The Spares Company
Club Shop/Regalia
Parent Website
Contact Officials
Machine Registrar
Club Secretary
Membership Secretaries
MPH Editor and Forum Administrator.
Section Newsletters
Technical Databases
Photos
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Information
Bike Modifications
Machine Data Services
Manufacturers Manuals
Spare Parts Listings
Technical Diagrams
Whitakerpedia (Vincent Wiki)
The Club
MPH Material Archive
Flogger's Corner
Obituaries
VOC Sections
Local Sections
Local Section Newsletters
Miscellaneous
Club Assets
Club History
Club Rules
Machine Data Services
Meeting Documents
Miscellaneous
Essential Reading
Magazine/Newspaper Articles/Letters
Adverts and Sales Brochures
The Mighty Garage Videos
Bikes For Sale (Spares Company)
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
Tech. Advice: Series 'B' / 'C' 500cc/1000cc Bikes
Modified Steering Stem
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hadronuk" data-source="post: 75805" data-attributes="member: 1866"><p>Thanks very much gentlemen, you both make a lot of sense. I hope you don't mind if I ask some follow on questions that I hope are useful to the discussion?</p><p>Both my pull-down spring mod and this mod are designed to reduce the probability of tankslappers, so allowing softer springs to be used safely.</p><p>But as tankslappers are thankfully very rare anyway, how can we know if we have succeeded?</p><p>Is there anything in the handling of the revised geometry bike that lends support to this view?</p><p>I can see that reducing the amount and the variation of trail has improved the responsiveness. Is the steering also lighter at very slow (near walking) speed? That is something I would particularly appreciate, as it is embarrassing how much I weave and wobble!</p><p>I fully buy the argument that better & more predictable geometry allows softer springing with the concomitant benefits for grip as well as comfort. Colin Chapman conclusively demonstrated it! But we are still up against the basic physics that the shorter the distance over which a impact is absorber, the higher the average resultant force. Careful tuning of spring-dampers helps enormously, but all things being equal if you reduce suspension travel the bump transmitted to the rider must be greater.</p><p>So every mm of travel gained is of benefit, but I am unclear if there is still an intention to test with a longer damper?</p><p>As I said earlier, I think I can make a case that the bottom link horizontal position may not be the watershed it is always assumed to be. If I am right, not testing with a longer damper might be a missed opportunity to create a mod that is even more widely appreciated.</p><p>Slightly off topic: Norman, can you recall if the Cadwell road repair was across or parallel to the track?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hadronuk, post: 75805, member: 1866"] Thanks very much gentlemen, you both make a lot of sense. I hope you don't mind if I ask some follow on questions that I hope are useful to the discussion? Both my pull-down spring mod and this mod are designed to reduce the probability of tankslappers, so allowing softer springs to be used safely. But as tankslappers are thankfully very rare anyway, how can we know if we have succeeded? Is there anything in the handling of the revised geometry bike that lends support to this view? I can see that reducing the amount and the variation of trail has improved the responsiveness. Is the steering also lighter at very slow (near walking) speed? That is something I would particularly appreciate, as it is embarrassing how much I weave and wobble! I fully buy the argument that better & more predictable geometry allows softer springing with the concomitant benefits for grip as well as comfort. Colin Chapman conclusively demonstrated it! But we are still up against the basic physics that the shorter the distance over which a impact is absorber, the higher the average resultant force. Careful tuning of spring-dampers helps enormously, but all things being equal if you reduce suspension travel the bump transmitted to the rider must be greater. So every mm of travel gained is of benefit, but I am unclear if there is still an intention to test with a longer damper? As I said earlier, I think I can make a case that the bottom link horizontal position may not be the watershed it is always assumed to be. If I am right, not testing with a longer damper might be a missed opportunity to create a mod that is even more widely appreciated. Slightly off topic: Norman, can you recall if the Cadwell road repair was across or parallel to the track? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What was Mr Vincent's Christian Name?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
Tech. Advice: Series 'B' / 'C' 500cc/1000cc Bikes
Modified Steering Stem
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top