Ride height etc...

Message

Greg · #1 Post by **Greg** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:10 am

Morning all.

I'm almost done with the top yoke conversion now but I wanted to liven up the steering a bit by dropping the yoke-set by a couple of notches.

Two questions:

1) is going to 4 or 5 notches on the fork leg too much? It's on the 4th at the moment but I can't drop it any more as the adjusters will be touching the handlebar.

2) Rather than messing with the front can I lift the back by a corresponding amount on the shock's ride height adjuster?

Cheers

Greg

#2 Post by **mangocrazy** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:39 am

I think both Keith and myself have 6 lines showing, but accept that may be a bit much for some folks.

Raising rear ride height effectively achieves the same, but with the added benefit of increasing ground clearance (as well as seat height). Does your bike have OE Falco linkages or RSV Mille ones? Linkage ratio on Falco is approx 3.5:1 so 1mm of change at the shock equates to 3.5mm at the wheel. RSV Mille is a lower ratio - about 2.5 to 1, I think.

Greg · #3 Post by **Greg** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:48 pm

Thanks for that - I've got another set of flatter bars with higher risers that would give me more latitude, but I quite like the line of the low riser high bar combo...

I've got to think where I am with the linkages though, if you remember I fitted a Penske shock a while ago, but I'm wondering whether I've cocked things up by fitting the RSV triangles that came with it on the standard Falco swinger - that might account for the slightly firm rear that I currently have. This might be the appropriate time to fit the RSV swinger too .

Now I have to find the pictures of the different triangle/bone permutations to see what I've ended p fitting...

Cheers

Greg

#4 Post by **mangocrazy** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:30 pm

If the Penske is valved for the Falco linkages it will feel overly firm, in fact I reckon it would feel closer to punishingly firm when using RSV linkages... I used an RSV Ohlins and got it revalved and re-sprung to suit the Falco linkages and even so I had to reduce the OE shock spring rate by 12.5% from 800lbs to 700lbs to get it how I wanted.

Greg · #5 Post by **Greg** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:22 pm

.... and thus fit the lovely red spring I bought from you a few months ago...

wayno · #6 Post by **wayno** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:27 am

Have you checked the shock, a lot of the aftermarket ones have ride height adjustment on the bottom mounting eye, I think my old nitron one had 10mm adjustment (I'm not sure what that equated to on the seat height increase through the linkages).

blinkey501 · #7 Post by **blinkey501** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:47 pm

Greg, if you want to off load the mille triangles and dog bone. I am interested.

D-Rider · #8 Post by **D-Rider** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:42 pm

Greg wrote:Thanks for that - I've got another set of flatter bars with higher risers that would give me more latitude, but I quite like the line of the low riser high bar combo...

I've got to think where I am with the linkages though, if you remember I fitted a Penske shock a while ago, but I'm wondering whether I've cocked things up by fitting the RSV triangles that came with it on the standard Falco swinger - that might account for the slightly firm rear that I currently have. This might be the appropriate time to fit the RSV swinger too .

Now I have to find the pictures of the different triangle/bone permutations to see what I've ended p fitting...

Cheers

Greg

If the RSV triangles came with the shock, I'm guessing the shock was from an RSV.
If that's the case, keep shock, triangles and dog-bone together as a set. Falco and RSV geometry are very similar so moving suspension parts across as a set works well (the earliest RSVs used the same triangles and dog bones as the Falco and their shocks are not the same as those from later model years)

The Falco as standard can be a bit of an old barge. Certainly dropping the yokes is a good thing as is raising the rear ride height (assuming your shock can provide this). Lightweight wheels can make a big difference too.

My setup is either 4or5 rings at front (can't remember - I'll have to check), max rear ride height on Mille-R Ohlins and Forged OZ wheels for winter use (due to the tyres I have on them) and even lighter BST carbon wheels for summer use.
Not as flickable as a lightweight sports 600 but a world better than a standard Falco.

Greg · #9 Post by **Greg** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:19 pm

Well, thanks for the replies guys..

The Penske has height adjustment so that will take care of any restrictions in dropping the front..

Where I've been @rsing around with the shock and links and bone I'm reasonably sure I've got all the Mille stuff with the shock but my neurosis is telling me that the harsh ride I now have is entirely due to me inadvertently mixing and matching the bone/triangle combination... But, is the incompatibility of Mille v. Falco shocks due to travel or spring rate, because surely the geometry remains similar. The bone and triangles are different (longer/larger) though, so the Mille stuff should be from a later bike right?

Anyway, once the front is finished I'll hopefully be putting the new swinger on but will need - in my head - to be sure that I've got the right junk fitted too. So, my research tells me that the Falco bone is 108mm long (is that overall or to centres?) so whatever the other one is it'll be the Mille, but are the Mille triangles bigger that the Falc's?

Cheers

Greg

blinkey501 · #10 Post by **blinkey501** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:37 pm

Greg wrote:Well, thanks for the replies guys..

The Penske has height adjustment so that will take care of any restrictions in dropping the front..

Where I've been @rsing around with the shock and links and bone I'm reasonably sure I've got all the Mille stuff with the shock but my neurosis is telling me that the harsh ride I now have is entirely due to me inadvertently mixing and matching the bone/triangle combination... But, is the incompatibility of Mille v. Falco shocks due to travel or spring rate, because surely the geometry remains similar. The bone and triangles are different (longer/larger) though, so the Mille stuff should be from a later bike right?

Anyway, once the front is finished I'll hopefully be putting the new swinger on but will need - in my head - to be sure that I've got the right junk fitted too. So, my research tells me that the Falco bone is 108mm long (is that overall or to centres?) so whatever the other one is it'll be the Mille, but are the Mille triangles bigger that the Falc's?

Cheers

Greg

The falco triangles are equal in length on all three sides with a short dog bone. The early pre2000 mille is the same.

The later mille has a longer dog bone than the falco, but the triangles are not equal.

I hope this helps.

Greg · #11 Post by **Greg** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:10 pm

That's great Blinkey - cheers... I'll dig out the old bone and links to be sure what I've got, although from what you've said I think I was right first time round lol..

Now I'm going to make a spring rate measuring thingy..

Cheers

Greg

fatboy · #12 Post by **fatboy** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:52 pm

I like a firm rear

Gio · #13 Post by **Gio** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:39 pm

fatboy wrote:I like a firm rear

Cellulite is wrong on a bike

#14 Post by **mangocrazy** » Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:43 pm

Yeah, as Jay says the Falco triangles are close to an equilateral triangle. The RSV Mille triangles have two edges/sides that are noticeably longer than the third edge/side. Whatever you do, keep the dogbone with its associated triangles; don't mix them up...

katie1 · #15 Post by **katie1** » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:27 pm

Gio wrote:
fatboy wrote:I like a firm rear
Cellulite is wrong on a bike

Oh dear, I'm in trouble then...