Guest ratchethack Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 I am sorry I brought it up. I apologize to the rest of the board. Yeah, you’re a very sorry guy, as guys go, Quazi. Your sincerity (or shall we be honest and put it, lack thereof) is truly touching. But you called me out very specifically -- not the board. And again, for the sixth or seventh time in this thread, (I haven’t counted all the turds you’ve dropped here) after you couldn’t back up what you claimed I said, same as before, you again tried to weasel your way out of yet another slew of false claims you made about things I never said. You’ve deleted your post after the fact in an attempt to hide your tracks, and you’ve thrown everything including the kitchen sink up against the wall to see if anything sticks. This behavior is chldish, and it's beneath contempt in an adult. You have hard-wired yourself by habit to expose yourself as an idiot, and that's truly a sad thing and real shame, but I'm afraid I have little sympathy for you and your sorry track record, and I’m not letting your not-so-sorry butt off the hook. So once again, here’s my question to you that you have yet to answer: Where, exactly, (without taking my words out of context) did I post anything (in this thread or any other, ever) even remotely close to what you claimed here: . . .do you still think a 2% increase in spring rate would deliver a 31% increase in ride height due to the 1:2 ratio. . . I don’t see anything in the same ballpark in anything you’ve come up with. HINT: That’s because it doesn’t exist. Let’s review to make this easier for you, shall we? 1. I made no mention of ride height in the context of your idiotic question. 2. The 31% increase was clearly in reference to the before and after change in sag delta, which has nothing to do with ride height. 3. I've made no mention anywhere, at any time, to an increase in spring rate determining ride height. I’m sure you’re doing the best you can here, Quazi. But I’m afraid your best is fairly atrocious. In fact, your latest miserable, piss-poor excuse for your childish and irresponsible, sloppy behavior here is a disgrace. You’re writing checks with your keyboard with nothing in the bank. This is the weasel behavior of a habitual fraud. On top of that, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that you’ve woven a spectacular daisy chain of demonstrations of how poor a grasp you have of what the rest of us are talking about here.
GuzziMoto Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Yeah, you’re a very sorry guy, as guys go, Quazi. Your sincerity (or shall we be honest and put it, lack thereof) is truly touching. But you called me out very specifically -- not the board. And again, for the sixth or seventh time in this thread, (I haven’t counted all the turds you’ve dropped here) when you couldn’t back up what you claimed I said, same as before, you’ve tried to weasel your way out of yet another false claim you made about something I never said. You’ve deleted your post after the fact in an attempt to hide your tracks, and now you’re throwing everything including the kitchen sink up against the wall to see if anything sticks. This behavior is beneath contempt. It’s getting old. You’re clearly hard-wired to continually expose yourself as an idiot, and that's truly a sad thing and shame, but I'm afraid I have little sympathy for you or your track record, and I’m not letting your not-so-sorry butt off the hook. So once again, here’s my question to you that you have yet to answer: Where, exactly, (without taking my words out of context) did I post anything (in this thread or any other, ever) even remotely close to what you claimed here: I don’t see anything in the same ballpark in anything you’ve come up with. HINT: That’s because it doesn’t exist. Let’s review, shall we? 1. I made no mention of ride height in the context of your idiotic question. 2. The 31% increase was clearly in reference to the before and after change in sag delta, which has nothing to do with ride height. 3. I made no mention anywhere, any time to an increase in spring rate determining ride height. I’m sure you’re doing the best you can here, Quazi. But I’m afraid your best is fairly atrocious. In fact, your latest miserable, piss-poor excuse for your childish and irresponsible, sloppy behavior here is a disgrace. You’re writing checks with your keyboard with nothing in the bank. This is the weasel behavior of a habitual fraud. On top of that, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that you’ve woven a spectacular daisy chain of demonstrations of how poor a grasp you have of what the rest of us are talking about here. Okay, you win... I tried to delete the post because I realized that you would respond in the childish and asinine way that that you did. And I did not think that filling this thread with more of your artfully worded crap would be productive. But I did quote you saying that you got a 31% change in your "sag delta", which is a made up word you have invented that has no real meaning. But you yourself established that it was representative of the race sag minus the free sag, both of which are RIDE HEIGHT measurements. That would indicate to me that it is a ride height term (and it is).Therefore it seems a claim that you achieved a 31% increase to this figure with only a 2% increase in spring rate on a motorcycle with a 1:2 shock to swingarm ratio is not possible, and certainly it is not possible because of the aforementioned ratio as you implied. My question was if you still believe this statement you made to be true. If you choose to redefine your "sag delta" so that it is no longer derived from the two ride height measurements you originally claim it was, then that is up to you. But you are still claiming to have achieved a 2mm decrease in race sag and a 6mm increase in free sag. These changes are not possible with only a 11% increase in spring rate as the 1:2 ratio cuts that 11% increase in half to only a 6% increase at the wheel. The fact that you choose to dis-associate the term you made up, "sag delta" from what it is derived from does not change what it is. The question was in essence, do you still think that the 1:2 ratio of shock to rear wheel motion increases the effect of a change in spring rate as you originally implied (and as I quoted) or do you now understand that it decreases the change. I'm guessing by your nasty response that you still think the ratio increased the change in spring rate. Clearly you do not even understand what you are saying so it is stupid of me to expect you to understand what I am saying. Do you understand that an 11lb increase in spring rate would only mean that it takes an extra 5.5lbs to compress the rear suspension the same 1" as it did before. That is a very small change, and a decrease in the effect of the change by the ratio not an increase. And the reason I apologized to the rest of the board and not you is because I don't give a sh!t about you but I was sorry that the rest of the board was going to have to put up with more of this.
Dan M Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Sorry, I typo'd that. I meant to say it is a 1:2 ratio of shock travel to wheel travel, not a 2:1 ratio as you said. And yes, really...And if it is that simple, why do you not understand it??? WTF??? Well if you could read and comprehend, I stated the spring was working against a 2:1 ratio. Get it? Once again GuzziMoto, your usual MO. Jump in, call people idiots, then bicker endlessly. You are one hell of a contributer here.
GuzziMoto Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Well if you could read and comprehend, I stated the spring was working against a 2:1 ratio. Get it? Once again GuzziMoto, your usual MO. Jump in, call people idiots, then bicker endlessly. You are one hell of a contributer here. The spring is not working against a 2:1 ratio, it is working with a 1:2 ratio. For every 1" that the spring compresses or extends the wheel will move 2". The terms 1:2 ratio and 2:1 ratio are not interchangeable. Maybe the fact that you are interchanging them is why you don't understand. And yes, I "get it". But for some dumb reason I thought maybe I should help you try to "get it" too. My bad. I am sorry.
gavo Posted December 31, 2009 Author Posted December 31, 2009 This is unbelievable. Rarely have I witnessed such a childish display from so-called ADULTS. Opinions and insults going around in circles and still no closer to a question which realistically can have only one answer. But most of all I feel sorry for JAAP for putting in the effort and ending up with this shit. From now on I'll seek my information elsewhere <_>
luhbo Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 .... From now on I'll seek my information elsewhere <_> Come on, what did you expect? They're starting in a different league. OK, Hubert. Confession time. You're right. Of all the photo's I've taken of the underside of V11 TPS's, turns out none are open. All are sealed, exactly as you insist. I made up the bullshit (your term) about cleaning the winding and wiper contacts through the open bottom out o' thin air, just to see if anyone was paying attention 3 years ago. I got Docc to go along with the Grand Charade way back then (and ever since), 'cause he's (nearly) as loopy and demented as I am, and well. . . this is the kind of thing loopy, demented people do for amusement. Sure had you goin' for quite awhile, though, before you finally called us out, didn't we? So, why argue? You remember the picture: "Even if you win, you're still retarded"? Hubert
GuzziMoto Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 This is unbelievable. Rarely have I witnessed such a childish display from so-called ADULTS. Opinions and insults going around in circles and still no closer to a question which realistically can have only one answer. But most of all I feel sorry for JAAP for putting in the effort and ending up with this shit. From now on I'll seek my information elsewhere <_>gavo, I am sorry for my part in pissing you off. If you are still interested in the actual shock spring rate of your bike, it is something you can figure out with a few basic bits of info. Actually it is the same info that has been provided already but I would suggest that you measure your own bike as then you can be sure of the accuracy of the data (at least if it is off then you have only yourself to blame). When calculating things, garbage in = garbage out. Anyhow, If you measure the weight of your bike that is on the rear wheel with and without you on the bike and measure the the amount the shock compresses with you on the bike compared to without, that would be your spring rate. You just divide the kilos of weight you applied to the rear wheel by the mm the shock compressed when the weight was applied. It is easier to measure the shock compression in mm and convert the weight you add to the rear of the bike into kilos if it is not already there, but you could do it in lbs and inches but the math is harder. When measuring the weight on the rear wheel you can use a bathroom scale under the rear wheel but to get a more accurate number the front wheel should be about level with the rear wheel (ie, raised of the ground the same amount as the rear is sitting on the scale).
GuzziMoto Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 gavo's complaints made me think... I truly can't believe how far this has gone. It is not that complicated a concept. But I feel compelled to try again to explain this. This may be a waste of time as anyone who was interested in understanding this may have moved on due to the bickering and name calling. But in case it will help anyone still left understand, here goes. Disclaimer: This is intended as an aid to understanding how a motorcycle rear suspension works and is not suitable for figuring how much thrust is needed to go to Mars or anything like that. It does not factor in friction but it will get you more then close enough. I know dlaing already went through this but I would like to take a stab at putting the stake in this vampires heart once and for all. The following deals only with compressing straight rate springs. There are three parts to the basic equation of spring rate, the spring rate itself, how far the spring compresses under load (weight), and what that load is (how much weight). The ratio of shock travel to wheel travel does not directly enter into it, but it can be used to figure out how far the spring compresses if you know how far the wheel traveled. More on that later. For now, start with a 400lb spring. This spring will compress 1" under 400lbs of weight. It will compress an additional 1/2" if you add 200lbs more weight to the original 400lbs. The point is it doesn't matter whether it is the first 1" of compression or the last, it will take 400lbs to compress the spring 1". Simple. Anyone who does not agree with or understand this may as well either re-read this part until you do understand or leave now. Now, if you don't know how much weight was put on the spring but you do know the rate of the spring and how far it compressed you can figure out how much weight was put on the spring. You only need two of the three values to figure out what the other value is. For this part I will convert my 400lb spring to metric to make the math easier. My spring that took 400lbs to compress it 1" takes about 7.15Kg to compress it 1mm. So it is a 7.15Kg/mm spring. If it compresses 10mm then I know that 71.5 Kg of weight was put on it. If it compresses another 10mm then I know 71.5Kg more weight was put on it. The same goes for figuring out the rate of the spring or how far it will compress, if you know two of the three values you can figure out the third. Now, I am sure some of you are already screaming "WHAT ABOUT THE 1:2 RATIO OF SHOCK TRAVEL TO SWING ARM TRAVEL". Well, while that effects how far the wheel will move when the load is put into the spring it does not change the load put into the spring. 400lbs of weight put on the rear wheel will compress a 400lb spring on the shock 1". The difference the ratio will make is how far the rear wheel will move when the shock compresses that 1". Now, I feel compelled to point out that the 1:2 ratio is not a number I came up with and I have no idea how accurate it is. But for sake of argument I am going to use it in what follows as it should be close enough (or not). Where this discussion got off track was when it was suggested that someone achieved a desired change in free sag and race sag (and referred to this as "sag delta") with only an 11% increase in spring rate, thus justifying his claim in what the stock spring rate is. I take no responsibility for the starting figures provided, only the math used to reach my conclusions (ie, if the starting figures are wrong then the results will be wrong). Now, while we don't have figures for how far the shock compressed under load we do have sag changes and a ratio of 1:2 for shock travel to wheel travel. We can use that to figure out approx. how far the shock compressed. So, now all we need is a spring rate to start with and we can figure out how much weight was put on the rear suspension to achieve that shock compression and we have one. He had a 9.7Kg/mm spring installed to replace the stock spring. Then when he climbed on the bike the shock compressed 9mm (half the claimed 18mm of wheel travel, race sag - free sag divided by the 1:2 ratio, remember the shock will compress 9mm when the wheel moves 18mm). This tells me that him climbing onto the bike put 87.3Kg of weight onto the rear spring (that is 192lbs, which is more then he says he weighs so I am guessing his measurements are off a little, but I already warned you about that. hopefully they are consistently off). Now that we have 87.3Kg of weight established as what he is adding to the rear suspension, lets see what the rate of the other shock is. He says that the rear of the bike sagged an additional 26mm from free sag when he climbed on board. That means the shock compressed 13mm (again half of wheel travel). And we know it took 87.3Kg of weight to compress the rear suspension that 13mm because that is what he said, that he weighed the same then as now. So if you divide 87.3 (the weight) by 13 (the amount of wheel travel) you get 6.715Kg per mm of compression. That means that if his numbers are accurate then in order to achieve a roughly 31% reduction in how far the rear suspension compresses when he climbs on board he has applied a 30.42% increase in spring rate. This is much more of a rate increase then he claims to have applied but I am sure there is some error in the sag numbers provided as well as maybe a change in rider weight from one set of measurements to the other (or not) as well as possibly a different length of the new shock changing the ratio of shock to wheel travel. Plus friction will reduce the amount of suspension travel a small amount under a given weight but this is only a small difference. But again, I am just working with the numbers provided. The numbers that you end up with in lbs for us Americans are an original spring rate of only 376lbs compared to a final spring rate (new spring) of 543lbs. Again, that is a 30.42% increase in spring rate to achieve a 31% claimed (30.77 actual) change in how far the rear suspension compresses under the weight of the rider. Now I would venture a guess that if his numbers are reasonably accurate that the actual original spring rate might be in the 400 to 450 pound range. But in order for the spring rate to be much higher then that his numbers would have to have a pretty serious flaw in them. My guess is that the numbers are pretty close and that the original spring rate was in the neighborhood of 425 to 450 pounds. But without measuring the spring rate (which can be done by using the methods outlined in this post, all you need to know is how much weight you add to the rear suspension and how far the shock compresses, knowing how far the rear suspension compresses is not as useful because the 1:2 ratio may be one of the numbers that is off in the original set of numbers). If you put a scale under the rear tire (hopefully with the front tire level with the rear that is on top of the scale) and measure how much weight you add when you get on the bike and also measure how far the shock compresses when you add that weight you can then divide the weight (in kilos) by the travel (in mm) to get the rate. Sorry this is so long but as I said, this has gone on long enough and it is time to put a steak in it. If any one has any serious comments about this or errors in my math to point out then by all means go ahead. But if all you have is more name calling, bickering, or typo's to point out then please go somewhere else. P.S. dlaing, you were right.
Guest ratchethack Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 . . . I feel compelled to try again to explain this. I’m afraid your errant compulsions continue to be of little value here. Unlike yourself, many of us here (myself included) have fairly extensive experience actually setting up multiple V11 suspensions, and doing it correctly. Unlike yourself (Part II), many of us here (myself included) have actually done their homework, have a thorough grasp of all the underlying principles, as well as the real-world application knowledge and experience on V11’s, and have refined them on the road over many tens of thousands of miles, over a period of many years. Let’s check your qualifications for explaining anything here. We’ll use your own words in this thread. Until you were asked earlier in this thread, unlike myself for example, you had offered no information whatsoever about either spring rates, or setting up suspension on your own Guzzi. You STILL have yet to provide any. When asked specifically for your measurements previously, you replied with this: I don't see how telling others how I set up my wifes V11 is helpful to others. Telling them how to set their bike up correctly could be useful, but that is not my job. As mentioned there is plenty of info already posted on that very subject there for the reading. For someone who posted, “that’s not my job”^, you sure have attempted lots of telling others how to set up their bike correctly here. Then you said this: But if you feel how my wifes V11 is setup will help you, well I am not crazy enough to post info on the internet about my wifes weight but I will give some info about the components. It has a Penske shock built and valved for her weight and style. After putting it on all I had to do is take a couple clicks out of the compression. Where it ended up matters little as the valving is specific to her shock. The spring rate would relate to her weight so you will have to guess. The preload and sag is pretty much standard fair. I didn't have to adjust it after Penske built it. They do good work. NOTE TO THE WISE: No suspension Pro, nor anyone who has any experience whatsoever with moto suspensions would EVER simply drop a new spring (and/or shock with spring) in any bike without properly adjusting sags like this^. This is basic suspension setup 101, it's a failure to take any advantage of or benefit from the investment in the new spring and/or shock with spring, and it's just plain ignorant, foolish practice. So let’s see how what we know from your posts in this thread and elsewhere on this Forum stacks up. By your own words: 1. You don’t own a V11. Your wife does. 2. You don’t ride a V11. Your wife does. 3. You’ve been known to borrow your wife’s V11 for posing and group exhibition behavior in parking lots. 4. Your wife’s V11 suspension has never been set up properly. 5. You’ve never taken any sag measurements on a V11. Where this discussion got off track was when it was suggested that someone achieved a desired change in free sag and race sag (and referred to this as "sag delta") with only an 11% increase in spring rate, thus justifying his claim in what the stock spring rate is. FALSE. I have no need, nor interest in attempting to use sag delta to justify the OEM spring rate. You’re thinking of Dave. He attempted to use sag delta to calculate OEM spring rate with an invalid “theoretical approximate” formula of his own imagination that DOES NOT WORK in practice. Though you appear to have completely ignored this, I posted actual OEM spring rate calculations from a spring rate calculator that I provided via link. I’ve been using this rate calculator for many years, and have recently cross-validated it within a total error variance of <4% across 10 online spring rate calculators, per previous posts by me, in this thread. Where YOU got off track was at the point mentioned above (which I flagged you and everyone here on IN ADVANCE), where you failed to comprehend the concept of sag delta, (where you absurdly referred to a 31% increase in ride height in my spring rate upgrade!) and failed to follow everything after that in my posts – exactly as I had expected you would, and exactly as I had predicted here, with explanation: 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. My guess is that the numbers are pretty close and that the original spring rate was in the neighborhood of 425 to 450 pounds. Again, your guesses aren’t of interest, nor are they of any value to anyone here. Take some real measurements, use a credible rate calculator, and have a go at setting up your wife’s Guzzi properly. . . . If you put a scale under the rear tire (hopefully with the front tire level with the rear that is on top of the scale) and measure how much weight you add when you get on the bike and also measure how far the shock compresses when you add that weight This looks suspiciously like you’re borrowing on the actual weight bias measurements and calculations I did nearly 4 years ago, as I re-posted here: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=161116 and here: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=161132 . . .here's a handy dandy figure that may be helpful to those inclined to ponder such things. . . Again using my own weight, I ran the laden vs. unladen weights and % biases thru the calculator and came up with a "universal" ratio for fore-aft rider weight (alone) bias for riders of any weight. For my Sport (see disclaimer above) it's this: Rider weight bias by wheel F/R, 37/63 % In other words, a rider of any weight and "normal" physical attributes (no elephant butt or other grossly swollen extremities, no massive plate in the head, and not missing a brain, or any other potentially significant body parts ) will contribute to the laden weight bias of a similarly configured V11 Sport by adding 37% of his weight to the front tire and 63% of his weight to the rear tire. This is just common sense, Quazi – but you could seriously use some here. For your own edification, if you want to challenge somebody’s numbers (the OEM Sachs spring rate for example), that’s fine. But it’s always a good idea to provide your own numbers along with your challenge. As always, the quality of your information is no better than the quality of your sources. Astonishingly enough, not only have you provided no numbers, but by your own words, you have neither any experience with V11 suspension setup, nor any credible sources to provide. It’s years past time for you to go back and do the homework you never did before, and get some experience with V11 suspension setup. I suggest you actually learn how preload adjustment changes actually changes sags on a V11, and that you observe how these adjustments actually work on the road over tens of thousands of miles over many years. Then, and ONLY then, if you are careful enough, and diligent enough about it, (words that hardly apply to your sloppy and irresponsible history of posts in this thread) you might be able to offer qualified, correct advice to others. I sure hope this helps.
Admin Jaap Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 Everything that had to be said, is said. And much more... I meant it when I wished you all a relaxed 2010. Oh well... no use in crying over spilled milk. Sorry guys, topic closed.
Recommended Posts