Trace

I take it you don't have a PC? Again, there's no reason to remove the O2s unless you do.

Dunno. It's just been "common knowledge" since forever. O2 elims are very common in the aftermarket world, so it's not any real secret as to what is in those $15 (each) items from DynoJet. I'm sure sombody just laid an Ohm meter on one, took the reading, made their own.

HS is basically right, but to boil it down....there's no real reason to eliminate the O2s if you're NOT running a Power Commander. That is, unless you're putting any kind of "headers with no sensors" on an O2-sensored bike. In that case, you'll have to do the O2 elims to keep the FI light happy. As a practical matter in the real world, you won't see power increases and such by O2 elimination. You don't get power increases at steady-state throttle.....where the O2's "live".

Indeed. This was more for demo purposes, so a person could see what terminals to plug in to. I also want to mention that there is no need to mummify the connectors with electrical tape to keep water out. Just use a little bit to 1) retain the resistor and 2) insulate any metal from shorting out. Too much tape will likely trap water inside the connectors and lead to corrosion (someday). And water won't really hurt anything, anyway. Instead, let them be "self draining". Engine heat will dry 'em in a minute. Besides, once you pull that clear plastic boot back down over the connectors, water won't be an issue anyway.

Close-up of connectors You can make your own Oxygen sensor eliminators by installing 330 ohm resisters across the leads to the OEM sensors. Locate the natural and the black colored 4p connectors near the alternator cover (left side) and dissconnect them both. Location under left fairing PARTS 330 ohm resisters at Radio Shack $0.99 a pack of 5 Model: 271-1315 Catalog #: 271-1315 INSTALL Install the Resisters across the leads The 4p connectos have 4 leads. Use the two leads opposite the locking tab on each of the black and natural connectors, obviously on the side connected to the bike and not to the O2 sensors. You can remove the sensors and their wire harnesses if you want. Plugs that fit where the sensors screw into the exhaust pipes are easily found at most any auto parts store. You can wrap with electrical tape or find large shrink wrap to protect the wireing job, zip tie them secure.

I'd rather discuss the Japanese schoolgirls....... :salesman:

Nah....he said this, which I'm pasting from an email exchange we had last November--**From the guy I bought it from (ebay) told me that if was for a 210 lb/954 shock. I got correct sag on mine where it was so it's definitely higher than a stock 954. I'd suspect in the 16kg range but I don't know that for sure. ** In his original For Sale post on VFRd, he said *954 shock set up for a 210 rider. This puts it in prime VFR spring rate range......** I saw no numbers on the spring.....but come to think if it, I don't remember how hard I looked for 'em, since I din't know they were there somewhere. Got a hint on typical location? So, it's all a guess, this suspension stuff. Voodoo!!!! :beer: Hey, wow!! There's FotoDougoto now!! I'm sure glad I didn't badmouth him or question his credibility...I'd be SOOOOoooooo embarassed! :salesman:

BR, According to Racetech, the stock 954 is 14.6 (whereas you said 14.3, no biggie). But oddly enuff, their website's "spring engine" show springs from 13 to 15, no higher. Of course, that must mean that the stock 954 shock can't handle any more spring...one can assume. They show springs for 5th Gens from 6.7 (!) to 16.1. So what did Penske put on this shock that I bought from FotoMoto last September? Wellllll....I follow your logic and I hope your right. I do know that that shock/spring made a very nice difference. Smooth, comfortable, positive motion. No harshies, no bouncies, no bottoming (even two-up), ...I don't really even think about it being there, which is good! :thumbsup: Anyway, let's hope your assumptions are right and that I stay just below 200 lbs!!

Well, I can't write a novel every post! :D And I don't quite know what to say....I'm frantically reading all my collected material about forks, shocks, shims, handling, etc.....in hopes of finding something to say. My head is spinning!! So, I might just sit back and learn. :thumbsup: I love your question to BR about "have you ever had your shock revalved...."!! He's had just about every shock in the Western Hemisphere on his bikes. He's the Shock Master! Certainly the subject of F/R spring rate balance is a good one. I don't know the exact spring rate in the used Penske I bought, but I have reason to believe it's 15.5, as it was intended for a cbr954rr with a 210 lb rider. So....that means my .95 aftermarket front springs are not "balanced" from a percentage of increase stiffness aspect.

Vellly intellllesting!

The OEM oil setting is 130mm. The standard thinking is if you have too much spring, reduce the oil (like 130mm+ height). If you want "more spring", you add a little oil (less than 130mm height). Of course, there must be some solid upper and lower limits to this, like + or - 10mm or so? Dunno. So mebbe your 140 is fine with your 1.0 spring @ 170 lbs. I will prolly go to 128 or so, to reduce the air volume and thus add a little more "spring". Like I said.....it's all voodoo!! :goofy: I recall where HS had to re-cut his spacer (shorter) to get enough sag because it was too LONG the first time, yet you say to make it shorter than the recommendation. More voodoo! But good advice on your spacer length issue, thanks. Too bad we have to diss-and-reassemble the whole thing to see where the sag will ultimately be.

Cote, I'm sure many of us (as evidenced by the interest this post began to stir up once I asked "results??") would be interested to know your mods and your results. As for voodoo, that's a generic term for any of this stuff than blends science, experience, results, yet it can't really be "seen" working. Until you can confirm that something works (and why!!) it's still voodoo. :P Cylinder head flow=voodoo. Fork & shock oil flow=voodoo. Computer programming=voodoo. :goofy: Once everyone digests your long post, above, be prepared for lots 'o questions!! I noticed that you're a little unhappy with your 1.0 spring, which confirms my decision to go with a .95. Mebbe a .90 would be right, but I'm 200 and DON'T have a pothole-y environment, so after staring at the chart for an hour and working the little calculator a dozen different ways (voodoo!!) I settled for the .95. So, what's your take on the 1.0, in detail. Also, why the 140mm oil level? That's 10mm low (?), as I recall. Did you mix vinegar with the fork oil?

Agreed. Regardless of which school is "more right", it's clear that it's really hard to adjust a hole smaller once you've drilled it out! The pros have a whole tackle box full of comp and rebound pistons, with all sorts of different holes, shim configurations, etc, etc, so they're not drilling valves at the damn track!!! What Racetech has done is give you a valve that works much better than stock, and has lots of adjustability.....5 settings on either side of "standard". I think it's a very workable compromise between OEM and "$pecial cu$tom $tuff". Ohlins is the acknowledged King of this game, with $$$$ to match. I don't need that kind of specialization 'cuz I can't ride for crap. <_< And I see that R Cote was here while I was typing this.....but no comment... :goofy:

Sure! One pro scoffs at another's stuff. I'm sure a real Team race bike guy scoffs at ANY vendor of stuff. An exactly similar situation exists in the rarified world of NHRA Pro Stock 500 cubic inch engine builders....all 20 or so of the successful ones. They scoff at Jesel stuff!!! Everything they use is virtually hand built....they don't have much use for speed shop stuff, either. :P Wot the heck is a compression needle? Will you have adjustable compression damping because of it? If so, wow!!

BR, I can see that POV, especially from a highly skilled and experienced suspension guy who knows how to tailor the mechanism to a very fine degree of control for a given situation. But I also see how the shims in the Racetech stuff can act to control flow in lieu of the more traditional orifice size. That's why they're so big/tall compared to stock stuff. In general, it seems to work for most average riders (like me). What I REALLY think is the case is that Racetech has found a market niche that allows "tunability" for the non-expert (like me) while greatly increasing performance over OEM stuff. They manage to do this with only relatively few products, having just a few valve sizes and lots of shim stacks "do the work" for a very large number of bikes and conditions. Brilliant! But I can also see how this Exotica For The Masses would get an unfavorable response from the real pros like Phil, etc. The experts work both ends of the equation....tuned orfice sizes, tuned shim stacks. Racetech only works one end...the marketable end. Voila!! I liken it to this: You can go to any speed shop and afford to buy roller rockers for your small-block Chevy, and they're MUCH better than factory stamped steel units. Now you're feeling pretty racy, huh, now that you have Exotica For The Masses? Or....you could go to Jessel http://www.jeselonline.com/ and spend about a billlllliiion dollars and get a REAL roller rocker valvetrain that you have absolutely no real need for with your stock engine! :salesman: Same thing applies to musical instruments, stereo equipment, kitchen knives.....anything. Marketing and pricing step-functions affect all consumers. How fast to you want to go? How much money you got?? :goofy:

Yeah, and there's simply no way to know if that reaming of the ports did anything positive or negative. I certainly doubt there are any negatives, but I'm somewhat skeptical of the positives. And to be fair, that's exactly what R-Cote said when he posted his mod. He's experimenting, knows it's not like a full re-valve, and wanted to improve what he had. But......who wants to go thru all that trouble (and potentially bugger the stock valve somehow!) for unknowable improvement? So......... :lurk:

Just FYI, I decided to go with the .95 springs also (I was leaning towards the .90s), but I'll build slightly "softer" comp and rebound valves than what RaceTech typically recommends for the standard street setup. I've reached this setup configuration after 1) reading numerous posts about harsh results from many of the aftermarket vendors [YMMV], 2) from understanding that the stock VFR is under sprung and over damped [so I'm going the other way!], and 3) taking some advice from HS regarding his trial & error discoveries. Many of you have gotten good results by sending your stuff away for upgrading, but many more have been less that happy with the "welded fork" ride. I also bought their bushings and seals, which are only slightly more expensive than ePay and other internet parts houses, because of the convenience factor and the quality of the bushings. Don't know what your getting from all the ePay vendors....standard OEM, or not as good as OEM, perhaps? Dunno, but don't wanna risk it. I will use 5W oil as recommended, but not Racetech's outrageously expensive stuff. The local CycleGear ripoff-shack sells perfectly good oil for $8/quart.

Yaaaa...I was gonna badmouth the whole thing (in spite of HS's clarifying explanation as to what is going on with the mod), because nothing is going on! But, I figger that if you can't say something nice or encouraging.....you might as well go pour vinegar on your radiators....... :wheel: And if I can read between the lines of HS's explanation...we're prolly not gonna get a definitive ride review, because this mod doesn't really DO anything. The enlarged ports could help prevent foaming/cavitation or other unruly oil behavior under extreme conditions, but I suspect there is no "feel" change for 99.9% of riding. JMHO, but that's why I asked what else was done. I can't imagine taking all that oily, slimey stuff apart just to port those valves, but if that's the case....what's up with it? Heading for my rads with bottle of vinegar in hand........and I just did order springs [settled on .95s], comp & rebound valves and and other upgrade goodies from Racetech (except their $25/quart 5w "snakefork" oil...sheeeesh!!) All in stock, should be here in 5 days. Incidentally, they do honor the 15% discount for VFRd members---which saved me $75! :thumbsup:

I'm gonna go pour vinegar on my radiator right now...I don't even CARE why! :lol: This fork stuff is REAL important...it's a mix of science (99%) and the experience to understand and thus apply the science. The RaceTech setup has been known to be a little too stiff unless you're tracking the bike....but that can be the result of an overzealous buyer who actually thinks he'll be tracking his viffer a whole bunch and has a chance of keeping up with the fast, light, powerful stuff. Instead, he spends all his time on the street (like everybody else) and think's it's too harsh. I'm planning on the .90 spring (much lighter than what guys "normally" are going with), and the softer valve shim stacks. [i'm adding F3 fork-guts to get rebound control]. I figger anything is better than the mushy OEM setup, but I DON'T want to 1) ruin the characteristics of the bike or 2) try to second guess all the experts who either designed the bike or actually know what they're doing....unlike myself!

And the results are.........? What voodoo and magic did you use to come up with your drilling sizes? Did you mod any of the OEM shim stack? Did you use OEM weight oil? I'm planning on installing the full Racetech setup, so just curious of your outcome.

Good pics, Paul. :thumbsup: Dunno why Axman's tubes were at 44...but they were. And then there's the controversey over "end of fork tube" vs. "top of cap", the difference being 1 or 2 mm, which is the thickness of the cap. I'm thinking that as a practical matter, the intent is "top of cap", since it's the easiest thing to measure if you're using a simple ruler or a precise depth mike (which is what I use). In any event, it's astounding how a mere 5mm can make such a difference in a bike's handling. In fact, over in *Biker's Oracle*, our Brit friends were going nuts over the improvement this simple, easy, free mod made to their bikes. What I don't know...and would like to know...and maybe somebody like HS or BR would have some knowledge....is how far is too far? Will 55mm make the bike shake its head all the time, sometimes, never? What is the safe limit, and does handling continue to improve--or--is 49mm the best compromise for the VFR? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

When I checked Axman's 6th Gen, his fork tube height was 44mm [actually, one was 44, the other was 44.5!!], and his was never modified, as far as he knows. He bought the bike new. When I set my 5th Gens's height, it was at 44mm. My Clymer manual sez 39mm, but I think it's generally agreed that is wrong. I then raised the tubes to 49mm, from the cap flat to the top of the triple.

Tim, Yes and no regarding your concerns. You can raise the fork tubes in your triple clamps a maximum of 5 mm. Any more, and the bike begins to act "nervous". I have raised my tubes 5mm (from 44 to 49mm, total from flat cap surface to top of triple) and the bike responded beautifully. This has nothing at all to do with the risers. Now, raising the tube 5mm does indeed give the risers another 5mm to clamp on to, which is a good thing. But (however!) this is not necessary for safetyl The Gens or the Rogues still give plenty of bite on the tube. And, the design has tabs....just like the clip-on itself....that prevent forward rotation of the bars due to hard stopping/weight on the wrists/etc. No worries there. So....what you should do it raise your tubes 5 mm in the clamps. Yes, this lowers your bike 5mm at the bottom of the fairings, but this hardly constitues a "lowrider" stance! The improvement to the bike's nimbleness will be astounding. But don't go any further than 49mm, or headshake/instability might result. Mind you, lowering the bike/raising the tubes DOES NOT change your riding position, except maybe the fact that your seat is now "leaning forward" a teeny-weeny smidgen due to the lowering, but essentially, the geometry stays the same. Ths is a hard concept to get your head around...and it's been argued here plenty of times. Fact is....nothing really changes except your turn-in handling....for the better. Lowering your front end (by raising the tubes) has the same effect as slightly shimming the shock to raise the rear. Some guys do a little bit at each end to kinda offset big changes at only one end. Either way, the result decreases fork rake angle, which increases the bikes nimbleness. There's lots of posts about that subject here. Then, if you want, add the risers. Seat the riser fully on the top surface of the triple, and then seat the bar fully on the riser. Before tightening the clamp bolts, gently push each bar "out" against those tabs I mentioned, so that there is no chance for any forward movement, ever. The whole thing it perfectly safe and sturdy. You won't snatch the bar off the tube or have any other problems like that unless you are one very large, very strong dude. The clip-on clamps will do their job, believe me.

Aardvark, There are no issues with the GenMars....they are literally a 5 minute installation the second time you do it. First time, it'll take you 15, because you're unsure of yourself, of torques, etc. But believe me, it's a no-brainer. Those appearance caps pop off with a small screwdriver, giving instant access to those adjuster thingys that you never really fool with, anyway. :o But they are necessary from an appearance standpoint, because with using the risers, the fork cap and the adjuster thingys are down inside the clip-on's collar. You'll literally be looking at a portion of the inside of the collar, so the caps make it all go away. Do yourself a VERY big favor and tape a thick towel over your gas tank and fairings, thus avoiding the "Oh SH!T" factor altogether when your ratchet hits something painted. :pissed: And finally, consider the risers that Rogue/Rod sells. They are more precisley machined and generally nicer than the GenMars. :thumbsup: