R_Cote

OK, so I was able to put on some miles this week but I still don't like it. It turns out that it is still bouncy but not as bad. So I know the heavier rebound stack is working and is working pretty good, but it is still way too stiff. I'm going to change my springs. I odered a set od .90's from Sonic Springs. What I don't understand is that 2 years ago when I checked with the Race Tech websit spring calculator I could have sworn it recommended 1.0 springs. I went back to their site the other day and inputed all my data, which is still the same and they recommend .90 springs. The funny thing is I also used the Sonic spring calculator and the same data at their site has me at the 1.0 springs. So I get a bit confused and decide to drop from the 1.0's to the .90's. I figure .90 is quite a bit heavier than stock and quite a bit less than what I have now. I think it's where I need to be. Also the Race Tech calculator gives me the rear spring rate very close to stock. Hopefully I will have the Sonic Springs next week and I can give some feedback on the results. I am totally convinced that 1.0's are too stiff for my 170lb but. Come to think of it I never did physically measure the actual spring rate. I'm assuming they were not boxed or tagged wrong. I know the most important thing to do is get the correct spring rate first and from all the feedback on here it seems convincing, by how many have gone with the .90's and .95's, that the .90's are where I should be. The stock springs are rated at .74 and I measured mined and that's exactly what they are. But they are dual rate and when I measured the second part (with double the weight compressing them) I got a reading of .88. So I feel that the stock springs could be good if one wanted to cut off the closely wound coils at the bottom. I guess this is still an option but I'm not fond of cutting springs. Anybody know much about the second rate on the stock springs and what it is supposed to be? I think I'm pretty close at what I measured and the way I measured them, all be it the caveman method. And the quest for the best suspension go's on. Good thing it's a fun journey, else I'd be pulling my hair out. Rich.

With the stock valves and heavier springs, I was using 10 wt oil. Yes the heavier oil does offer more resistace to flow but keep in mind the resistance affects both compression and rebound. I believe the stock oil is a 10 wt but I'm not sure. Changing the individual shimstacks is a better way to tune and for me it seems necessary for the rebound valve as the 1.0 springs are that much heavier than stock and they overpower the stock shimstack. You will have to buy more shims because there isn't that many in the stock valves. With this new (Race Tech recommended ) shim stack, I just put in Redline brand full synthetic suspension fluid. I went with the 130mm oil level. Still haven't been able to really test it out yet, but I did do a little 5 mile jaunt with it today and so far it feels way better than previously. Still a little bouncy but not bad at all. I definitly need to address the rear shock to get things balanced out. I think I'm headed in the right direction. Will keep you posted. Rich.

Ok so it has been a little over two years since I started this valving thing. I had been wanting to redo the rebound valves since I read a post where MikeG gave reference to the Race Tech recommended shim stacks using the stock rebound valves. 2 years is too long and I apologize for my tardiness. 2 years has been long enough to get aquainted with how these stiffer 1.0 springs are too stiff for the stock valving, even though achieving the proper sag with them is easy. Wouldn't it figure how stiff this stack needs to be to overcome the heavier springs. Like wow. An incredible amount of shim resistance compared to stock. I thought it to be an excessive amount of shims but I thought I would give it a go. I just wanted to share my findings on what I came up with so far. Keep in mind this is not really tested yet, but I couldn't wait to post this up. I guess you could say I'm excited about it. So this is what I came up with just this past week on my vacation. I'd like to call this " My Second Valving Attempt" Race Tech calls for this (so I’m told) on the rebound valving for the stock VFR rebound pistons using their heavier springs. So I thought I would give it a try seeing how the stock stacks with the heavier springs is very bouncy. With 5 wt oil: ( 6 ) 17 x .15 ( 1) 9 x .1 clamp shim With 10 wt oil: ( 5 ) 17 x .15 ( 1 ) 9 x .1 clamp shim I did not have the proper quantities of 17 x .15 shims so I used the shim calculator to find out what I could substitute to achieve the equivalent, or as close to it as I could get, of their recommended stack. Just to put into perspective and give the stack a visual number to identify its overall stiffness I wrote it down and did the math. The stack stiffness for the (6) 17 x .15 = a total of 20.4 not including the clamp shim. Because a .15mm thick shim equals a stiffness factor of 3.4. (6 x 3.4 = 20.4) That’s 3.4 times as stiff as a .1mm shim. Here is what I came up with for 5 wt oil. LH Leg: (3) 17 x .15 = 3 x 3.4 = 10.2 (10) 17 x .1 = 10 x .1 = 10.0 (1) 9 x .1 clamp. 20.2 total = very close to the targeted 20.4 When you start looking at the (10) 17 x .1’s, it looks a bit excessive but I am relying on the math and going with it. I will eventually get more .15 shims and switch them out if need be. RH Leg: (1) 18 x .2 = 1 x 8.0 = 8.0 à where one .2mm shim is 8 times stiffer than a .1mm shim. (2) 17 x .15 = 2 x 3.4 = 6.8 (5) 17 x .1 = 5 x 1 = 5.0 (1) 9 x .1 clamp 19.8 total = close to the targeted 20.4 Preliminary ride report feels very good. Much better than the previous rebound stack, which was pretty much the stock factory stack with 1 added meaningless shim. The bounciness feels almost all gone. I'm sure it is still not balanced though, but I'm not finacially able to pop for a better rear shock yet. Pushing down on the bars ( pumping) with the brake applied is a lot less bouncy and you can hear a hydraulic shushing sound when you do this. That sound wasn’t there before. I believe the sound is the much needed rebound resistance, the sound of the oil being forced through the bleed hole at this low speed. I think this is going to work. I will wait for my first ride ( later today hopefully ) and report back . Thanks for listening gents. Rich.

BR Is it worth it to go with a 929 shock as they are easy to come by on E-Bay? Cheap ta boot. I know this doesn't address the spring rate issue as far as increasing it to match the increase in the fork spring rate. But it does upgrade to more adjustablity. I only ask because you've been there, done that.

Quote The problem with me doing any sort of suspension reporting is that I can't ride for sheeeawt! End Quote Sheeeawt? I can't ride for sheeeawt either. I'm gonna ride it a bit more and then try 10 wt oil. Just to see the effects. Baileyrock. Do you have a rear spring I could try? (Buy) ? I havn't given up yet, I just don't have a lot of spare time to do this stuff. It takes me forever to just put on 500 or so miles. Hell just changing the fork oil is gonna be time consuming. Bottom line is wer'e having fun and learning at the same time.

When you guys are done discussing the Japanese school girls, we need a ride report from trace. Even though my changes are way better than stock there's still room for improvement. Still riding and trying to sort it all out.

Absolutely. Orange is the color of obsession. As they say it. It's the best resource on the planet.

I also wanted to add a note. I noticed there wasn't much mention about free sag along with the race sag. I know in the off road world it's absolutly critical. I would think the same would apply to the street or track world. Any thoghts on that?

Is that all you have to say? I think I may go with baileyrock's advice on a higher rate spring for the rear. This makes total sense. I was just under the impression that the forks were the weak link on this bike. But it makes sense that the rear would be undersprung also. Seems I can always get the proper sag by cranking on the preload but I know thats not the proper way to get the correct sag. I should have known better than that. On my dirt bike I know I have to set the race ( rider sag fully geared up ) and then check the staic sag. If the static sag does not fall into a certain area when the race sag is correct then I need a spring change. Wow. How did I miss that one. I guess I don't spend enough time on the VFR to worry about it. Baileyrock. Do you think the stock shock is good enough to just respring? Should I get decent results with the stock valving on the shock and a higher rate spring? All this is assuming the rear is as bad as the front was. The rear shock doesn't look like its worthy of putting money into. Did you ever have your stock shock revalved and if so how was it? Right now an aftermarket shock is out of the question for me. Some day it would be nice to put one on though. I gotta tell ya. Looking at my KTM's White power shock makes the showa look like garbage.

As promised earlier. Here are my stack numbers. Pulled my valves apart and they go like this. Stock stack compression valving: 12 x .1 bleed shim 17 x .1 17 x .1 16 x .1 16 x .1 8 x .2 clamp shim 11 x .4 spacer shim Stock rebound stack: 17 x .1 16 x .1 15 x .1 8 x .2 clamp shim 11.5 x .4 spacer shim Now for the modified stacks. compression 17 x .1 17 x .1 16 x .1 15 x .1 14 x .1 8 x .2 clamp shim 11.5 .4 spacer shim Rebound stack: 17 x .1 16 x .1 16 x .1 15 x .1 8 x .2 clamp shim 11.5 x .4 spacer shim I wanted to add a couple more to the rebound stack but I ran out of the sizes I wanted to use so I figured just adding the 1 additional 16 x .1 would stiffin it a bit over stock.