| Author | Message | ||
     Blecha |
hey guys im new to bad web but a buell for quite a while i noticed the conversations about the lowering kit for the push shock it looks awsome and a good idea for the guys that want to swich to that type of shock but if anyone is interested ive got to prototypes of my own built to lower one with the stock pull shock ive done my s1 shown in my pic and a thunderbolt i can get pictures of also if anyone would like  | ||
| Stoked |
We talking some type of bracket that bolts on the existing front or back mount? | ||
| Brinnutz |
Can we see some bigger pics? | ||
| Blecha |
ya ill get some pics of the thunderbolt and ya it goes in between the shock and the swing arm bracket and worked like a champ | ||
| Maxbuell |
been looking for a safe cheap way to lower my 02 M2 you got a PM | ||
| Blecha |
   | ||
| Blecha |
like i said these are just protypes theyve been in use about a year now i never measured how much it actually lowered it but the link shown is on the red thunderbolt if someone wanted there is another hole to go even lower | ||
| Blecha |
heres a rough moc up of my s1 its far from done but i think it`ll be cool were stretchn the frame addn 7in to the swing arm and a 250 tire hope you all dont shun me in my first week here for chopn up an s1 | ||
| Blecha |
 | ||
| Stoked |
So what's interesting to me is are you using the torque of the bolts on the extender to maintain the horizontal alignment. I just wonder what the forces are in the vertical direction that would be trying to make the shock move up and down. I can see it wouldn't be able to go very far up or counter clockwise in that one picture. But the down direction or clockwise looks like it could. I've been wondering about a mount made from square bar tube. Two pieces could be welded together at the correct angle to mount over the swing arm attachment and a few inches up and over the shock mount in the same way. That should make it a solid mount like the stock version containing any stresses in the verticle directions. | ||
| Bartimus |
Here is what I fabricated to lower a '99 X1, and a '96 S2:     This mod maintains the stock mount, but relocates the mounting hole 1" which translates into about a 2 1/2" drop in the rear. When lowering the rear of your bike, ALWAYS lower the front the same amount to maintain the stock handling abilities... | ||
| Sleez |
+1 bartimus i don't like the swivel joint on that other link, scaaaarrrryyyy!!!! put a video on it while riding around, i bet you'll be surprised....one good RR track jump and it might fold up like a yard chair! | ||
| Blecha |
this is good thats why im talkn to you guys for ideas and thoughts these are just prototypes for to get the ball rollin | ||
| Lesco51 |
I have always modified the front mount like the above pics for my drag bike when I run wheelie bars with a solid link(no shock) and when I put the shock back on for the street if works fine. | ||
| Lesco51 |
Hay Bart Don't you know smoking will wrinkel your skin! | ||
| Sleez |
Blecha, you are on the right track, at least it allows you to check the geometry, but the link should be restricted in its rotation, similar to Bartimus's mod'd mount above, if a bolt on version could be crafted, that didn't allow the connection to swivel, it might work. the welded on link seems the safest. YMMV | ||
| Blecha |
my only other thought is that with this style of shock you have any compression pressure between the shock eye and the link both directions of the tire the link is always being pulled on when the swing arm goes up its pulling on the shock and down the shock pulls on the swingarm or am i thinkn wrong | ||
| Sleez |
but the inertia and moment (some real engineer will clarify my terms) could (may) allow a mode that would cause the link to swivel down while the shock is in limbo. just my .01 maybe in the real world it could not happen, may not be enough forces and the time to react of the shock might be short enough to disallow it. you see, i know just enough to be cautious. not quite enough to be a true designer. even though i was employed as a design engineer once upon a time. | ||
| Slc4me |
I dont think so it is a pull shock so it will allways have force pulling it. It would need to have force pushing it to make it swing around no? | ||
| Sleez |
regardless of if the shock is push or pull in it's static state, it still transitions to the other state during suspension travel, and there is a period of time when it is basically "weightless", it might be measured in milliseconds, but it exists, and the ability for the mechanical link to react quicker since it is a piece of solid exists. if you had a load transducer mounted between the shock and the mount, you would see the load transition from push to pull, with spikes and valleys, the transition between these spikes and valleys are the critical times. like i said before, the time "might" be so short as to not be an issue, but it "could" be!! again, i am not a "real" engineer, but have quite a bit of training and real world knowledge, i am sure an actual ME could either confirm or deny my theory. a simple model could be made to verify the possibility of the failure mode. if i still had access to my old job, i could have some stress analysis type SW run to confirm. oh well. i am sure someone with a degree will chime in any moment to correct my errors! all good. | ||
| Buellistic |
Question: There has been no talk about lowering the front end an equal amount ??? Could "i" be missing something here ??? | ||
| Stoked |
How's it gonna look like a Choppa if you lower the front the same amount, lol. Just kidding. Can't you just slide the tubes up to maintain the geometry? I know probably not that simple. | ||
| Blecha |
well really it is that easy my s1 has regular bars on it so you cant gain much but you can slide the tubes and put clip on bars on | ||
| Sleez |
"When lowering the rear of your bike, ALWAYS lower the front the same amount to maintain the stock handling abilities..." Bartimus posted that earlier | ||
| Court |
"When lowering the rear of your bike, ALWAYS lower the front the same amount to maintain the stock handling abilities..." Worth saying 3 times. I got flown in to test ride a bike once. Belonged to an airline stewardess who'd been tossed off 3 times. I rode it and it was the scariest handling bike I've ever ridden. Friend "helped" her buy lowering the back about 2" and not touching the front. "When lowering the rear of your bike, ALWAYS lower the front the same amount to maintain the stock handling abilities..." I've got one of the original West-Tek lowering kits somewhere in a box that got sent to me and I never opened. Tim made them for the S2's and they worked well and were very popular. | ||
| Doughnut |
Court, what would a kit like that run?  (edit: Don't have the bike any more but WILL own an S2 again and lowering [just a little] was a big thing for me.) (Message edited by doughnut on February 01, 2009) | ||
| Jramsey |
Tim Morrissey (West-Tek) sold the rear shock mount and threw in instructions for lowering the front for about $350.00. When I talked to Tim 4 years ago he implied he hadn't ever sold very many. (3 times too expensive IMO.) Both my tubers are lowered 1" in the rear only and there is very little noticeable difference in handling. Belcha, I'm very surprised that you haven't been shot down major flames for wackin on a tuber. (Message edited by Jramsey on February 01, 2009) | ||
| Blecha |
ya i know i was kinda leary of putn that on hear but i can always go back ive two spare frames layn around hey on this lowering kit how are they lowering the rear with that | ||
| Blecha |
ok guys i found what it looks like that replaces the front mount rite | ||
| Court |
Tim had a shop located in the building at Topeka Harley-Davidson/Buell (the world's most awarded HD dealer) and produced lots of race parts and so forth. It was really nice stuff. I got one but never had any need to lower the bike and think it's buried, along with some stock shocks, in these hundred+ boxes of crudola. |
