PDA

View Full Version : Fork spring tech needed!



sick85crownvic
04-25-2014, 12:53 PM
Well, I'm building a custom trike using a mess of parts purchased off of e-bay for cheap. The triples are 85 or 86 250r(for 39mm forks) and the forks are early(82 if I remember correctly) XL600 units. I have a rolling chassis loosely tack welded together using a '96 RM250 front section and '91 LT250R back half. I currently have the rake set within 2* of the '86 250R with a leading axle...now after doing some reading here, it would seem a trailing axle would be much better so it doesn't have an obscene amount of trail...but I think I'm just going to stand the forks up a little more upright and keep the leading axle....

Now, for my question....the front end is already high and to bring it down, I was wondering if it was possible to use shorter fork springs with extremely light "take up" springs stacked on top...almost like a tube chassis'd rock crawler would use....I would like a lot of travel in the front to help soak up some high speed bumps without a stupid high ride height...oh and BTW, this will be powered by an '89 XR600R motor with plenty of work. I've never played with forks before...I've never had to...I was always able to focus on building the motors of my projects, but these forks are DOA and since I need to go through them anyway, I might as well build them to suit my application...welding and fabrication is a non-issue.

Thanks in advance,
Don

DohcBikes
04-25-2014, 08:01 PM
I think your idea will work.

Here was my first thought. You want to tighten up the trail. You want to keep the travel. Just dropped the tubes through the trees an inch or two. This does both at once.

Coxy
04-25-2014, 09:41 PM
This we need to see pics of one day!....sounds like a pretty detailed an sick build! that your really putting some seriously good work into! Love seeing those custom one off's! gets the brain to thinkin eh

sick85crownvic
04-26-2014, 09:56 AM
Thanks Dohcbikes! I was kinda thinking that way....but was concerned the forks wouldn't clear the bars if slid up in the triple...but after looking at it, it looks like that'll work perfectly. As for fork angles and rake and all those fun measurements...I see BIG numbers and small numbers posted....I'm assuming that some measurements are listed with 0* being horizontal and other with 0* being vertical. The ol' magnetic protractor/angle finder is getting a work out!

Don't worry Coxy, once I get further along and have plenty of pictures, I'll be sure to post up a detailed build thread...may take a little while....if you're anything like me, it kills you to see a build thread started and have to wait 3 years to see the finished product...lol. I like to go to the end first, check out the finished product and then read from the beginning to see the road to completion! But that's just me...lol.

Thanks guys,
Don

barnett468
04-26-2014, 10:55 AM
hello

theres a couple ways to determine how much you can drop the tubes, the followinfg is a fast easy way.

remove springs.

lower tubes until tire barely rubs.

raise tube 3/8".

you're done.

shortening springs an inch or so then replacing the missing spring with short soft springs is similar to using progressive wound springs, and it will do what you want. you might have enough preload that you can shorten the springs and try it as is.

if they bottom or are too soft you can try higher oil level. if that is not enough then try thicker oil and higher oil level if necessary. i personally would not run over 20w and would prefer to be below 15w. stock is likely close to 7.5w on those. at some point you might need to try springs.


if you want a leading axle you can use the specs form the tecate, the fastest production three wheeler in the world. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing013.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

be aware that you might experience some degree of "head shake" under some conditions. if so you can reduce it with a steering damper.

the small number 27 thru 34 etc. is the norm which is from vertical. vertical being 0 rake or steering angle. this is why they call choppers "raked out".

rake is always measured on a level surface, tires aired properly, bike on box until both wheels are barely touching the ground, front wheel straight ahead.

the bigger the rake number, the better the high speed stability but the harder it is to turn and vise versa.



Here's my avatar. I named her Bacon. Isn’t she cute?

Hi, my name is Bacon Aren't I cute.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDheK_NT7A9cIdJnV_1Pg7lGbLDWNu5 AVQnY60FToKElt_Wip72n1nHA

sick85crownvic
04-26-2014, 12:27 PM
Thanks Barnett, some more very useful info there...I think as it stands, from the reading I've done, I'll be using progressive springs...I've read a lot of good things about them...seems like I need to get the frame/rear suspension a little further along before I can get an accurate rake measurement....otherwise I'm kinda pissin' in the wind!

Thanks again,
Don

DohcBikes
04-26-2014, 01:01 PM
Sounds like you have a plan. Just to clarify and you may already know this.....the term "progressive springs" is being misused here.

What you are considering attempting is to make a Dual Rate spring, not a progressive spring, there's a big difference. Also, there is a company called Progressive Springs, and not every spring they make is a progressive rate spring.

Also, for your application, visit the ton-up and cafe bike forums for answers. Those guys have come up with some really good ways to drop the bike and retain the ride and travel, just takes some patience in reading.

sick85crownvic
04-26-2014, 01:26 PM
Yes, I've kinda been jumping around between progressive and dual rate springs. I think progressive is the way to go. I plan to do a bunch more reading on the matter because I want to do it right the first time...hopefully be able to debut this monster in NC in June. Unfortunately I've been working slow as molasses on my own projects...just finished making a beefier shift handle for my car and I have far too much time involved in that...lol. Need to light a fire under my hind-end! lol

-Don

El Camexican
04-26-2014, 10:42 PM
The proper way to “shorten” conventional forks is to install lowering blocks under the dampening rods which shortens the fork tubes. If you want to suspension to act the same as it did before the change you need to cut the springs sorter by the same length as the lowering blocks. You can make these yourself out of aluminum tube, very simple mod that is easily reversed if needed, just save the portion of the springs that you cut off.

DohcBikes
04-26-2014, 11:05 PM
That's one way, not sure about the "proper" way...... exactly what I was referring too with the ton-up crowd. He mentioned not wanting to lose travel. While total travel will not necessarily be affected with this method, (most times it is, due to coil bind) up-travel will most definitely be affected, and so will the ride. Tell me all about spring rates, I've used this method many times, it rides worse.

The "proper" way to lower your bike is however you do it. There are many ways that are viable options. It just depends on how you want it to perform. As long as you are happy with the end result, its right.

barnett468
04-26-2014, 11:52 PM
Thanks Barnett, some more very useful info there.Hello sick85crownvic;

No prob, you're very welcome.




...seems like I need to get the frame/rear suspension a little further along before I can get an accurate rake measurement....otherwise I'm kinda pissin' in the wind!

Thanks again,
Don
In case you have not thought of it, another critical consideration is determining what weight bias you want.

The Honda is a PIG on the front but it slides or squares off corners easily because of it. The original Tecate was a little nose heavy also, and increasing the swing arm length made both bikes heavier in the front which also reduces rear wheel traction. The weight bias also affects the bikes attitude in the air.

I suggest you decide exactly what type of riding conditions you want it to work best under and set it up for those.

I didn’t like the heavy nose of the orig Tecate so I changed the bias for the 86 model. I think it was 49.5 front and 50.5 rear or 49 front and 51 rear.

Anyway, I liked it a lot better, unfortunately Jimmy White was les enamored by it at first. I was at the same track testing with him one day and when he pulled into the pits I saw a barbell weight attached to the front of the bike. I said what the heck was that for and he said it was to help keep the front end down because it kept lifting up in the turns when he rolled the throttle back on. Well I LMFAO and told the team green mgr to take it off there and let him get used to it and add 1 1/2” to the swing arm if he couldn’t. Well he eventually figured it out and was very happy.

From an interview with Jimmy White.

“Interviewer – If you could build what you would deem ‘the ultimate three wheeler’ and could have any part from ‘back in the day’ to build it – what would you use?

White – My last 86 factory Kawasaki was amazing.”



Excerpt from 86, Tecate, Honda and Yamaha shoot out.

"Many of the testers noticed the light feel of the Tecate in the air and considered it a good flier."



1986 Tecate – Series Champion ridden by Steve Mendenhall. See him win it in the final round in the video below as his uber powerful Tecate, the fastest production three wheeler ever made, flies NEUTRALLY through the air with the GREATEST of ease.



RACE VIDEO

Here’s a cool video of an 86’ Championship 3 wheeler race with around 30 Tecate’s which was of course won by a Kawasaki. Enjoy the first 30 seconds as poor factory Honda rider Marty Hart gets SMOKED on the start by a sea of Tecates’, then is literally blown off of his bike buy the horrendous roost thrown at him buy these powerful machines as their as their rear tires spin wildly due to the abundant horsepower produced by its uber powerful engine.
Announcer - “Mary Hart has flipped end over end. …they rolled him over in a field of green.” http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing013.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9E9OaUllsY



Here’s a photo of a Tecate showing how neutral it is in the air.

https://s-media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/04/7e/fa/047efa9fde9e7f1ba5ce88ead9ca5d6a.jpg



Here’s a photo of a Honda displaying its nose heavy tendencies to a rider whom WAS [but is no longer] apparently unaware of this characteristic and was unable to sufficiently compensate for it once it occurred. As you can CLEARLY see, the other rider is apparently aware of this characteristic and has elected to compensate for it in the second easiest, safest manner by simply keeping all the wheels on the ground. FYI - The safest manner would simply be to not ride a Honda at all.

http://www.coolfunpics.com/slides/Three_Wheeler_Crash.jpg

LMFAO
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

El Camexican
04-27-2014, 12:55 AM
Here’s a photo of a Tecate showing how neutral it is in the air.

https://s-media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/04/7e/fa/047efa9fde9e7f1ba5ce88ead9ca5d6a.jpg


Is it just me or did the 86 Tecate morph into a green version of the 250R? Sure looks like it in the photo. Why did they go away from the flawless front mounted rad and removable headlight?:wondering

barnett468
04-27-2014, 01:55 AM
Hello sic85crownvic;


Just for clarification. No the Tecate did NOT morph into the SLOWER, poorer HANDLING and NOSE HEAVY Honda.

Actually, after doing wind tunnel tests at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab in Los Angeles, it was determined that due to the high rate of speed the Tecate was capable of traveling at, a more aerodynamic design would benefit it by reducing its drag coefficient.

Lowering the headlight helped to reduce drag and creating an aerodynamically designed head lite housing [as opposed to the one Honda used [which looks like a box of Cracker Jacks inside a prison cell] reduced turbulence much like the "winglets" of a jet reduce turbulence which thereby also reduces drag. See photo below.

http://jetadvisors.com/emails/images/large/Aircraft%20with%20Winglets-230px.jpg


Below is a photo of the Honda headlight guard which was apparently designed as an afterthought to prevent the headlight from getting damaged when the vehicle dives nose first into the next jump.

http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mp19Rd2P5JwYjxTShd5hU-A.jpg




Here’s some more suspension info.


That's one way, not sure about the "proper" way...He mentioned not wanting to lose travel.

Tell me all about spring rates, I've used this method many times, it rides worse.
Your suspension will NEVER act the same if you shorten the travel. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a “short” travel suspension to act the same as a “long” travel one.

Also, whenever you shorten a straight wound spring, it increases its rate.


STRAIGHT WOUND SPRING RATE CHANGE EXAMPLE

20 lb per inch 20” long spring compressed 10 inches is 20 lbs x 10” = 200 lbs of resistance.

Shorten same spring by 2 inches creates a 22 lb per inch spring.

20 lb per inch 18” long spring compressed 10 inches is 22 lbs x 10” = 220 lbs of resistance.

20 lbs of increased resistance at 10” x 2 fork springs = 40 lbs increase of force at 10”

Obviously if you now have 2” less of preload on the spring the total compressed spring resistance numbers will be different.


If you shorten the above springs by 2” AND you add 2” “lowering blocks” you get the following.

20” long 20 lb spring – preload is 2 x 20 = 40 lbs, compress 10” = 40 lbs + 200 lbs “compressed 10”” = 240 lbs.

18” long 22 lb spring – preload is 2 x 22 = 44 lbs, compress 10” = 44 lbs + 220 lbs “compressed 10”” = 266 lbs.

I’m not the best in math, however, I’m pretty sure that 240 and 266 are NOT the same numbers, therefore, I fail to see how shortening the springs by the same length of the “lowering blocks” will provide the same ride.

This also does not account for the 2” of reduced travel, which does not only affect the spring rate curve if you use the same springs and cut them, but it also reduces the amount of distance and therefore time the hydraulic portion of the fork system has to slow the compression/collapse of the suspension.

Hope this info helps.



Here’s my avatar. I named her Bacon. Isn’t she cute?

Hi, my name is Bacon Aren't I cute.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDheK_NT7A9cIdJnV_1Pg7lGbLDWNu5 AVQnY60FToKElt_Wip72n1nHA

:beer

DohcBikes
04-27-2014, 02:03 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^Yep.

Suspension is fun!!:Bounce:Bounce

Baja trucks, 650 horsepower drag trucks, now that's real fun.

barnett468
04-27-2014, 03:02 AM
I'm building a custom trike... The triples are 85 or 86 250r(for 39mm forks) and the forks are early(82 if I member correctly) XL600 units.

I currently have the rake set within 2* of the '86 250R with a leading axle...now after doing some reading here, it would seem a trailing axle would be much better so it doesn't have an obscene amount of trail...but I think I'm just going to stand the forks up a little more upright and keep the leading axle.

Thanks in advance, DonHello sic85crownvic;


The 84-85 Tecate steering head angle is 24 deg with 40.0 mm [1.57"] trail. Thru 1985, the Honda steering head angle was 21.0 degrees, it was changed to 21.5 degrees for the 86 model.

El Camexican
04-27-2014, 12:19 PM
Pre-loading a spring increases the initial rate of resistance when momentum begins, but has no effect on total resistance. i.e you can crank up the pre-load on a spring to the max, but it will still bottom out with the same amount of force as it did with no pre-load. I agree that a reduced length of spring will develop resistance at a faster rate than a longer one, but total resistance just before binding occurs would be slightly less than that of the full length spring. However, shortening the springs has eliminated the risk of binding and oil levels/viscosity are what will determine if and when the suspension bottoms out.

In other words the rate of resistance of the shortened spring will increase more rapidly than that of the longer spring, but if you have a reduced travel distance isn’t that what you’d want it to do?

I will retract my initial comment of “proper way” and suggest that it is the "simplest way" for a do it yourselfer that is unable to raise their fork tubes up in the tree.

Now on to more important things ,like wind tunnel testing trikes. Seriously? I’d be more apt to believe that Yamaha was wind tunnel testing pianos AND yes it looks VERY MUCH like the previous years Honda racer, only green… with envy… well, except for the brown fuel tank.:lol:

sick85crownvic
04-27-2014, 05:44 PM
A lot of useful info here, I am aware of spring rates are measured and listed, not due to my suspension experience(or lackthereof) but from my experience setting up top-ends on performance oriented cars. I don't plan on cutting any springs, but I will be investigating all possible avenues before I make any decisions. Lots of good info coming in guys, thanks again.

Barnett, I'm starting to see where your brand loyalty lies! lol I'm sure the XR600 motor and dry sump set-up will give me plenty of nose weight...I'd like it to be fairly balanced....I don't plan on big air...but a small chance of mx riding exists....I'm primarily looking at "fast trail" riding. I just blew $90 on head stem bearings/races.....this goofy size being used as a conversion bearing is apparently somewhat common overseas, but not so much in the U.S. market...apparently the same size as some Ducati's. I think I'll just be doing a basic rebuild of the forks initially and then I can ride it and work out the kinks later....of which I'm sure there will be plenty.

I think I'll be pulling the Big 6 motor soon....I'd like to have some weight in this frame so I can start figuring out suspension and weight bias.

Thanks again!
-Don

barnett468
04-28-2014, 05:33 AM
Barnett, I'm starting to see where your brand loyalty liesHello sic85crownvic;

As far as brand loyalty goes I actually have none. I also love Honda’s and have had some Suzuki’s, Yammie’s, KTM’s, and Harley’s. etc..

I was a racer so all I wanted was the best bike I could get. I could care less who made it. I just like to razz the Honda guys because the Kawi guys are vastly outnumbered here, lol.





…green… with envy…
Green with envy? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing013.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)


Below are even MORE comments of HIGH PRAISE for the 86 Tecate [the fastest production three wheeler in the world], from a 3 wheeler magazine test.

...this year the Kawasaki techs included the Kawasaki Integrated Power-valve System (KJPS) they use on their motocross motorcycles. The power is greatly improved... Is it fast? In a word, awesome! The '86 comes on from a mild low end to a hard-hitting growl in the mid-range, and if the top end ever peaks, it happens somewhere in the outer reaches of space. The power comes on smoothly… …the Tecate will rev forever. When other 250s have peaked and gone flat, the Kawasaki will continue to accelerate and pull away. This engine is fantastic!

Other new items include a redesigned frame that has the Tecate sitting even lower than last year's model and allows the '86 to corner better than an African springboc being chased by a lion. The 86 Green Machine is a turning fool. Sitting on the Kawasaki is when you'll first notice just how low this beast sits. The twist throttle (bravo, Kawasaki!) and general feel of the bike (even while parked) leave no doubt that this is a serious competition machine.

The rear shock is now fitted with a temperature-compensating damping control that helps reduce premature fade…

…the whole tail end has been lightened by the use of aluminum for the Uni-Trak swingarm.



Look at this MONSTROUS wall of sand thrown up by the Teacte [the fastest production 3 wheeler in the world], with STOCK TIRES, it’s simply LUDICROUS!

Notice that it’s also wheeling out of the corner with the rider LEANING OVER THE HANDLE BARS in a USELESS attempt to keep the front end down IN THE SAND. That’s right, this is SAND with NO PADDLE TIRES.

http://www.quadpit.com/images/mags/stories/1986/tecate/51.jpg

OMG Barn…Please stop, you’re killin me.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

:beer

barnett468
04-28-2014, 07:33 AM
A lot of useful info here,
Hello sic85crownv.

Are you referring to the piano wind tunnel testing?

I actually did see a Yamaha piano at the NASA lab when I was there. It was next to the Steinway they also wanted to test.






I am aware of spring rates are measured and listed, not due to my suspension experience(or lackthereof) but from my experience setting up top-ends on performance oriented cars.

Hey, you can start a car thread in the open forum. I’m a car a holic. I do a lot of restos on 60’s and early 70’s muscle cars, mainly Fords, and also do medium performance engine building and strokers etc.. I leave the 700 plus hp builds to my drag race engine builder friends.

Since you set up heads, of course you know that preload affects total resistance as I showed in my previous post. It's simple addition. Preload is simply added to the stroke, or in your case the lift. As you know, if you put 20 lbs [amount of preload] on a scale, then add another 180 lbs [additional resistance created by compressing the spring the length of the suspension stroke] it adds up to...well 200 lbs.

I ran the cylinder head department for an auto motive machine shop and setting closed and open spring pressures is obviously one of the things you do with your nifty little spring tester.


SPRING RATE AND OIL VISCOSITY

In the case where the same newly shortened higher rate spring is being used in a tube that is 2" shorter than my previous example of 10", the total compressed resistance will be 8” travel x 22 lbs per inch spring = 176 lbs plus the 2" preload x 22 lbs per inch spring = 44 lbs = 210 lbs of resistance which is actually 30 lbs less than the uncut spring with 2 inches of preload in a 10” inch travel tube.

This is a reduction of around 12 1/2% in spring resistance in the shortened travel tube, plus as mentioned, the initial part of the stroke will be stiffer, which will be by around 10 percent. This means the initial has become stiffer as mentioned, and the resistance increases more quickly as mentioned, which I agree is what one would want or be required in this instance, however, at full compression, the shorter travel tube still has around 12 1/2% LESS spring resistance when fully compressed. Please see the formulas in previous post. This means that if it was set up ideally before with the longer 10” suspension, it will now bottom out like a pig dropped off a roof [almost] over large jumps.

If one were to keep the same springs when shortening the travel but cut the 2” off to compensate for the 2” reduction in travel, they would need to compensate for the bottoming by increasing the oil viscosity. Increasing the level if possible will help slightly but will be insufficient.

Ok, now here’s another fun part. The thicker oil will now obviously make the ride stiffer, so here’s a bad and incomplete explanation of approximately what happens. You already have a stiffer initial ride due to the approximate 9% increase in preload spring resistance, but you have now added more damping resistance by increasing the oil viscosity from 7.5 to 10 for example. By doing this, you add at least 20% in damping resistance at all fork travel speeds, which in technical suspension lingo means that the initial ride/travel has become “harsh”. This also obviously increases the firmness of the suspension throughout its entire stroke.

Fluid is interesting, if you put a spring 4 times heavier in the tube with no oil and dropped a bowling ball on it from 30 feet, the fork will still bottom out, however, if you remove the spring and install the 7.5 oil only, and extend the tube and drop the ball, it might still bottom, however, if you increase the oil viscosity by 4 times and drop the ball the forks will not bottom. This means that increasing the oil viscosity will increase compression resistance more than increasing the spring rate by the same factor which in this example is 4, therefore, for the shortened forks to perform at their optimum under the same riding conditions, the spring rate must be increased and the preload must be reduced and the oil viscosity must be increased.

This is why short travel suspension will never, never, ever, ever, ever [sounds like a Taylor Swift song], perform/feel the same as a longer travel one. The physics simply don’t permit it. This being said, there is little difference in feel between a properly set up 9’ suspension and a properly set up 9 1/2” one, but there is a huge difference between a 9” and 11” one.






I don't plan on cutting any springs, but I will be investigating all possible avenues before I make any decisions. I think I'll just be doing a basic rebuild of the forks initially and then I can ride it and work out the kinks later....of which I'm sure there will be plenty.
I also think it’s obviously best to leave the suspension as is until you ride it as you plan to. The front suspension is actually pretty easy to dial in. Our lengthy posts could likely be reduced to around 1 short line, but where’s the fun in that?

“If your forks are too soft, install stiffer springs and thicker oil.”

When we make long bloviating, pontificating, posts, we at least hope to sound like we know what we are talking about, especially when we occasionally toss in a fancy high tech word or two like “telemetry” or “prefabulated amulite” and so on.


SOME OTHER POSSIBILITIES

PROGRESSIVE DAMPING

In the old school, non valve forks, one can modify them to have progressive damping so to speak. This is done by changing the location, number and or size of the holes in the rod. I did a bit of this as early as 1974 but it’s not often used or really advantageous in most cases, however, it is cool to see the affects of it and how it works.


BOTTOMING CONES

These things are really cool and extremely effective and pathetically simple in how they work and all forks have them. We tested many different shapes of these at Kawi. They basically increase the damping rate at the end of the travel, typically beginning at around 1 1/4” before the end of the stroke.

If you have a set of forks that work well except they bottom a little too hard, you can reduce the hard feel and the bottoming by increasing the diameter and/or length of the cone.





I'd like to have some weight in this frame so I can start figuring out suspension and weight bias. I'm sure the XR600 motor and dry sump set-up will give me plenty of nose weight...I'd like it to be fairly balanced....I don't plan on big air...but a small chance of mx riding exists.
As far as weight bias goes, it’s a tough decision because it’s obviously just a wee bit hard to change, lol. I can tell you that a 1 percent change is noticeable. In your case you might want it slightly nose heavy likely 50 or 50.5 percent front bias. I would not go more than 51.5 up front and you may already know, the longer the bike is the more slowly it turns per se and the greater the turning radius.

For trail riding, I would not exceed the stock Tecate or Honda overall length. These Honda’s with plus 3” or more swing arms wouldn’t stand a chance on tight trails against the same bike with a stock swing arm. As I mentioned, the Honda is a slightly better trail bike than a Tecate imo. That’s not a bad thing.



PS - Below is a photo of a group of Honda riders walking back to their vehicles after ALL of their CDI units simultaneously FAILED.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStopxUwGDY4SRIInb7CkbDEAcw5N-PEU0xpY2_raQEwEk3yYKLZoEBvU8

Oh God…there goes my spleen.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)



Hi, my name is Timmy and I approve this post.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPVl94GrqAajvACcWSWBuCH4Hr1ehM_ b2Mu35gKuNf00fTPAdNX-Dhgl4

El Camexican
04-28-2014, 10:20 PM
there is a huge difference between a 9” and 11” one.

I'll take your word for it and remind you that this is a family site.

DohcBikes
04-28-2014, 10:32 PM
^LMFAO noones even trying this week are they:lol::lol:

The local fun police are bound to be amused:lol:

barnett468
04-28-2014, 11:20 PM
there is a huge difference between a 9” and 11” one.


A lot of useful info here,

..........

sick85crownvic
04-29-2014, 12:53 PM
Things are quickly taking a left turn here! lol Those stinkin' bearings I ordered won't be here until late NEXT week...so no setting that up this weekend...maybe the Big 6 gets freed from it's two-wheeled home this weekend...depends on how motivated I am...It's hard to pull one running machine apart to build another when the one running machine is all you have to ride! I guess that should be motivation enough right there.

barnett468
04-29-2014, 01:29 PM
Things are quickly taking a left turn here! lolYou left us alone too long. We need supervision.

DohcBikes
04-29-2014, 01:34 PM
Nope leave the running bike together till you're ready!

Patience is the most important tool in the box.

Is there a time limit on this project? Hopefully not one of those self imposed imaginary timelines...project like this takes as long as it takes ya know.........

sick85crownvic
04-30-2014, 12:49 PM
Nope leave the running bike together till you're ready!

Patience is the most important tool in the box.

Is there a time limit on this project? Hopefully not one of those self imposed imaginary timelines...project like this takes as long as it takes ya know.........

Yeah, there is a self imposed imaginary timeline...lol. I need to NOT get over-zealous and start welding everything together and tearing stuff apart...still a lot of little things to do...like make the LTZ400 axle carrier play nice with the LT250R swingarm...and pick up some frame tubing...there are just a lot of things I can't really do until I have the motor in the way....like set up the rear shock upper mounting location...decide between a shortened RM250 back-bone or do a split rectangular tube back-bone...need to take things one at a time I suppose.

-Don