This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

sag - are you getting it right?

Joined Nov 2001
17K Posts | 773+
Ely, England
it appears that there was so much confusion over the rear shock sag on the '03-'05 KTMs that the factory did a dealer bulletin to explain.

simplified: it turns out that 115mm was the correct sag. considerably more than huseys run i believe.

what is the quoted sag for the huseys around this age? and do we run the same shock as them because if so we have been getting it wrong as well!

Joe?

regards

Taffy
 
The sag on a Husaberg is different than a katoom because the angle of the shock in the chassis is different. the factory setting is only a suggestion the riders weight is what determines the actual final sag setting.

db
 
NO NO NO NO NO

very good topic Taffy, and obviously there must be confusion.

If anyone ever complains about headshake, guaranteed they have 100 sag, as per generic sag spec for Japanese motorcycles. It WILL shake, but man will it turn!!!

DB, although the geometry is different, is still uses 115mm riders sag. Again, any less and its stability will be compromised.

Static sag is 30 - 35 mm.

Now you are correct in saying that your riders sag is the result. You adj static sag first, then check riders sag. If rider sag is within spec, spring rates are proper. Too much sag, spring is too stiff, no enough, a soft spring is on the bike.

Why I don't know. I do know that I ran 100 mm once and hated it, then one of the factory guys explained the proper way to me and viola, a proper handling berg was had.
 
i think in there i had agreement?

i think 90% of UHE members believe that 90-105mm sag is the correct figure and indeed so did all the katoom owners. half probably didn't read there manuals and as you say had headshake due to jacking the arse end up!

for those that don't know, there is some kind of 'bump stop' in the KTM which squeezes up when you well, er put the squeeze on it!

so it turns out that 115mm is the figure or 115-120mm i believe. this is one of those where i know it doesn't affect me so i can barely be bothered to hit the keys 8) 8)

i think it will affect a few owners though.

regards

Taffy
 
A question:

Do you set the sag with a full tank of gas, 1/2 tank, or empty?

The guy who does my suspension set's the preload on the shock spring at 5mm, and as it turns out this gives a static height of 35mm (with 1/2 tank of gas).

With me on it, in all my regalia, tool belt, full camel back etc.... The (amount of spring preload can be varied from 4 to 6mm to suit) This works out to about 4" of sag or 101 mm's, or just a little less. I would consider my bike to be stable at speed. Considering the above mentioned 115mm of sag for the KTM's, that number would 36% of the total travel for the advertised rear wheel travel for the Husaberg's 320mm. "Conventional" wisdom as put forth by the aforementioned web page is 33%, or 105mm of sag. Just don't have so little sag that the spring has no preload on it what so ever when the bike is on the stand. And as also mentioned earlier, if the static measurement is too little after setting the sag with you on it, the spring is too soft and visa versa.

I'm sure that you all saw the post of FC550 and the telescoping shock needle offered by Race Tech. For those of you who do not know, the PDS shock has two pistons on the shaft, one is for speed sensitivity, the other for position sensitivity. One of the ways the shock knows where it is in it's travel is that there is a needle attached to the upper shock body that extends down into the shock body. This needle is designed to go into the shock shaft, thereby cutting off oil flow down the shaft. So in essence the needle becomes a valve of sorts and shuts off a bypass for the oil, thusly forcing the oil to flow through the shim stacks of two pistons. The timing of the needles insertion into the bypass, the shape of the needle which can vary the amount of bypass cut off, has been changing every year since the inception of the PDS system. This bypass cutoff also has to be coordinated with the spring rate, especially in light of the fact that for so many years the PDS system came with an rising rate spring. Believe it or not, [sic] there has not been good coordination between the use of the rising rate springs and the shape of the needles. For example, my 01 has a needle that is a long tapered affair so there is a gradual cut off of the bypass. This did not lend itself to the use of a rising rate spring, as there would be a spike in spring rate at the same moment there was a dramatic increase of hydraulic damping effect. Most suspension tuners were then putting on straight rate springs like my 01 has to achieve a more progressive effect. So, now, the shock needle is a short stubby affair to radically increase bottom resistance right at the end, but, at least KTM is doing this, now they are installing straight rate springs from the factory. This results in a softer ride, and will have a tendency to bottom, and to counter act this a suspension tuner may try and compensate with stiffer valving which would produce a rougher ride over the small stuff but be good at resisting bottoming. When in fact they should be using the rising rate spring (sounds like linkage doesn't it?) to have a more progressive damping effect, to better coordiante with design of the needle.

There are other fators that cause headshake though, and can can be mistaken for a geometry headshake and that is that the suspension can be too stiff in the front causing the front wheel to deflect when hitting bumps at speed. This has happened to me in the past, and was easily cured with a couple of clicks less compression damping in the front, and the difference was huge.

As we all know, the PDS system is extremely sensitive to ride height. I have experimented with more pre load on my bike, which produced quick turning, and a nervous head, and with less pre load which resulted in a more stable head but a noticable push with a more conscious effort to keep weight over the front end to keep it turning the way I like. Also, one needs to keep in mind the high speed compression adjuster on the newer bikes, which consequently has an effect on ride height when hitting successive bumps, can you say whoops?

After my experimentation on my 04 here is what I have come up with: First, start with the fork tubes set at the first line under the fork caps.

Second, my suspesion tuner knows what he is doing, after all that's what I paid him the big bucks for, and I leave the spring set at 5mm of preload.

Third, if the bike is shaking it's head a bit, try softening the fork compression a couple of clicks, that usually takes care of that problem.

Fourth if the bike is not turning as well as I'd like it, then raise the fork tubes one line and try it, this will transfer more weight to the front, and thusly slightly steepen the head angle at the same time, so a small adjustment makes a big difference here. Another effect of this weight transfer will be to smooth out the front end under high speed chop.

Fifth, if you feel the bike is riding a bit high in the back after getting the steering down, try backing off the high speed adjuster on the shock a 1/4 turn. This will allow the rear of the bike to setttle a bit more in pounding terrain.

Sixth, you can also adjust the slow speed adjuster in the rear to help with the slow speed suppleness.

However, keep in mind that each one of these adjustments needs to be made seperately and tested to check the outcome. Suspension tuning is no different than carb tuning and making more than one adjustment at a time will muddy the waters, IE you will become confused, and not truly understand the effect of the changes you are making.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when you adjust a compression clicker on a shock or a fork, you are effecting the overall oil flow in the fork or shock. Even though each individual clicker is designated for comp or reb, the adjustment in one will affect the other to a degree. So the order of the day is to make an adjustment, and carefullly test those results to make sure you are not correcting one problem and making another.

For instance, one might feel the rear is too stiff, so one keeps backing off of the compression clickers to get a softer ride. So, in doing so one is allowing the suspension to travel further through it's stroke, so now the suspension is compressed more and wants to return faster since it's A) compressed more and B) has less damping via the change in the compression adjuster b/c the oil in the resevoir will be able to return to the shock faster, thus having an effect on the rebound damping circuit. The end result will be that the bike might now start to kick you in the back side. Another example would be that if the spring was too soft in the first place, and now the bike is riding too low in the travel and is repeatedly coming into the more progressive portion of the damping caused by the position sensitive nature of the PDS system, so if this was the case, decreasing the amount of daming through the slow speed, or high speed comp damping clicker would only make it worse.

So at this point is it the fact there is not enough rebound damping? Or are you allowing the bike to travel too far through the stroke because you backed off so far on the clickers to try and overcome an incorrect shim stack setting (bad valving) and have now created this kicking problem?

One needs to keep in mind that clickers have a limited range of operation and cannot overcome an initally bad valving job, or incorrect spring rates.

And for those of you who are thinking of buying the adjustable preload adjusters for your forks BEWARE. Incorporated into the WP forks is a top out spring. The top out spring is just what it sounds like, it's the spring that helps keep the forks from clunking when you pop a wheelie, or when the front wheel suddenly comes off the ground. There is a delicate balance between how much fork spring preload there is, and not affecting the top out spring. IE preload the main fork springs too much, and you will start to compress the top out spring. You can see how the top out spring works by putting your bike on a stand to where the front end is suspended, now pull down on the front wheel, and you'll notice that the front suspension extends, and when you let go, it compresses. It is critical that this movement not be changed to keep the suspension working properly, as this will help keep the front wheel in contact with the ground over uneven terrain.
 
some folk are buying extra long top out springs to save damage to the steel ring under the oil seals. the list goes on...

regards

taffy
 
And so they use the extra long springs, so that the coils will crash into each other to save the steel ring?
 
i haven't thought this through fully, maybe i'm wrong or need to pull the forks apart to 'suss' it out but the steel rings under the oil seals used to get bent up at 45 degrees due to topping out i think. after all when you remove the inners from the outers you are essentially doing what i'm stood here thinking about.

whacking the stop of the inner agianst the outter seal and ring. tell me this is so...?

fact is that they use 32 long top out springs i think over at ktalk. i bet brendan has a picture.

regards

Taffy
 
Sounds to me like there is too much fork spring preload being used to compensate for too soft fork springs, thusly negating the cushioning effect of the top out springs, as they were already compressed.

If I'm not mistaken, the longer a spring is of a given coil diameter, the softer said spring will be. So, if all they did was to go to a longer spring with same diameter, the resulting spring rate will be lower. And since the spring is now longer, there will not be enough room for said spring to fully collapse, the coils will crash into each other making a solid piece.

There are some suspension tuners out there who truly understand the complex kinetic, hydraulic factors, and engineering plusses and shortcomings that come into play during the function of suspension components, and will tune said components to produce a quality product for their customers. Then there are those tuners who sell lots of gadgets and widgets to try and achieve the same results all the while lining their pockets with customers money that need not have been spent on said gadgets and widgets.
 
fryguy said:
NO NO NO NO NO

very good topic Taffy, and obviously there must be confusion.

If anyone ever complains about headshake, guaranteed they have 100 sag, as per generic sag spec for Japanese motorcycles. It WILL shake, but man will it turn!!!

DB, although the geometry is different, is still uses 115mm riders sag. Again, any less and its stability will be compromised.

Static sag is 30 - 35 mm.

Now you are correct in saying that your riders sag is the result. You adj static sag first, then check riders sag. If rider sag is within spec, spring rates are proper. Too much sag, spring is too stiff, no enough, a soft spring is on the bike.

Why I don't know. I do know that I ran 100 mm once and hated it, then one of the factory guys explained the proper way to me and viola, a proper handling berg was had.

My manual say 35 static, 90-105 rider sag. I think I'll check mine again, I'd rather err on the stability side than the "turning" side.
 
Here is my setup that i found for my 04 FC450 so far:

Shock spring: linear 84/250, replaces the PDS7 76/95/260
Static sag: 38mm, gives a lot more traction on acceleration bumps
Rider sag: 115mm, quite normal range, i think
Rebound damping: wide open, keeps the rear end working, prevents kicking
Comp. damping: more closed to prevent falling through the stroke on whoops and jump faces
Forks height: 2. groove aligns upper clamp to compensate the low rear end. I had some serious understeer after lowering the rear end.
Forks damping: less rebound and strong compression seems to prevent my arms getting tired in the first few laps.

Next step: higher seat - thanks to Taffys proposal - i hope to reach the ground in the paddocks


Happy Christmas

lhf
 
And then you add in preferences due to application. Euros like a bike to squat under acceleration, ala Jeremy McGrath and lhf. The bike also seems to settle into corners better. Desert guys won't care about seriously tight turning and stability is the more important issue.
 
fryguy said:
DB, although the geometry is different, is still uses 115mm riders sag. Again, any less and its stability will be compromised....

....Why I don't know. I do know that I ran 100 mm once and hated it, then one of the factory guys explained the proper way to me and viola, a proper handling berg was had.

fry

there is a stopper inside the rear unit which means when you set the sag that it just keeps squeezing up. this started in '03 i believe. so the info you have is for the later models fella.

and what DID the factory guy explain to you anyway. c'mon pray tell... :evil: :evil:

btw folks i'm thinking of going to a straight rate spring and i weigh 200-205 pounds. i believe that a 9.2 or 9.4 would be about right. anyone know for sure?

regards

Taffy
 
Taffy said:
fryguy said:
DB, although the geometry is different, is still uses 115mm riders sag. Again, any less and its stability will be compromised....

....Why I don't know. I do know that I ran 100 mm once and hated it, then one of the factory guys explained the proper way to me and viola, a proper handling berg was had.

fry

there is a stopper inside the rear unit which means when you set the sag that it just keeps squeezing up. this started in '03 i believe. so the info you have is for the later models fella.

and what DID the factory guy explain to you anyway. c'mon pray tell... :evil: :evil:

btw folks i'm thinking of going to a straight rate spring and i weigh 200-205 pounds. i believe that a 9.2 or 9.4 would be about right. anyone know for sure?

regards

Taffy

On an '05 FE 550, I net 105 race sag with 35 mm static sag. This is with an 8.8. The older WP shocks used heavier springs due to different valving. I would say you would be very close with a 9.0/9.2.

115mm race sag is too much for my riding style, I just can't get used to it, and I tried it since all the KTM guys say that is how you set up a no-linkage suspension. Makes my bike handle like a river barge. Run whatever works for you, suspension is a very subjective thing.
 
i fitted 145mm offset ktm125mx TCs and i have more trail than ever but it shortened the wheelbase, brought the front wheel back under the bike and allowed me to drop the forks through by 15mm.

it lowered the centre of gravity and made the bike very stable. it grips well in corners which is also what i wanted.

fry WAS using an 84 and he weighs 240. i need to know if all his sag, ride height and everything worked out fine or whether he went up to an 88?

how much do you weigh john and where and what speed do you ride?

regards

Taffy
 
Taffy said:
i fitted 145mm offset ktm125mx TCs and i have more trail than ever but it shortened the wheelbase, brought the front wheel back under the bike and allowed me to drop the forks through by 15mm.

it lowered the centre of gravity and made the bike very stable. it grips well in corners which is also what i wanted.

fry WAS using an 84 and he weighs 240. i need to know if all his sag, ride height and everything worked out fine or whether he went up to an 88?

how much do you weigh john and where and what speed do you ride?

regards

Taffy

Oops, forgot to post my weight..230 lbs. 6' 4". With the 8.8, I have 6 or 7 mm of preload on it. By the way, I am running .46's up front. I would have too much preload on an 8.4, I think, for it to work for me.

I am a mid-pack "A" rider/racer. Did about 40 miles yesterday on the gas, and the bike is really nice. I actually could stand to go up one more rate on both ends, as I can still bottom both ends a little too frequently. It is very close though.

The bike turns and handles near perfectly, no headshake, turns on a dime, and is extremely plush but still controlled.
 
john

we sound similar. i'm 25 pounds less and about the same speed. sounds like my .46s will be about right by the time i've softened all the valving off. while the rear is hard to fathom. fry likes the 84 yet you're lighter and like the 88 and might go up!

trouble is john all suspension from WP is hard and we think we have the right springs. but if the valving came off they would wallow and mush everywhere and we'd all be riding heavier springs.

it does sound as though the 90 i was thinking of can now be a 84-88. any thoughts?

regards

Taffy
 
One other trait of a no link suspension is that they are not as sensitive to small spring changes as a linkage type suspension would be. Jeremy Wilkey from MX Tech told me this. So, I would not sweat the difference between an 8.8 and a 9.0. I think this is the spring range you will need.

With your 14mm offset clamps, you already have increased trail quite a bit. Running big sag numbers (115mm) further increase trail. In light of your set up with the clamps, you could get to the point where, although the front end bite is terrific, the bike begins to handle sluggish. I would think you may like to run a little less sag, closer to 105 than 115, to get some of that trail back.

Fry likes lots of sag, so he can get away with a lighter spring.
 
I don't exactly know what shock I have but my race sag is 104mm and my static sag is 40mm.

The bike turns very easily, I don't miss my lines ever and I don't have any head shake, because my *** is off of the seat 75% of the time.

This bike was setup for Bobzilla, who has the same weight as I do +/- 5 lbs.

Besides moving the bar forward (my own taste) and soon raising it, and playing with the clickers in the front, I have not done anything new.
 

Register CTA

Register on Husaberg Forum! This sidebar will go away, and you will see fewer ads.

Recent Discussions