Roy Gavin wrote:Major , I just said that if you measure them there isn't any progressiveness, and not much point telling me I am wrong unless you actually measure them and find different.
I'm sorry, but I obviously was not clear. My fault. I was not referring to your statement about Progressive Suspension's springs in any way, and was not arguing about what happens when you compress them. I left that unaddressed. I was referring to your statement about Ohlins' position on straight wound vs. progressive wound springs:
Roy Gavin wrote:Ohlins web site has a good write up on this - you will note that they fit straight wound springs on everything the sell.
And now:
Roy Gavin wrote:The bit I remember on the Ohlins site was I think in the FAQs - why doest Ohlins fit progressive springs?
The answer was that" the technology did not exist to make a spring which is progressive to any meaningful amount."
The link I provided (
http://www.moto-services.net/products.php?cat=54&pg=2) was one where you can buy a whole array of Ohlins brand progressive wound springs for their products (the second 1/2 of the page). Thus my question about why they would make these springs for their shocks if they think they are useless and do not use these springs on their shocks. The implication is that Ohlins
does, in fact, recognize some value in progressive wound springs.
Roy Gavin wrote:35/30 mm sag are race settings , for use on smooth race tracks to stop attitude changes under brakes/ acceleration , or if you are lucky, on smooth , new, paving machine laid asphalt.
They are totally unsuitable for anything less, which makes them useless 98% of the time for most sport road riders, never mind old bumblers on their airheads or GSs, and I am surprised that someone like you has come up with such arrant nonsense.
Once again, my apologies. I must not have been clear. The "nonsense" I came up with was not mine. It was the numbers published by Sport Rider Magazine(
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_0006 ... index.html), Motorcyclist Magazine and Race Tech Suspension's Paul Thede (
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/howto ... index.html), all
for street bikes. Their numbers for race bikes are lower: 25mm-30mm on forks. You said:
Roy Gavin wrote:
It seems that suspension works best with some pre compression on the spring - Ohlins suggest 18mm + - 2mm , and at the stock 18mm setting the shock they supplied for my GS gave 44/45 mm sag.
It is generally accepted that the front sag should be around 10% more than the rear, and following this gives you around 50 mm sag at the front.
This setting works well on most road bikes, irrespective of the amount of total fork travel available to you, and is OK for reasonable tracks too.
I said this was more than I'd seen recommended by anyone for "most road bikes." That is not nonsense, that is fact, as shown by my links. If anyone is providing arrant nonsense, it is either all the sources I have listed, or yourself. I have provided my sources to you. You have only told us that it is not true, without a source for your numbers other than yourself. This does not mean you cannot be correct about it working, especially for a long travel GS, only that I was completely accurate when I said that it was much more than I had ever heard recommended for "most road bikes."
I have also never seen or spoken with any suspension tuner, dirt, street, or track who recommended
any specific sag setting "irrespective of the amount of total fork travel." With Sport, SuperSport, Cruiser, and Adventure bikes out there, there is a very wide range of travel. Your numbers would use up most of the travel of many Cruisers. Since Cruisers currently are (sadly) "most road bikes," that makes the statement even harder to justify.
