ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > Old's Cool > Airheads
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-26-2013, 12:35 PM   #76
Ras Thurlo
Desert Lion
 
Ras Thurlo's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Hillcountry, Italy
Oddometer: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmaster View Post
If you keep the torque arm setup stock (use the R100GS mount) you can get 260mm MAX.

If you fuck around with the torque arm setup you can get over 300mm, but you'll have the "jacking" back

If you fuck it up a bit different i think you can get 285mm wheel travel with the no jacking system still working.
... it may be bullshit .

260mm is what I should get from my TAG monolever, but have to believe that you get a better quality experience on same quantum of travel from a paralever - because of lack of jacking

Are you in effect saying that the torque arm is the real limiting factor, not the shock setup (vertical vs diagonal?).

It does not look like there is any difference to what type of bevel box you go for as the torque arm mounting on both airhead and oilhead bevel boxes seems the same, see image below



what do you think you need to FU in order to get 285mm?




[IMG][/IMG]

Ras Thurlo screwed with this post 08-26-2013 at 12:46 PM
Ras Thurlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 01:14 PM   #77
Dmaster
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Dmaster's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands.
Oddometer: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ras Thurlo View Post
260mm is what I should get from my TAG monolever, but have to believe that you get a better quality experience on same quantum of travel from a paralever - because of lack of jacking

Are you in effect saying that the torque arm is the real limiting factor, not the shock setup (vertical vs diagonal?).
No not exactly what i ment.
Because of the para lever construction the long swing arm doesn't really work like a long swing arm.
The drive shaft is limited in its max angle thats the limiting factor around here.
But the final drive is moving the opposite way of the swing arm, if the swing arm goes up the final drive go's down.
Nice for the anti jacking, but not so nice for wheel travel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ras Thurlo View Post
what do you think you need to FU in order to get 285mm?
I made some drawings before i got into surgery:
Standard setup (as good as i could measure all things) (hard to read but this makes 260mm travel)
(Shock mount is probably on the wrong spot but i didn't care at this point.)

My current setup (as close as i could get) (hard to read but this makes 285mm travel)

If you look close you can see what i did.
Dmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 01:17 PM   #78
Dmaster
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Dmaster's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands.
Oddometer: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ras Thurlo View Post
260mm is what I should get from my TAG monolever,
I think you should be able to get more out of that setup.
Whats limiting factor (besides the shock)?
Dmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 02:00 PM   #79
Ras Thurlo
Desert Lion
 
Ras Thurlo's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Hillcountry, Italy
Oddometer: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmaster View Post
I think you should be able to get more out of that setup.
Whats limiting factor (besides the shock)?
I was told approx 260mm by Ezio at TAG, this number was confirmed by Desertpistons that has been playing with these swing arms for a while. I have not measured my setup to confirm.

I think it is capable of 270+, but there is an element of conservatism in order to ensure a safety margin against busting the alu swing arm.

how much travel do you get out of an "HPN" style extended monolever? 240-250mm?

Ras Thurlo screwed with this post 09-10-2013 at 02:33 PM
Ras Thurlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 02:25 PM   #80
Ras Thurlo
Desert Lion
 
Ras Thurlo's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Hillcountry, Italy
Oddometer: 581
rear suspension travel

changing tack for a second to another paralever:

100GS paralever - apparently has 185mm of travel (taken from Anton Largiarder's site)

Is the 100GS paralever really that bad? (compared to the approx 250-260mm of extended monolevers and 1100 paralevers)

can this be improved, without materially increasing risk of breakage? (probably not based on all threads discussing this paralever)

Ras Thurlo screwed with this post 09-11-2013 at 09:32 AM
Ras Thurlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 05:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014