Maxd22 said:But in all honesty I do believe that I have the suspension figure out the way I want it..........
Maxd22 said:Sorry I was being headstrong gents, young blindness sometimes overshadows good advice. So I was thinking something like a chain tensioner used on chops, Ive seen it on a couple builds.
xb33bsa said:you are overlooking the fact that the poor girl you put on that bike will be lucky if she isn't killed outright from the speed wobble enduced crash
you clearly have no idea what you are doing,but what you are, is actually endangering someone elses life if you put them on that ill concieved contraption
jpmobius said:You are not so far along that you can't re-group a little and get on a sound base line. The work you are doing does not require extensive engineering expertise in single track vehicle dynamics as long as you keep the geometry you started with which you know is good. You will be well served to realize that seemingly small geometry changes can have large and potentially very dangerous consequences. You can stay out of trouble simply by not making any changes to the chassis geometry the manufacturer spent so much expertise figuring out. Take off your shock, and get the swingarm and frame positioned back like it would have been before your modifications. Figure out what the suspension travel was, and then make whatever modifications are required to fit the shock you want while keeping the original geometry. That way you will end up with a bike that at least drives as well and as safely as the original. Even with the original geometry retained, you will have substantial changes with the monoshock. For example, your swingarm now triangulated is substantially more rigid than before, so loads transmitted to its pivot are much greater. Loads previously transmitted more or less vertically supporting the back of the bike and rider are now comprehensively different and severely loading parts of the chassis previously loaded entirely differently. Think about it. Even if the geometry is completely unaltered, the substantially changed loads while driving might be very noticeable. Figuring out how to deal with all of that is complicated enough without adding all the complexity of all new geometry.
Do not underestimate the consequences of small changes to the original geometry. Manufacturers know very well what they are doing. Racers are willing to go to most any lengths to improve on what the factory does, and while you see all manner of efforts to strengthen or stiffen what the factory built for street use, geometry changes are usually very tiny, and racers are willing to accept the trade-offs, or find ways to compensate for them. For example, racers commonly accept sacrificing straight line high speed stability for quicker turn in accomplished by slightly lowering the front/raising the rear, but get the straight line stability back by improving chassis stiffness and even just riding around the problem. Not a good idea at all for most normal street riders.
You are doing some very nice work. It would be a shame to end up with a bike that doesn't drive well. I think maybe a little re-think and some adjustments to what you have so far will get you headed in a better direction.
xb33bsa said:put 2 good shocks back on the bike in the stock configuration,with the same as stock ride height in the back
you are so lost you dont even seem to grasp what the real issues are with what you are doing chain clearance is a secondary issue ,you are totally fucking up the handling
the fact is putting a single shock on a 200 honda twin,just for the sake of a look(you are not improving it with a single shock) is just plain dumb and it is stupid when you don't know what you are doing
Maxd22 said:So guys, I have a dilemma, the mono-shock is anodized, and I need it all black, sand blast and powder coat?
Also going to black out my motor, same process?
jpmobius said:This is exactly why making changes is complicated. "Keeping the frame level". What does that mean? Well it is actually sort of meaningless. The frame has some orientation in its original configuration which results in its original geometry. In truth, as you ride, the geometry is constantly changing, so its all a bit hard to define. Fortunately, you really only need to get back to what you had. I realize that is a bit difficult now that you have eliminated a bunch of stock references on the factory frame, but I would think you can get pretty close "guesstimating" where it was. The front is as yet unchanged, so get an original shock and set up the frame and swingarm angle back to stock using it as a gauge. It does not have to be perfect, but set it back to original as close as you can. If you kept the cut off old frame parts, that can help. Just block everything up with some wood or whatever you have lying about and put the frame and swing arm in place like it would have been before you made the modifications. Then you can sort out your new shock. If it was me, I would take off the spring and complete my work. Then put the spring back on and use it to gauge what I needed for a new spring. Of course, you could be lucky and the spring will work, but probably not!
You may find it helpful to work from a completely extended suspension perspective. Normally in designing from scratch, you would be considering the ride height and whatever portion of suspension travel would be consumed in this condition, but if you are just going back to where you were, you can get the front at full extension, then estimate all the back to be at full extension and assume that you will be able to adjust your rear spring to provide the proper ride height when you are all done and riding the bike. The main point being that the max extension of the rear suspension will be the same as it was, in which case you will be able to make the ride height what it was and therefore recreate the original geometry.