Hi I see that you have the wrong spring height as stated above by Ducshop.
The shock#1091=160mm and shock #1092=170mm or 6.3 inches vs 6.7 inches. That is .4 of an inch to long for starting height so you can not set this up on your 999s.
Wrong, it doesn’t matter. If anything the longer spring will perform better than the shorter one by staying linear in rate for more travel than the shorter one. The only possible sliver of an argument that the spring is incorrect would be the extra weight of the 10mm of extra coil. Next time before you decide to make a statement be sure to know something about what you are talking about.
The second number is spring rate code and the third number is the spring rate in kg/mm.
Wrong again Mr. Know It All. It’s the spring rate in NM.
I think the spring on the 999s was a 1091-21=75/428lbs/in, so you see that the spring you have is wrong. The ohlins shock needs some preload to open
valve openings for shock fluid or the shock does not work very well and will
ride very hard. I just need to know what your weight is with gear and from there we can see what shock will work for you. Larry Antelope, Ca
No one listen to this guy! He doesn’t have a clue.
Larry, stop giving out setup advice. You're going to get someone hurt.
The 1/2 of loaded value for unloaded sag is a good target.
WRONG!!!!!
1/3 is as high as you want to go unless the rider is lap record fast and is running SBK grip tires.
You keyboard cowboys need to cut it out with the advice. Your all clueless.
And Bella is right.... get all of your sag numbers with the damping circuits open all the way.....
Doesn't matter on a shock unless its a KZ1000
Incidentally the sag number is the average of 2 values. Push the bike down at the subframe, and let it rise on it's own = value #1. Lift the bike at the subframe, and let it settle = value #2.
Incidentally sag numbers don't need to be that specific. All they are is a place to start testing. You don't need to measure something down to .5mm when there is no "right or wrong"
If you can't think outside the box you will never understand even the basics of suspension.
Here's the Ohins spring number 010292-36/105-L076
I'm 200 lbs.
Thats perfect. 150lb riders that aren't even that fast need to be on a 9.0 or a 9.5.
and I cannot get 15mm of static sag out of this bike
Good, thats too much.
with me not on it, maybe 10mm max.
Perfect
My guess is your swingarm is too short. Or your rear ride height is wrong.
The chart we made shows you should use a 01091-29/90 with about 15mm of pre-load for your weight unless you are running a 749R link. 01092 is a 10mm longer spring than a 01091.
Your chart is wrong.
Its amazing you could even find your chart in that huge suspension area….oh, did I say area? I meant
table that you have dedicated to your groundbreaking R&D.
Don’t you guys build motors or something?
Hello All,
I switched my rear spring on my Ohlins rear shock 999s to a Ohlins 01091-29/90 L250. Yet at 200lbs I can only get 1" of sag, according to most people I need to get a 1.50-1.75" of overall sag, right??
Nope, you want to start at 30mm (1.18")
On my 2005 999S I have installed the 01091-29/90 to replace the stock 70Nm unit and I wouldn't want the bike any stiffer. I am 220 lb without gear.
What you don’t understand is that it will ride softer with a stiffer spring. If you knew anything about how compression valving works you would understand.
Or you ride like a little girl.
I am not a fan of the firmer-is-better suspension philosophy.....
Apparently you are, your bike is set up like a ill handling brick with horrible dynamic geometry.
I also didn't change the valving in the shock or forks, and I find I still have sufficient adjustment on either side of the settings I like.
Forks aren’t bad. If you had a spring on the shock that was even in the same galaxy as what you should be on the valving in your shock would be horrible. The only reason you have not tank slapped yourself off the side of the road is that you are using your compression circuit as a spring…..which it is not.
FYI, I planned to change from the stock .95 kg fork springs to 1.00 kg units, but discovered that I got my 15mm of unloaded/loaded sag difference with the .95kg units. This was found to be at a lower range than I wanted, even with app the pre-load dialed in, so I just had to add 30mm (3/4") to the internal spring spacer length to get to the sag shifted to the desired range of 20mm/35mm unloaded/loaded.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Your bike is a disaster. STOP GIVING ADVICE! YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SUSPENSION!!!!!
You now have the spring that Section 8 recommended for the 2003-2004 999, for your body weight. They suggest the 90 Nm unit I installed as being for 165-175 lbs, and that's no where near my experience with the 2005 999S. I don't know if the early rocker system provided different leverage than the later swingarm system, but it's no surprize to me that you are riding a rock, based on my experience with the later model.
Your experience is crap.
Stop Giving Advice!!! You are Clueless!!!
Now scurry off and go argue about oil or something.
So I should have a 01091-19/90 NOT a 01091-29/90?
Stop asking him questions, he has no idea what he is talking about.
Dan Kyle says I should have 29/90, but the 29/90 nets me soo little sag.
Don't listen to Dan either. He doesn't know anything that he didn't copy off of someone else.
All I can say to the shop that set this up, is thanks JASON for F**king me!!!
Mark
If Jason set you up your components are right. There is no one else in the US that can set a Duck up like Jason can and maybe only 1 or 2 people that could outride him on one.
My guess is that you pissed Jason off (which is easy to do) and he told you to get bent and won't help you anymore. Jason puts up with no crap from no one. He is a firm believer that when it comes to suspension “The customer is always wrong”. If that was not the case they wouldn’t need to be customers, they would set themselves up. I'm sure he told you to beat it and you didn't like it one bit.
See ya all in another year or so.
You Hens have fun squaking while I'm gone.
