Author |
Message |
Dlance
| Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 12:54 am: |
|
Have a 98 s3t with the early Showa rear shock. Was part of Buell replacement kit 93930Y and was installed in 2000. Is this shock safe to ride? From the Don Casto conventional wisdom page, looks like that Buell came out with a Shock Repair Package (SRP) which consisted of a clamshell to protect againist a structural shock failure. Do I need to get an SRP? Is an early Showa shock even outfitted with an SRP safe to ride? Was the SRP just for certain models and not the S3? Thanks
|
Thejuicer
| Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 03:04 pm: |
|
Im kinda in the same boat...my shock looks just like that one. Josh |
Doncasto
| Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 05:50 pm: |
|
Relying in my memory of things past . . the believe SRP was an interim fix. I recall that when the full recall replacement came down the pike - with a newer sturdier Showa-it was made available to those that had gone with the SRP as well as those that had not had their shock recall done previously. The later recall . . .and perhaps even the SRP? . . .only affected M2 and X-1 models, and then only certain production years. My subjective opinion is that the early Showa is inferior to the later offering. Rather than apply the "band-aid" to an early model shock, I would look for a later model . . .providing that you can find someone that will be available to rebuild it as needed. My personal opinion is that the later model offered much more preload adjustment. It was only after installing the later Showa that I was able to set my preload correctly. Then, for the first time since my S3T was delivered, I then was finally able to set dampening adjustments so they also worked. Caveat: Having said all this, it could very well be that for a lighter rider (with no occasion for two up riding and/or touring with luggage) the earlier shock might work just wonderfully. For me it was nothing but trouble - with and without the SRP package. YMMV |
Al_lighton
| Posted on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 09:44 am: |
|
THe early shock was not recalled on the pre-2000 models because they don't have the lightened flywheels introduced in 2000. Those lightened flywheels don't smooth the firing pulse as much, and have a different frequency/amplitude vibration response. It was that response that caused the shock recall. The shock is safe on a 98, without the SRP. Which is not to say that it is a good shock, I think it kinda sucks personally. Don's right, if I was gonna put a used OEM shock, it'd be one of the later ones. But personally, I wouldn't sink a nickel into either of them if/when the seals start leaking (they will), they're likely to leak as well. I'd put a Works or Penske on it instead. |
Thejuicer
| Posted on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 01:56 pm: |
|
Thanks alot for the info...im gunna deal with my leaker and buy a penske. Josh |
Dlance
| Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 06:48 pm: |
|
Interesting take on the reason why the earlier S3s did not get their original longer Showa shocks replaced with the later shorter Showa shock version. Curious as to the source of the info on the flywheel effect on shock vibrations as being the reason? |
Bluebueller
| Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 10:25 am: |
|
FYI my 99 m2 had both recalls. got the first (clamshell) in '02, then in '07 decided to take it to a dealer for some other repairs, and they installed a brand new shock under warranty (surprise!). It was the 14 incher, and worked great for two years. Only problem is that shock is leaking too now. |
Foximus
| Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2011 - 05:54 pm: |
|
So does anyone know why the Showa's are so prone to leaking while the penski's are not? I mean a rubber seal is a rubber seal is a rubber seal...? Unless the OEM rubber was junk, there should not be any major differences in build technique... |
Kevmean
| Posted on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 02:49 pm: |
|
The problem with Buell tuber shocks is that the damper works in extension not compression when under load, the heavier the load the more extension which results in less overlap of the inner rod and outer tube , the less overlap the more likely the unit is to flex creating wear, conventional shocks are at their strongest position under maximum load. So chances are the Penski is just stronger in this area. |
Foximus
| Posted on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 03:09 pm: |
|
Interesting take on early vs later. However until I see internal part schematics proving that the short shock has better valving I say it's all hearsay and just improvements in the actual spring and body. |
|