| Author | Message | ||
     Retired_cop |
Dennis c.....did you buy the bike yet?????? Couldn't let you slip away un-noticed. | ||
| Xbimmer |
My older BMW with stock 7"+ front fork travel dove less than my Uly does, with no adjustability other than spring rates and oil level. BMW IIRC used a multi-rate (not necessarily a progressive) spring up there, but set up for ride control. An early performance fix was an extra spring in the fork leg, effectively introducing a progressive condition at the last couple inches of fork compression. This worked well for me since the BMW fork could work as normal but under severe braking allowed suspension compliance rather than bottoming. A set of Progressive Suspension's springs with preload spacers up top (I was all into keeping the bike up high back then, boxer cylinders you know) eliminated any need for either stock springs or lower springs. A controlled compliant ride was the result, and I have never bottomed the front end since the install. A progressive spring IMHO is fluid in its movements throughout its range of compression/extension rates, and I suspect that if you have a Buell with all the suspension adjustments and progressives you'll need to fiddle far less with those adjustments since the spring is already doing most of the work for you. You'll be working to fine tune with the spring, instead of working around the limitations of the straight-wound. As far as loss of travel, IMMHO a straightwound is like using straight-weight oil, there are compromises. A straightwound spring needs to be soft enough for compliance but firm enough for bottoming resistance. Enter all the nice things about the adjustable suspension, but no matter what you do with them you cannot change the spring rate, which a progressive does for you. I'd rather set-it-and-forget-it with my front end with a spring that does the thinking for me rather than stop and readjust fork settings for a straightwound whenever the road (or my own) conditions changed. | ||
| Blake |
Ahhh, the Beemer telelever front suspension, no diving there for sure.  | ||
| Birdmanrh |
Ulendo, You are correct, cars/trucks and motorcycle suspension are completely different. But, you did bring them up, right?  Gee, I hope it is OK to stir the pot, rather boring otherwise. Xbimmer, I agree that a progressive suspension will make it easier to set up. Still interested to see the 2007 suspension set up guide. | ||
| Anonymous |
It’s interesting to see the various theories, it reinforces that fact that suspension set-up is a very personal thing. Every rider wants different things because they have different wants & needs. That is why there is adjustment. One setting won’t work for everyone in every riding situation. The setting charts in the manuals are just a good starting point or “baseline”. I encourage you to experiment with adjustments to find out what you like best, don’t worry, you can always go back to the “baseline” if you get lost. The one major thing that I missing from this discussion is that on any fork type suspension there are really two springs, the coil spring and the “air” spring. As the fork travels into the stroke, the volume inside the leg gets smaller. The oil and metal parts can’t compress, but the air does. So, as the fork gets shorter the air pressure gets higher and pushes back (remember the ideal gas laws from physics P*V=MR*T). This air spring effect can be a very large force, or a very small force depending on the ratio of compressible stuff and uncompressible stuff inside the fork. To demonstrate this affect, think about what would happen if you filled the fork 100% with oil, would it compress at all? Because of the air spring is always a progressive rate (for the fork type of suspension anyway) even if you have a straight rate mechanical spring you end up with a progressive overall rate! How progressive this overall rate is very dependant on oil level and becomes more and more sensitive to oil level tolerance as you adjust the oil level (replace the compressible air with incompressible oil). Remember the ratio is what’s important here. Ok, thought I’d set the record straight with some facts now. 2006 Ulysses: Single Rate fork spring 39 lbs / in Oil level 113 mm from top with fork fully compressed (+ or – a few mm ideally) 2007 Ulysses: Triple Rate fork spring 39 lbs / inch up to 3 inches of travel 59 lbs / inch from 3 inches to 5.4 inches of travel 84 lbs / inch from 5.4 inches to 6.5 (bottomed) Oil Level 172 mm from top with fork fully compressed (+ or – about 8 mm no problem) | ||
| Sweatmark |
Anonymous, Might I ask about the spring rates for the other XB models? I'm particularly interested in the Pro-Series spring kit for '05+ (43mm) forks... the OE fork and rear springs require near-full preload for my weight (250+ lb.), so upgrades are a necessity. I've acquired a 2nd fork set, now fitted with 0.95 springs and custom damping/emulators for track use (a bit stiff for street use). Would like to equip everyday road forks with appropriate springs, hoping the Pro set is the ticket. Same goes for the rear shock unit... I'm using a Penske for track days. OE springs - spring rates, front & rear Pro-Series - spring rate, front & rear Thanks in advance! Mark Oregon | ||
| Blake |
"Ok, thought I’d set the record straight with some facts now." Are you really up for turning the internet on its head? I'm with you! Per John Belushi's Bluto in Animal House... "Let's gooooooo!" I've heard that Texas air is more difficult to compress, and much of it is hot too. Should we take that into account? | ||
| Jprovo |
Anony - Thanks, that's some great information. It sounds like if I can't get the stock front end "stiff" enough for my liking, the 2007 springs are the way to go! - James | ||
| Paochow |
Not to change the subject here, but what do the progressive springs cost for those interested in giving them a try? Are they cheaper than the ~$80 that I forked out (no pun intended) for those for the KLR? | ||
| Birdmanrh |
Wow, that must be some cool air that they put in those shocks! Being that it can maintain the same temp all the time and that it ignores Henry's Law. (BTW, anyone want to figure out the percentage of air used, and what its true overall effect is?) Somehow I think that the amount of air in the shock has to do with not blowing the seals out... Those specs if true, tell the story. Cannot image who is going to get the last inch of travel out of them... Still curious to see the setup specs.... (Message edited by BirdmanRH on September 15, 2006) | ||
| Spike |
FWIW- The OEM springs on the rest of the XB line are progressive rate. Also worth noting is that the Pro-Series spring kit for other XBs consists of linear rate springs. From what I have read in some Buell literature (Fuell?), the linear rate springs do not compensate as well as the progressive rate springs for large variances in load and therefore are not recommended for those that frequently carry a passenger. Based on that information and the wide variety of uses the Ulysses is intended for (backroad scratching, two-up touring, fire roads, etc.), it seems that going to a progressive rate spring on the '07 would definitely be an improvement for most riders. While we have the attention of Anonymous (I sure wish we had an Anony thread for random technical questions): When switching to '07 springs on an '06 Ulysses, do we need to adopt the '07 oil level as well? Are there any other changes between the '06 and '07 fork? | ||
| Blake |
Birdman, What you appear to be missing is the greater air volume via the reduced oil volume for the '07 forks. That greater air volume greatly diminishes the air-spring effect. So while the utlimate coil spring rate is greatly increased, the total combined spring rate is not. Also, the "T" in PV=MRT is in units of absolute temperature. A change in ambient air temperature is not going to have as much effect as you might think being the ratio of T in absolute of 30F to 110F is 489.7R/569.7R=0.86 or 86%. So conceivably the air spring effect would only vary from normal 70F ambient riding temperature by just +/- 7.5% in either direction, tending to become stiffer when hotter. Interestingly, the oil viscosity would seem to tend to counteract the effect of temperature on the air since as temperature rises oil viscosity becomes reduced in effect making the forks more compliant. Even if one doesn't see what anony is saying wrt the new '07 fork suspension configuration, Isn't it extremely uncool to publicly doubt the integrity of the Buell engineering on the issue? Have you ever designed a front fork suspension system? I sure haven't. Kinda arrogant to pretend here like we know more than the Buell engineers, aint' it? | ||
| Xbimmer |
Birdman, as I mentioned in my first sentence in my previous post in this thread, and Anonymous clarified, air volume within the fork regulated by oil volume was a very real procedure for fork tuning in the '70's when I got into this motorcycling stuff. In fact, and I'm sure you're aware, some bikes started appearing with valves on the fork caps to tune the forks with air pressure. And who said anything about air temp within the suspension remaining constant? Nothing in any moving mechanical device remains at constant temp, air, oil, metals. The air contained isn't magic, it's just part of the equation. With all your shooting down of others' ideas here I'm amazed it appears you don't know that already... | ||
| Dragon_slayer |
Texas air is easier to compress now and less hot since the BUCKEYES paid them a visit! GO BUCKS! As far as Birdmanrh = consultant with his mind made up and closed. Dealt with them in the past. Forget it fellows, leave him in his world.  BTW, Dennis are you going to buy or just lurk all season?} | ||
| Birdmanrh |
I am kind of confused as to where I challenged Buell's engineering....have they stated the shock change as an upgrade somewhere? | ||
| Birdmanrh |
Dragon_slayer, you have NEVER dealt with me. It is amazing how much people hear assume..... | ||
| Xbimmer |
Birdman. This forum and others like it exist ideally for progressive and contributory dialogue designed to enhance the experiences of the enthusiasts who partake of such forums. Hopefully members of such forums can engage in rational debates with give-and-take input along with real progress toward common understanding. To clarify your understanding of this thread in regard to your 0023/17 and 0024/17 posts: We are talking about progressively sprung telescopic front forks, not shocks as in Earles-forked BMW's or Telelevers or HD Springers to name a couple. I can't see where Dragon-slayer in his post mentioned dealing with you specifically. A little touchy, are we? I believe he was referring to close-minded posts declaring all-knowing decisive opinions without objective backup. With your purported experience in the motorcycling field surely you can find a way to contribute to this and other forums in a more constructive way. Sorry Dragon-slayer but if I were a trout I'd have been in the pan long ago... | ||
| Blake |
"where I challenged Buell's engineering?"
That's where. | ||
| Birdmanrh |
Xbimmer, I have not attacked anyone, made statements about their intelligence or even tried to ridicule them regarding their opinion. I have simply asked questions and stated opinion. I have never said steadfastly that I was 100% correct and the someone with an different opinion was closed minded, stupid or not worth time. I don't see why I should expect to be treated any differently. This after all is supposed to be a give and take place, right? I guess I don't give enough for you or I don't give the way you want. I do not remember ever calling anyone closed mind or not worth the time in the Right side air scoop discussion? If I did, please point it out and I will own up to it. I made a simple statement which to this point has never been challenged directly by Buell. (Or by anyone else by pointing about statements by them) Show me where this change is listed as an upgrade and I will take it as such. Until then it is just everyones opinion as to which is better. Look at the first sentence of the Anonymous post... Blake, That's a stretch. Just because I cannot imagine it, does not mean I think it is wrong. It means I have never seen the situation where it could be used. Since I am not a Rossi or a Carmichael I don't push a bike to its limits. Maybe you do, and maybe you can tell me how? Instead I get called closed minded and not worth the time?? | ||
| Knickers |
I think the key bit of info from Anony that is being missed is this: 2006 springs: "(+ or – a few mm ideally)" 2007 springs: "(+ or – about 8 mm no problem)" The functional difference between perfectly set up 2006 & 2007 systems may not be huge, but the impact of variation in the oil level could be. How accurate & precise is the machine setting fork oil level at the factory? How about in service? Robustness to noise factors is the name of the game. | ||
| Birdmanrh |
OK, so I ran into a friend of mine who actually builds suspensions for bikes today and let me share what I discovered. I asked him which was better, Linear or Progressive. He answered progressive.....then paused and asked me for where..."street?" I said yes and he said, well then I would suggest progressive because it is going to inspire confidence and allow you some extra fork travel if you happen to grab a handful of brake. He said for the track they use Linear because in the corners they always know what the reaction will be. (In other words not in transition from one rate to another) I have another bike in which he had actually instructed me to change from Progressive to Linear because I was getting unwanted travel in corners due to that very reason. He explain that while my riding style preferred a linear travel that most people get a better ride and feel from progressive. SO, Buell cannot say it is an upgrade, but I cannot claim that is isn't. Why? Because it depends upon what you are looking for. When I described what the change was, he did state it sounded as if it would be good for the street, even better for dirt (than before) and would help the front end from wandering as much. So, it seems it is a win-win as we have both sets of springs available as a factory part and completely adjustable shocks. Sorry for any aggressive feelings I provoked. (Message edited by BirdmanRH on September 17, 2006) | ||
| Blake |
Cool info. Folks, I agree with the Birdman; the personal stuff is really miserable. Good grief. Let's please just enjoy discussing motorcycles without all the dram. Someone gets personal? Ignore it. Move on. Stick to the fun stuff. We can dooo eeeet! ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) | ||
| Josh_cox |
For those of you who have 06 models and think your spring rates are too soft, simply add 5mm of fork oil, go ride and tell me what you think when you get back. For as much as people complained about the "too soft" issue, I figured somebody would have tuned with fork oil (I know... super old school). I think you will find the results make your 06 feel similar to the 07 forks under heavy braking. They will feel just slightly firmer everywhere else. I've seen the mention of price several times. Before changing your fork springs though, I'd recommend just adding oil to see if that suits your needs. It is much less costly and time consuming. If you still want to change the springs make sure you have the tools/measuring equipment to do so. I'd hate to see someone in trouble b/c they didn't use the right tools for the job. I will get out the parts book tomorrow (when I'm back at work) and find the part numbers and prices for everyone. | ||
| Windrider |
Lot's of interesting opinions and technical information in this thread but nobody answered the original question: "Progressive rate fork spring retrofit... anyone done it?" So, has anyone done it? Anyone ridden an 06 and a 07 and have some from the seat observations on fork dive during braking or any other good or bad impressions? Personally, I find the fork drive under aggressive braking on my 06 a bit more than I would like. | ||
| Arthurc |
It was an innocent question... honest. The local dealership has the HD/Buell ride day this weekend so I'm hoping they have an '07 Uly in the fleet for me to check it out first-hand. Of course, it likely won't be set up for my weight so the comparison may not be fair. I'll definitely exhaust all possibilities (adjustments, oil level, etc.) with the '06 suspension before considering changing it for the '07... even if the test ride goes well. | ||
| Crusty |
Progressive rate fork spring retrofit... anyone done it? I haven't. I think that's because I'm happy with the way my suspension works and feels. Hell, I probably wouldn't even notice the difference if I did change out the springs. | ||
| Paochow |
 How much do the progressive spring kits cost? | ||
| Josh_cox |
There is not a "kit" per say, but off of the top of my head, I think the springs are $23.50 each. Fork oil is around $5.00 and you probably need two bottles. I will have to check for sure tomorrow as I mentioned before, but I think you can do the full conversion for less than $60. I'll even send instructions with the springs. | ||
| Josh_cox |
Here are the exact part you will need: QTY 2 J0113.2AK 07 ULY FORK SPRINGS MSRP $23.25 EA BADWEB $20.92 QTY 2 99884-80 TYPE E FORK OIL MSRP $4.95 BADWEB $4.45 The total is $55.40 for the parts. Let me know if you are interested and I will get them ordered. PM, email jcox@cycleconnectionh-d.com, or call my call phone 417-317-1818. | ||
| Brad1445 |
Great Info, Thank you. |
