Peto

Sometimes when it rains it pours. Looks like a good day and a couple of good roads. It's a shame you were rewarded for your efforts. Especially since you were basically alone out there. Do they ever give written warnings out there?

Now, I am REALLY confused. I just spoke with Rich Desmond (awesome guy btw). He seems very smart and really experienced. Right off the top of his head he knew everything. Me, 155lbs. on the VFR. He actually laughed when I said .80s. He said no way. On the Heavy VFR @ 155 lbs I want .90s. No question. He said he had .85 on one of his 450 pound bikes and that he is 160lbs. that bike doesnt have as much weight on the front end as the VFR either. He said the bike is perfect with that. I should not get anything but .90s to upgrade the undersprung front end. I said what about the back end? I said Elka is putting on an 850# spring. I said, but what about the geometry change with the .90s? Its 21% front and 0% rear. He said you are on the right track , BUT the geometry will be much closer to balanced with this setup. :huh: :blush: Rich said you must understand the manufaturer goes light in the front and stiff in the back. They have to beacuse they cannot let the bike sit real low with luggage and a passenger. The passenger sits directly over the shock and compresses a lot. That is how they design the bike at the factory - its a big compromise. He said if its just me @155lbs. on the bike, the rear spring stock rate sounds about right, and that Elka definitely knows what they are doing. :mellow:

I spoke to Elka and also have an outstanding call to Rich Desmond at Sonic Springs. Elka is putting on an 850# shock. I protested, due to the geometry change when I redo the front end. I told him the lightest springs I can get are Racetech .80 (Sonic doesn't even sell below .85). I explained this is an 8% increase and the rear @850# will be 0%, whereas a 900# rear will be about 6% increase and keep the geometry relatively the same. They told me they would discuss it with their R&D engineers and get back to me. They just called me back. Here is the deal. They said the 850# is for sure what I want. The 900# is way too stiff for me and my ride will suffer - the static and dynamic sag won't be right. They said that the first inch of suspension travel is very important as it prevents losing traction when I'm flogging in the twisties. They said if I go with the .80s and the 900#, the bike will likely washout the front or rear as opposed to loading up the suspenion/tires. I said what about the front? Then they asked me an interesting question. Why am I changing the front springs? The .74 is appropriate for me on this bike. I told them my stuff is 10 years old and needs to be replaced. Their response was I could get new factory springs, and bushings, and seals, and fresh oil. Then, if I wanted, I could get emulators..... I really hope this isn't a expensive mistake. I don't know enough about suspension.... What do you guys think?

Dusted off an old thread. I have been reading a few topics on spring rates and I could use some advise. I just ordered an Elka 3-way from a recent group buy. They are building it for me now. Obviously, my untouched 10 year old front end needs to be redone. I weigh about 155 lbs. I have been reading the charts on Racetech's webpage. I think I want the .85 springs. .85/.74 = 14.9% increase over stock. If I do nothing, I am afraid Elka is going to give me a 850lb (stock) or 900 lb shock. I think I should call Elka and specify a 950 lb shock, because 950/850 = 11.8% increase over stock. Which is closer to a balanced bike. What do you guys think? The Racetech page says the exact opposite. They recommend 0.89 in the front and a 14.58 kg in the rear (15.3kg is stock) this is a big increase in the front and a decrease in the back... Am I missing something here?