Yamaha R1 Forum: YZF-R1 Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I had first track day on my new R1 at advanced group pace, I had the suspension dialed in by a pro at the track. But handling still did not feel complete. I spoke to thermoman on the phone and he said R1 needs its trail and rear height increased. I spoke to a couple of riders with R1, one of them only increased the rear shock height by 4mm (10mm total height increase).

Front:
Sag 32mm
Reb: 7 click
Comp: 14

Rear:
Sag: 25mm
Reb: 3
CompH: 3
CompL: 9

1- Do above settings look right for a 185lbs, 6' rider (with gear)?

2- Does increasing rear shock height require changing above sag, comp, and reb?

3- Is it better to leave front and rear where they're now, increase both (like mentioned above), or just increase rear shock height?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,193 Posts
I had first track day on my new R1 at advanced group pace, I had the suspension dialed in by a pro at the track. But handling still did not feel complete. I spoke to thermoman on the phone and he said R1 needs its trail and rear height increased. I spoke to a couple of riders with R1, one of them only increased the rear shock height by 4mm (10mm total height increase).
I have not tuned on the current generation R1, but if Mike said it needs to stand tall, then I'd do as he says.

What do you mean by "did not feel complete"? What problem are you trying to solve?

Front:
Sag 32mm
Reb: 7 click
Comp: 14

Rear:
Sag: 25mm
Reb: 3
CompH: 3
CompL: 9

1- Do above settings look right for a 185lbs, 6' rider (with gear)?
Decent sag numbers.

2- Does increasing rear shock height require changing above sag, comp, and reb?
If you have a ride height adjustable shock, or you use shims to raise the ride hieght, you should not need to adjust other settings. If you adjust the shock preload (sag) you will need to check compression and rebound.

3- Is it better to leave front and rear where they're now, increase both (like mentioned above), or just increase rear shock height?
Really depends on what exactly you are trying to accomplish. There is no "one setting fits all" when it comes to motorcycle suspensions and different riders.
 

·
Build Quality Police
Joined
·
924 Posts
I spoke to thermoman on the phone and he said R1 needs its trail and rear height increased.
Increasing the trail as well as the rear ride height...? Considering that the R1 does not have any more chassis adjustability than any other cheapo streetbike, this means you would end up with a little bit higher rear ride height but also a much higher front ride height...?

I could agree on that, at least to some extent. Otherwise, the normal verdict from your side of the pond seems to be that you need to jack the rear ride height up as much as possible, where the fast guys on this side of the pond seem to be doing the opposite (increase the front ride height and leave the rear ride height as standard or even lower).

As said in other threads, I have a hard time understanding why people would only raise the rear ride height and thereby increase an already steep anti-squat angle. Beginner level riders looking for maximized turning in very tight gokart track style corners could possibly benefit from this. But faster riders with somewhat of an early yet smooth throttle opening would not want this as it would compromise the rear grip on first throttle touch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Increasing the trail as well as the rear ride height...? Considering that the R1 does not have any more chassis adjustability than any other cheapo streetbike, this means you would end up with a little bit higher rear ride height but also a much higher front ride height...?

I could agree on that, at least to some extent. Otherwise, the normal verdict from your side of the pond seems to be that you need to jack the rear ride height up as much as possible, where the fast guys on this side of the pond seem to be doing the opposite (increase the front ride height and leave the rear ride height as standard or even lower).

As said in other threads, I have a hard time understanding why people would only raise the rear ride height and thereby increase an already steep anti-squat angle. Beginner level riders looking for maximized turning in very tight gokart track style corners could possibly benefit from this. But faster riders with somewhat of an early yet smooth throttle opening would not want this as it would compromise the rear grip on first throttle touch.
I agree there are many opinions on ideal way to go. I talked to a couple of top WERA racers, they suggested I leave the rear height alone, only raise the front 2mm, see if I need to raise it further after testing it.

I noticed MotoAmerica bikes have their forks raised, not flush with triple, but less than one line showing. Which goes with what my racer friends and you are saying.

Any idea how much are racers cross the pond raising the front? (increase trail)?
To be clear, currently my forks show only 1 line. So to raise the front, move tubes down to raise the front by 2mm. I wonder if that's going to be a noticeable difference. On my s1k, I had to make the forks flush with the triple. Not sure how it goes for the R1.

If you have a ride height adjustable shock, or you use shims to raise the ride hieght, you should not need to adjust other settings. If you adjust the shock preload (sag) you will need to check compression and rebound.
Thanks! This is what I needed to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
I have been running a 318mm shock length and flush forks on my standard R1 this season. It seems like everyone suggests just running tons of trail but I'm not sure that's the way to go. I'm actually theorizing that less trail is always better unless you lose too much wobble stability or you have to fight to keep the bike from turning more than you want it to (which is kinda the same thing). I think this will give the best feedback from the tire, though you won't have as much feedback through the bars of your cornering force. Last year I ran my best times at stock heights on stock suspension.

So in short I think you raise the rear to set swing arm angle, raise the front only if you need extra ride height or cornerspeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I have been running a 318mm shock length and flush forks on my standard R1 this season. It seems like everyone suggests just running tons of trail but I'm not sure that's the way to go. I'm actually theorizing that less trail is always better unless you lose too much wobble stability or you have to fight to keep the bike from turning more than you want it to (which is kinda the same thing). I think this will give the best feedback from the tire, though you won't have as much feedback through the bars of your cornering force. Last year I ran my best times at stock heights on stock suspension.

So in short I think you raise the rear to set swing arm angle, raise the front only if you need extra ride height or cornerspeed.

I'm just wondering what would be best stock setup for me. Bike turns in easily, on corner exit rear feel a bit light on hard acceleration (rear slid a couple of times). I tend to be heavy on the front (on both braking and hanging off).

What you're saying makes sense. I decided to keep stock rear height. Should I keep one line showing on triple? Or raise the front by 2mm?
 

·
Build Quality Police
Joined
·
924 Posts
Any idea how much are racers cross the pond raising the front?
I was involved in a seriously fast Superstock rider the other year and I checked back on some of my notes. The numbers come from an "unplugged" M model using Ohlins "non-electronic" FGRR cartridge kit and TTX36 shock, so exact information about the damping will be pointless. However, the ride heights, spring rates and spring preloads could still be used as a general guideline.

Front fork length = 10 mm longer than OEM (an option that comes with Ohlins cartridge kit)
Front fork height = 5 mm (which means 5 mm visible outer tube above the top triple clamp)
Front fork spring = 10 N/mm at 10-12 mm preload (depending on exact track conditions)

Shock absorber length = 315 mm
Shock absorber spring = 95 N/mm at 14-16 mm preload (depending on exact track conditions)
Swingarm length = as close as possible to 595 mm, exact number depending on final gear ratio
Final gear ratio = depending on track

Of course assuming the Pirelli Supercorsa tyres used in Superstock.

I also double checked the numbers with one of Ohlins WSB technicians and he agrees fully. They recommend something very similar as a starting point for new Superstock riders, for instance when a local guy does a wild card entry at a WSB event.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Front fork length = 10 mm longer than OEM (an option that comes with Ohlins cartridge kit)
Front fork height = 5 mm (which means 5 mm visible outer tube above the top triple clamp)
Front fork spring = 10 N/mm at 10-12 mm preload (depending on exact track conditions)

Shock absorber length = 315 mm
Shock absorber spring = 95 N/mm at 14-16 mm preload (depending on exact track conditions)
Swingarm length = as close as possible to 595 mm, exact number depending on final gear ratio
Final gear ratio = depending on track
Thanks bud! This is helpful.

Any idea what the OEM shock length is?

For front fork height, looks like WERA racers friend are recommending the same thing. Currently with one line showing, I measured 7mm. So raising the front with 2mm will make it 5mm like your notes. Not sure how much difference 2mm will make. Any ideas? I'm guessing it's minimal. It's gonna make the bike more stable, and turning in a bit harder. Looks like Yamaha got geometry right out of the factory.

Any ideas if sag, comp, and reb numbers posted above are good? I think that should be my focus.
 

·
Build Quality Police
Joined
·
924 Posts
The OEM shock length is 315 mm and with this particular rider it has not been touched. My impression is that most of the fast guys on R1's are between 313 and 315 mm.

The direction with a longer shock has also been tested, but it is difficult to make it work unless it is combined with a soft spring and low preload (basically in order to get the same rear geometry as the OEM rear geometry for the first throttle touch). It could possibly have some advantages for corner entry rear grip (= less backing in), probably because of a combination of more negative stroke, the effect this has on the chain force and lower spring rate. Still, rear grip on corner exit is not as good as the OEM rear geometry with the stiffer spring.

Please notice that this rider is using a lengthened front fork, like most of the fast guys on R1's. This means the bike is already 10 mm higher in front when the front fork is mounted in the OEM position.

Your sag numbers look quite normal, but I have got no idea about the click positions of the OEM components (never worked with them or even seen them on the dyno).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
I was involved in a seriously fast Superstock rider the other year and I checked back on some of my notes. The numbers come from an "unplugged" M model using Ohlins "non-electronic" FGRR cartridge kit and TTX36 shock, so exact information about the damping will be pointless. However, the ride heights, spring rates and spring preloads could still be used as a general guideline.

Front fork length = 10 mm longer than OEM (an option that comes with Ohlins cartridge kit)
Front fork height = 5 mm (which means 5 mm visible outer tube above the top triple clamp)
Front fork spring = 10 N/mm at 10-12 mm preload (depending on exact track conditions)

Shock absorber length = 315 mm
Shock absorber spring = 95 N/mm at 14-16 mm preload (depending on exact track conditions)
Swingarm length = as close as possible to 595 mm, exact number depending on final gear ratio
Final gear ratio = depending on track

Of course assuming the Pirelli Supercorsa tyres used in Superstock.

I also double checked the numbers with one of Ohlins WSB technicians and he agrees fully. They recommend something very similar as a starting point for new Superstock riders, for instance when a local guy does a wild card entry at a WSB event.
With the 10 to 12mm of preload is the top out spring being completely compressed? If not, saying the fork is 10mm longer is a little misleading because unless the top out spring is fully compressed the fork isn't at it's maximal length.

K-Tech recommends 318mm as a starting point for their shocks on the new R1, but thats with the shock "stretched" (top out spring fully compressed). How is the 315mm measured? Is it just measured with whatever preload is on the spring or is the shock stretched to ensure the top out spring is completely collapsed? I was thinking about playing with a longer shock to alllow a decrease in rake and trail without losing ground clearance by lowering the front. However if what you're saying is true my rear drive grip may suffer too much.

Lastly, what weight is this rider? Those are the same rates I run but I'm around 210 lbs suited up.
 

·
Build Quality Police
Joined
·
924 Posts
The front fork topout spring is 4x40 (4 N/mm and 40 mm stroke) which means 160 N of force trying to compress a fully extended front fork. The main spring with preload is 100-120 N trying to extend the same front fork and on top of that the damping system pressure as well as the unsprung weight is also trying to extend the same front fork. So yes, the front fork is fully extended during acceleration, as indicated by the data acquisition.

Shock absorber length and shock absorber preload is always measured with the shock mounted to an extension tool. Otherwise you will get different and inconsistent readings depending on your combination of preload and topout spring.

Rider weight 80 kg without leathers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
The front fork topout spring is 4x40 (4 N/mm and 40 mm stroke) which means 160 N of force trying to compress a fully extended front fork. The main spring with preload is 100-120 N trying to extend the same front fork and on top of that the damping system pressure as well as the unsprung weight is also trying to extend the same front fork. So yes, the front fork is fully extended during acceleration, as indicated by the data acquisition.

Shock absorber length and shock absorber preload is always measured with the shock mounted to an extension tool. Otherwise you will get different and inconsistent readings depending on your combination of preload and topout spring.

Rider weight 80 kg without leathers.
OK, just wanted to make sure. People start throwing out suspension measurements without defining the "datum" and you don't really know what to make of them.

Oddly enough, my K-tech cartridges run a 4x40 top out spring as well. I am running 10mm of preload in addition to the installed preload, which calculates out to be about 14mm of total main spring preload. Which just so happens to be the amount of preload required to just barely collapse the top out springs once the unsprung mass is applied. The K-tech cartridges however do not lengthen the fork so if I wanted to get my setup close to the same geometry you are quoting I'd have to push my forks down to about 5mm below the top of the triple clamp and and take 3mm out of my shock which would equate to about a 6mm ride height change in the rear. That setup would give a significant amount more rake/trail. I'm already thinking I have too much. I just don't fully understand why the trend is to run lots of trail and noone I have talked to can give a real explanation on it.

I understand it's industry practice to measure the shock stretched, which is why I asked. However I really would like to know the logic behind this. If you wanted to compare to setups I think you'd be way better of measuring shock length and fork length with the rider on the bike. Quoting shock length stretched doesn't necessarily indicate much unless i'm missing something.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top