Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org - Reply to Topic
Honda FireBlade Discussion of the Honda CBR 900RR, Honda CBR 929RR, Honda CBR 954RR, and Honda CBR 1000RR Motorcycles.

Thread: Steering Dampaner Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
A valid e-mail address is REQUIRED. You will not have access to any site features until you activate your account using the activation e-mail that is sent to this address.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
03-13-2017 4:04 AM
Bikelifesinceth
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycuRRie View Post
In all your hard riding you have never experianced a tank slapper
Lol right!! When I first stepped up from a 600 to a litre I Damm near died getting headshake at about 140 followed by a nice whiskey throttle&#1 28528; and even though I seen my life flash before my eyes I didn't panic and I pulled out of it...the main things I've noticed about the 954 is #1 its STUPID lightweight (430lbs) which nowadays is about what a 600 weighs! #2 out of the 5 bikes I've had the 54 has a pretty short rake ( in my opinion) which think is what also contributes to slight headshake and wobble when hitting bumps etc: and #3 the bike doesn't utilize a steering stabilizer...I don't necessarily think the stabilizer is needed if you can ride the bike like it's made to be ridden but on the other hand it is a big help!
08-11-2005 8:16 AM
Stealth
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetonion
For the amount of money we're talking about I really don't understand the "I've never had one so I don't need it," argument.How about, "I've ridden 100,000 miles without an accident. So I just don't need a helmet."
Good point... but I'm told the Scott's or Ohlins are the ones to get and they aren't cheap... close to a grand here in Aus!
04-29-2004 1:29 PM
Athens954
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt232
My car is collecting dust now.....
My car is full of dust and bird $hit!

In about a week I will have closed one year when I had the car serviced. The funny thing, is that I have done a little under 3000km. How's that for economy

I get to service my car once a year
04-29-2004 1:20 PM
matt232
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie_929
lol mate I'm going to lose any status update you throw up. I still only have the 205klms on it. I only use it on the weekends as I have a company car for work.

My car is collecting dust now.....the bike and I are permanently attached, and have been for 700km
04-29-2004 9:48 AM
gr0undz3r0
Re: Steering Dampaner

Well - just an update from the Thread starter - Head got shaking nice in a quick lefthander @ about 120 - 130. So Ill be getting a Scotts...
Proof is in the fact that it scared the crap outta me.
count me in - Ill buy as soon as I can spell a-b-l-e.
04-29-2004 8:35 AM
Jungleboy
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by abtech
The more conventional (and less nervous) technique to get the same overall results would be to use .95 springs, 110 mm oil height (5 wt Showa), 36 to 38 mm of sag and zero front end drop. The 30 mm sag in the rear is fine. You will find more ground clearance, straight line stability, excellent turn in and less nosedive on the brakes. I am assuming the 200 pound figure is your suited weight, if not you may even want to try 1.0 springs . . .
Yeah once I put the 0.90kg/mm springs in I was wish that I had gone for slightly stiffer set with maybe a little more sag as with the 0.90 and ~30mm of sag it does feel a little choppy of smaller bumps yet still dives more than I would like under hard braking (I did raise the oil height a bit which helped a little to stiffen up the last part of the stroke) anyway its not perfect at the moment but its not too bad either! I hope to start going to the track abit in the near future, so I should get it sorted a bit better then (with the addition of a decent shock and steering dampner.
Ps. I fluctuate from about 190-200 without gear.
04-29-2004 1:16 AM
roadrash929
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by gr0undz3r0
Little information please. I see lots of steering dampaners on bikes. I personaly have never owned on. What are the beinfets for a guy that has no track intention at the moment. I ride pretty hard and just wonder what it would help.
thanx
I have a Scotts for my 929 and LOVE IT!
04-22-2004 6:40 PM
aussie_929
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt232
Status update:

She sits in the garage with exactly 400km on the tripmeter, aussie_929 how about yourself?

lol mate I'm going to lose any status update you throw up. I still only have the 205klms on it. I only use it on the weekends as I have a company car for work.
04-22-2004 1:30 PM
abtech
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by slowpoke
So what's this deal about 86 octane?
It's all you'll ever need.

That is all . . .
04-22-2004 1:22 PM
slowpoke
Re: Steering Dampaner

So what's this deal about 86 octane?
04-22-2004 1:04 PM
abtech
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuTAnT
You've got to remember that head shake is a component of various elements.

Steering angle, front wheel weight and suspension set up. If it's quite steep it will want to slap. I dare say this has to to with the natural damping effects of the steering angle. You've also got the front wheel weight. The more weight that is over the front wheel there is less tendancy to shake. It's either weight on, or completely off so the road doesn't contact the wheel. Lastly you've got your suspension. You need to return the tyre to the road as quick as possible so it's not floating about and able to move in mid air. This is why the stock suspension is so ****. It's way overdamped and undersprung at the front. The result is it hits a bump and doesn't move then slaps like a bitch.

Essentially it's that middle ground where there is little weight on the front wheel that causes all the trouble. Ie under hard acceleration, or when you hit a bump mid corner and the suspension doesn't return the front tyre to the ground in the correct manner.

Hence the comment that tank slapper can be sorted through suspension (and they can, as my bike is fine now).
You really should take a look at Tony Foales' books. He has proven empirically that steering angle has nothing to do with instability, rather trail is the single most important geometrical aspect that affects a 2 wheeled vehicle's straight line (on smooth or bumpy surfaces) stability. Wheel weight and suspension all can contribute to the relative stability, but small trail figures = headshake and potential uncontrolled lock to lock fork movement.

While total trail is also affected by the rear wheel (ie: swingarm length and relative distances between axle/swingarm pivot etc.), it is the trail (or lack thereof) in the front steering mechanism that determines a bike's overall high speed stability. Simply optimizing your suspension does not change the geometry as the 929 (and to a slightly lesser degree the 954) have very small trail numbers with respect to wheelbase. Add extremely large static and loaded front wheel sag (in a stock configuration) and you further reduce this trail figure making the "as delivered" package a handful under the best of circumstances.

Many Blade owners get some very suspect advice and proceed to "fix" their bike by lowering the triple clamps in an attempt to make an already quick steering bike turn even quicker.

As I have mentioned before, lowering the front end (or conversely raising the rear) do not put "more weight" (well, it actually does, but such a tiny amount, that any positive effect is negligable) on the front wheel making it turn faster. It does exactly 3 things:

Reduces ground clearance
Reduces trail and increases high speed instability
Makes turning the bike require less effort from the rider

Actually, raising the rear doesn't reduce ground clearance and although it makes turning easier, it can also (depending on how far it is raised) reduce traction during corner exit and increase oversteer under acceleration.
04-22-2004 12:59 PM
luvtolean
Re: Steering Dampaner

I met .org member Cowboy at a track day a couple of years ago. He'd raised his forks in the clamps (more fork above) and was telling me about it. I basically told him, "dude, you're not going to like it, but let me know how it goes".

He came in and couldn't get the wrenches out fast enough to drop the front end down, and get the fork flush with the clamp.

I have always run the forks flush, but I've also messed with lots of rear ride height, which also loads the front. This will also make the bike "slap like a bitch".

If you're happy with your set-up, that's cool. But yours isn't the experience of most guys with 929's I've known.



04-22-2004 12:07 PM
FuTAnT
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by abtech
Dropping the triples any amount on the tubes reduces trail and makes the bike MORE prone to shake (or am I reading this wrong?). Most of the racers (self included) actually raised the triples to ADD some trail (and ground clearance which is seriously lacking).

Re the WP shock, is it the same overall length as the OEM unit? Did you shorten or lengthen it? This would make a bike difference depending on the ratio of change front to rear on the ride height. Are you using the stock tires or have you changed model or brand? No two different manufacturer's tires are the same diameter (and overall height) and this will greatly affect the trail as well.
You've got to remember that head shake is a component of various elements.

Steering angle, front wheel weight and suspension set up. If it's quite steep it will want to slap. I dare say this has to to with the natural damping effects of the steering angle. You've also got the front wheel weight. The more weight that is over the front wheel there is less tendancy to shake. It's either weight on, or completely off so the road doesn't contact the wheel. Lastly you've got your suspension. You need to return the tyre to the road as quick as possible so it's not floating about and able to move in mid air. This is why the stock suspension is so ****. It's way overdamped and undersprung at the front. The result is it hits a bump and doesn't move then slaps like a bitch.

Essentially it's that middle ground where there is little weight on the front wheel that causes all the trouble. Ie under hard acceleration, or when you hit a bump mid corner and the suspension doesn't return the front tyre to the ground in the correct manner.

Hence the comment that tank slapper can be sorted through suspension (and they can, as my bike is fine now).
04-22-2004 9:59 AM
matt232
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie_929
lol I doubt that I will be catching up anytime soon. I like short fast rides so I dont really rack up many klms.

After almost 3 yrs of owning the 929 I only had like 5800klms on it
Status update:

She sits in the garage with exactly 400km on the tripmeter, aussie_929 how about yourself?
04-21-2004 10:10 AM
abtech
Re: Steering Dampaner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jungleboy
Mine is dropped 10mm in the front (10mm from upper edge of tripple clamp to the mating line of the fork tube/fork cap) with 28-32mm sag at the front with 0.90kg/mm springs and revalved and 30mm sag at the rear (spring preload adjuster in position #6) , it is a bit nervous but turns in beatifully, I admit that its not the most stable at speed but im willing to compromise to get it cornering how i like! I will definately be getting a damper in the near future!
ps. I weight about 200lbs
The more conventional (and less nervous) technique to get the same overall results would be to use .95 springs, 110 mm oil height (5 wt Showa), 36 to 38 mm of sag and zero front end drop. The 30 mm sag in the rear is fine. You will find more ground clearance, straight line stability, excellent turn in and less nosedive on the brakes. I am assuming the 200 pound figure is your suited weight, if not you may even want to try 1.0 springs . . .
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome