Ohlins Shock Problem - Part 2

Message

mickt1964 · #1 Post by **mickt1964** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:49 pm

Spoke with the suspension company and suggested changing the linkages to the Mille ones instead of the Falco's.

Not as bouncy, but still not sure if its right.

Just to be sure, the mille linkage has a longer dog bone and slightly smaller plates.

See pic - just to be sure, is the linkage on right? Bottom of shock seems close to the dogbone.
http://www.priorytestsite.co.uk

I think the problem is originally with the shock, it has already been messed around with when I bought it, but came with no info.
So this added another variable

So if you were fitting a standard RSVR shock with standard spring, what is the correct spec (spring code) and set-up to fit to a Falco, or is it still worth re-springing for the falco.

Cheers
Mick[/img]

D-Rider · #2 Post by **D-Rider** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:01 pm

It depends - when you say "standard RSVR shock" what do you mean?

An R-spec Gen-1 mille (Ohlins) - earliest ones used Falco linkages and were sprung and valved accordingly. later ones used their own linkages with the shock sprung and valved for that.

Or

A "cooking version" Gen-II RSVR (sachs) with appropriate linkages (the ones that sometimes snap)

..... so there are 3 alternatives that you might be talking about.

TBH its easier to refer toi the Gen1 bikes as the Mille and the Mille-R and the Gen2 bikes as the RSVR and RSVR-Factory.

It's not incorrect to call the Mille-R an RSV-R but it is ambiguous.

.... and you might find all the info in Mangocrazy's "sticky" thread about what shocks / springs work

blinkey501 · #3 Post by **blinkey501** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:28 pm

Is the shock an AP8230 or an AP8240 also does it say ohlins racing around the bottom ring where the spring sits

mickt1964 · #4 Post by **mickt1964** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:47 pm

The shock is an AP8230 - Presumed these were from a 2000 RSV1000

Spoken with suspension bods this afternoon, made progress, wound the spring preload off and been adjusting to get measurements according to the ohlins owners manual.
I have a free sag of 10mm and a ride height of 30mm.

I have found out that the spring that was fitted to my bike was a 105, so as I said, someone had changed the shock from standard.

My earlier question was to find out what, from the factory as new, shock spec was for the AP8230 when fitted to the bike, ie spring rate etc
And if fitting a standard ohlins to the Falco what linkages to use.

mickt1964 · #5 Post by **mickt1964** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:48 pm

Also are the linkages on right?

#6 Post by **mangocrazy** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:03 pm

If you've got a 105 N/mm spring on the bike it would be very stiffly sprung for the 2001-2003 RSV linkages and very softly sprung for the 1998-2000 RSV and Falco linkages. It seems to me that someone has been modifying this without knowing what they're doing (not the suspension people, the previous owner/s).

What you've got is a shock that was originally designed for 1998-2000 RSV and Falco linkages, but has a spring rate that is 10% heavier than the OE Ohlins spring as fitted to a bike with 2001-2003 RSV linkages.

It's basically an unholy mish-mash.

Not sure if the linkage is fitted correctly - the arrow on the triangles should be pointing forward. Is it? But it is without doubt an Ohlins shock.

What suspension firm are you using, btw? And what spring is currently fitted?

mickt1964 · #7 Post by **mickt1964** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:08 pm

Hi Mango

The work was done by MCT - not a problem with their service, been on the phone to them yesterday and today and if we cannot sort it then it goes back and they will take a look at it. FOC.

I bought shock from Ebay and took it to MCT along with forks and shock from an RS250 I have restored.
Discussed that the Ohlins shock was from a RSV and that it was going on a Falco gave details of my weight etc etc

The shock as I bought it was fitted with a 1091-36-105 L511

MCT called me and told me it was the wrong spring, and they would re-spring for use on a Falco, the spring they fitted and now on the shock is 1095-49-130 which is what ohlins recommend. (hopefully I have the code right)
The 105 was given back to me and its in a box in the garage.

So my set-up is this shock with RSV linkage with RSV swingarm.

I only posted the picture to make sure I have not done something bleedin obvious wrong.

The reason I used MCT was mainly to do with the RS restoration, MCT are the only people who could re-build the standard shock for that as they had the correct seals, everyone else said it couldn't be done.
Normally I would use someone closer to home in case something like this crops up.

Perhaps I need to take the bike to a local expert for their advise and to set it up, as what I have done today may have sorted it in the right direct.
Mick

#8 Post by **mangocrazy** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:03 pm

Hi Mick,

That sounds about right. The 1095-49-130 spring is a 130 N/mm / 13.25 kg/mm / 742 lb spring which is, as they say, the Falco-specific Ohlins spring. This should be used with the 'early' RSV or Falco linkages (they're identical).

Are these the linkages you're using? It's hard to tell from the angle you've photographed it, but the Falco/early RSV linkages are almost an equilateral triangle and must be used with the Falco dogbone.

mickt1964 · #9 Post by **mickt1964** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:25 pm

Hi Mango

I first fitted the shock with the falco linkages as recommended by the list and also MCT.
With these fitted the the shock was all bouncy, soft spring, like the shock had lost all its damping.

Spoke with MCT, they suggested swapping the the RSV linkages, which doing so I have had some joy with but still don't know if this is right.

Now after what you have said about the linkages being identical between the early RSV and Falco and not knowing the history of the shock and linkages I am wondering what linkages I have are from the wrong model.

Obviously the Falco linkages are from my bike, but the others I have, which are now fitted to bike, the triangle plates are smaller and the dogbone a lot longer.

So more confusion

mickt1964 · #10 Post by **mickt1964** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:54 pm

Also - just to double check is there a way of identifying the plates and dogbone from each bike.

Now starting to doubt myself, cannot think I have mixed them up, but I would like to be sure.

Mango I have read your post on the shock fitment.

So originally I had RSV swingarm - falco linkages - AP8230 resprung for a falco = very soft and bouncy

Need to indentify the linkages.

mickt1964 · #11 Post by **mickt1964** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:23 pm

Been out to the garage and measured the linkages and dogbone that are off the bike. They match the ABCD measures as per the post on the apriliaforum (I found the link) for the Falco.

On the bike the measurements of the plates and dogbone match the listing for RSV01-03 - 76 / 85 / 128 / 60mm

So if my shock was re-worked to Ohlins Falco settings for the spring rate, why does the shock feel so soft and bouncy with the falco linkages?
Is this where the problem lies, for this to work should the shock have been worked back to standard for the RSV.

So does it sound logical to use the different (newer) linkages to getting the shock to work right, or should I go back to the Falco linkages and get the shock looked at again

bigun · #12 Post by **bigun** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:36 pm

Not sure if I can help but if you need measurements/photos of a specific suspension bit on a Mille-R give me a shout and I'll pop some up on here from mine. It might help you eliminate some things?

#13 Post by **mangocrazy** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:51 pm

Hi Mick,

From everything you've said, the shock and spring as fettled by MCT SHOULD work perfectly with the Falco linkages. The spring rate is correct for the Falco linkages. The only things I'd ask is, how much spring preload have you applied, and have you checked that the dogbone length is the correct one for the linkages?

At this point it might be an idea to take the whole bike (with shock fitted, and spare linkages) to MCT and get them to give it the once over (if that's an option, of course).

<edit> sorry for delay. I've been on radio silence since Thursday evening until now (Monday evening)

mickt1964 · #14 Post by **mickt1964** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:44 am

Hi Mango

Shock seems to work with the later linkages and dogbone with the dogbone being longer than the standard falco.
So dogbone now is the 128mm and the shock now has static sag.
Which is what I don't understand if they shock should work with falco linkages.

But then there is this from the Aprilia Forum

"Any 2000.5 to 2003 RSV Sachs shock or Ohlins will fit but you must use the matching triangle linkage plates and dogbone from a 2001 to 2003 RSV."

Which seems to correspond to what I have which is now seems to be working.

Yes I could go back to MCT trying to avoid as the distance involved.

#15 Post by **mangocrazy** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:50 am

Hi Mick,

If it works, go with that, although I'm still puzzled how that can work. Leaving aside damping rates, ride height etc., it's the linkage ratio (along with bike and rider weight and preferences) that determines the optimum spring rate.

The RSV 2001-03 linkages have a lower ratio (something in the order of 3:1) than the Falco/early RSV linkages, which are closer to 4:1. This means that spring rates on the later RSV linkages will be noticeably lower/softer than those used with Falco/early RSV linkages.

Linkage ratios represent the ratio of wheel travel to shock travel, by the way. That means that (on a Falco) for every 4 inches of wheel movement, the shock uses approximately one inch of travel. It also means that shocks designed for the later RSVs need to have more travel than a Falco shock.

But if what you've got works, don't knock it. The important thing is not to mix and match triangles and dogbones. Only use Falco triangles with the Falco dogbone etc.