HarleyTechTalk

I have been running tru trac for six or seven years. Did rear section rebuild and wheel bearings last year. My '02 with 100 K miles is rock steady. Money well spent. My $.02.

We had the "Thing" happen to us on the blue ridge parkway back in 2007,
going through a curve to the right that had a dip in the curve, hit that dip
and the rear started to go to the left, there was a pull off straight ahead
and no traffic and I was able to center up the bike and ride straight in and
stop....get off and sit there wondering what the heck happened.

This bike was always loose in a high speed S curve not planted like I thought
it should be.  We put on I think the TRW unit, three bolts to the rear pan
and the side bracket, that changed this whole bike, able to run the local
S curve at 100+ with a very solid feel no wondering or anything.

When we rebuild our bike the other year 2011 I put in all new donuts and
re-did the oil in our shocks, the new old made our old shocks work better
than they ever did, fully happy with this bike now.

So yes the rear engine brackets make a big difference in the old bikes, in
my unprofessional opinion.

I did install the recommended bearings with the stabo also. I personally would not install the doughnuts only. Spherical bearings suck in the stability world.

Quote from: clawdog60 on February 18, 2014, 10:21:41 AM
I did install the recommended bearings with the stabo also. I personally would not install the doughnuts only. Spherical bearings suck in the stability world.

So you replaced the spherical bearings with a good set of bushings? 

There are still issues with  the rear part of the frame maintaining support for the drive train with stabo bushings, glide pro or even the single sided links that attach to one side of the frame (like progressive).. I think that the center mount true track is the best thing going currently.. If the side link and stabos work, chances are that the new stock donuts or shimming the stock rubbers will work.. Still when the bike is a heavier bagger with a heavier rider / load and a squared tire, the rear part of the frame is not strong enough to support the drive train.. Lateral / side loads are too hight and flex occurs.   The new frame 09 - up is a joke in some respects.. I suspect that the rear part of the frame is not as strong as the 08 and earlier frames since it is no longer a round tubes but a half round piece of stamped steel.. The biggest improvement to the bike 09-up bagger are tire profile and more trail.. The tire profile balances the loading on the drive train in the turns which keep the rear section from flexing and the trail slows the dance.  The true track is better because it utilizes the bottom channel to distribute the load to the rest of the frame..

Max

Quote from: Max Headflow on February 18, 2014, 11:00:47 AMThe new frame 09 - up is a joke in some respects.. I suspect that the rear part of the frame is not as strong as the 08 and earlier frames ...

Where would you strengthen both frames? The front of the latest frames, with two similar mounting points as the rear must help, and the front and side frame tubes are straighter (heavier?).

I am thinking that have two front engine mounts must limit, if not the amount the tail end can swing side to side, at least the resonance at which it swings side to side.

OK, I see the stamped piece you speak of at the 'dog's leg' where the swing arm mounts. The older frames have a formed box section there which is given to rot, which is a problem I have. The newer ones and, alternatives like Paughco's, have a piece of sheet metal there.

Has the choice of form and material at the end come about for economic reasons (penny pinching) or for ease of manufacture, or for technical reasons, e.g. it did not have to be so strong?

Pre-2009

[attach=0]

Post-2009

[attach=1]

Front engine mounts

[attachimg=3]

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

Quote
Has the choice of form and material at the end come about for economic reasons (penny pinching) or for ease of manufacture, or for technical reasons, e.g. it did not have to be so strong?

"After 28 years of using the same basic frame architecture, Harley decided it was time to debut a new chassis to continue their dominance of the touring segment. "This was the biggest undertaking since the creation of the platform," said Ben Wright, 2009 Touring Project Lead and Platform Staff Engineer.
...
No longer just a collection of hand-welded steel tubes, the new frame – and what is commonly referred to on most other motorcycles as the subframe – is now made from various investment cast, forged and stamped pieces. An unforeseen advantage to having the tail (sub) frame bolt on is the lessening of the likelihood that a whole bike will be totaled by insurance companies."

Cannot find the other article, but police department along with insurance companies pushed for this change... also the change helped with Trikes (shared the front haft of the frame) rear is just a bolt on...

Not sure it was for strength.

Quote from: Homeward Bound on February 18, 2014, 11:18:27 AM

Quote from: Max Headflow on February 18, 2014, 11:00:47 AMThe new frame 09 - up is a joke in some respects.. I suspect that the rear part of the frame is not as strong as the 08 and earlier frames ...

Where would you strengthen both frames? The front of the latest frames, with two similar mounting points as the rear must help, and the front and side frame tubes are straighter (heavier?).

Figure out a way to keep the frame flexing the the rear.. The front mount change is more to eliminate vibes.. Look at how many changes HD as done to the front rubber.   The True Track / bagger brace work well to add support to the rear.. Maybe HD should look at adding it to the frame.. Boxing the back part of the frame would help as would bringing the cross braces closer to the swingarm mounts.

Quote
I am thinking that have two front engine mounts must limit, if not the amount the tail end can swing side to side, at least the resonance at which it swings side to side.

I don't think so.. My bet it is a little worse than the previous versions.. The link and the front mount itself on older bikes tied the front part of the frame together.. Adding rubber only increases side to side flex. 

Quote
OK, I see the stamped piece you speak of at the 'dog's leg' where the swing arm mounts. The older frames have a formed box section there which is given to rot, which is a problem I have. The newer ones and, alternatives like Paughco's, have a piece of sheet metal there.

I wouldn't call 3/8 steel plate sheet metal.   Fortunately I don't have to worry about boxed metal from water accumulation.. I live is Southern California.. 

QuoteHas the choice of form and material at the end come about for economic reasons (penny pinching) or for ease of manufacture, or for technical reasons, e.g. it did not have to be so strong?

Ease of manufacture.  Go look at the 2009 technical changes in the tech sheets section.

Max

Quote from: Max Headflow on February 18, 2014, 12:23:37 PMFigure out a way to keep the frame flexing the the rear..

Honest question, is the frame flexing as well as the engine/swing arm unit wallowing inside it between the donuts?

Is there anywhere it would benefit from bracing or stronger bracing?

The later frames have a longer plate under the transmission and a crossmember on the front downtubes which appears as if it was for something that never was, e.g. an oil cooler or something.

Yup, I appreciate the difference between sheet and plate (1/4" and up?). I am not sure what the latest is as from what I can see in pictures it's reinforced around the top mount. I am actually in the process of fix rotted mounts right now and weighing up options. I don't know where you can buy a set, getting a set formed and welded is costly.

I'm wondering about just grinding all the corrosion out and then just filling the whole section with solid weld.

Quote from: Homeward Bound on February 18, 2014, 01:22:55 PM

Quote from: Max Headflow on February 18, 2014, 12:23:37 PMFigure out a way to keep the frame flexing the the rear..

Honest question, is the frame flexing as well as the engine/swing arm unit wallowing inside it between the donuts?

Is there anywhere it would benefit from bracing or stronger bracing?

The later frames have a longer plate under the transmission and a crossmember on the front downtubes which appears as if it was for something that never was, e.g. an oil cooler or something.

Yup, I appreciate the difference between sheet and plate (1/4" and up?). I am not sure what the latest is as from what I can see in pictures it's reinforced around the top mount. I am actually in the process of fix rotted mounts right now and weighing up options. I don't know where you can buy a set, getting a set formed and welded is costly.

I'm wondering about just grinding all the corrosion out and then just filling the whole section with solid weld.

Probably depends on how much is gone..

Max

Quote from: Max Headflow on February 18, 2014, 12:23:37 PMFigure out a way to keep the frame flexing the the rear..  .. Boxing the back part of the frame would help as would bringing the cross braces closer to the swingarm mounts.

I guess you meant "to keep the frame from flexing at the rear".

At present, we're going with filling up with weld and I bought some 50 x 25 x 3mm hollow section (I think it was) to make a cross-brace as per the FXRs frames. I'd say it's over-engineered ... did not realise how heavy it was!

How is the Alloy Art Tri-Link supposed to work any better? I cannot say I have seen a proper review of it and wonder if it is anything more than a placebo ... it is on your drunken camel thread?

I plan on copying that brace on the front downtubes too, so could retro-fit one ... what did H-D plan to do with that brace, stick an oil cooler on it or something?

$300 is quite a bit to throw at it in the hope it might do something.

Thanks.

Quote from: Homeward Bound on March 28, 2014, 02:27:35 PM

Quote from: Max Headflow on February 18, 2014, 12:23:37 PMFigure out a way to keep the frame flexing the the rear..  .. Boxing the back part of the frame would help as would bringing the cross braces closer to the swingarm mounts.

I guess you meant "to keep the frame from flexing at the rear".

At present, we're going with filling up with weld and I bought some 50 x 25 x 3mm hollow section (I think it was) to make a cross-brace as per the FXRs frames. I'd say it's over-engineered ... did not realise how heavy it was!

How is the Alloy Art Tri-Link supposed to work any better? I cannot say I have seen a proper review of it and wonder if it is anything more than a placebo ... it is on your drunken camel thread?

I plan on copying that brace on the front downtubes too, so could retro-fit one ... what did H-D plan to do with that brace, stick an oil cooler on it or something?

$300 is quite a bit to throw at it in the hope it might do something.

Thanks.

Yes frame flexing in the rear..
Not really sure what the Alloy Art Tri-Link is supposed to work in the front.. Seems to me that it would work better in the rear..

http://www.hotbikeweb.com/taming-flh-frame-wobble


http://www.hotbikeweb.com/txr-frame-stabilizer-tri-link-hot-bike-tech

TXR?

Not sure where you found the front one..

Also not sure what you are doing with the rectangular brace..

Like this?

[attach=0]

If so the strap that goes across is really all that is needed..

Max




[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

WTH?  What good would that front brace do?  Looks like it wouldn't do anything.  Can swing side to side and appears to allow up and down.  Maybe I don't get it... Didn't 07 have the front link similar to the '09 and up?

Tying the rear uprights together with a piece of bar like in that last pic.  What's that doing?  Keeping the rear from spreading?  Can't stop the rear legs from racking.  Not that I think the '09 up frame racks much.  But sheet metal does seems a little flimsy as a way to tie the bottom of the rails together. 

But what do I know, I'm only on my 3rd beer. 

Quote from: rageglide on March 28, 2014, 08:29:56 PM
WTH?  What good would that front brace do?  Looks like it wouldn't do anything.  Can swing side to side and appears to allow up and down.  Maybe I don't get it... Didn't 07 have the front link similar to the '09 and up?

Tying the rear uprights together with a piece of bar like in that last pic.  What's that doing?  Keeping the rear from spreading?  Can't stop the rear legs from racking.  Not that I think the '09 up frame racks much.  But sheet metal does seems a little flimsy as a way to tie the bottom of the rails together. 

But what do I know, I'm only on my 3rd beer. 

I don't have a clue as to what the alloy-art thing does on the front.. Not sure what you are saying about 09-ups.. The 08 and eariler had 2 links, One between the cylinders to the top of the frame and one the front motor mount.. 09 eliminated the one on the front motor mount and move the one between the cylinders to the front head.. I guess maybe they thought the  top link needed to be anchored closer to the neck?     Maybe it did help.   The front lower mount became dual donuts like the back..  Did that help? 

The stock frame has a crossbar tied to across the frame to hold the as end together and keep it from spreading... It's not really sheet metal but about 1/8 plate.. Since it is under tension adding a rectangular piece probably won't help.. Maybe it will if tied to tranny through a link like the Bitchen Bagger Brace

http://bitchinbaggers.com/products/bagger-brace/

It should keep the drivetrain from spreading the chassis there.. It makes the most sense.  My drunken camel thread added a little more preload and tension of the back section which seemed to help.

Max

The alloy art thing looks to me to be just that.  Art.  My '12 has a top link like the transition frames.  The sheet metal at the back seems awful thin, doesn't look like 1/8th.   The Bagger brace does look like a decent although it seems to hang down a bit.

Quote from: Max Headflow on March 28, 2014, 09:41:48 PM

Quote from: rageglide on March 28, 2014, 08:29:56 PM
WTH?  What good would that front brace do?  Looks like it wouldn't do anything.  Can swing side to side and appears to allow up and down.  Maybe I don't get it... Didn't 07 have the front link similar to the '09 and up?

Tying the rear uprights together with a piece of bar like in that last pic.  What's that doing?  Keeping the rear from spreading?  Can't stop the rear legs from racking.  Not that I think the '09 up frame racks much.  But sheet metal does seems a little flimsy as a way to tie the bottom of the rails together. 

But what do I know, I'm only on my 3rd beer. 

I don't have a clue as to what the alloy-art thing does on the front.. Not sure what you are saying about 09-ups.. The 08 and eariler had 2 links, One between the cylinders to the top of the frame and one the front motor mount.. 09 eliminated the one on the front motor mount and move the one between the cylinders to the front head.. I guess maybe they thought the  top link needed to be anchored closer to the neck?     Maybe it did help.   The front lower mount became dual donuts like the back..  Did that help? 

The stock frame has a crossbar tied to across the frame to hold the as end together and keep it from spreading... It's not really sheet metal but about 1/8 plate.. Since it is under tension adding a rectangular piece probably won't help.. Maybe it will if tied to tranny through a link like the Bitchen Bagger Brace

http://bitchinbaggers.com/products/bagger-brace/

It should keep the drivetrain from spreading the chassis there.. It makes the most sense.  My drunken camel thread added a little more preload and tension of the back section which seemed to help.

Max

Sorry giys now I am totally confused about what to do for my 2013 fltru...

Bagger brace is only for 08 and older frames.


Max, in your opinion What is the best option for the newer bikes...?

Quote from: Mountainman streetbob on March 29, 2014, 09:13:38 AM

Sorry giys now I am totally confused about what to do for my 2013 fltru...

Bagger brace is only for 08 and older frames.

Max, in your opinion What is the best option for the newer bikes...?

This is opinion only on what is currently available..

http://www.true-track.com/tt_20-00-09.html

will fit.. I've not tried it tho.. I'm still farting around a little on early baggers with different braces.. From that I've seen the progressive ones aren't all that hot since they only tie to one side..  This is from building one up and trying it.. I could have screwed  up the design in some way but I couldn't tell much difference in handling.. I may build something like the true track / bagger brace but right now it looks like the only solution..

Here are pics of my attempt.

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,31533.msg735035.html#msg735035

Max

Thanks Max.

BTW I have followed your information closely. It has been very helpful aligning 2 friends street glides and replacing/tightening/adjusting/sleeving the swingarm bushings...

The drunken camel thread really brought up a bunch of ideas and thought and helped me straighten out the handling on my street bob as well.

The one handling item i rarely see mentioned and addressed is ride height of the rear suspension. I have ran across 3 bikes with the "wobbles" now where the rider has no idea how having the rear suspension too high can adversely affect handling or vice versa...

Thanks for the advice.

I know I like the handling better on my '12 RG with the low shocks (except when I hit a bump  ).  Feels so much more stable.

Never liked the '05 with tall shocks either.  I had the GlidePro bushings and mount, plus the true track.  True track made the difference, glidepro was a desperate move to try and deal with instability that ended up being a "squared off" Avon VenomX, which never looked square...  I also found that running a shorty windscreen on the batwing was quite a bit more stable than the stock height.

Quote from: Max Headflow on March 28, 2014, 05:29:15 PMAlso not sure what you are doing with the rectangular brace ...  Like this?

Yes, something like that ... although the idea of centering the brace to it is also a good one that I will look at. Thanks for the photo. I was just following the lead of the FXR frame really.

Does it need to be so low? I was not planning on doing so, but just mooning the rectangular section instead.

I think the Hot Bike article is sadly lacking as an objective review of its efficaciousness. It's more of an advertorial really. Would they be willing to admit for $300s it does little or nothing? I'd just don't get it yet. It won't stop the engine moving left to right like the old brace, nor up and down ... so it's just a partial dampener really, isn't it?

Quote from: rageglide on March 28, 2014, 08:29:56 PM... But sheet metal does seems a little flimsy as a way to tie the bottom of the rails together. 

Yah, I don't really know either but the Evos have even less plate holding them together than the TCs.

Bagger Brace. Well engineered, and easy install.

Quote from: Homeward Bound on March 29, 2014, 01:10:27 PM
snip

Does it need to be so low? I was not planning on doing so, but just mooning the rectangular section instead.

Probably not.. In my case the bike has enough clearance, I had t lower it and I wanted to make the brace removable so I could easily take the oil pan off.. It is held in place by 4 3/8-nc socket head cap screws..

Quote

Quote from: rageglide on March 28, 2014, 08:29:56 PM... But sheet metal does seems a little flimsy as a way to tie the bottom of the rails together. 

Yah, I don't really know either but the Evos have even less plate holding them together than the TCs.

One thing to note is that the cross brace is really only under tension and there may be some flat shear also.. Stock plate is plenty strong..

Max

Quote from: roadboss on February 09, 2014, 01:25:33 PM
I am looking for advice on a swingarm stabilizer as there seem to be a couple of them out there for a varied price range. True-Track and progressive seem to be the best quality, but they are cheaper than the True-Track and was wondering what everyones experience with them was and if they really work well? Thanks,
Roadboss

Roadboss, what exactly are you looking for out of the brace?.. Curing wobble?...helping stability, holding a line?.. If its for wobble, i dont think any of the braces will work. I personally have the True-Track on my 2010 Street Glide and though it helped, it has not been the cure all for the wobble. I would say that instead of her getting the wobble at 75-80 i can push her to about 90 in the same corner before it starts now with the True-Track . But when i did put it on a noticed a pretty nice improvement in just overall stability in a "normal" speed corner. Take that for what you will, the bike just felt a little "tighter" all around

I used a stabilizer from throttle up industries,,,works great.....Is stabo still in business???
Dave

Quote from: stroker800 on March 29, 2014, 09:37:50 PM.....Is stabo still in business???

Yes, Sta-Bo is still in business.

Here is the Throttle Upindustries (link) item.

The FLHR frame looks just like an FXR frame with a heavy gooseneck. Here's how and where the FXR frame is braced. Is it part of difference in the handling? In the first place, I thought it was just there to support the foot pegs and stand.

[attach=0]

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

Quote from: Homeward Bound on March 31, 2014, 07:40:53 AM

Quote from: stroker800 on March 29, 2014, 09:37:50 PM.....Is stabo still in business???

Yes, Sta-Bo is still in business.

Here is the Throttle Upindustries (link) item.

The FLHR frame looks just like an FXR frame with a heavy gooseneck. Here's how and where the FXR frame is braced. Is it part of difference in the handling? In the first place, I thought it was just there to support the foot pegs and stand.

[attach=0]

Well..
IMO no.. That cross brace only does what you say it does.. Pegs and Jiffy stand.. The frames are pretty much the same, the big difference is the weight of the bike.  Everyone says the FXR handled better and they wish their bagger had an FXR frame.. Gust what.. It does..  Neck is different but I don't think it's the issue.

Max