dlaing

In my opinion, it is best to change the plugs with every valve adjustment, mostly to get a fresh washer for a good seal with less risk to over torquing. I am far to cheap to spend money on new iridium every valve adjustment. What might be worth a shot is indexing the spark plugs. But I doubt one could tell the differnence without ten before and after runs on a dyno. But it could effect carbon build up levels, etc. I just got some MSD magnetic suppression wires from http://stores.ebay.com/TPO-Parts Expensive at $45US, but they should outlast the bike if I don't crash. Plus they are red. The fluttering on my tachometer is gone (EDIT not completely... )which may have been caused by faulty noise suppression in my cheap carbon, non-oem wires that I was using. But otherwise fuel consumption is the same. If it gave me power through efficiency, I should have seen better fuel efficiency, too, but no. But maybe if I switched from BPR6ES to BP6ES non-resistor and opened up the plug gap a little. In any case, I think the MSD are good reliablity insurance. I think the Nology recommends larger plug gap. But what is a bigger spark going to do for me? I am not missing...I don't think. Maybe it produce more complete burning...possibly at the expense of pinging, as the burn front hits the piston sooner. It might make sense to use nology if you could retard the timing and determine the ideal plug gap. But then what would you get out of it? 0.1 more miles per gallon and a topspeed of one 12.2 feet per minute faster? Theoretically it makes sense that bigger sparks are better. But I don't think it has ever been proven objectively.

Shimming the springs is pretty easily done. Most people will be better off with stiffer springs. To find out, you need to know your sag numbers. The two numbers are how much the weight of the bike sags the springs from fully extended, and how much your combined bike's weight and your weight (with gear) compress the spring. Their are many FAQs or HOW TOs on sag setup on the internet and possibly on this forum/

And others of us are of the opinion that the OEM Sachs is sprung for someone well under 200 pounds. I would be surprised if Janusz did not favor a five hundred pound spring if he tried one. My 475# spring was under $80 shipped. If I were to order it again, I would get a 500 pound/inch spring, and even that may be too light for my 210 +++ pounds that bottom out the suspension. An easy test to is push the bottoming bumper forward and go for a ride over a moderately bumpy road. If it pushes the bumper back down to the end, you can be pretty sure it is bottoming on bumpier roads. If your roads do not cause you to bottom, you are probably fine.(or over-spung) The Sachs is not a bad shock. Heck, it has both compression and rebound damping. Since I resprung it, it is much more in harmony with the Ohlins forks.

That would be UGLY in an accident. But cool! now I don't have to trade in my Toyota Matrix, just pull the front wheel and front passenger seat....and maybe the fuel tank....But boy it would be heavy.

So, is this erroneous, http://www.ohlins.com/pdf/mounting_instructions/MG127.pdf ? Or from the mother country: http://www.ohlins.se/pdf/mounting_instructions/MG127.pdf

Wow! If true, you just changed my mind about my next shock!

I love this list. Learn something new, everyday. I'll have to give that a try!

What I hate is trying to keep in a straight line durring multiple-sneeze attacks!!!! Is it true that we automatically close our eyes when sneezing to keep our eyballs from popping out of their sockets?

They do have potential. I am much happier with mine, now that I have a 475# spring. This allowed me to back off on both the excessive preload that was causing topping out, and the compression damping that was making the ride too rough. I am sure that re-engineered by experts, it could be made much better, as can the Marzocchi forks.

And air conditioning But then again, Enron and the like, may not have damaged the south-east the the way they did the West coast. hmmm, my company just opened up a campus in Florida.

BigJ did a nice writeup on the Maxton here: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5631&hl=

Will since I am still apparently living in the sixties, I am only comfortable paying about $10/ Ounce. for unsprung(sinsemilla) and $5/ounce sprung. The Aluminum subframe only saves about 112 ounces, so I think it is only worth about $560. However if someone builds a swing arm that save 112 ounces for about $1120 USD, I may be willing to shell out some $$$$$$$$$. Dig these ceramic pipes: Only problem is that they would have to be ordered from Shanghai...

OKay, so I am the only one gormless enough to pursue a one percent saving on weight. What the hell, lets just go with a ceramic pipe since we only need hardnesss and compressive strength. This is not quite the right shape ceramic pipe, but I'll be searching and will get back to you when I find the perfect pipe

You got it!

The concern over the torque number was not an exposition of retentive tire changing technique, rather it was all about the force on "The Chosen" spacer, and how it might compress it. I think the DOM will hold up fine with the 0.25mm overcut from flush assuming it is tempered. But, something like this 89955K64 Alloy Steel Grd 4130 Aircraft Quality Tubing .083" Wall X 1" OD, 6' Length May hold up better and be lighter. It will be lighter since it is thinner I still like the idea of saving three ounces on the rear end. Heck, some pay $1000 just to save a pound or two at the wheel. It would be nice to start losing weight somewhere, as long as we use our noggins and confirm that the metal won't mash. I have tried to put a hacksaw through aircraft grade aluminum, and the stuff is HARD. I don't see why it won't work here.

I am terrible at measuring, but from the measurements I took with my shock off, Ohlins has pretty much maximized how much travel one can get in both directions. If you go with adjustable height models, you may take some exact measurements, otherwise you may end up damaging your swing arm in the compression direction and U-joint in the extended direction if the lengths vary too much.

In case you haven't heard, General Lee is back!!! Notice that probably in the interest of being PC, they took the swastika, I mean the confed flag, off the car. But they still play Dixie, and yell, Yeeeeee Hah! I wonder if they still call the car General Lee.

I think the Ohlins 286/70 diimensions are still better. But yes, I would pick the WP 280/64 dimensions over the Sachs 276/60. Remember, that unless the spring is too long or too heavy, you will be able to reduce the pre-load to adjust the ride height. Of course that is at the expense of travel, but you will be gaining travel with the larger dimensioned shocks to a degree equal to the change in ride height. So you have got nothing to risk by going with the Ohlins dimensions....assuming Wilbers can do it. It could be that their shock body is too long to maximize travel.

http://www.arpuerta.com/040917.html Regardless, the man is awesome!

Oh yah, I forgot about the remote pre-load option. For me, the remote pre-load is just more clutter. It would be nice for two up riding but, I don't do very much two up riding, and when I do, I don't mind the springs sagging a bit. If you go with the height adjuster, keep in mind that you can't adust the travel, so, 281plus or minus five, could probably have no more than 60mm travel....yah you might be able to squeeze some in, but not much without risking the swing arm hitting the frame. Ohlins did a good job maximizing the dimensions.

As long as you can get 70mm of travel, I would go with the Ohlins 286 length. You can always increase the sag to a lower ride height. Let us know how it works out! The extra adjuster and lower price on the Wilber are very appealing. To get the same sort of adjusters on a Penske, you are looking at big bucks. With the Ohlins, it may not even be possible to get the high speed compression adjuster for our bikes. But I was considering looking in to that. Have you picked out a spring weight? I am a little over 210lbs, and went with a 475# spring, that gave me sag of about 5mm bike only and 30mm bike and rider. I still have not decided if this is ideal. Since the Wilber can reduce the high speed compression, a higher spring rate, may be better. I backed my Sachs compression off 33 turns from closed, since the bottoming appears to no longer be a problem. It will still need more tuning.

The dimensions are perfect. The welded seam may not be good. And the stainless may be too soft. Yah, I am still trying to build a space shuttle... Getting back to Aluminum, the big gotcha is that if you want the right dimensions, you have to go with pipe rather than tubing. But the pipe is only available in at best, Schedule 40, while the tubing is available in 2024, but is thin walled. Wall Thickness .065" Inside Diameter .87" Outside Diameter 1" Rockwell B is about 65 Another option is the seamless carbon steel 50295K431 Metric Seamless Carbon Steel Tubing 25 mm OD, 21 mm ID, 2 mm Wall Rockwell B is about 75 or for less money and a thinner wall 9220K431 Seamless Carbon Steel Tubing 1" OD, .87" ID, .065" Wall Thickness or converted to metric 25.4 mm OD, 22.1 mm ID, 1.65 mm Wall PS Yo Ratchet! Yah, that might be too much sag....but the good news is that after a short ride over some kidney breaking bumps, it was nearly a cm short of hitting the bumper. So, I'll back it off 3mm. The 475# spring may be fine after all.

20mm minimum. Maybe 21mm ideal. But don't you worry Pete, I have confidence in JRT running off a batch. However, if he does not, UPS from Australia, may be doable. Thank You sooo much for the offer. I probably have another month before I have to change the rear tire.

Oh, and Ratchet, thanks for dropping by and helping me with something as simple as measuring sag. After you left, I set it to ~2mm bike only and ~27-28mm with my @ss in the saddle...assuming what we discussed regarding ratios, etc. I still have to see if it bottoms too easily.

We love you dude! No offense taken. Ratchet is just yankin' our chains.