Another shock thread ...

Fitted NITRON's to mine, MAXTON fronts still to go on
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230502-183924_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20230502-183924_Gallery.jpg
    172.8 KB · Views: 14
  • 20230401_155258.jpg
    20230401_155258.jpg
    163.7 KB · Views: 14
  • 20230401_155250.jpg
    20230401_155250.jpg
    159.6 KB · Views: 13
  • 20230401_155238.jpg
    20230401_155238.jpg
    231.3 KB · Views: 14
piranha-bro2 said:
Are you talking about an XS650 Yamaha from the era, Paul??? If you've never ridden the wheels off a decent SF on the track or the road you'd know they aren't flexy or spindly in the slightest - put modern damping on them and they are even better. In fact good quality modern shocks will REDUCE the tendency of a spindly bike to play Gumby! Or are you just trying to upset the triple owners? :cool:

If you're happy to ride 1970's Bridgestone tyres and Ceriani shocks because they fit the era, go for it.
Click to expand...
The thread was about shocks for a triple, hence my comments about flex.
Triple owners don't need upsetting, they just don't know what they're missing.

I'm not certain that modern shocks and sticky tyres are going to do anything positive to a less than adequate more than 50 year old frame design.

Paul
 
Doesn’t it depend on how hard you are riding? If you are going fast enough to get to the point where the old style shocks and tires would slide, but the new stuff would grip then yes, you could flex the frame. But do we really ride like that very much these days? Grippy tires and compliant suspension will have benefits at speeds below 110%, particularly on less than ideal road conditions.
 
I have Wilburs piggy backs on my 79 Jota set up for my weight etc. Bloody pricey, but fabulous. Just dont like the look of others like Maxton orctacky blue springs.I also have Wilburs front and rear on my BMW R1200 ST and despite the odd looks( time has caught up with it) what a superb handling thing it is .Keith Nairn sorted the forks on my Jota..I can't recall what he did exactly, but I cant say i notice bendy frame or spindles ..Marx must ride like Rossi to get so out of shape..or maybe not?😉 I think the hall mark of good suspension is that you just dont notice it, no fiddling even needed, cos it just works.
 
Paul Marx said:
The thread was about shocks for a triple, hence my comments about flex.
Triple owners don't need upsetting, they just don't know what they're missing.

I'm not certain that modern shocks and sticky tyres are going to do anything positive to a less than adequate more than 50 year old frame design.

Paul
Click to expand...
Sorry, Paul, but if you haven't experienced it yourself, you will never understand how much these bikes can transform with the right parts... The Frames themselfes (at least on the 180°, but also on the RGx bikes) are very solid. I had the full journey on my bike...:

Innitial Setup of my bike: original rims, Metzeler tires with original width, original brakes, Marzocchi front and AG Stradas back
-first changed to Konis; made a lot of difference on handling, as the rear with me up was higher and the angle of the front fork was better
-then mounted a box-type swing arm (K&J) with needle bearings: improved the rear a bit, but now the front was to soft
-mounted different springs and changed oil grade =>much better on the front, but not where I wanted it
-mounted a fork brace - front now great, but rear a bit to stiff and tires after first season completely woodened. Handling was OK but still not where I wanted it
-changed to YSS, slightly longer - wow - what a difference! Bike first time was acting half way as it should with front and rear going down and up at the same time
-changed to GSX-R-Rims and BT012SS tires - completely different bike! Handling now even better than a VFR750 from mid 90's! Brakes superb (4-pot Brembos with GSX-R-Brake on the rear). Bike is a dream to ride, really handy, suspension even improved

And all that with the same frame without any bracing. Still holds on to what I can do with it. Was even on the race-track with it and it performed better than my limited abilities could make use of. Still hunted some nice other bikes down... No where near Rob or Andre, Jens or others, but at least ahead of the majority of the 60 bikes that went on the track of SPA. Scratched both sides of the engine on the tarmac... absolutely enough for me and better than most bikes I had the chance to ride (if not equiped similarely).

Did similar things on the 1000 SFC (Wilbers shocks, HH-modified front fork, GSX-R-Rims, modern tires, modern brakes) and had a direct 1:1 comparison with the original 1000 SFC. I would NEVER go back!

There is nothing wrong with keeping bikes original and enjoying it. it's just not true that 50 year old shock designs can even come close to what modern ones can do... But - be prepared that if you change the rear, you migh soon be dissatisfied with the front...
 
Laverdalothar said:
Sorry, Paul, but if you haven't experienced it yourself, you will never understand how much these bikes can transform with the right parts... The Frames themselfes (at least on the 180°, but also on the RGx bikes) are very solid. I had the full journey on my bike...:

Innitial Setup of my bike: original rims, Metzeler tires with original width, original brakes, Marzocchi front and AG Stradas back
-first changed to Konis; made a lot of difference on handling, as the rear with me up was higher and the angle of the front fork was better
-then mounted a box-type swing arm (K&J) with needle bearings: improved the rear a bit, but now the front was to soft
-mounted different springs and changed oil grade =>much better on the front, but not where I wanted it
-mounted a fork brace - front now great, but rear a bit to stiff and tires after first season completely woodened. Handling was OK but still not where I wanted it
-changed to YSS, slightly longer - wow - what a difference! Bike first time was acting half way as it should with front and rear going down and up at the same time
-changed to GSX-R-Rims and BT012SS tires - completely different bike! Handling now even better than a VFR750 from mid 90's! Brakes superb (4-pot Brembos with GSX-R-Brake on the rear). Bike is a dream to ride, really handy, suspension even improved

And all that with the same frame without any bracing. Still holds on to what I can do with it. Was even on the race-track with it and it performed better than my limited abilities could make use of. Still hunted some nice other bikes down... No where near Rob or Andre, Jens or others, but at least ahead of the majority of the 60 bikes that went on the track of SPA. Scratched both sides of the engine on the tarmac... absolutely enough for me and better than most bikes I had the chance to ride (if not equiped similarely).

Did similar things on the 1000 SFC (Wilbers shocks, HH-modified front fork, GSX-R-Rims, modern tires, modern brakes) and had a direct 1:1 comparison with the original 1000 SFC. I would NEVER go back!

There is nothing wrong with keeping bikes original and enjoying it. it's just not true that 50 year old shock designs can even come close to what modern ones can do... But - be prepared that if you change the rear, you migh soon be dissatisfied with the front...
Click to expand...
Of course they'll transform, but if you're not a top rider, which I'm not, you'll never feel the limits of the original setup.
The original frames aren't even identical from one to another, same as for the engines. Some frames are twisted ex factory, as are some cranks. Can always be made better certainly, it depends on how you ride.
There's also a lot of people out there who's hobby is tinkering bikes and making them better, chassis and engine, but they're not riding them.
To each his own.

Paul
 
Paul, as said: I am not a top rider at all and I was able to feel EVERY difference. They were so obvious, I think everyone would have noticed. The original setup was absolutely crap and I had several drops and accidents with the bikes due to it (and the shitty Metzelers), both with the 1000 SFC and the Jota. Especially the 750 SF(0) was trying to kill me several times. I decided not to make it work as it should as this would have meant a complete transformation of the bike and I had no intention to do that as I only wanted to restore it to original. I just did not like what I got. I sold the bike therefore, as I could not live with a bike that was trying to kill me (rear brake was blocking on the slightest touch, front brake was not really working well without serious hand force, front fork way to soft, rear shocks way to hard and so on and so on...). I had several situations where I had to brake hard (cars that pulled out all of a sudden etc.) and where the rear went sidewards under braking, causing almost the bike to throw me off...

None of the bikes that I had the chance to ride though had a problem with the frame (except for the 120° Jota, which simply is a bad combination of old frame where the engine is a stabilizing factor and ruining that by mounting it with rubber mounts). Else the frame was always stiff, especially if you compare it to the Honda's etc. of that time. The cracks have nothing to do with the frame beeing twisty, it has to do with a wrong headstock design (to long unsupported area leading to much stress into the lower frame tubes). On the first 1000ccm and the 750's with 38mm fork, it is more the fork than the frame that is causing issues...

Sure new shocks do not transform the riders ability to ride. But they can be much more foregiving, more comfortable and give better roadholding of the tire, which improves stability, ridability and therewith confidence of the rider into his ride. And that for me was a big, big plus!
 
I guess, as I think it has already been stated, it’s a question of why are you looking for improvements over the standard set up. If it’s for road riding at legal speed, then I guess all you need to worry about is improving the comfort of the ride. If you plan to do track days then that’s perhaps another matter, but considering the results of the likes of PK Davies, Mick Hunt, Lennart Backstrom, Kevin Hughes et al managed back in the 70s and 80s (on road and track) with very little modification to standard then how much better are you wanting it to handle?
 
Way better, Andy...

I still can't believe how they achieved what they did. However, also the forks and shocks, the tires etc. were different than the ones used for road bikes, be sure... That said, competition was also not having much better material and so, being a bit ahead of them made a difference. The difference though wasn't on the performance, it was on the durability of the bikes, hence they did not go for sprint but for long distance racing... ;-)

If you see what Red did to the bikes to make them competable on sprint races, too, you can imagine what was missing...
 
Laverdalothar said:
Way better, Andy...

I still can't believe how they achieved what they did. However, also the forks and shocks, the tires etc. were different than the ones used for road bikes, be sure... That said, competition was also not having much better material and so, being a bit ahead of them made a difference. The difference though wasn't on the performance, it was on the durability of the bikes, hence they did not go for sprint but for long distance racing... ;-)

If you see what Red did to the bikes to make them competable on sprint races, too, you can imagine what was missing...
Click to expand...
A frame
 
I think it depends whether the individual likes to go into battle with the bike when riding, or whether he wants to go into battle with the road challenges (bends, etc). For most I think it is a bit of both.

For me, I like to make my bike as 'transparent' as possible and have made a million small mods so that it is as easy to ride as possible, leaving more energy for getting the most out of the thrill of the ride itself. Suspension wise, good shocks (and fork cartridge emulators) have made a big improvement in that regard. Having a bike with character should not mean putting up with its shitty bits, when they can be dialed out... IMHO. There is a limit of course, if you dial-out all the quirks you end up with an anodyne but characterless Honda, or similar.

And those racers of old - if they has access to better shocks, would they have used them? Hell, yes.
 
It's a hell of a lot easier to ride the wheels off a bike on virtually any racetrack than on an open road, especially one you might not be familiar with. The road is full of unknowns - you suddenly encounter corrugations, pot holes, lumps & bumps, crap surface. Your safety and enjoyment depend very much on how your bike behaves. Sure, you can get used to a pig, you can learn to live with something that slaps your hands into the tank on the right combo of crest, bend and surface irregularity, that weaves and gyrates like a Chinese new Year dragon, or refuses to stop anywhere near as quickly as you wish it would as the peril you're charging into causes your life to flash a little before your eyes - but you can also dial all that shit out and ride in the confidence that such horrible, stress-inducing things won't happen.

I had my SF set up beautifully in the 70s and 80s for a 70's bike, super reliable, solid, predictable handling. I'd modified it to improve the shortcomings I picked up through very fast road riding (back when it was easy to do without being chucked in the pen!). For racing I didn't have to do much, if anything - if it handles at speed on a bumpy open road it'll handle on a track. And I kept modifying it as new developments became feasible and available. I've ridden decent stock SF1s of late and with good shocks and modern rubber they're excellent - but the front brake is shite and the ergonomics isn't for me.

I'm right in lock step with Lothar on this.
 
Paul Marx said:
A frame
Click to expand...
Stick with the standard components if that's what floats your boat. I prefer to enjoy riding bikes rather than them trying to kill me.

Still with my standard frame - no modifications on the Jota-frame (just on the 1000 SFC, but only those modifications that the factory did to the late frames anyway to distribute the stress into the lower tubes). Feel no need for it. Felt the need though for better suspension components... ;-)
 
This discussion is an excellent example of the two types of collectors and owners: the preservers vs the improver/modifiers. Even when things are new you can see the difference, cars, bike, boats, whatever. One group cannot help themselves from making changes and others are dedicated to leaving things stock using only genuine OEM parts and then only to service or repair, never to “improve”. This tendency is even stronger once an item stops being contemporary and moves into the realm of the collectible.
So who is right or correct? If modifications are made wisely the functioning is improved and usage is more pleasurable, but if kept totally stock and OEM, the market rewards with higher values. IMHO, there is no right or wrong answer, but I come down heavily on the modification side for the things I own. I am unable to leave well enough alone.
 
both ways are OK for me (that's actually why I sold the 750, as I could not appreciate it for what it was originally but did also not want to "destroy" it by making it the 1.000th 750 SFC replica). I just prefer the bike has to suite me and my way of riding. I never intended to sell any of them but must admit, that I f.e. kept every original part I changed on the 1000 SFC so that if I (or my children) may sell it one day, the owner can decide what to do with it. There are to many original bikes in Museums though that I need to keep them original to preserve it for history... :giggle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top