Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
General / Re: race tech gold valves
« Last post by 04 SE Deuce on Yesterday at 02:58:36 PM »
UPDATE on my 14 limited front fork set up at the recommendation of several very knowledgeable people on this board and after talking to Race Tech  I made the following changes I went from 30mm preload on springs to 40mm preload, changed setting on gold valve spring from 2 turns of preload to 1 1/2 , at  Race Techs  suggestion went from 15w fork oil to 20w oil and set the oil level from 150mm to 165 mm. I went from 41mm sag to 27mm sag.  I am very very satisfied with how my bike handles and rides. Thanks again for every ones input

The original settings used were for 41mm forks which a lot of guys have used...not 49mm.

Forks must have been bottoming as a couple others suggested. 
The Admiral mentioned possible short travel on 49mm forks which lessens available travel. 
Did you check the total fork travel when you had springs out making the changes?
- A tattletale would show how much travel you are using.  Knowing the total travel of the fork and how much you are using helps a lot.

The changes made both softened and firmed the fork.

Changing fork spring preload:
  Its hard to measure laden SAG accurately given fork stiction, so measurements can vary some. 
  The 10mm change (30mm to 40mm) in static uninstalled fork spring preload made a 10mm change in ride
  height and available travel when riding. 

Changing/decreasing the emulator spring preload:
  Decreases the pressure needed to open the valve initially,  decreases low speed compression damping and
  makes a linear change/decrease in compression damping for any given fork movement speed/velocity where
  the valve is open. So a general decrease in compression damping.

Increasing fork oil viscosity:
  Increases compression and rebound damping across the board.  Normally chosen to get the desired rebound
  damping as rebound damping is not adjustable with emulators and still controlled by the damper rod...same as
  a stock fork.

Reducing fork oil level:
  Increases the air volume in the fork making the air spring less progressive.  This reduces the spring rate of the
  fork in the bottom of the stroke,  approx. last 1/3 of travel...reducing bottoming resistance.

Net result of changes:
  -More available travel.  Helps with bottoming.
  -Increased rebound damping.
  -Increased compression damping,  reducing the emulator spring preload 1/2 turn did not erase the 5wt
   increase in oil viscosity.
  -Less progressive overall fork spring rate decreasing bottoming resistance a little but not enough to cancel out the increase from fork spring preload increase and increased compression damping.

The changes that are somewhat counter to each other as to compression damping and spring rate deep in to travel.

Increasing travel and compression damping will help the fork not to bottom as often or as hard.  Reducing the oil level took same of that away.  If a fork can handle the work load without bottoming to much it's better to have a less progressive fork.  Most suspension tuners try for a set-up that is linear not progressive...they don't want an increase in spring rate that could reduce grip/traction deep in the stroke.  On heavy,  short travel,  relatively soft sprung cruisers I feel ride quality is important and am willing to make the fork more progressive than desired to reduce bottoming.  Another trade off on cruisers is laden SAG,  setting preload/ride height at the minimal sufficient laden SAG gives more available travel and clearance/lean angle. 

This post facilitated by coronavirus 19.  -Rick


12
General / Re: piston skirts
« Last post by Nastytls on Yesterday at 02:27:31 PM »
Interesting question. Is there really any difference in power? I would imagine someone would need to do some back to back testing to see.
13
General / Re: Brake fluid?
« Last post by Pirsch Fire Wagon on Yesterday at 02:11:25 PM »
If ABS - Synthetic DOT4 per service bulletin
14
General / Re: 03 Ultra starter re-build
« Last post by Pirsch Fire Wagon on Yesterday at 02:07:21 PM »
Try this... for most 99 and later TC w/ Jack Shafts.

Remove the End Cap on the Solenoid. Use a screw driver handle to drive the piston in [Neutral - Ignition OFF]

If it rotates the Ring Gear, Loosen the starter but leave the bolts where is will hold it in, tap the starter and it will rotate to the Ring Gear. Alternately tighten each bolt a few turns while bumping it until torque is reached. Bet it works.

15
Very informative videos; thanks for sharing.

Jason
16
The Welcome Forum (Contact Us) / Re: From Michigan.
« Last post by Fugawee on Yesterday at 01:51:14 PM »
Hello from the Northeast, USA.  Nice Shovel.  Way Back When, I had a 1980 Cream Color FLH.  Still have a 1980 FXWG.
17
Shovel Head / Re: 74 in bolt in cam recommendation
« Last post by Ohio HD on Yesterday at 01:45:30 PM »
I was never much for stump puller cams in Shovelheads because of the gearing they have.

Cruising down the road you're in the midrange of RPM.


  [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]  
18
Shovel Head / Re: 74 in bolt in cam recommendation
« Last post by SP33DY on Yesterday at 01:24:41 PM »
would like suggestions on bolt in cam for stock 74 in cam. (early model) low end torque preferred. going to run a 2-1 baffled ex. thanks

If your main concern is low end torque, Andrews J grind would be a very good choice.
19
Shovel Head / Re: 74 in bolt in cam recommendation
« Last post by Ohio HD on Yesterday at 01:11:56 PM »
S&S 450 or Andrew’s A2. Both good cams for stock 74 and 80 inch motors.
20
Shovel Head / Re: 74 in bolt in cam recommendation
« Last post by RTMike on Yesterday at 12:55:44 PM »
For 70-77 motors VThunder 4001 is good all around bolt in cam and 4011 if you are replacing the springs.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10