I checked my swing arm when I put the "stiffys" in and I didn't feel any play. I am kind of concerned that after adjusting my neck bearing to the 3 swing spec, that after a 20 min ride, my frontend goes from left lock to past center back to center. So it tightened up. Also, the manual says that tightening up the nut on top of the trees does not affect the preload of the bearing. Yet, when I lossened the nut, I got more swing out of the front end as when I tightened it, I got less. Is this normal? I think I might want to look into inspecting those bearings. Also, after reading a lot into rake and trail, has anyone ever lessened the rake of the neck as to shorten the trail? I figure if you keep the stock rake in the trees and make your frontend more vertical, it would lessen how much your trail will increase over bumps. My understanding is that the more rake you have, the more the front suspension will want to compress over bumps and the trail will increase as your axle moves back. I already increased ride height in the rear my 1 inch. What if I added a 1 or 2 inch spacer to the rear shocks?
I don't think you're asking too much of your bike at all, and I doubt it's your riding skills.
I had this wobble when I first purchased my bike but it was eliminated when I installed a bagger brace, Progressives in the rear, and Progressive cartridges up front. Now when I hit a minor imperfection in a high speed sweeper my bike will dive a bit once, rise a bit, and then stabilize, which I think is how most properly handling bikes will behave.
You've done a ton to correct this, which makes me start to wonder about things like...
- Are you carrying an imbalanced load side-to side?
- is it possible that your frame is bent or that one of your wheels is out of round?
- has this problem followed you through a fresh set of properly balanced and inflated tires?
Just some thoughts. Tracking down a problem like this can be maddening. Hang in there!
Bags are empty except for a hoodie in my right bag and it was there before and after two new tires. Went from the factory touring dunlop to a pair of elites.
So, tried a little science experiment. Dont know if it will work or even solve anything, but I'm going to put it in action within the next few days. I basically made a 1/4 scale of the frame and suspension setup out of poster board and pinned everything to foam board as to be able to change neck rake and the rake and offset of the trees. While keeping the stock neck rake of 26 degrees and the additional 4.5 in the trees, I lowered where I attached the shock to the frame 1/4" (simulating a 1" longer shock in the rear), then 1/2" (2" longer shock). What I found was that for every 1" you add to your rear shocks, it removes 3 degrees or rake and 7/8 off your trail. If using a 14" shock, I'll have a 25 degree rake with a 3.5" trail. Very similar to a R1 with 24 degrees rake and 3.6" trail. I'm going to make a 1" extension block for my swing arm just to try it out, I figure it can't hurt to try.
I checked my swing arm when I put the "stiffys" in and I didn't feel any play.
If the belt was tight, you wouldn't. Belt tension is a heck of a mask.
I applaud you for your foam board work, but would greatly caution you about attempting to re-design the steering components. Not only is it expensive to do, but you're quite likely to make things worse. Especially based on what I'm seeing you describe as thought and direction for improved handling.
So you want to reduce trail and think that it will make the bike more stable? Less trail should make stability worse.
I might be wrong, but from how I'm reading everything about rake and trail is that less trail will make the bike more stable in the corners but less stable in a straight line. The more trail is the more stable in a straight line and less in the corners. Is that right?
I might be wrong, but from how I'm reading everything about rake and trail is that less trail will make the bike more stable in the corners but less stable in a straight line. The more trail is the more stable in a straight line and less in the corners. Is that right?
Look, before you go nuts trying to redesign the bike, just get it squared away. It'll work pretty darn well in stock form, with things ironed out.
This is me on mine a few years back,on the track. No redesigns of the bike. It more than adequately held its own.
I fixed the slop in the swing arm, do not run correct fall-away on the steering head, use higher than stock tire pressure, heavier suspension oil in the forks and shocks, No other suspension modifications or accessories. The only one I still want is a steering damper, but it's proving to be a want, not a need.
Look, before you go nuts trying to redesign the bike, just get it squared away. It'll work pretty darn well in stock form, with things ironed out.
This is me on mine a few years back,on the track. No redesigns of the bike. It more than adequately held its own.
I fixed the slop in the swing arm, do not run correct fall-away on the steering head, use higher than stock tire pressure, heavier suspension oil in the forks and shocks, No other suspension modifications or accessories. The only one I still want is a steering damper, but it's proving to be a want, not a need.
My question to you is, at what speed were you going around that curve and how smooth of a road was it? I can lean my bike until the boards drag no matter how sharp the turn at 65, and even higher depending on how smooth the surface. So 85-90 is fine, until I hit a bump or go over a wave in the road. Also, what kind of fall away do you suggest? I'm assuming tighter?
06-18-2019, 11:43 AM
