RaceTech Gold Valve Emulators and Springs...

[vwhammer]

Is the general consensus here to get the spring rate that RaceTech suggests?
I weigh 260 without riding gear and when I go off road will likely have another 30 to 40 lbs of camp gear with me on longer trips.

Using my rider weight on the calculator on RaceTech's site puts me right at the 1kg/mm spring.
I will likely be riding this bike off road more than most might so I thought that a slightly softer spring might be a better choice.
I am also willing to sacrifice a bit of on road manners on favor of some better off road characteristics.

I am doing a shock swap on the rear (Aprilia Tuono) and went with a spring on the rear that is a bit stiffer than the stock NCX rear spring.
I just don't want one end over sprung such that it makes for some strange handling.

I suppose I could just go with the .95kg/mm springs, which is still stiffer than the stock springs, and see how it feels.
I would then have the option to go up or down depending out what I determine.

I guess after typing all of that I kind of came to a conclusion by myself but I am interested to hear about any of the heavier riders experiences with a spring and Emulator set up.

 

[MZ5]

No harm in trying, excepting you _might_ buy another set of springs (which you might also do if you start with their recommendation, too).

You can't change the fork travel, so you don't want to go _too_ soft, else you'll be into the harsh bottom-control end of the travel too much of the time.

So basically, you need to pick the spring rate that gets you the right static _and_ race sag (unladen and laden sag). If you're right on the one, but way out on the other, your spring rate is wrong. There's some flexibility there, though. That's why I bet your .95 spring rate choice will likely work fine for you.

Just remember that most 'off-road' issues the NCX can ever handle (washboards, small chop, small square-edged stuff) are mainly a hydraulic function, though, so definitely drill the extra holes and use the softest spring on the GVs for best compliance in that respect.

 

[supertux1]

I'm still running two valve holes, a 27.2mm installed blue spring length, which is 2 turns, the minimum. 15wt oil. I followed RT 'cruiser' tuning recommendations there. I think most of the improvement I notice so far is getting rid of the generic progressive spring and having one more suited to my weight, slightly improving the geometry of the bike. It's quicker to lean in to turns and holds the line better. Like... a race bike... It responds better than stock to harsh bumps but small ones are still a bit jittery. I might open it up to four holes.

Edit: Went with four holes and 5 turns preload, so far so good.

 

[Antarius]

Awesome!

Yeah I added a little bit of preload after rebuilding my forks and it drastically helped turn in and overall tracking. Sometimes its easy to think that softer means it will lower the front end, and thus, turn in better -- but at some point it works backwards.

There is a happy medium, for sure.

 

[supertux1]

Awesome!

Yeah I added a little bit of preload after rebuilding my forks and it drastically helped turn in and overall tracking. Sometimes its easy to think that softer means it will lower the front end, and thus, turn in better -- but at some point it works backwards.

There is a happy medium, for sure.

I think all that new preload is messing with my ability to flick the bike in turns. Feels like a cruiser. I have to be more aggressive and slower in the roundabouts. Almost went wide on one, remembered 'lean the bike more!' instead of braking

Will try again tomorrow with my preload backed out all the way - the way it would be with the stock cap - and just the 4 holes. (The way I shoulda done it, changing only one thing at a time. Lesson learned!)

 

[dduelin]

I don't quite follow that suggestion additional preload helps turn in. I must be missing something or misunderstanding the presentation.

All preload does is adjust ride height. If the spring rate is OK and sag is acceptable then additional preload reduces sag and raises ride height which slows steering geometry. The bike will turn in slower with added fork preload, not quicker.

I found that after getting sag and damping acceptable, 40-44 mm up front & no more than 50 mm in the rear, raising the forks about 18 mm in the clamps sharpened the steering. It dives into corners with abandon.

 

[supertux1]

I don't quite follow that suggestion additional preload helps turn in. I must be missing something or misunderstanding the presentation.

All preload does is adjust ride height. If the spring rate is OK and sag is acceptable then additional preload reduces sag and raises ride height which slows steering geometry. The bike will turn in slower with added fork preload, not quicker.

I found that after getting sag and damping acceptable, 40-44 mm up front & no more than 50 mm in the rear, raising the forks about 18 mm in the clamps sharpened the steering. It dives into corners with abandon.

The closer your fork is to vertical the quicker it will turn at the expense of straight line stability and vice versa. Less trail is quicker, more trail is slower.

Think shopping cart caster (negative trail) vs sportbike (small trail) vs chopper (large trail.)

Dialing up the preload, that is screwing down on the fork cap or lengthening the preload spacer inside, or lowering the rear sag, all serves to raise the front end, increases the trail, may raise the center of gravity and slows down the steering response. The opposite applies as well.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that preload makes the fork respond faster which it doesn't if using single rate springs.

Dave is there a reason why you needed to raise the fork in the clamp and give up that much travel? E.g., need to lower the bike due to short legs, but need a stiffer spring due to overall rider weight?

Or just want more of a sportbike feel? If you didn't have short legs, could you get the full travel back and the quickness by raising the rear?

Edit: Oh and an update, backing off my preload to stock preload has improved the handling. It was stock + 8-10mm and that's enough to make a huge difference in slowing down the turning response, so I can see how you like dropping the front that much.

When my Nitron comes hopefully that shock has enough preload adjust to keep the geometry the way it is now when the rear is fully loaded...

I believe my issues with loaded panniers on the stock shock are because fully loaded it points the bike front up and makes steering slow and reduces front traction.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dduelin]

......
Dave is there a reason why you needed to raise the fork in the clamp and give up that much travel? E.g., need to lower the bike due to short legs, but need a stiffer spring due to overall rider weight?

Or just want more of a sportbike feel? If you didn't have short legs, could you get the full travel back and the quickness by raising the rear?

Edit: Oh and an update, backing off my preload to stock preload has improved the handling. It was stock + 8-10mm and that's enough to make a huge difference in slowing down the turning response, so I can see how you like dropping the front that much.

When my Nitron comes hopefully that shock has enough preload adjust to keep the geometry the way it is now when the rear is fully loaded...

I believe my issues with loaded panniers on the stock shock are because fully loaded it points the bike front up and makes steering slow and reduces front traction.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Raising the fork tubes in the clamps doesn't affect travel and I didn't do it primarily to lower the bike. I did it to sharpen (speed up) the steering geometry. As you would say, to reduce trail. The original amount of sag under my weight required longer spacers to reduce sag to my target sag of 40-45 mm. Originally it was something like 55 mm IIRC. I reduced it in the neighborhood of 12 mm so I needed at least that much back to preserve the original geometry. It still tended to run wide with 50 mm of rear sag so I dropped them further to as much as I felt comfortable. Too much lower and the fender might strike the radiator or the brake hose under the bottom clamp.

http://nc700-forum.com/forum/garage...namic-ddc-fork-upgrade.html?highlight=spacers

 

[Nofear2trek]

Update - Thx...clicked and on the way!

I would appreciate someone double checking me before I click and order these on Amazon. Am I getting the right stuff for my '16 DCT? (My 225 weight suggested 0.942 kg/mm springs)

Race Tech Fork Spring 0.95 KG/MM FRSPS3534095 Price: $99.26 & FREE Shipping

(Amazon.com: Race Tech Fork Spring 0.95 KG/MM F/ Buell Duc Honda CBR VFR Kaw Suz Triumph Yam: Automotive)

Race Tech Gold Valve Cartridge Fork Emulator , Color: Gold FEGV S4101 Price: $116.79 & FREE Shipping

(Amazon.com: Race Tech Gold Valve Cartridge Fork Emulator , Color: Gold FEGV S4101: Automotive)

Ray

 

[AsureDawn]

According to the racetech site, those parts are correct for the NC (any yr 12-16), doesn't look like they have separate parts suggestions for the DCT (makes sense, as they're about the same weight and use the same forks).

Couldn't tell you if that's the correct spring weight for you, though.

Here's the part numbers for reference:
Springs: FRSP S3534#### (sub spring weight for ####)
Valve kit: FEGV S4101

 

[670cc]

Ray,
Hold the spring order for just a minute. I may have some to sell. Checking some numbers now.

 

[670cc]

Ray,
OK, never mind. The bike I bought from Beemerphile supposedly has 4085 springs, which seem too stiff for me. However, it is the spring recommended for my weight. I was thinking mine were 4095s like you wanted, but they are not.

So never mind and carry on.

 

[vwhammer]

I might be interested in the 0.95 springs of you want to sell them to anybody.

 

[vwhammer]

Oh nevermind i see they sre not the 0.95s

 

[Deleted member 5383]

A Little News From Rally Raid

 

[wingysataday]

Picking up my forks from proline suspension in meridian Idaho today. hope to get some off road time soon. I had the gold valves(emulators) drilled out 4 holes with blue spring. I used the stock fork springs. I do 90%street but my 10% off road is much more serious than most. I'm around 175 and 5'11".

 

[vwhammer]

So I started the install of my emulators and I have a couple of questions.
So I got these rings with mine.


Is it safe to assume that they fit in the groove on the end of the valve in an attempt to hold them in the dampr rods?
I do not see it mentioned in any instructions


I also hear people talking about drilling out the other two holes in the little plate under the spring.


I could be wrong but it appears that my valves came with an extra set of plates with the four holes already drilled.
anyone else get these?


Anyway I hope to drill the rods tomorrow and get them all back together.
Wish me luck.

 

[rippin209]

So I started the install of my emulators and I have a couple of questions.
So I got these rings with mine.


Is it safe to assume that they fit in the groove on the end of the valve in an attempt to hold them in the dampr rods?
I do not see it mentioned in any instructions


I also hear people talking about drilling out the other two holes in the little plate under the spring.


I could be wrong but it appears that my valves came with an extra set of plates with the four holes already drilled.
anyone else get these?


Anyway I hope to drill the rods tomorrow and get them all back together.
Wish me luck.

looks to me like you got a new and improved set that's dummy proof, 2 holes if that works for or 4 if you'd prefer, looks like a improvement to me

 

[670cc]

The rings are needed only for certain bike applications for sizing. I don't think you need them for the NC, but it should be mentioned in the instructions somewhere.

 

[Antarius]

Yup, the rings just add a tiny bit of width to the diameter so the emulators can fit in a 41 or 42mm fork (maybe 43?). Whatever one size up from ours is.

That plate looks like they gave you two, one with two one with four. That's nice!