Handling & Suspension 2004-2008

Taffy said:

thanks again. trust that lower shock mount in the SA is standard? can you remove the plastic bung and look at the allen head in there. it should suit symmetrically central to the countersunk recess it is given. an easy one!

regards

Taffy

Click to expand...

Yup, it is concentric. SA is standard.

you can't push the rear wheel back any further unless you balance the already heavy front end by pushing it out like you have doug.

no wonder Husaberg baulked at the idea of that.

I shall continue along this line but I don't want to weld up to much.

regards

Taffy

Taffy said:

well I should have said the seat PAN. the seat pan is screwed down just in front of the rear subframe on a tab. my bike has a little 3mm rubber washer on it. if you get a tape on the inside lower edge of the subframe and down onto the shoulder where the swingarm pin enters the back of the engine you can get a pretty straight line there. the most difficult part is the last 5mm of tape when you've had yer finger nails cut!

Click to expand...

I don't think I have that tab... I have the screw in the tank, the two tabs the pan hooks on, and the screw in the back.

the screw in the back? is that the screw through the top of the seat pan into a tab at the back of the bike?

well if not why not just measure from the middle of the back rail down to the shoulder at the edge of the SA entrance?

regards

Taffy

OK, I got it.....

Front edge of the bar that holds the ignition, to the closest starter mounting bolt in the case.

490mm

I'll get some pictures up in a little bit.

Or, if you electric start is in the way.....

Ignition mounting cross bar too the rear shoulder of the case.

465mm

imagine the 'U' under this seat pan.

under the arrows on the very rear of your suframe there is a tab welded to the subframe that the bolt in this photo goes through. if you place your tape on the rail below the tab at it's furthest point back (also halfway around) and then go down past the mudflap and go to the little boss on the engine.



like so!

just an idea and due to the angle being not straight it will exaggerate any differences. according to the photos doug, you don't have the ES fitted and neither do I?

bed

regards

Taffy

Taffy said:

Bushie

I don't know what your problem is, winding people up includes a hidden joke with wit and you don't possess either in your last post. so i don't see a wind up just a bit of trouble making. don't degenerate a bloody good thread into one of your pissing contests again.

I make no remark about your opinion at all as I don't want to talk to you AGAIN when you get like this. every time you do I'll stop posting. its that simple. get back on message and i'll continue. it's up to you. stick to the material. put your point of view. stop being obnoxious and downright sick.

i feel you've yet again ruined a bloody good thread. wrecked it -watch the next 6 posts. as i say, i make NO comment on your views, YOUR ATTITUDE is though, OOO. you want banter you can have banter, but to answer your last post is just looking for a bloody good scrap and I won't give you it. I didn't last time, I won't now. but i am telling you what you're doing.

you couldn't get me into a pissing contest before on one of my threads and here you are again. to me, this is the second phucking good thread in two weeks you've turned into a pissing contest, you just ruin them. I hope you're proud of yourself...

and now for about 5 posts we'll have a backwave and we'll be so far off subject nobody will remember what the phuq we were here for! well done!

regards

Taffy

Click to expand...

I got No problem Taff, just yanking your chain cause its SOO easy

The hidden joke is simply to give you back some of your crap and to quote your post above "your attitude" by telling you your WRONG! just like you do to me everytime you disagree with anything I post

if you didn't get it well sorry mate I'll send you some viagra eye drops and a mirror .... In case your wondering there is usually one of these smiley things just after a hidden joke

there is no pissing contest as I see it, you just have a lot of trouble explaining technical details, the thread went downhill after you lost it becasue you couldn't explain your ramblings.

Why not have your engineer make some plates to lower the engine within the frame as far as possible and then flatten the swingarm angle by raising the shock top mount or shortening the shock to get the cornering behaviour how you want it. that will give you a nice low easy to flick bike with as much squat or gravelly arsed ducks in a row as you desire

a photo of the lower shock heim. this is actually the top heim pressed into an eccentric housing.


this is the shock fitted - note how high the rebound screw is above the SA now. as a by product I get to adjust the rebound more easily!


seat height has gone up 8mm but the sags haven't changed. anti squat is increased.

play called off this weekend again due to the big freeze......

regards

Taffy

mud400 said:

Ignition mounting cross bar too the rear shoulder of the case.

465mm

Click to expand...

i made it 468mm. good idea that one, it's a straight enough bar. my engine is lower so it would have been 465mm as well if standard. your engine is stood still while the SA has been moved up 3mm I believe?

But I have to say that when I altered my sub frame yes, I changed the diagonals both times and I would expect to see a change but there is a chance that all they did was do the top horizontal rail which is why I measured that one.

I think the sub-frame is the same height but appears lower because of a top out spring. The whole thing is set up for it IMHO. your backside doesn't hit the seat on downhills or anything so there is no need to lower it.

there is a test you can do Doug to see if you have a top out spring in the rear shock? if you were to completely over-tighten the rear spring with pre-load by say 15-20mm you then, with a mate go up to the rear wheel and with a foot on the wheel rim "push open " the rear shock by holding the rear wheel down and pulling up on the sub-frame. this will make the TO open and close.

a rear shock with a TO spring is a shorter shock on the bike without having to do anything else at all. I lost 36mm of static sag. that is sag onto the wheels of nearly 1 1/2 inches! if that can be utilised into changing the shock angle it should.

I wish I had a photo of a top-out spring but neither i nor katoomtalk appear to have one...

the more I look at this, the more I think the shock mount should be high and forward into the spine of th bike and then, rather like the later Husabergs the bottom end of the shock should then come out of its present hole and be bolted on top of the swing arm like a.....like a.....well like a Husaberg 2009+!

I would like the frame extended at the headstock, to allow the rear wheel back, to keep the bike balanced.

regards

Taffy

Yeah, it works pretty good. More straight.

My measurement is more like 460. I checked it again just to be sure.

No TO, I checked the other day and gave it one more go just to be sure.

You can see the TO in this photo.

what was I doing! "there's nowt as blind that will not see!"

yes I see it now. i looked at the photo and still didn't see it.

i am surprised.

regards

Taffy

Taffy said:

and you still know phuqall about anti-squat and it doesn't matter how many times you throw a tizzy you got it wrong. I proved it in my tests, I took the theory, did the deed, bike handles a dream!

Taffy

Click to expand...

nobody is throwing a Tizzy, you are just obsessed with being "right" there is no right or wrong setup for a husaberg that will encompass every rider and bike, thats just nuts.

as everyone knows by now three things hold up the back of the bike against "squat"

1 shock damping and spring stiffness
2 force resulting from the swingarm angle
3 chain pull moment

each bike and rider in a specific application has a specific balance of all three forces

fact 1: the heavier the rider, the stiffer the shock/spring must be

fact 2: the less power and grip a bike has the less it accelerates and less it squats under application of power so the less anti squat it needs

so a big guy on a 400 needs a stiff shock and not much anti- squat from the chain pull and swmgarm angle... good for him

others in different situations need a different balance of all the forces

a light rider on a light bike with a lot of power/tourque and a lot of grip by comparison needs a softer shock and more anti squat..... again good for him (me)

it is glaringly obvious Taffy that your ability to explain your perception of the theory involved is at about high school physics level grade F - BUT if at the end of the day your bike works like a dream the theory does not matter and I sincerely agree that its a great outcome FOR YOU :cheers: :cheers:

as I posted in the other thread I am a fully qualified mechanical engineer. like it or not, people with my qualifications, some with far less practical experience, are the ones in this world who actually design and build motorcycles, if you think Im angry and throwing a Tizzy becasue you posted that i'm wrong about "squat" you are mistaken. I do not hold anything against you for what you've posted here, my gripes with failed cams and wonky valves etc are another matter altogether.

if you still think anything above in bold is wrong please explain why, im curious, not grumpy.