Guest ratchethack Posted December 24, 2009 Posted December 24, 2009 Something is wrong with those measurements or calculations.FWIW 532 # per inch is about 90 N/mm or I guess a 0.9Nm, but I thought Nm is for torque, so not sure if it converts. When I went from the OEM spring to a 475 # spring, my laden sag decreased, not as much as I had hoped, but it did decrease, so I am surprised that you measured 532# Perhaps you did not remove the thickness of the paint on the spring from the measurement??? OK, it's been years since I did this, it hasn't been fresh in my mind lately, and I've found myself high-sided by a disremembery snag , so time to go to work on a refresh! Updated validation on the GuzziTech Spring Rate Calculator I found ten different spring rate calculators on the Web, and ran the Guzzi OE Sachs spring dimensions through them all. I believe that these days, it's safe to assume that modern moto suspension springs use equivalent grades of steel. It's generally going to be the same grade of steel used in auto suspension springs, though many of the online auto spring rate calculators use slight variations on standard spring steel modulus constants (material rigidity), so slight variations occurred in the results, as expected. Some calculators made use of the addition of spring free length and compressed length. Since I can directly measure free length from the spring sitting on my workbench and calculate compressed length from total available shock travel (6 cm) and the installed spring length at full shock extension on the Guzzi, I used these measurements where offered in the calculators, just for comparo purposes. Upshot of the spring rate calculator comparo: The GuzziTech Spring Rate Calculator (provided by Mike Tiberio some years ago) still substantially agrees with other credible (but not identical) spring rate calculators. A few of the moto spring rate calculators were obviously based on the identical algorithms as used on the GuzziTech calculator. Many others, evidently not. Most results were within a single percentage point or two of the GuzziTech calculator. The total variance in calculated rates between top and bottom of the entire range of results obtained was less than 4%, which happens to be the exact same variance delta I got from adding in my estimate of .005" that I used for paint thickness when I measured the springs. Yes, the .005" allowance estimate for paint thickness was used in the dimensions provided in my previous post, and I've not changed it. What I failed to recall correctly from "way back when" is the all-important correct METRIC UNIT OF MEASURE for spring rates. It's NOT Nm, it's N/mm. The OEM Sachs shock spring, at 532 lbs/in., is 93 N/mm. I've corrected my post above accordingly. The conversion for lbs/in to N/mm is (x 0.175127). My apologies to Dave for getting the metric UOM wrong before I edited this post. However, Dave, it's apparent that when you spec'd your replacement Penske shock, you went in the wrong direction on your spring rate. This indicates that you didn't know the spring rate you were replacing. I have no idea how you arrived at your sag measurements either before or after replacement, but if you replaced a 532 lb/in spring with a 475 lb/in spring as you indicated above, you couldn't possibly have achieved a decrease in sags as a result, without a very significant mis-measure, and/or something else very wrong contributing to invalid measurements. Hope this helps. :xmas: :xmas:
Guest ratchethack Posted December 25, 2009 Posted December 25, 2009 You guys are funny. These things are estimators anyway, not calculators. Happy X-Mas Hubert Maybe you'll forgive Ed and Todd at GuzziTech for their improper use of English, Hubert? After all, English is their second language, you know -- American being their first. They're good guys -- really -- always open to constructive criticism, and their sense of humor is usually (for the most part) at least as keen as mine -- not sure about yours, though. I encourage you to email the GuzziTech Complaint Dep't. directly here: Todd<at>guzzitech.com -or- Ed<at>guzzitech.com If you inform the boys of their error, they'll no doubt gladly change the heading on the GuzziTech Web page from Spring Rate Calculator to Spring Rate Estimator. Oh -- and while you're at it, make sure they change the CALCULATE radio button to, ESTIMATE. Merry Christmas!
gavo Posted December 25, 2009 Author Posted December 25, 2009 Now now guys, settle. tis the season of goodwill
dlaing Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 However, Dave, it's quite apparent that when you spec'd your replacement Penske shock, you went in the wrong direction on your spring rate. This indicates that you didn't know the spring rate you were replacing. I have no idea how you arrived at your sag measurements either before or after replacement, but if you replaced a 532 lb/in spring with a 475 lb/in spring as you indicated above, you couldn't possibly have achieved a decrease in sags without a mis-measure of your sage, and/or something else very wrong contributing to invalid measurements. Hope this helps. :xmas: :xmas: Sorry, I did not give the details there. My Sachs spring was replaced with a 475 pound spring. This decision was based on posts on this forum, especially Mike Stewart's who is heavier than I, and does a lot of two up riding, and rides more aggressively than I. He tried a 550#, found it too firm and went to 500. I mistakenly thought 475# would be right for me. 475 is also allegedly what ships on the Ohlins Guzzis. If I shift forward into an aggressive riding position leaning forward, it worked OK. I think Mike was following Lex's advice. I should have followed Lex's advice, too. In any case, it was only a little better than Sachs OEM spring. On the Penske, I went with a 550 # spring, and I am considering either a HyperPro or a 600# spring, since I still bottom out pretty frequently.
Guest ratchethack Posted December 26, 2009 Posted December 26, 2009 Sorry, I did not give the details there.My Sachs spring was replaced with a 475 pound spring. This decision was based on posts on this forum, especially Mike Stewart's who is heavier than I, and does a lot of two up riding, and rides more aggressively than I. He tried a 550#, found it too firm and went to 500. I mistakenly thought 475# would be right for me. 475 is also allegedly what ships on the Ohlins Guzzis. If I shift forward into an aggressive riding position leaning forward, it worked OK. I think Mike was following Lex's advice. I should have followed Lex's advice, too. In any case, it was only a little better than Sachs OEM spring. Uh-oh. . . "the details". . . Hmmmmm. . . Yes, all is made clear. . . I'm afraid wot we've got here is yet another great whallopping bargeload o' reeking offal. . . I'm sorry, Dave. This version of the story^ is certainly more creative, and it's quite possible that parts of it could actually be true. But since this version ALSO contradicts the laws of Earth Physics by the same numbers, I find your latest "reliance on extended hearsay" spin/cover story quite awkward, and every bit as backward, upside-down, and as flat-out impossible to believe as your previous version: When I went from the OEM spring [532 #] to a 475 # spring, my laden sag decreased, not as much as I had hoped, but it did decrease. . . Can you explain this?^ No. . . no, I don't b'lieve you can -- since it's a physical impossibility (on this planet). On the Penske, I went with a 550 # spring, and I am considering either a HyperPro or a 600# spring, since I still bottom out pretty frequently. Yeah, I'll bet you do -- as might well be expected. Let's see if I've got this straight. . . You weigh in at wot - 240 lbs.? After first downgrading the OEM Sachs shock spring rate by nearly 60 lbs/in, whereby it magically got "a little better", and just as magically, "the laden sag decreased", then astonishingly enough, bouncing back up off the rubber shock bottom donut (both literally and figuratively! ) in a reversal of direction, with a spring rate increase of 75 lbs/in (to only 18 lbs/in. over the OE Sachs). . . But it still bottoms out "pretty frequently". . . ?? EARTH LOGIC: If downgrading the spring rate by 60 lbs/in REALLY made it "a little better" and "decreased the laden sag" as you claimed twice above, why then didn't you next downgrade the spring rate AGAIN to make it "A LOT better"?? -- Instead, you went back in the opposite direction -- and now you're preparing to go in the same direction AGAIN?!?!?! Nice attempt at throwing up a smokescreen, Dave. But I'm afraid it's as obvious as Rudolph the Reindeer's Big Red Rutabaga that you haven't had the foggiest idea about wot you've been doing here from the get-go. You've been measuring your sags incorrectly (or not at all) and shootin' in the dark on spring rates -- with predictable results. Well. . . on the bright side o' all your "down is good, up is also good, and next, up you go (again) is even better" spring rate shenannigans, you know wot they say, Dave: Third time's the charm! Wot's the used shock spring market like on Flea-Bay these days? Good luck next time 'round the horn. Really. You're gonna need it. . .
docc Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 In June 2007 I replaced my Sachs with the last known Ohlins built for the V11 Sport. I can only find a couple relevant statistics for the piece (all else is subjective ): First is the $955.94 USD. I'm thinking this adds at least three or four Euros to the resale value. But 9 million lire, which makes me feel better as long as I keep quaffing this nice Belgian ale. Otherwise the spring is part # 1091-26. "1091" is apparently the length in mm and "26" is Ohlins for 85 N/mm. It's hard to imagine the original Sachs was 93 N/mm. This unit is decidedly stiffer. Of course, that's the subjective part . . .
gavo Posted December 27, 2009 Author Posted December 27, 2009 In June 2007 I replaced my Sachs with the last known Ohlins built for the V11 Sport. I can only find a couple relevant statistics for the piece (all else is subjective ): First is the $955.94 USD. I'm thinking this adds at least three or four Euros to the resale value. But 9 million lire, which makes me feel better as long as I keep quaffing this nice Belgian ale. Otherwise the spring is part # 1091-26. "1091" is apparently the length in mm and "26" is Ohlins for 85 N/mm. It's hard to imagine the original Sachs was 93 N/mm. This unit is decidedly stiffer. Of course, that's the subjective part . . . Ok, If 1091 is the length in mm then your spring is about half as long as your whole bike, must be a typo. second , what is the free length of the sachs spring in comparison to the Olhins one. Has anyone got the oem spring rate written down in front of them eg, workshop manual, guzzi brochure, etc So far ratchet is the only one to put forward something that makes sense. so provided his measuring is accurate and the spring estimator/calculator is right then 9.5kg/mm or 93.157N/mm is correct. So no seat of the pants figures , no, I got this cause bob got that one, just hard facts. And no more playschool antic's
Guest ratchethack Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 It's hard to imagine the original Sachs was 93 N/mm. This unit is decidedly stiffer. Of course, that's the subjective part . . . No need for subjectivity, imagineering, nor guesswork when you correctly measure both laden and unladen sags (easy enough to check), your existing spring rate (easy enough to check, Part II, see above), and you know your objectives (cruiser soft, racetrack hard, or something in between). The numbers^ don't lie. When you know how to read 'em, they tell you all you need to know: 1. Is the spring rate a correct match to load for my objectives. 2. Which direction do I need to go (if any). 3. How far. It ain't all that mysterious or magical -- nor difficult. Coupla thoughts: Guzzi has long been known to install different suspension components on a whim, apparently according to wot's left over in the bin, according to the market/importer shipped to, and/or wot the temp bean-counter behind the revolving door at Mandello at the time considered a good purchasing opportunity, with no other apparent rhyme nor reason for a change at any time or frequency within the same model year. There's seldom much of any clue to discovering a correct ID of Guzzi suspension components "on paper", particularly springs. On top o' this, and significantly enough for many, PO's have often swapped out suspension components unbeknownst to the current owner. I b'lieve it's generally safe to trust aftermarket spring and suspension companies to provide correct rate spec's on their own components. But beyond that, this is just me, but I've found it's never a good idea to trust hearsay on the rate of any spring I haven't measured myself. THE ONLY WAY to be certain about wot you've got is to measure and calculate the rate for yourself. FWIW, lest you think me presumptuous here, I measured my own OE fork springs, my own OE Sachs shock spring, and Dave's OE Sachs shock spring years ago, long before I re-sprung both ends. They're all sitting on my workbench today. Since I'd forgotten wot they measured years ago, I re-measured them all and re-ran the calc's per my post above. Both Dave's and my Sachs shock springs (still) measure the same (that is, they're identical, both from 2000 US-market Sports like yours).
Skeeve Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 FWIW, lest you think me presumptuous here, I measured my own OE fork springs, my own OE Sachs shock spring, and Dave's OE Sachs shock spring years ago, long before I re-sprung both ends. They're all sitting on my workbench today. Since I'd forgotten wot they measured years ago, I've re-measured them all and re-ran the calc's per my post above. Both Dave's and my Sachs shock springs (still) measure the same (both from 2000 US-issue Sports like yours). That's all fine & dandy, but what we need is an actual empirical measurement of the spring (& by this statement I mean no indictment of your calculations.) I realize that the physicists say that Young's Modulus doesn't change for steel regardless of the temper, but I kinda suspect they're full of it when it comes to actual differences of "springiness" btw some piece of 1080 wire that Sachs managed to spool up, cut to length, indifferently harden & lacklusterly temper before shipping it off to Mandello vs. a premium piece of chrome-silicon bar stock that Ohlin's specified to meet set standards, precisely measured the tempering furnace for the 10C deg range of optimal hardening, cooled in clean oil refrigerated to 15C & then tempered for exactly 22 minutes at 454C. For example. It just strikes me that the qualitative difference may be discernible by actual measurements whereas the calcs say they're same-same...
Guest ratchethack Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 . . .I realize that the physicists say that Young's Modulus doesn't change for steel regardless of the temper, but I kinda suspect they're full of it when it comes to actual differences of "springiness" btw some piece of 1080 wire that Sachs managed to spool up, cut to length, indifferently harden & lacklusterly temper before shipping it off to Mandello vs. a premium piece of chrome-silicon bar stock that Ohlin's specified to meet set standards, precisely measured the tempering furnace for the 10C deg range of optimal hardening, cooled in clean oil refrigerated to 15C & then tempered for exactly 22 minutes at 454C. For example. It just strikes me that the qualitative difference may be discernible by actual measurements whereas the calcs say they're same-same... Well Skeeve, your observations are valid, alright. Discernable differences do exist today, and were apparent in the rate calculators I found, as I pointed out in my post above. The real Q is, how significant are any qualitative differences likely to be in the real world? I seriously doubt if either Sachs or Ohlins ever made their own springs. Over the last several decades, I'd be gob-smacked, hornswoggled and hogswallopped to find any evidence of any major moto shock mfgr fabricating springs. I b'lieve there are only a small number of coil spring mfgrs. supplying the world market. Again, different torsional modulus (moduli?) used in the rate calculator algorithms I found indicated some variance in industrial spring steels. Of the 10 ea. rate calculators I made use of (representing 7 clearly different sets of algorithms, where the torsional modulus was sometimes provided, more often buried in the unpublished algorithms), the variances in results were all well within a few percentage points, with a max top-to-bottom variance of less than 4%. To me, this is a significant indication that modern coil spring steel wire for suspensions is about as consistent across the board as possible to imagine, regardless of source. I'm no industrial engineer, but the QC standards these days on springs appear to be relatively high. This kind of consistency would seem to be be pretty good to me, even across the same batch from a single production run by any mfgr. . . Certainly consistent enough for any moto suspension setup objectives. Now if we were measuring the suspension spring rates from a '51 Excelsior (which I once owned), and comparing rates with a '57 Trabant (which I've never even seen) and running rate calcs with any of the common and relatively consistent rate calculators on the Web today, all bets would be off on the concept of a same-same spring rate calculator comparo. But o' course, that's just me.
docc Posted December 27, 2009 Posted December 27, 2009 Oopf- my hasty reading and half baked sense of linear metrics. "1091" is Ohlins for 160 mm. I don't know how that compares to the Sachs spring length. Still the 85 vs 93 doesn't make sense to me. I recall my sag deceasing and ride height increasing after the shock change, but I can't find any good notes on the specifics. I do, however, have lots of colorful notes on the nuances of various single malts . . .
dlaing Posted December 28, 2009 Posted December 28, 2009 Here is a quote from Lex estimating or guesstimating what sort of rider the Sachs OEM spring is right for: I'll start by disagreeing with Vkerrigan and say these bike are set up for a rider under 150 pounds range, not 165-170. The numbers I've seen on preload are why I think the set-up rider was under 150 pounds, everybody seem to be on or over the maximum pre-load, if the bike is set-up for your weight you should be right in the middle of the range. FWIW, I agree with Lex. And here is a quote from Lex trying to help a 230# rider, Ian: I'm not sure I can tell you what would be right but I think Mike and I can confirm a 550 In/ Lb spring you be too stiff. I'm a lard ass (260#) and the 550 is what I am running. Mike is a fairly good sized guy, and the 550 was to stiff. He is going to a 500, if that works for him it might be a good place for Ian to start. Not much but I hope this helps, Lex Both quotes from over 6 years ago: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/lofiversio....php/t1682.html I suspect if we further search the forum we will find more people who have happily gone with rear springs in the 500-600 pound range. FWIW I am about 215# plus about 20#+ of leather, etc. Also, FWIW some of the stiffness that Mike was feeling may have been caused by the stiff damping of the Penske. He later had it re-valved. Ratchet, what were your sag numbers with the Sachs OEM spring? How much did you weigh then? What are your sag numbers now with the Wilbers? What is that shock's spring rate? What is your weight when you measured the sag on the Wilbers?
Guest ratchethack Posted December 28, 2009 Posted December 28, 2009 Ratchet, what were your sag numbers with the Sachs OEM spring? How much did you weigh then? What are your sag numbers now with the Wilbers? What is that shock's spring rate? What is your weight when you measured the sag on the Wilbers? Dave, we’ve been back and forth over all this ad nauseum. But seems like it’s been years since suspension setup topics rampaged across this Forum in the threads where you were actively participating, and I reckon a little refresher is in order. I do sympathize (to some extent ), having forgotten a few o’ the critical details since then myself (see above). As I noted again recently in reply to you, Dave, my riding weight was the same then (over 3 years ago) as it is now, 180 lbs with full Vanson riding gear, and all my riding objectives and preferences are also still the same. PRE-EMPTIVE CAVEAT/REMINDER: Many on this board still don't seem to grasp the fact that a laden sag measurement ALONE is 100% useless information when it comes to upgrading spring rates, as I've been whingeing on about like a broken record, lo these many years. Once again -- you ALSO need a correct UNLADEN SAG measurement to be of any use wotsoever when re-springing and/or setting up suspension. I'm presently running 38 mm laden sag and 20 mm unladen sag, with a Wilbers 641 custom order shock and 95 N/mm (543 lbs/in) spring. (sag delta = 18 mm). With the previous OE Sachs shock and OE 532 lbs/in (93 N/mm) spring, I was last running a 40 mm laden sag and a 14 mm unladen sag. (sag delta = 26 mm). Q: BUT RATCHET, RATCHET! You only went up a measly 2 N/mm (11 lbs/in) on a shock re-spring rate?!?!? A: Yes, Glasshoppel. . . Please pay attention now, and observe carefully how this allowed me to hit my sag delta target with the spring rate upgrade -- not quite, but very nearly *dead-nuts*: The sag delta dropped by a great whallopping 31%. Yeah, I know. Here’s^ where eyes start to glaze over, and all the insincere and less than adequately motivated (and less than adequately equipped) peel off. . . For all such as these, the above and all that follows below will be gibberish and nonsense. By all means -- rather than even attempt an understanding, far better to continue to let hearsay, any GROUPTHINK that tickles your fancy, the latest popular delusions, anybody who's delirious about wotever they did (or wotever somebody else said somebody else was delirious about wot they did), and old wives’ tales be your guide. The Hooter’s thread beckons seductively, and, ‘Bye Now! For those still interested and capable, but possibly not accustomed to the term, ‘sag delta’ (laden sag minus unladen sag), it’s the ONLY single measurement number that directly relates spring rate to load. When tuning suspension, it’s a very handy number to use for comparison purposes when setting up and balancing the chassis, since it cuts all the usual unnecessarily confusing, irrelevant, and useless foolishness and folderol of preload considerations OUT of the picture. Now if you absolutely can’t quite wrap your mind all the way around this simple concept^, this might be the best time to call in a suspension Pro, place all your faith and trust in whoever you can find that you imagine might fit the bill, and/or whoever has the flashiest looking Web site, pay the man as handsomely as he can convince you it’s worth for wotever he sells you, and vaya con Dios, mi compadre. HELPFUL REMINDER: When changing rate on the shock spring, there's a ~1:2 multiplier at work WRT sag delta change vs. spring rate change, due to the 1:2 swingarm leverage (shock travel to wheel spindle travel). With fork springs, it's a direct 1:1 ratio (but also keep in mind there's 2 of 'em ). HELPFUL REMINDER (Part II): Laden sag alone can be set anywhere you like at any time, REGARDLESS OF SPRING RATE. That’s right – you could go so far as to replace your existing shock spring with a solid pipe, and adjust preload to set your laden sag exactly where it was before, or wherever it strikes your fancy. But since the unladen sag would then be the same as laden sag (sag delta = ZERO), your ride experience after a few hours on back roads might well warrant the professional services of Docc, and/or a team of ortho surgeons. . . Best have your sag delta around 20 mm for general purpose riding on the road (give or take a few mm, depending on preference), or if you prefer a racetrack stiff ride, go for a sag delta of something on the order of 8-10 mm. HELPFUL REMINDER (Part III): I urge NO ONE to take my word on any of the above. PLEASE -- I'm begging you -- learn the basic terminology and simple principles involved here for yourself. There's nothing all that difficult in any of this, and I promise you that your enjoyment of riding will benefit immeasurably when you're able to apply this knowledge correctly. For reference, I’ve found these suspension tuning sites to be 100% credible, 100% consistent with all the above, and very helpful: http://www.racetech.com/articles/SuspensionAndSprings.htm http://www.strappe.com/suspension.html Hope this helps.
GuzziMoto Posted December 28, 2009 Posted December 28, 2009 Wow, Hatchet Wacker,that was almost coherent and correct. But, not quite. Some of it could be attributed to opinion and different ways of seeing things (ie, is the glass half full or half empty, whether you have straight rate or progressive springs). But normal preload does not effect spring rate unless you have a set of aftermarket progressive springs, so unless you have so much preload that there is no sag adding or subtracting preload does not make the ride stiffer or softer unless you consider that with out enough preload the suspension will bottom and the ride will seem stiff or harsh. With straight rate/stock springs preload effects ride height, with virtually no effect on spring rate unless you are way off one way or the other. Now, you and a few others do have progressive springs in the front. And while you may be perfectly happy with them, the fact the changing preload/ride height alters the base spring rate is one of the reasons I don't use progressive springs. But to each their own. HW, you almost got the bit about the ratio of spring rate to travel correct, you even seemed like you were gonna say it and then you didn't. You say there is about a "1:2 swingarm leverage (shock travel to wheel spindle travel)" ratio for the shock travel vs. rear wheel travel (based on yours and others measurements of the rear suspension, I doubt it is a constant rate and likely changes through the stroke of the rear wheel), meaning that a 500 lb spring will allow the rear suspension to(added for clarity) compress one inch under 250 lbs of weight. This is opposite to what you imply/say with regard to your "measly" 11 lb rate increase being larger then it seems. It is in fact smaller then it seems. Meaning that a 50 lb change in the spring rate at the shock is only good for a 25 lb effective rate at the wheel. But up front the ratio is 2:1 wheel travel to spring rate, because of the fact that there are two springs, the opposite of the rear. A small change up front makes a larger difference since it is doubled. And finally, while it is true that the amount of sag with a rider on board is not as useful a piece of info without knowing the amount of free sag (no rider on board) to say that the difference between the two is the only number you need to know, well that may be something that comes down to opinion. I can see how if all you wanted to know is whether your spring rate is correct or not then maybe you could make an argument that that was all you need. And if you spring was truly a straight rate spring then you might even be correct. But since springs aren't all straight rate and when there is a linkage or angled shock involved the effective rate of the spring (the effect it has on the movement of the rear wheel) is no longer straight rate, that statement is a bit misleading. If you are sincerely trying to set up your suspension then you need to know free sag and race sag (sag with rider on board). The difference between the two is not as important as what the two are. If you set your race sag and your free sag is too high or too low (or none at all) then your spring rate is off. It is that simple. Getting the first two right is what it is about, not just getting the difference between the two to a given value. But that one as I said could be down to opinion and you are entitled to your own. Funny the two links you posted did not support your opinion on that matter. Well, one thing I can agree with you own is that anyone interested in learning about suspension setup should go out there and research the subject. There is much info out there and much of it is good. But as this thread illustrates you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Let the insults begin.
Guest ratchethack Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 . . .that was almost coherent and correct. . . But, not quite. Well, well, Quazimodo. As your typical contributions following my posts go, this certainly fits your usual “crabs-in-a-bucket-struggle”, arrested development, and ego problem pattern behavior, alright. It also demonstrates your familiar irrepressible compulsion to go out of your way to make a spectacular fool of yourself with your trademarked, “Ready. . . FIRE! . . . Aim. . . Shoot-yourself-in-the- foot” delivery. There seems to be a familiar pattern emerging here -- and not just with me. No, siree. I've seen you do more or less the same thing many times with others, as well, when you clearly couldn't comprehend their posts, same as here. But since you got so very many things in my above post bass-ackwards, and you've dreamed up so many other things that weren't there -- evidently just so you'd have something to complain about -- you obviously had a very low to non-existent level of comprehension of my entire post. Of the "less than adequately motivated, and less than adequately equipped", that I invited to adjourn to the Hooters thread, you're clearly in the latter category. All gibberish and nonsense to you, wasn't it? Yeah. Well, next time, I suggest you take the invitation, and save all the ridiculous complaining about stupid and irrelevant stuff you made up to cover the fact that the simple info I provided was over your head. You've made some very vague and sloppy, yet nonetheless clear insinuations that something (yet unspecified) in my above post is incorrect -- without identifying a single point that I've actually made that you can properly refute. Quite astonishing. As long as we're at it, we just gotta get the rank smell you've left behind outta here. Tell you wot, Quazi. We'll just shovel up your idiotic little shitheap of unwarranted, silly, and pointless provocation and bury every last stinking dab of it, shall we? . . .normal preload does not effect spring rate unless you have a set of aftermarket progressive springs, so unless you have so much preload that there is no free sag adding or subtracting preload does not make the ride stiffer or softer unless you consider that with out enough preload the suspension will bottom and the ride will seem stiff or harsh. Err. . . Is this^ from some other thread?? Some other Forum?? Romper-Room?? Without taking anything I posted out of context above, (or anywhere else, ever), please show me where I as much as hinted that preload has anything wotsoever to do with spring rate. Now, you and a few others do have progressive springs in the front. And while you may be perfectly happy with them, the fact the changing preload/ride height alters the base spring rate is one of the reasons I don't use progressive springs. But to each their own. Please explain why you found yourself compelled to babble aimlessly about progressive springs here, since it has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything that anyone in this thread is talking about, least of all myself in the post you appear to be responding to. You say there is about a "1:2 swingarm leverage (shock travel to wheel spindle travel)" ratio for the shock travel vs. rear wheel travel (based on yours and others measurements of the rear suspension, I doubt it is a constant rate and likely changes through the stroke of the rear wheel), meaning that a 500 lb spring will compress one inch under 250 lbs of weight. This is opposite to what you imply/say with regard to your "measly" 11 lb rate increase being larger then it seems. It is in fact smaller then it seems. Meaning that a 50 lb change in the spring rate at the shock is only good for a 25 lb effective rate at the wheel. This^ must be some kind of desperately bad attempt at a joke, but I can’t imagine who might find it amusing. Please read my post for the first time and get your facts straight. But up front the ratio is 2:1 wheel travel to spring rate, because of the fact that there are two springs, the opposite of the rear. A small change up front makes a larger difference since it is doubled. This^ must be some kind of desperately bad attempt at a joke (Part II), but I can’t imagine who might find it amusing (Part II, B ). Please read my post for the first time and get your facts straight (Part II, C). . . .while it is true that the amount of sag with a rider on board is not as useful a piece of info without knowing the amount of free sag (no rider on board) to say that the difference between the two is the only number you need to know, well that may be something that comes down to opinion. Without taking anything I posted out of context above, (or anywhere else, ever, -- I’ve lost count of which Part), please show me where I even as much as hinted that, “the difference between the two is the only number you need to know”. This time around, Quazimodo, I do b’lieve you might’ve finally broke your clapper. Yes, I'm afraid you must’ve rung your dumb-bell a little too vigorously and one time too many with your increasingly familiar, sloppy, reckless, and backward perception of wot it is that you’re responding to. You're reading comprehension is truly atrocious. You might consider working on that. Very hard. And as far as your irrepressible, chronic ego problem goes, if you find it necessary as a coping technique, you might try calming yourself with soothing music, and just pretend that the point you’re attempting to make (may I suggest you try one at a time for starters) isn’t being trumped by some dark, angry internal perception of a threat of some kind that you're keeping carefully hidden somewhere inside your head. In the future, it’d probably also be a good idea for the health of that chronic ego problem of yours if you tried a lot harder to have something intelligent and helpful to contribute in response to something real, as opposed to spewing a list of useless and idiotic refutations of non-existing fantasies that you've dreamed up out of thin air, lest you embarrass yourself this badly again. Hey – If you really worked at it, I’m confident that you might occasionally come up with something rational, despite your formidably irrational track record. . . There’s always hope, you know.
Recommended Posts