Increasing rear shock R1 04..

[Espionage]

Guys,
Anyone have a before and after picture of their bike after rear shock has been increased?? i've got the R1 04 and am planning to increase the rear shock by 2 - 2.5 inches and to drop the front shocks by 3-3.5cm from the triple clap What alternative shock bracket to frame can i use if the height mentioned does not make a great difference. Will it make a big difference in the height??
Needing advise before i start on this project and if possible please include pictures..

Safe !

[Sabian]

Originally Posted by Espionage

Guys,
Anyone have a before and after picture of their bike after rear shock has been increased?? i've got the R1 04 and am planning to increase the rear shock by 2 - 2.5 inches and to drop the front shocks by 3-3.5cm from the triple clap What alternative shock bracket to frame can i use if the height mentioned does not make a great difference. Will it make a big difference in the height??
Needing advise before i start on this project and if possible please include pictures..

Safe !

You wish to increase your ride height on the rear and lower it on the front? If that's what you are asking, the front is about right, but no way in hell would I raise the rear that high. You are asking to very serious handling issues.

[Espionage]

what would you recommend the rear goes to ?? 2 inches ?? 1.5 inches ?? f@cking hell an inch?? but thing is will it show drastically in the rear height ... please advise.
Any pictures guys???

[Sabian]

Originally Posted by Espionage

what would you recommend the rear goes to ?? 2 inches ?? 1.5 inches ?? f@cking hell an inch?? but thing is will it show drastically in the rear height ... please advise.
Any pictures guys???

Depends on why you want to raise it.

[Espionage]

As lame as it may sound, i have this image in my head as to what it would look like with the rear elivated acouple of inches (but not too high though).I have my no. plate right underneath the seat.Secondly for better turning .
After careful consideration,i belieave the rear will be more of my problem cos i imagined if i elivated it, it may affect the chain and rail... i want to take it to the max hight where the chain will not be affected. [/I]What do you think?

[Sabian]

Originally Posted by Espionage

As lame as it may sound, i have this image in my head as to what it would look like with the rear elivated acouple of inches (but not too high though).I have my no. plate right underneath the seat.Secondly for better turning .
After careful consideration,i belieave the rear will be more of my problem cos i imagined if i elivated it, it may affect the chain and rail... i want to take it to the max hight where the chain will not be affected. [/i]What do you think?

On the 2004-2005 R1's Sport Rider found that if you lower the nose about a half inch...they did it in mm's and I can't remember exactly what it was...the bike turned in a tich faster and seemed better suited for quick transitions from side to side. Essentially they made the bike twitchier. The stock rear shock is not height adjustable, so you'd have to buy aftermarket. I have an Ohlins rear shock on my bike that is raised...though I'd have to look at how high. It's not much, quarter inch comes to mind. It's written down somewhere. But the bike is setup for track riding mostly and very very rarely see's the street. If it were to be a street bike, I'd just lower the nose a little and call it good. You are not going to raise the rear or lower the front so much as to **** up your chain...and if you did choose to do it that much, just adjust the chain. Your issue is the handling of the bike due to the drastic differences in Rake and Trail. There are threads that go waaaaay in depth of how to measure all that. But if you are sticking with street riding, IMO it's not worth going through it.

Re-reading the quoted post brings me to believe that you are wanting to raise the rear only for looks. A more aggressive stance perhaps. In order to visibly notice the difference, you'd have to raise it a few inches...and that is a really bad idea, unless the bike won't be riden.

[Espionage]

Thanks bro.

[DanQ]

Originally Posted by Sabian

On the 2004-2005 R1's Sport Rider found that if you lower the nose about a half inch...they did it in mm's and I can't remember exactly what it was...the bike turned in a tich faster and seemed better suited for quick transitions from side to side. Essentially they made the bike twitchier. The stock rear shock is not height adjustable, so you'd have to buy aftermarket. I have an Ohlins rear shock on my bike that is raised...though I'd have to look at how high. It's not much, quarter inch comes to mind. It's written down somewhere. But the bike is setup for track riding mostly and very very rarely see's the street. If it were to be a street bike, I'd just lower the nose a little and call it good. You are not going to raise the rear or lower the front so much as to **** up your chain...and if you did choose to do it that much, just adjust the chain. Your issue is the handling of the bike due to the drastic differences in Rake and Trail. There are threads that go waaaaay in depth of how to measure all that. But if you are sticking with street riding, IMO it's not worth going through it.

Re-reading the quoted post brings me to believe that you are wanting to raise the rear only for looks. A more aggressive stance perhaps. In order to visibly notice the difference, you'd have to raise it a few inches...and that is a really bad idea, unless the bike won't be riden.

It was 4 mm Sabian.

A couple of things regarding dropping the front/increasing the rear height:

• dropping the front: when dropping the front of the motorcycle, as Sabian said, you will affect the trail and ultimately the rake numbers. Approximately 4 mm of drop will reduce the trail by about 1 mm. This combined with the decrease in height will effectively change the rake angle in relation to the chassis (the front end will be lowered). This will have the affect of making the bike steer quicker, but if overdone may cause a loss of straight line stability.
• raising/dropping the rear: these changes are much more subtle. In addition to changing the rake with no corresponding trail decrease it can quicken the steering. However, a little discussed issue of sag/anti sag comes into play as you change the swingarm pivot in relation to the axle. In the simplest of explanation: with the pivot above the axle, the motorcycle will resist squat under throttle. The further you move it, the more resistence it will put up.

I would recommend that any changes you make to the geometry of the motorcycle be small, and progressive. That way you don't do something drastic and ending up with ride characteristics that you don't like. First one comes to my mind with the changes you are discussing is tucking the front end, and increased chance for headshake.

[Espionage]

"increased chance for headshake " do you mean tank slap?? plus will the damper not aid resist or avaoid that?? thought that was its purpose...

[Sabian]

Originally Posted by Espionage

"increased chance for headshake " do you mean tank slap?? plus will the damper not aid resist or avaoid that?? thought that was its purpose...

A damper is there to aid in the event of a head shake. But bikes do not NEED a damper in teh first place. A properly setup bike's suspension will negate the need of a damper almost 100 percent, especially on the road. Intentionally ****ing up the suspension by what the OP is proposing will require the use of a damper just to ride....if it does anything at all.

[DanQ]

Originally Posted by Sabian

A damper is there to aid in the event of a head shake. But bikes do not NEED a damper in teh first place. A properly setup bike's suspension will negate the need of a damper almost 100 percent, especially on the road. Intentionally ****ing up the suspension by what the OP is proposing will require the use of a damper just to ride....if it does anything at all.

Thanks I think I'm going to put something to that effect in my signature.

[Sal_R1]

Originally Posted by Sabian

A damper is there to aid in the event of a head shake. But bikes do not NEED a damper in teh first place. A properly setup bike's suspension will negate the need of a damper almost 100 percent, especially on the road. Intentionally ****ing up the suspension by what the OP is proposing will require the use of a damper just to ride....if it does anything at all.

For the street on bikes with properly setup suspension!

Many have taken a spill under these conditions without a damper!

If you ever cross a railway crossing at a leaning angle you will get head shake!

Bikes have a tendency to get head shake under hard acceleration especially on uneven street / freeway surfaces!

A damper helps keep everything in line when you lift the front wheel off the ground and bringing it back down in many situations!

Hit a pothole at speed, especially through a bend and the steering head will become severely unstable!

Bumps and waves in roads can & do cause severe steering head shake!

Just saying!

[Espionage]

Nice one dude. thanks for that .

[Sabian]

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

For the street on bikes with properly setup suspension!

Many have taken a spill under these conditions without a damper!

I said that yes, on the street...we are talking about the street here Sal. Many have taken a spill for any number of reasons. If you want an aid to prohibit every type of spill, get off two wheels.

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

If you ever cross a railway crossing at a leaning angle you will get head shake!

I don't know why anyone would go over a railroad crossing in a lean angle.

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

Bikes have a tendency to get head shake under hard acceleration especially on uneven street / freeway surfaces!

Actually...no they don't unless you are an idiot. If the surface is that uneven, don't do it.

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

A damper helps keep everything in line when you lift the front wheel off the ground and bringing it back down in many situations!

Not touching that one.

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

Hit a pothole at speed, especially through a bend and the steering head will become severely unstable!

Hit anything at speed and a damper is the least of your worries.

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

Bumps and waves in roads can & do cause severe steering head shake!

Just saying!

Your posts cause me a severe head shake.

This thread is not an argument over damper controls. We understand taht you are a vendor and you don't like it when people post things that stop others from buying shit, but don't put dumbass circumstances in play just to get your point across. A damper is an aid, and that's it. If you intentionally **** up ones suspension as the OP wants to do...then sure, a damper is going to be needed...but so are a lot of other things.

The next time I cross a marked railroad crossing without a damper in a lean, I'm sure I'll be thinking of you and your over so helpful advise.

[Sal_R1]

Originally Posted by Sabian

I said that yes, on the street...we are talking about the street here Sal. Many have taken a spill for any number of reasons. If you want an aid to prohibit every type of spill, get off two wheels.



I don't know why anyone would go over a railroad crossing in a lean angle.



Actually...no they don't unless you are an idiot. If the surface is that uneven, don't do it.



Not touching that one.



Hit anything at speed and a damper is the least of your worries.



Your posts cause me a severe head shake.

This thread is not an argument over damper controls. We understand taht you are a vendor and you don't like it when people post things that stop others from buying shit, but don't put dumbass circumstances in play just to get your point across. A damper is an aid, and that's it. If you intentionally **** up ones suspension as the OP wants to do...then sure, a damper is going to be needed...but so are a lot of other things.

The next time I cross a marked railroad crossing without a damper in a lean, I'm sure I'll be thinking of you and your over so helpful advise.

You and your entire effin family are dumbaness. You yourself are a biggest dumbass on this forum who knows shyte about suspension or bike geometry.

You call that miserable pile of crap a post and a refute to my facts!

Your only argument as to why bikes need a damper is that i am a vendor.

[Sal_R1]

Originally Posted by Sabian

I said that yes, on the street...we are talking about the street here Sal. Many have taken a spill for any number of reasons. If you want an aid to prohibit every type of spill, get off two wheels.



I don't know why anyone would go over a railroad crossing in a lean angle.

Because rail road crossings are at at angle!

Actually...no they don't unless you are an idiot. If the surface is that uneven, don't do it.

Actually they do as its painfully obvious that you have not accelerated hard period! Most all street surfaces are uneven!


Not touching that one.

Of course you are not because you cant imagine having the front wheel of a bike off the ground unless you are pulling a wheelie!

Hit anything at speed and a damper is the least of your worries.

Hit a brick wall at speed then yes but for the rest of us on this forum who dont potholes are all over the streets and even in sweepers!

Your posts cause me a severe head shake.


This thread is not an argument over damper controls. We understand taht you are a vendor and you don't like it when people post things that stop others from buying shit, but don't put dumbass circumstances in play just to get your point across. A damper is an aid, and that's it. If you intentionally **** up ones suspension as the OP wants to do...then sure, a damper is going to be needed...but so are a lot of other things.

The next time I cross a marked railroad crossing without a damper in a lean, I'm sure I'll be thinking of you and your over so helpful advise.

No facts again in your post! All hype and random meaningless quotes from magazine articles that add up to nothing!

[DanQ]

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

You and your entire effin family are dumbaness. You yourself are a biggest dumbass on this forum who knows shyte about suspension or bike geometry.

You call that miserable pile of crap a post and a refute to my facts!

Your only argument as to why bikes need a damper is that i am a vendor.

Wow. Quoted for posterity.

[Sabian]

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

No facts again in your post! All hype and random meaningless quotes from magazine articles that add up to nothing!

I didn't use direct quotes from anything...because I'm not going to go down this road again with you, especially in a thread that you've now hijacked.

BTW, as a vendor, your attitude sucks. Good luck with your business there. I don't sell anything for a living, but it's pretty much common sense to not call potential customers "entire effin family are dumbaness. You yourself are a biggest dumbass on this forum". BTW, relax...you type better when you aren't upset.

[Sal_R1]

Originally Posted by Sabian

I didn't use direct quotes from anything...because I'm not going to go down this road again with you, especially in a thread that you've now hijacked.

BTW, as a vendor, your attitude sucks. Good luck with your business there. I don't sell anything for a living, but it's pretty much common sense to not call potential customers "entire effin family are dumbaness. You yourself are a biggest dumbass on this forum". BTW, relax...you type better when you aren't upset.

Highjacked!!
Unlike yourself i presented facts to my argument rather than, dampers are bad and thats it!


Come back to me with facts next time little boy and stop polluting the technical sections of this forum with meaningless & baseless advise!

[DanQ]

Originally Posted by Sal_R1

Highjacked!!
Unlike yourself i presented facts to my argument rather than, dampers are bad and thats it!


Come back to me with facts next time little boy and stop polluting the technical sections of this forum with meaningless & baseless advise!

Aside from the two of you arguing, you are both presenting valid ideas. I still side with Sabian on this for the simpe fact that most will add a damper or replace with a more expensive damper without addressing basic suspension setup or adjusting their technique.

I don't recall Sabian stating that dampers were bad. Just that most people don't NEED them.

Motorcycles were ridden and raced for a long time without them. Do they help? Absolutely. Are they an absolute necessity? I don't believe so.