Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search | Contact |
|
Registered
Members: 673 | Total Threads: 50,933 | Total Posts: 519,359 Currently Active Users: 998 (0 active members) Please welcome our newest member, Mozzer46 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-09-2024, 03:50 PM | #16 |
Silver Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Poole
Bike: M900ie
Posts: 507
|
OK so my plan of action is to reduce the effective spring rating down from the current 0.85 down to 0.8. In order to achieve this figure I will replace one of the current springs with one 0.75 spring. Interestingly according to Richard at Maxton, forks do not need to be a matched pair and the effective values equals the average between the two.
__________________
Bitza |
11-09-2024, 07:01 PM | #17 |
Lord of the Rings
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Norwich
Bike: M900sie
Posts: 5,961
|
As mentioned mine only have a spring in one leg, so that's as unbalanced as you can get which backs up what you say.
But why are you convinced the springs are too hard if you haven't measured the dynamic sag?
__________________
|
12-09-2024, 01:34 PM | #18 |
Silver Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Poole
Bike: M900ie
Posts: 507
|
Well the simple answer is I don't, but I am willing to experiment. The fact that I don't have enough sag with no preload does suggest that the springs are too hard. Also prior to altering the comparative ride heights front and back, I had already backed off the preload and had reduced the fork oil volume. As the forks have felt a bit hard. Having revised the ride height balance obviously I've also altered the weight bias, from the front to the rear.
Anyway the new spring should be here by the end of the week, so I'll update you on my experiment after that.
__________________
Bitza |
|
|