How to improve turn in?

[Scud]

Now after I got back home a buddy sat on the bike.  I was surprised that it squatted more than I expected.  I am guessing it's PIA to get to the preload?  The side panels come off to get to the adjuster?  And on the bottom of the shock I can easily find the clicker.  I didn't have time to experiment with it, I assume clockwise is stiffer?  

 

The rear spring is easy to adjust with the battery and tray out - six bolts, easy, not a PITA. I just reinstalled the OEM spring on my LeMans and set it to factory spec (152 mm) by adjusting the collar nuts.  It's also useful to have the special tool for the big collar nuts on the base of the shock.  But it'll be a while till I can put it all back together and measure sag.

 

If you are carrying so much weight, you should check front and rear sag:

Step 1 - measure with both wheels off the ground

Step 2 - measure with bike upright and full (packed) luggage

Step 3 - measure as 2, but now add yourself with all riding gear

 

Obviously, you need a helper for all this.

 

The differences between these measurements will tell you if you are operating within spec (there are pictures in the manual and ranges. Let's assume you do the measurements and they indicate that the bike is sagging more (dropping lower) than spec. Then you increase preload until it sags less and is within range.

 

As a point of comparison, when I first measured my Scura it was dropping way too much at the front and the rear was at one of the limits of the specified range. Adjusting the front also brought the rear back into the middle of the range.

 

The key to this whole process is to measure the current state first. Then you won't have to guess or experiment, the measurements will indicate the remedy. If adjusting preload does not bring it within range, then you need to spring for a spring (good thing it's spring-time). Alternatively, you might be able to get in range if you carry less stuff.

 

After I set sag correctly, I turned the damper completely off and it was rock-solid stable.

 

BTW - I'm still learning suspension - but I experienced such an amazing transformation of my bike's handling that am feeling a bit evangelical about it. I hope I said it all correctly, and I hope GuzziMoto corrects me if I did not.

[docc]

With my factory (too soft) springs, I managed to get the "preload"/sag "right", but there was so very little extension travel that the tires could not "reach out" well.

 

Read: *crash*

 

Sure, I did other things wrong, too (read: *crash*), but learned Step #1:

 

Step #1: Get The Right Springs

[LowRyter]

Thanks Scud, I'll pull the seat and battery and have a look.  I'll tighten up some.  

 

When my buddy sat on it I was surprised with the squat on the rear. Funny, when I sit on it it seems to sit pretty square and firm and doesn't seem to sag much compared to my other bike.  It handles great, good turn in and confidence in the turns.  My mechanic said it looked pretty close.  But seeing my buddy sit on it, caused me to do a double take. And I would like it not weave when I am hauling luggage on the highway.  Anyway, I play with the damper and try to add some preload to the shock.

[LowRyter]

I meant Race Tech. In any case, proper fork springs to match my weight in full gear, and new and better valving.

 

Something like these:

 

http://www.guzzitech.com/store/product/full-fork-kit/

 

Todd @ Guzzitech installed them for me. I probably could have done it myself, but I was already sick of working on the bike, and the forks are a little tricky, so I pulled the forks and dropped them off at Todd's place.

 

I think it was around 500.00 all in, parts and labor. 

 

This a Race Tech emulator kit- not for cartridge forks such as on the V11 Sports/LeMans,  You need to look for a Race Tech Gold Valve kit and Springs.  It made a big difference on my Suzuki Bandit but it doesn't handle as well as my Sport.

[docc]

Wait - what? Your springs are too soft.

[GuzziMoto]

 

Now after I got back home a buddy sat on the bike.  I was surprised that it squatted more than I expected.  I am guessing it's PIA to get to the preload?  The side panels come off to get to the adjuster?  And on the bottom of the shock I can easily find the clicker.  I didn't have time to experiment with it, I assume clockwise is stiffer?  

 

The rear spring is easy to adjust with the battery and tray out - six bolts, easy, not a PITA. I just reinstalled the OEM spring on my LeMans and set it to factory spec (152 mm) by adjusting the collar nuts.  It's also useful to have the special tool for the big collar nuts on the base of the shock.  But it'll be a while till I can put it all back together and measure sag.

 

If you are carrying so much weight, you should check front and rear sag:

Step 1 - measure with both wheels off the ground

Step 2 - measure with bike upright and full (packed) luggage

Step 3 - measure as 2, but now add yourself with all riding gear

 

Obviously, you need a helper for all this.

 

The differences between these measurements will tell you if you are operating within spec (there are pictures in the manual and ranges. Let's assume you do the measurements and they indicate that the bike is sagging more (dropping lower) than spec. Then you increase preload until it sags less and is within range.

 

As a point of comparison, when I first measured my Scura it was dropping way too much at the front and the rear was at one of the limits of the specified range. Adjusting the front also brought the rear back into the middle of the range.

 

The key to this whole process is to measure the current state first. Then you won't have to guess or experiment, the measurements will indicate the remedy. If adjusting preload does not bring it within range, then you need to spring for a spring (good thing it's spring-time). Alternatively, you might be able to get in range if you carry less stuff.

 

After I set sag correctly, I turned the damper completely off and it was rock-solid stable.

 

BTW - I'm still learning suspension - but I experienced such an amazing transformation of my bike's handling that am feeling a bit evangelical about it. I hope I said it all correctly, and I hope GuzziMoto corrects me if I did not.

 

The only thing I would say different is that #2 I do not measure with any removable luggage. Number 1 is as you said. Number 2 is the same as number 1 except the bike is compressing the suspension under its own weight. And number 3 is with the rider, and whatever luggage/extra weight the bike will be carrying. Maybe I am wrong but that is the way I do it.

To expand on number 1, you don't need to get both wheels off the ground at the same time. If I can get two people to help me I just have two of us pick up either the front or back of the bike and the third measures.

There are different numbers out there for what you should see, different people have different preferences. But the basics are....

The measured difference between number 1 and number two tells you your free sag. That should typically be somewhere between 10mm and 20mm. The difference between 2 and three tells you your race sag. that should typically be somewhere between 25mm and 40mm, most seem to like it closer to 40mm than 25mm but not me.

I am not trying to tell people what numbers to use for this. That is why I  gave the range of common numbers. Everybody needs to research and/or experiment to find what numbers they prefer.

If you get the race sag right where you want it but you find that leaves you with not enough free sag (ala Doc) that means your springs are too soft and there is nothing you can do to preload to fix that. You need stiffer springs.

If you get the race sag right and that leaves you with too much free sag that means your springs are too stiff, and again there is nothing you can do with preload to fix that.

The other thing to stress here is that this is not just a rear shock thing. The front and rear need to work together. Having too little front sag can be a lot like having too much rear sag. They are related. It is about balance.

It sounds like there may be too much rear sag and/or not enough front sag on the OP's V11 when it is loaded up and that is leading to less than great handling.

[LowRyter]

 

 

a film about motorcycle weave and wobble.  

[JBBenson]

a film about motorcycle weave and wobble.

 

That doesn't look fun at all. When in a fast sweeper and I hit a bump my Sport will sometimes give 1 or 2 wiggles and settle immediately.

 

Looking at the film. I wonder if the sitting upright acts as a spoiler and unloads the front wheel, increasing the wobble, and lying down loads it back up by eliminating the spoiler effect and also shifting some weight forward. I didn't see the "lying down" test with any of the faired bikes. I wonder if it would work as well, (or at all), as the naked bikes.

 

Interesting film that shows the need for attention to tire condition and pressure.

[LowRyter]

for us red framers, the film is probably most relevant. 

[docc]

 

a film about motorcycle weave and wobble.

That doesn't look fun at all. When in a fast sweeper and I hit a bump my Sport will sometimes give 1 or 2 wiggles and settle immediately.

 

Looking at the film. I wonder if the sitting upright acts as a spoiler and unloads the front wheel, increasing the wobble, and lying down loads it back up by eliminating the spoiler effect and also shifting some weight forward. I didn't see the "lying down" test with any of the faired bikes. I wonder if it would work as well, (or at all), as the naked bikes.

 

Interesting film that shows the need for attention to tire condition and pressure.

 

 

 

for us red framers, the film is probably most relevant. 

For sure, weighting the front improves weave (mis)behavior, as does attention to tire condition and pressure.

 

Regarding RedFrames, they are certainly shorter than later (2002 on) long-frames while the fork rake remains the same.

 

Except (reportedly) the earliest RedFrames with the notable triple clamp numbers.

 

LowRyter: look up under your upper triple clamp with a light and find the part number . . . . ?

[JBBenson]

 

 

a film about motorcycle weave and wobble.

That doesn't look fun at all. When in a fast sweeper and I hit a bump my Sport will sometimes give 1 or 2 wiggles and settle immediately.

 

Looking at the film. I wonder if the sitting upright acts as a spoiler and unloads the front wheel, increasing the wobble, and lying down loads it back up by eliminating the spoiler effect and also shifting some weight forward. I didn't see the "lying down" test with any of the faired bikes. I wonder if it would work as well, (or at all), as the naked bikes.

 

Interesting film that shows the need for attention to tire condition and pressure.

 

 

 

for us red framers, the film is probably most relevant. 

For sure, weighting the front improves weave (mis)behavior, as does attention to tire condition and pressure.

 

Regarding RedFrames, they are certainly shorter than later (2002 on) long-frames while the fork rake remains the same.

 

Except (reportedly) the earliest RedFrames with the notable triple clamp numbers.

 

LowRyter: look up under your upper triple clamp with a light and find the part number . . . . ?

 

 

Dropping the triple clamps made my red frame more stable, not less. Well, "sharper"and less vague, if that makes any sense. I would call that more "stable" in the sense of that meaning more "predictable". Certainly not wobbly at all. Have never had any inkling of anything like that seen in the film. 

 

I have a early Sport, Build Year 2000, Model Year 2001.

 

But I am 6'1" and have 1.5" lower that stock Woodcraft clip ons that probably puts a little more weight up front.

 

What numbers on the triple clamp are supposed to be the "notable" ones...I have never heard this...?

[docc]

 

LowRyter: look up under your upper triple clamp with a light and find the part number . . . . ?

 

 

 

Dropping the triple clamps made my red frame more stable, not less. Well, "sharper"and less vague, if that makes any sense. I would call that more "stable" in the sense of that meaning more "predictable". Certainly not wobbly at all. Have never had any inkling of anything like that seen in the film. 

 

I have a early Sport, Build Year 2000, Model Year 2001.

 

But I am 6'1" and have 1.5" lower that stock Woodcraft clip ons that probably puts a little more weight up front.

 

What numbers on the triple clamp are supposed to be the "notable" ones...I have never heard this...?

 

Check it out: Change from the earliest triple clamps during RedFrame production:

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15075&p=195026

 

EDIT: FWIW, my Sport is a March 2000 build and has the later *improved* triples. So, any V11 built then or after are not likely to have the *suspect* triples. Very early V11 Sports also used the finned steel exhaust flanges  which "may or may not" also have the early triple clamps. I recall LowRyter's Sport has the finned flanges . . .

[LowRyter]

 

 

a film about motorcycle weave and wobble.

That doesn't look fun at all. When in a fast sweeper and I hit a bump my Sport will sometimes give 1 or 2 wiggles and settle immediately.

 

Looking at the film. I wonder if the sitting upright acts as a spoiler and unloads the front wheel, increasing the wobble, and lying down loads it back up by eliminating the spoiler effect and also shifting some weight forward. I didn't see the "lying down" test with any of the faired bikes. I wonder if it would work as well, (or at all), as the naked bikes.

 

Interesting film that shows the need for attention to tire condition and pressure.

 

 

 

for us red framers, the film is probably most relevant. 

For sure, weighting the front improves weave (mis)behavior, as does attention to tire condition and pressure.

 

Regarding RedFrames, they are certainly shorter than later (2002 on) long-frames while the fork rake remains the same.

 

Except (reportedly) the earliest RedFrames with the notable triple clamp numbers.

 

LowRyter: look up under your upper triple clamp with a light and find the part number . . . . ?

 

 

I have been admittedly lost on the triple clamp change. It explains why I had never seen an early Sport with a front axle screwed directly into the fork leg until LowRyter came to the last Spine Raid. It would be interesting to compare upper triple clamp numbers as I can't see any difference in the clamps' finishes or appearance from the photos.

 

 Docc, Not sure I follow.  My front axle is screwed to my fork leg?  I'd certainly hope so.  Not getting what you mean.  I'll see if I can check for a part number soon.

[docc]

I forgot about your different forks, man.  But, yeah early Sports generally have an axle bolt that goes though the forks and is nutted and pinched.

 

I seem to recall yours is more like the Sport 1100i and screws directly into the left fork leg with no nut.

 

It's another feature (along with the finned exhaust flanges) that makes me believe you have a very early production Sport. Which *may* have the early triple clamps.

 

What is the build date on your VIN tag on the left of the headstock?

[LowRyter]

Docc- Best I can tell my bike is 6-2000 build.  

 

S/N 1132xx

 

Looks like mine is a later build than your