Raising forks with stock triple tree

[Dopey]

So ive seen it suggested that it may be possible but haven't found any confirmation but is there any room on my stock triple tree ro raise the forks up to the top plate? I know it wouldn't be much and I could pull the top plate and check for myself but before I do all that wondering if anyone has done it. I want to eventually raise the rear a little so I may not need to drop the front and I don't want to drop it more then a half inch so if I don't have to get a different triple id prefer not too. Appreciate any info you can give

 

[Mythos]

A 200/55 tire raises the back without decreasing ground clearance in front. You might be bale to find some raising links too. I think Soupy's links will do that. I'd like to go with Brock's but I think they will only make them to lower the rear.

If you want to lower the front you could also go with a 16 inch rim.

 

[Berlin Germany]

droping the front - here 15mm ~ 1/2"
gen1 = gen2

distance blocks round 15 mm long, hole dia 10 mm, dia outside ~ 28 mm
+ 4 new alen bolts M10 and 4 new self locking nuts (35-40Nm)

with these 15 mm the pumps etc don´t reach the windscreen
(with 20 mm blocks i guess not too, but more?)

raising the rear :
take 10 mm shorter rods and the tail gets 20 mm up
remember the "gen1" swing arm ratio is 1 : 2

at "gen2" the ratio is 1 : 2.3 - so 10 mm less at the rods will cause 23 mm rear up

to get the tail some more 7-8 mm up the 190/55 is a good choice
the 200/55 does the same but its wideness reduces the agility a bit - this makes no sense if you wanna go to the hill roads
- with very tight corners and very quick swings from left to right corner

if these kind of roads are your main goal change to a wider superbike bar and you will have allways happy minutes and hours. (see SSGT_B)

sb-drawing with lengths :

i recommend :
B = 760 mm
H = 65 mm
T = 150 mm
dia = 22 mm

 

[Berlin Germany]

choice of rear tires size
see / read

(...)
pdf : How does the (rear) tire width affect the driving behavior

in 1 short sentence :
the wider the rear wheel is the more you have to lean in curves at same speed
or
the less wide the rear wheel is the higher your speed is in same corner with the same lean-in angle - you are quicker than others.
(caused by that i downgraded my rear one to 180/55 on a 5.5 x 17)

 

[Berlin Germany]

see ssgt_b´s handle bar change

Final Product, Top Mount Bars | General Bike Related Topics

Here are the final pics from my top mount bar install. I think it came out good, even though I’m still missing the clutch line but no big deal. The overall ride is nice. Seating positioning is greatly improved for me although I would like a more comfy seat. If I had to do it all again, I would...

www.hayabusa.org

and if you keep 10-12 mm wide gaps between the pump´s bodys and the switches
you have NOT to cut the windscreen.
you can turn the bar at nice / usefull hight

see my version at my ´00

 

[michael parris heuberger]

A 200/55 tire raises the back without decreasing ground clearance in front. You might be bale to find some raising links too. I think Soupy's links will do that. I'd like to go with Brock's but I think they will only make them to lower the rear.

If you want to lower the front you could also go with a 16 inch rim.

HI. There are not any good 16 inch front tires out there.

 

[Mythos]

to get the tail some more 7-8 mm up the 190/55 is a good choice
the 200/55 does the same but its wideness reduces the agility a bit - this makes no sense if you wanna go to the hill roads

I'm far from a track expert or a tire expert but it seems to me, you have to lean the bike the same number of degrees at a given speed no matter how wide the tire is. A narrower tire might respond more effortlessly to leaning but the bike still weighs the same with either tire so it has to lean the same amount with either tire.

I don't go through tires very often. One set lasts me a whole year. It sure seems to me that the 200/55s I've used have a higher center and steeper side tread than a 190/55 and much more so than the stock 190/50. This might have to do with the fact the 200/55s I've been using are a lot more race oriented than the smaller tires I've used in the past. I thought a 200 tire was made for a wider rim than a 190 tire. If a 200 is made for a wider rim than the rim you put it on, the beads get squashed closer together than intended and so the tire has to get taller---NO? My ZX-14 has a much shallower swingarm than the busa. I can see that a 190/55 comes closer to the inside front of the swingarm than a 190/50 and a 200/55 comes even closer (less than a quarter inch).

Sometimes the tires I use don't come in 190. They are more often used on liter bikes which are designed for a 200 tire. It doesn't make sense that a road racing bike would be designed with a tire size that has poorer handling qualities than the Hayabusa. It does make sense that a road racing tire would lift the rear, have a pointy profile for responsive turn in and have large side tread contact patch for extreme lean angles.

I can't get to the edge of the tread with a 200/55 and I can with a 190/55. If I'm leaning the bike harder with the 200/55 on there, I should be low siding because I do roll rubber over the edge with a 190/55. If I am correct in my observation that the 200 tires are more oblique in profile (taller at the center and steeper sides) than a 190, there should be a larger contact patch when leaned at extreme angles. That is another aspect of handling to consider.

I may buy a 190/55 again just to compare it to a 200/55. My feeling so far is the 190/55 tips in a lot quicker than the stock 190/50 and a 200/55 is even more so. If 200 tires are in fact more elliptical in profile than 190s, they would behave like a thinner tire with the advantages of a wider contact patch on the side tread. However, I only have an opportunity to test once each year on both my bikes. My opinion would be a lot more qualified if I went through tires every 1500 miles like some people do.

Final note, I just put a 200/55 RS-10 on my 14 and they are much rounder in profile than other 200/55s I've used. They do not inspire confidence in cornering as my other 200/55s did and I have very large chicken strips. There may be more to tire profile than the width and aspect ratio.

 

[Mythos]

HI. There are not any good 16 inch front tires out there.

Don't they use 16" rims front/rear for road racing? I thought they did in Moto GP. There uoght to be some decent tires if 16 rims are for road racing. I would have no doubt the selection is a lot more limited though. Obviously I have no reason to look. I don't want to lower ground clearance with a 16 rim. Pretty sure the 16" front BST was heavier than the 17" front too. No need for that unless you are drag racing.

 

[Berlin Germany]

@Mythos

did you read my pdf-file and did you watch the drawing in it?

 

[Mythos]

No, I had not but I just did. According to the pdf, rear tires have grown in width on sportbikes for visual appeal. I would agree that a wider tire looks better and so does a less round, more oval shaped profile.

I now see what you mean about a wider rear tire requiring additional lean angle to remain stable in a corner at the same speed as a narrower tire. When the bike leans, the contact patch moves away from the center of the tire (and the motorcycle) more with a wider tire than it does with a narrower tire. Also there is more force (call it leverage) being exerted on the edge of a wider tire causing it to buckle more while in a lean and this makes the rear hop or squirm.

The information in the pdf asumes that all tires have a more or less even, semicircular profile. The drawings show that. The text makes no mention of different shaped profiles, just width and aspect ratio. I wonder what year this article was written because round prfiles have gone out of favor since I've been into bikes starting in 2008. One of the reasons a taller tire was suggested to me at that time was because a taller tire usually doesn't have a round profile, it is sharp in the center and flat on the sides. It does tip in more easily like a narrower tire because it's center is narrow. More rubber is contacting the pavement when leaned over as well. The best of both worlds.

In spite of the new information I have learned about tire width effecting lean angle and force exerted against the outer edge of a tire, I still feel a tire with an oblique profile obviates both of those to a large degree if not entirely. The oblique shaped profile also provides a larger contact patch in a lean than a semicircular profile. I don't have any expert documentation concerning that but it makes sense to me. You will find information about the larger side contact patch of some tires online very easily. I'm sure you've already read some of that and whether it is effective or not is a whole other argument. Science says, "not". Track riders usually say "is." Theory and practice don't always jive.

I will agree with you that a circle shaped profile in a narrow tire will have superior handling characteristics to a wide tire with a round profile. Case in point is the Battlax RS10 200/55. I have it on my 14 right now and it is very round in profile. I don't like it at all compared to other 200/55s I have used or even the 190/55 I used. That's enough to tell me that a rounder profile in any tire width is not what I want. My impression is that smaller tires are typically more round in profile. I've had three different ones and they were all like that. Other than the RS-10s I recently purchased, the pointiest tires have been 200/55s. This coincides with advice I was given years ago.

 

[fallenarch]

All interesting conversation. My experience with 55 series tires is similar to @Mythos . Remember how you adjust your weight has a lot to do with things and you ride a 55 different than a 50 as far as hanging off. But I would raise the rear 1" with the Schintz racing dogbones. They are cheap and really improve the bikes ability to track a line. They roll some weight onto the front wheel and that really was a surprising change. If quicker direction changes is what you are looking for you might need to go higher than an inch or also lower the front. I did up 1 inch long ago and love the bike's handling. The best way to improve quickness is wheels though IMHO. I don't like the wider bars as it doesn't feel right in the tuck to me.

 

[ZeePopo]

I run a 200/60 on the rear. Ya can't be using the same PSI on your tires as you keep going up in size. There's too much mass to flex so higher pressures are needed to get the same performance as a lower profile tire.

 

[Dopey]

All interesting conversation. My experience with 55 series tires is similar to @Mythos . Remember how you adjust your weight has a lot to do with things and you ride a 55 different than a 50 as far as hanging off. But I would raise the rear 1" with the Schintz racing dogbones. They are cheap and really improve the bikes ability to track a line. They roll some weight onto the front wheel and that really was a surprising change. If quicker direction changes is what you are looking for you might need to go higher than an inch or also lower the front. I did up 1 inch long ago and love the bike's handling. The best way to improve quickness is wheels though IMHO. I don't like the wider bars as it doesn't feel right in the tuck to me.

1" dog bones ordered

 

[fallenarch]

1" dog bones ordered

Here is the article where I discovered the 1" riser trick. People don't get that all the systems of the bike work together to make the bike controllable. One of the reasons I documented all the decisions made in my 10 year Fresh-up Build was to point out that it's not about collecting trick parts it's about a strategy for evaluating what gets the bike to where you want it. For example, the first step in getting better braking is to get the suspension setup correctly. More power at the lever is useless if the bike dives as soon as you apply brakes. Another example is ride height. Lowering the bike for looks or even saddle height can significantly impact handling.

 

[HayaWakened]

Here is the article where I discovered the 1" riser trick. People don't get that all the systems of the bike work together to make the bike controllable. One of the reasons I documented all the decisions made in my 10 year Fresh-up Build was to point out that it's not about collecting trick parts it's about a strategy for evaluating what gets the bike to where you want it. For example, the first step in getting better braking is to get the suspension setup correctly. More power at the lever is useless if the bike dives as soon as you apply brakes. Another example is ride height. Lowering the bike for looks or even saddle height can significantly impact handling.

View attachment 1620113

Great article! Thanks!

 

[Mythos]

I run a 200/60 on the rear. Ya can't be using the same PSI on your tires as you keep going up in size. There's too much mass to flex so higher pressures are needed to get the same performance as a lower profile tire.

I've had good luck using low tire pressures with Pirelli track tires. Super Corsas are good in this respect. Also the Metzler Comp-K slicks. They might use a stiffer sidewall for race tires. Low pressure in some of the tires I had was scary on the street. If the tires get hot enough, the air expands inside increasing the pressure. Speed also has an effect on the amount of flexion in a tire.

Here is the article where I discovered the 1" riser trick. People don't get that all the systems of the bike work together to make the bike controllable. One of the reasons I documented all the decisions made in my 10 year Fresh-up Build was to point out that it's not about collecting trick parts it's about a strategy for evaluating what gets the bike to where you want it. For example, the first step in getting better braking is to get the suspension setup correctly. More power at the lever is useless if the bike dives as soon as you apply brakes. Another example is ride height. Lowering the bike for looks or even saddle height can significantly impact handling.

View attachment 1620113

One whole inch is a lot. Did you need to move your wheel back a lot? Do you think one less link in the chain might be in order to keep stock wheelbase when lifting the tail this much?

What are Schnitz's links made of? Must be steel, hey? Not aluminum and definitely not Ti at that price.

https://store.schnitzracing.com/schnitz-raising-link-suzuki-gsx1300r-hayabusa-99-20/

 

[Dopey]

I've had good luck using low tire pressures with Pirelli track tires. Super Corsas are good in this respect. Also the Metzler Comp-K slicks. They might use a stiffer sidewall for race tires. Low pressure in some of the tires I had was scary on the street. If the tires get hot enough, the air expands inside increasing the pressure. Speed also has an effect on the amount of flexion in a tire.



One whole inch is a lot. Did you need to move your wheel back a lot? Do you think one less link in the chain might be in order to keep stock wheelbase when lifting the tail this much?

What are Schnitz's links made of? Must be steel, hey? Not aluminum and definitely not Ti at that price.

https://store.schnitzracing.com/schnitz-raising-link-suzuki-gsx1300r-hayabusa-99-20/

Aluminum

 

[Dopey]

Well I installed the links and haven't got to really try them out yet. Now when i installed them i noticed after everything was tightened up and there was no load on them that I could slide them side to side some. Is this normal with ther stick links or even lowering links? I didn't pay any attention when I took the old ones off.

 

[kml]

14 years on the Schintz 1 inch raising links. Zero problems.

cheers
ken

 

[kml]

One whole inch is a lot. Did you need to move your wheel back a lot? Do you think one less link in the chain might be in order to keep stock wheelbase when lifting the tail this much?

With one inch raising link the swing arm is at a more acute downward angle thus reducing the distance between the drive sprocket and the rear sprocket hence they shorten the wheelbase slightly.

One less link would shorten the wheelbase even more.

I removed a link to see what it did, I did not notice a difference other than it was harder to remove the rear tire as it was closer to the front of the swing arm and there was less slack in the chain when attempting to remove it over the rear sprocket.

cheers
ken