Ducati.ms - The Ultimate Ducati Forum banner

41 - 60 of 133 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,846 Posts
Discussion Starter #43
Okay thanks. The hyper can wheelie? :D

The compression and rebound are one turn out from full soft.
Maybe..........try going to a parking lot & hit a speed bump in 1st gear at 5000rpm, while sitting on the rear tail, then "wack it FULL THROTTLE" & hold it there, if you lucky the front might come up a little. :p
















JK :D Aloha Alex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
I just got my forks done today. They installed progressive fork springs in the front and some heavier oil, think 0.85 or 0.9 springs and don't recall the oil viscosity anymore, but the fork feels so much more planted now. A slight drawback is that the hyper stands a bit higher at the front. I just raised the rear about 6~7 mm's(4 threads showing) and will see what it does tomorrow, but really, this feels like a totally different bike and it's well worth it for 180 euro's(inc. springs, oil and install).

Don't know if I have to adjust the rear sag as well now, guess I should, but for now I just want to go out tomorrow and test it with the slightly higher rear end.

PS: the person that installed my springs told me that the progressive part was really small compared to the normal forks, and to be honest the only way I know there are progressive springs in here is because he told me, don't notice it at all on the road. Feels pretty linear
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,485 Posts
Ya know, the fork springs wind tighter at the very top in order to fit the fork caps securely. It APPEARS progressive but that section is not that functional really as it is only a couple of inches (60mm-ish) long.

Could that have been what he was refering to for the "progressive" wound part?

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Ya know, the fork springs wind tighter at the very top in order to fit the fork caps securely. It APPEARS progressive but that section is not that functional really as it is only a couple of inches (60mm-ish) long.

Could that have been what he was refering to for the "progressive" wound part?

Dave
I bet that's probably it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Ok, so I'm wondering if my numbers are correct here.

I've setup the suspension so that the front and rear now simultaneously drop, so that there's balance in the frame. Both sides also simultaneously go down and come up(which they didn't initially).

I've upped the rear from 2 threads showing to 4 threads showing, the sag numbers on the rear are as follows:

static: 65,5cm(655mm)
bike on its own weight: 63,5cm(635mm)
bike with rider(me) on it: 61,5cm(615mm)

To me, these numbers sound about right, but are they?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,485 Posts
Ok, so I'm wondering if my numbers are correct here.

I've setup the suspension so that the front and rear now simultaneously drop, so that there's balance in the frame. Both sides also simultaneously go down and come up(which they didn't initially).

I've upped the rear from 2 threads showing to 4 threads showing, the sag numbers on the rear are as follows:

static: 65,5cm(655mm)
bike on its own weight: 63,5cm(635mm)
bike with rider(me) on it: 61,5cm(615mm)

To me, these numbers sound about right, but are they?
It took me reading it a few times to figure out what your numbers were but I think I have it now.

Are these front numbers (forks), or back numbers (shock)?

Because honestly, they are in the middle of where the front and the rear should be. If they are rears, you probably have too much rider sag, but if they are fronts, you probably have too little (just a bit though).

Figure 42-50mm for the forks and 30-35mm for the shock. That should get you in a good place to start messing with your Compression and Rebound.

FTR, although these numbers are equal, this doesn't make your bike "balanced". The forks have a longer travel than the shock so the sag numbers set at approximately 1/3 of the travel will be different at each end.

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
It took me reading it a few times to figure out what your numbers were but I think I have it now.

Are these front numbers (forks), or back numbers (shock)?

Because honestly, they are in the middle of where the front and the rear should be. If they are rears, you probably have too much rider sag, but if they are fronts, you probably have too little (just a bit though).

Figure 42-50mm for the forks and 30-35mm for the shock. That should get you in a good place to start messing with your Compression and Rebound.

FTR, although these numbers are equal, this doesn't make your bike "balanced". The forks have a longer travel than the shock so the sag numbers set at approximately 1/3 of the travel will be different at each end.

Dave
These are the numbers for the rear, so for the shock.

What I meant with balanced is: when I push the bike down, the front and rear compress simultaneously and also come back up simultaneously. So I should put a bit more preload on the shock if I understand correctly. I wanted to measure the front as well, but it started raining outside and I didn't want to work in the rear.

edit: I've just measured up the front fork sag:

unloaded length of fork: 295mm
length of fork with bike on its own weight: 275mm
length of fork with rider on bike: 265mm

this gives a 20mm static sag and a 30mm rider sag
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
30 and 40 for the front sounds really good.

The rear spring seems a bit stiff. You should aim for 5mm static sag (btw 1st measurement is unloaded, then static sag then laden or race sag) if you ride hard, 10+mm if you like it comfy.

40mm race sag sounds good for the rear, but you wonßt be able to achieve that if you crank he spring to get the static sag to 5-10mm.

My rear is quite stiff and I got to say I really enjoy riding it. No complaints. So before you go out and order a new spring, ride and evaluate.

:edit:

hey you edited your post, that´s mean :D
Aim for 30mm static and 1/3rd of full travel for race sag, that would be somewhere in the 46mm area (I think full 45mm Marzocchi travel is 138mm or similar).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
30 and 40 for the front sounds really good.

The rear spring seems a bit stiff. You should aim for 5mm static sag (btw 1st measurement is unloaded, then static sag then laden or race sag) if you ride hard, 10+mm if you like it comfy.

40mm race sag sounds good for the rear, but you wonßt be able to achieve that if you crank he spring to get the static sag to 5-10mm.

My rear is quite stiff and I got to say I really enjoy riding it. No complaints. So before you go out and order a new spring, ride and evaluate.

:edit:

hey you edited your post, that´s mean :D
Aim for 30mm static and 1/3rd of full travel for race sag, that would be somewhere in the 46mm area (I think full 45mm Marzocchi travel is 138mm or similar).
Yeah I just noticed I made a slight calculation error.

so to be clear.

my rear sag numbers are:
static sag: 20mm
rider sag: 45mm

I guess I could give it a bit less sag in the rear

front sag numbers are:
static sag: 20mm
rider sag: 30mm

so this needs more sag I reckon.

Still have to test how the bike handles now. I had tested it yesterday with the bike a bit lower(about 6mm's), but virtually the same settings and it felt good, but the front reacted too slowly and the rear as well(had to adjust compression and rebound in the front and the rebound on the shock). I fixed the compression and rebound, but still have to fiddle with the sag I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
Don´t overthink the sag numbers. They´re just that.

If I were you I´d grab pen and paper, ride with the current setup, write down what you think about the setup. Then put in more preload at the rear to achieve either 10 or 5mm static sag, measure race sag (likely too little) and ride again. Write your findings down, then do the same for the front.

After all that evaluate.

My sag numbers aren´t 100% perfect by the book either, but as I said it rides really nice on the road and while racing. It´s just a matter of finding what fits your riding.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
Don´t overthink the sag numbers. They´re just that.

If I were you I´d grab pen and paper, ride with the current setup, write down what you think about the setup. Then put in more preload at the rear to achieve either 10 or 5mm static sag, measure race sag (likely too little) and ride again. Write your findings down, then do the same for the front.

After all that evaluate.
That is good advice for all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Don´t overthink the sag numbers. They´re just that.

If I were you I´d grab pen and paper, ride with the current setup, write down what you think about the setup. Then put in more preload at the rear to achieve either 10 or 5mm static sag, measure race sag (likely too little) and ride again. Write your findings down, then do the same for the front.

After all that evaluate.

My sag numbers aren´t 100% perfect by the book either, but as I said it rides really nice on the road and while racing. It´s just a matter of finding what fits your riding.
Yeah, I'll do that tomorrow, there was a small storm here today :(
Currently set the front rider sag to 40mm and the static sag to 21, we'll see what it does. Sometimes I just get so obsessed by numbers that I neglect the rest :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
We got our taste of the "little" storm here at midnight :abduct:

Let us kow how you fare.
It seems that raising the rear without adjusting the rear preload has made the handling worse, the turn in is a bit slower and more reluctant and also the bike wants to hold its line a bit less. Also, my tyre has something to do with this as well I'm guessing, rear tire is almost showing the steel threads and looks more like a 190/50 than a 180/55 :rolleyes: .

Just ordered new tyres, I'l see how they fare and if it helps turn in at all. The added height on the rear makes me drag my toeslider far less, it's much better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
One of the things to be aware of is your front tucking in when you raise the rear too far. I don´t know how your geometry looks like, just saying so you don´t get caught off guard.

The tyres will play a significant role in your bike´s handling. What marque and type did you order?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
One of the things to be aware of is your front tucking in when you raise the rear too far. I don´t know how your geometry looks like, just saying so you don´t get caught off guard.

The tyres will play a significant role in your bike´s handling. What marque and type did you order?
I've ordered a set of Pilot Powers, they did great on my previous bike.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
Drinky, How is the rear ride height and front fork height set up? That made the most effect on turning on my bike. I raised the rear to have five threads showing on the adjustable link. My forks have one line showing, setting the triple tree top in line with the second line on the forks. It has a stink bug look. The best part is it falls into the turns and stays there. I am going to need a steering dampener though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Drinky, How is the rear ride height and front fork height set up? That made the most effect on turning on my bike. I raised the rear to have five threads showing on the adjustable link. My forks have one line showing, setting the triple tree top in line with the second line on the forks. It has a stink bug look. The best part is it falls into the turns and stays there. I am going to need a steering dampener though.
rear ride height is 4 threads showing and front is 1 line showing. I think the sag on the rear is too much, but I have no clue as to how to adjust it. Tried tapping the locking nut loose with a screwdriver and a hammer but it wouldn't budge, and the preload adjuster tool I have is for a SV650S which won't fit this locking nut. Really need to raise the rear somewhat.
 
41 - 60 of 133 Posts
Top