Suspension

[corndog67]

Suspension is pretty much a known technology. I mean, valve stacks, cartridges, oil viscosities, part materials, slippery coatings, etc.

Why don't the manufacturers, get it closer with stock bikes? The FZ-09 is a perfect example. I'm not talking about Skyhook style electronically adjustable suspension. I mean, just start with the right stuff from the gitgo. It couldn't cost that much more to put the right springs, the right valve stack, the right cartridges in there from the factory, the tests would read "It's fabulous right from the factory!", instead of "If it wasn't for the substandard suspension, it would be a great bike!"

Copyright infringement if they copy Ohlins valving? I mean, every kid that ever worked for Fox is out there adjusting stock suspensions, it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult for the factories to get it closer. Because sometimes, they miss it by a country mile.

 

[afm199]

Weight of rider. Riding Style. Comfort. Liability.

The new ones are getting better. The GSXR's aren't bad out of the box.

 

[jh2586]

I think with the FZ-09, they really had to cut some corners and were already pushing the limit in cost vs profit. The engine is fabulous and the style is gorgeous IMO. A $7790 MSRP is unheard of for this much bike. They had to cut corners somewhere.

 

[KazMan]

I would think that it could be considered an engineering miss. I believe they valved for a demographic that was more cruiser (city riding) than sport riding (twisties).

They have fixed the valving with the FJ from what I can tell in the showroom

 

[VicTim]

Wow, I'm disappointed. I thought this was gonna be a thread about tos violations.

 

[corndog67]

Weight of rider. Riding Style. Comfort. Liability.

The new ones are getting better. The GSXR's aren't bad out of the box.

But Ernie, rider weight, all they can do is go for the Average American, 345 lbs, and spring for that.

Actually, if they would assume the average of the great majority, maybe 170-190 lbs, spring for that weight, put the right oil in it, I would assume it is marketed as a semi-sport, standard bike, they wouldn't have so many gripes about the suspensions. The springs should cost the same, no matter what the rate, correct? Same with the fish oil they put in there stock, shouldn't cost much more, if any, than putting a good oil in there, hydraulic oil is hydraulic oil.

As far as liability goes, wouldn't a more "correct" suspension, equal a safer bike?

Anyway, my KTM White Powers, were dead nuts correct, right out of the box, other than minor adjustments, KTM is pretty good at that.

 

[Junkie]

I imagine rear suspension is often a little stiffer to allow for passengers, but I don't know why front is often so far off - especially when it's too soft. Comfort maybe?

Regarding the valving, it might cost more to machine the pistons that work better.

 

[kuksul08]

Cost.

Physically, you can get stiffer, higher quality materials. Low friction surfaces. Precision shim stacks. Higher part counts (2x springs, mid AND base valves), external adjusters.

Then there's R&D cost. Testing and tuning takes time, and every bike has a different target audience, geometry, etc.

Incompetence might play a role with some companies as well.

 

[RightCoastBias]

I don't need a bike sprung and valved for my weight. But I think all modern bikes should come with USD, comp/rebound/preload adjustability.

Rear shock should at least have comp/preload adjustment. In a perfect world they'd have rebound and ride height adjustments.

But with these things, you have a bike you can actually ride in different conditions. A simple revalve/spring change can work wonders on adjustable cartridge forks.

 

[stan23]

For every 1 rider that cares and fiddles with their suspension, you have 1000 riders that do not.

Manufacturers know this.

 

[Junkie]

I don't need a bike sprung and valved for my weight. But I think all modern bikes should come with USD, comp/rebound/preload adjustability.

Rear shock should at least have comp/preload adjustment. In a perfect world they'd have rebound and ride height adjustments.

But with these things, you have a bike you can actually ride in different conditions. A simple revalve/spring change can work wonders on adjustable cartridge forks.

On the track, rebound is typically more important than compression out back. I'm not sure I've seen any shocks with compression adjustment but not rebound.

 

[RightCoastBias]

On the track, rebound is typically more important than compression out back. I'm not sure I've seen any shocks with compression adjustment but not rebound.

The new Tiger 800XCx has a comp adjustment, but no rebound.

My bosses 07 990 ADV is the same.

I've seen it a bunch of other times as well. Some shocks even do a single adjuster that effects comp/rebound.

Most aftermarket options will have both comp/rebound and you pay more for high speed/low speed comp adjustments.

 

[stangmx13]

cost, comfort, and rider performance.

for bikes that come w/ non-adjustable dated tech for suspension, its def all about cost. the majority of riders that buy them dont give a shit about suspension and the ones that do will gladly upgrade it to what they want.

bikes that come w/ modern components would still cost more w/ the right valving. the price of a few shims on each valve stack adds up w/ the volume of bikes sold. also, who and under what conditions do u valve it for? aside from rider weight, valving requirements change a lot based on lean angle and brake & throttle application. my race bike is really uncomfortable on the warm-down lap, i couldnt imagine riding it on the street. even my street bike, which has been revalved, is less comfortable now than when it was stock. so, for non-performance oriented riders, they wouldnt really like that "upgrade". IMO, factories are constantly trying to find that line of minimal cost and best performance for their target market.

look at bikes that come kitted-out from the factory, S1000RR HP4, 675R, Panigale R, etc etc. that suspension might be great for the street, but if u were to race them, ud still go through and change a lot. springs, valving, ride-heights, etc. certain riders would prob do the same for street riding too.

 

[Junkie]

For every 1 rider that cares and fiddles with their suspension, you have 1000 riders that do not.

Manufacturers know this.

In CA I doubt it, but nationwide that may be correct.

 

[RightCoastBias]

cost, comfort, and rider performance.

for bikes that come w/ non-adjustable dated tech for suspension, its def all about cost. the majority of riders that buy them dont give a shit about suspension and the ones that do will gladly upgrade it to what they want.

bikes that come w/ modern components would still cost me w/ the right valving. the price of a few shims on each valve stack adds up w/ the volume of bikes sold. also, who and under what conditions do u valve it for? aside from rider weight, valving requirements change a lot based on lean angle and brake & throttle application. my race bike is really uncomfortable on the warm-down lap, i couldnt imagine riding it on the street. even my street bike, which has been revalved, is less comfortable now than when it was stock. so, for non-performance oriented riders, they wouldnt really like that "upgrade". IMO, factories are constantly trying to find that line of minimal cost and best performance for their target market.

Indeed.

I prefer a bike that is comfortable and compliant on shitty/goaty roads. Comfortable is generally a compromise to performance.

My street triple had bad ass suspension, but it was a bit punishing on the goaty roads I loved to ride. But once out in some amazing, smooth, twisties, it was a effin razor.

 

[RightCoastBias]

In CA I doubt it, but nationwide that may be correct.

I'd say the majority of CA riders don't give a fuck. Most BARFers aren't getting revalves, proper springs and/or cartridge kits/better shocks.

I think the BA is a bubble for motorcycling, more analogous to European riders.

 

[Junkie]

The new Tiger 800XCx has a comp adjustment, but no rebound.

My bosses 07 990 ADV is the same.

I've seen it a bunch of other times as well. Some shocks even do a single adjuster that effects comp/rebound.

Most aftermarket options will have both comp/rebound and you pay more for high speed/low speed comp adjustments.

I suppose that makes sense for bikes that're leaving pavement often. For bikes intended only for pavement, rebound is much more common. Look at the FZ-09, it has preload and rebound on both ends. The Versys 650 has preload and rebound up front, preload only out back. I'm sure there are others like that,

On the other hand, when I go to Triumph's web site the 800XC rear suspension is listed as

Showa monoshock with remote oil reservoir, hydraulically adjustable preload, rebound damping adjustment, 215mm rear wheel travel

I can't find suspension adjustment details on the current 990ADV on KTM's web site, but for the 2007, Rider Magazine claims the forks and shock both have compression/rebound and the shock has preload as well http://www.ridermagazine.com/road-tests/2007-ktm-990-adventure-road-test.htm/

That stout 48mm male-slider WP leading-axle fork and single shock each provide 8.3 inches of travel, and can be adjusted for both compression and rebound damping; the shock also offers a handy remote preload adjuster.

 

[Junkie]

I'd say the majority of CA riders don't give a fuck. Most BARFers aren't getting revalves, proper springs and/or cartridge kits/better shocks.

I think the BA is a bubble for motorcycling, more analogous to European riders.

I'd call playing with the external adjustments "fiddling" and I'd be amazed if only 1% of riders do that.

 

[louemc]

For every 1 rider that cares and fiddles with their suspension, you have 1000 riders that do not.

Manufacturers know this.

That's the bottom line, as far as I can tell.

 

[corndog67]

I'd call playing with the external adjustments "fiddling" and I'd be amazed if only 1% of riders do that.

I've only messed with my KTM once or twice, just a click back and forth, and it's plush, it sucks up bumps, it's comfortable, but I also think it's the exception to the rule, very adjustable, the spring rates are right, and although it is probably time for a refresh, it works very, very well. It's softer and cushier than most, and on bumpy roads, it rules. On smooth roads, it's a fuckin' Gold Wing.

I think, if the manufacturers put the right springs and oil in them, did some testing before they sold the bikes, the tests would look better, and probably sell a few more bikes.