| Author | Message | ||
     General_tso |
As my lap times drop my suspension setup becomes more critical and with the season over I've started looking ahead to next season in terms of opportunities to improve handling. I'd like to draw on your experience to compare set ups as a benchmarking exercise. My 09 is currently setup with AK Gas cartridges and 1.0 springs in the front, EBR Showa race rear shock with the 575 spring and the stock belt drive swingarm. I run 27mm sag in front and 25 mm sag in rear. I weigh 175 in gear. Installation of the race shock raised rear ride height approx 8mm. To offset this I dropped the forks in the triples approx 5 mm. This was not a calculated value. Merely an estimation. With this background info I'd appreciate if you will take the time to share your experience on the following. What SAG do you run front and rear? Did you experiment to arrive at these numbers and if so, what did you experience along the way? Do you run the stock swingarm or the chain drive unit? If you run the chain drive, would you recommend the investment based on positive results? Also what impact does this have on front end settings (forks higher or lower in the triples?). If you run the stock swingarm, what fork position have you found that works best for you? I am looking to make changes that will improve front end feel and am willing to compromise turn-in to achieve this. Knowing tire profile effects setup I'd appreciate knowing what tires you find work best with the 1125r. I run Pirelli SBK Pros but am considering a change to Michelin Power Cups. | ||
| Rodrob |
Ok I'll have to think on this for a bit. But here are some initial opinion, and I stress - opinions. If you have the AK Gas, you have the best of the best. Showa shock is good, but if you want to match the performance of the AKs. Penske is tha way to go. Chain drive is a must if you really want to ge the most out of the bike. Being able to control, not just gearing, but wheelbase as well makes a big difference. I was going to change my belt to chain, when I bought the 1190 instead. My 1125R track bike is for sale BTW. 8mm rear height change is significant. Check that the unloaded eye to eye shock length is the same as stock. Then set sag. While sag #s are important for initial setup, they become less so as the rider and bike get dialed in. None of the pros that I know care much about sag unless the bike is having issues. What the bike does on the track becomes much more important than theoretical numbers. Sag etc, is recorded after the bike is working for reference points. But these are guys who can sit on the bike and bounce it a few time and know whether it's close to where they want it. That being said, your sag numbers seem reasonable as long as you are getting what you want out of the bike. The hard part is, you get to a level of performance fairly quickly where you just can't speak intellengently in generalities about setup. My setup was working great, right up to the point where it wasn't, which only happened at the edge of traction. At this point you have to talk specifics. "It runs wide on throttle out of turn 3". "The rear is loose on the brakes into 1 off the straight". "I have to keep pressure on the bar to hold my line in 3". "When I stand it up on exit, it feels jumpy". All of which is track dependant. So my advise is to make specific notes and work with a tuner at the track to make incremental changes to find the best balance. (Message edited by Rodrob on December 01, 2012) | ||
| Jdugger |
In my opinion, a 575 spring is probably a bit much for a rider 175 in gear. I'm more like 180 before gear, and I run a 550. I try and start my set-up around 10mm of static load on the spring (basically, how much I crush it with the shock free-in-hand and aim for 7-10mm static sag, with 28-30 rider sag. There are reasons to use stiffer set-ups, but on Texas' rough and bumpy tracks soft set-ups generally work better. I'm not sure what the front numbers are -- I go for balance w/ the rear. I agree with Rob about the Penske, it's a better shock. I run the Buell race shock on my stock bike I use for teaching and having fun, etc., but it's just not as good a damper as the Penske. It took me a good while to get the Penske dialed in, but not that I'm there I'd not look back. It's tough to do better than AK-GAS. As for geometry, I like the bike set up tall, especially compared to stock. The extra swing arm angle promotes mechanical grip, and the extra ride height front and rear are good for clearance. With the belt drive you end up giving up a little wheelbase, but I still stay it's worth it to set up tall. If we are going to compare numbers, I'd need to get you "free in hand" OC numbers for the shock, and OC axle to bottom of top triple clamp for the forks since how you build your AK GAS makes a difference. I have them around here somewhere for a 180-set up, but I've move to a 190 rear now. I finally went chain drive. Holy moly what a difference. I'm with Rob on this one, it's a worthy upgrade. Even in the shortest possible setting, the chain drive kit is fully 1/2-inch longer in wheelbase, and that ought to tell you something right there. My personal bests were set when I was still on the belt, but I'm getting the geometry of the bike worked out and I'm getting back to where I was. But now, what I notice is just how much better the rear suspension works and how much more planted the bike is. I used to be one of those guys that was "the belt is a set of trade offs, some good some bad." Now I'm more of the mind of "why did they ever put that POS on a bike to begin with?" All the tension of the belt really messes with swing arm and suspension movement, IMHO, in addition to it being brutal on bearings. I'm glad mine is gone. I've run both Pirelli and Michelin, and I'm having very good luck with the Michelin Slicks. I like the front tire a lot -- both the hard and the soft, and the hard rear is giving good durability with decent longevity. The soft is killer for drive, but it's a soft... they go quickly. The Pirelli are great tires, but they just don't hold up on our rough, bumpy, polished tracks. | ||
| Theshinenz |
Hey mate, if you decide to upgrade the rear shock, I'm looking for a used showa rear shock in good condition for my mrs's bike (she rode mine with the showa rear and now wants one lol) We only ride on the road so no need for anything better than the showa. Cheers Scott | ||
| Thefleshrocket |
"While sag #s are important for initial setup, they become less so as the rider and bike get dialed in. None of the pros that I know care much about sag unless the bike is having issues. What the bike does on the track becomes much more important than theoretical numbers. Sag etc, is recorded after the bike is working for reference points. But these are guys who can sit on the bike and bounce it a few time and know whether it's close to where they want it. " I totally get all of this--as far as I'm concerned, setting sag is important for making sure that the suspension is at the proper place in its stroke with the bike loaded. IE not riding too low, or topped out. Not that I'm a professional by any means.. LOL And it's funny, I can get a pretty good idea of how well adjusted suspension is by sitting on a bike and bouncing it. I'll dial a bike in by bouncing on it and then fine tune by riding. Theshinenz, that's sweet that your woman appreciates a good shock. Considering that women make up a very small percentage of the ridership (so it's rare to even find one that rides), it's an even bigger deal that you have one that can discern suspension changes. I'll qualify that by saying that there are certainly women who can outride me, but there are a lot more men who can do so. | ||
| General_tso |
Rodrob...The race shock is longer than the stock shock eye to eye at the shortest setting. This is what caused the ride height increase. I have started dialog with a "Suspension Guy" and will be working with him next year. I'll be certain to be specific when communicating what I'm experiencing. Provided I can figure out what is happening Jdugger...You and Rodrob may have pushed me over the edge in making the chain conversion. What I'm struggling with is the total cost of the swap because if I'm going to do it, I'll install the Penske at the same time. Jdugger...I checked the Penske table and they recommend the 550 spring you are running. Santa's been asking me what I want for Christmas. The conservative answer will be a 550 spring but the inner child answer will be the chain conversion kit and Penske shock. (Yes Theshinenz, if I get he Penske I'll let you know the Showa is avail.) Thanks | ||
| Jdugger |
The chain drive is stupid-expensive, but it's also such a great design. Changing the rear wheel is a one tool job, and the wheel just rests in the swing arm in the right position, even without the axle! Ever since I got mine I've been showing it off in the paddock. Everyone agrees it's an elegant, simple design that's way better than the usual rear wheel hassle with loose spacers, that crazy rear caliper, etc. You will like it. If you go 550, you might also need to go 95 in the front. | ||
| General_tso |
Did you use a local machine shop for the modification noted on the EBR site? "The rear wheel hub bore of the stock wheel will need to be machined to 1.800" to accept the chain drive inner wheel spacer. If so, I'm curious to know how much you paid. The change to .95 up front is noted. | ||
| Duggram |
Jim is a wise man. He bought my chain drive which I only used once or twice. He also traded me one of his special mag wheels setup for belt drive for my mag chain drive rear wheel. I picked up that chain drive, wheel and a bunch of other stuff at the EBR shop. I don't remember that there was a charge for the machine work. BTW my 1125 racer is sold and will be delivered this coming weekend. Now I'm ready for an 1190. | ||
| General_tso |
Duggram, Safe to assume you agree with Jim's assessment of the chain drive as a step improvement? Any other set-up advice you can offer will be appreciated. | ||
| Jdugger |
The only reason the machine a wheel is if you are converting a stock cast Al one to chain drive. I believe if you buy the Mg wheels from EBR, they are already at a larger bore. Either way, I'd be shocked if it were much more than $100. It's an easy job. | ||
| 99buellx1 |
I had one of my belt wheels machined, it was right in that $100 area. | ||
| Rodrob |
I'm 185-190 or so in gear and i have .95s in my 1125R EBR Showa forks. I have an Ohlins TTX on the rear. Don't remember the spring rate. I'll have to check. | ||
| Duggram |
I agree with Jim. It's the only way to tune your gearing. For example for the turn that you want to leave the most efficiently, i.e. a fast turn before the longest straight. I'm not the racer to do that, but.... On my original forks I had 1.0 springs put in. I thought that helped. I was 195 in my gear. I ran a TTX that Al at American Sport Bike said was right for my weight. I'm not the rider that Jim or Rob are. I'm 63 and not that serious a racer. I like to have fun and tinker with the suspension, but I'm not the rider to give advice on it. | ||
| Theshinenz |
Yeah mate, feel pretty lucky to have a Buell mad Mrs, she loves them, will have to post photos of her bike sometime, shes got crg arrow bar ends on it, keda rt4, ebr ecm, rotor upgrade and flush front turn signals on it, so shes def keen for the shock if General decides to upgrade. | ||
| Jdugger |
Funny thing is -- I run basically stock gearing on this bike with the chain drive and I don't really ever change it. (17/44) I'm still at the point in my riding where setting the gearing isn't much of an advantage. If I need to be in the powerband coming out of a corner, I just try and grow a set or figure out how to get through it faster. I'm no where near the edge of the machine. | ||
| Rodrob |
I'm no where near the edge of the machine. Ditto. |
