems, maybe disguise them a little but if you're going to do something right.... Might as well present the options for the guy to consider at least eh? 8)
Agreed, but that's assuming they have the time/money/inclination to bother. I'm guessing not - they just want a quick fix to make the bike work a little better.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.