Kawasaki ZX-10R Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just curious.

Anybody out there running an 05 ZX10R at or near the front of there regional club?

If you are on Dunlops KR 120 / 195's

What spring rates are you running?

I was running .95 front .95 rear
Having trouble getting the bike to stop chattering and weaving(badly)
Bike felt so stiff, I thought I was going to loose my fillings. So I went to a
475 rear spring (.95 = 500 aprx) Huge change, bike was ridable, and set my personal best times on it.

However, in some long sweeping high spped corners the front is still chattering, and I have almost 50 mm sag set into it, and barely use all the travel (hence prob to stiff)

So I am looking for simple answers from real deal racers.. What spring rates you got in your bikes...

By the way I weight 200 lbs no gear.

Ohlins actually recommends the .95 / .95 combo, but I couldn't ride it that way.
:eek:ccasion1
Cheers
 

·
Hillbillie Mod
Joined
·
20,155 Posts
I think Im runnin 525 spring in the rear, and not sure about the front, but I thought .95, with traction std internals.

with the penske tripple rear.

My geometry is very steep, and Im runnin the 209s 190/60 rear.

only prob I have is over 160mph headshake...but thats just about tuned out.

Sorry I cant really be more specific, I leave most of the suspension stuff to my man, Jim Cambora, www.raceworxusa.com
 

·
Yankee Racer
Joined
·
14,838 Posts
i run a .95 in the front-traxxion internals and gonna have to look to see what the rear spring on my ohlins is. I have my front sag at 34.5mm and my rear at 27mm. I run michelin power race pr's which are 190/50 but have heard they will be going to a 190/55 rear soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
.95 in the forks, 550 on the shock with the 636 linkage. 20/35 sag in front and 10/30 sag in the rear. Used to run the 1.0 in the front and always had corner exit problems (push). If you are having trouble bottoming the front then look at oil level. The .95 is not to stiff for your weight. If you are not bottoming the front and your dynamics are good then take some oil out. What are you running for a shock? The 475 shock spring is too light for 200 lbs. What are your ride heights?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
madkaw said:
.95 in the forks, 550 on the shock with the 636 linkage. 20/35 sag in front and 10/30 sag in the rear. Used to run the 1.0 in the front and always had corner exit problems (push). If you are having trouble bottoming the front then look at oil level. The .95 is not to stiff for your weight. If you are not bottoming the front and your dynamics are good then take some oil out. What are you running for a shock? The 475 shock spring is too light for 200 lbs. What are your ride heights?
Not meaning to thread jack here as I am very interested on how this shapes up. Madkaw sounds spot on based on text book theories.

I am 200lbs gearless and have a 04 10r. Just about to do the suspension on it. The suspension tech suggested I go .975 on the spring on the front which sounds a bit stiff especially if some people are experiencing chattering with .95 springs. This tech suggested to a full revalve (traxxion AK20) with a fork extender and keep the back end low (penske tripple) for stability purposes. He has an ideal rake/trail/swing arm angle settings that works for his clients... i don't know what those are... yet.

So those who done it, does the 6r link yield a faster lap time on a smooth track? All i've heard is that it makes it less harsh on the bumps which is secondary to lap time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Tito said:
Not meaning to thread jack here as I am very interested on how this shapes up. Madkaw sounds spot on based on text book theories.

I am 200lbs gearless and have a 04 10r. Just about to do the suspension on it. The suspension tech suggested I go .975 on the spring on the front which sounds a bit stiff especially if some people are experiencing chattering with .95 springs. This tech suggested to a full revalve (traxxion AK20) with a fork extender and keep the back end low (penske tripple) for stability purposes. He has an ideal rake/trail/swing arm angle settings that works for his clients... i don't know what those are... yet.

So those who done it, does the 6r link yield a faster lap time on a smooth track? All i've heard is that it makes it less harsh on the bumps which is secondary to lap time.
If you are 200 then the .975 is actually ideal for you on the track. A little stiff but not too stiff. I just got off the phone with traxxion and they confirmed that .950 is a touch light and .975 is a touch heavy for 200 lbs. Like I said before if you cannot bottom these then it is either rider of fluid. I could bottom the 1.0 after taking about 6mm of fluid out. Setting them to 96mm instead of 90 as stock. But it was still too harsh and pushing.
I think wstaab done the initial 636 mod. I found the opposite of what he stated that going to the 636 linkage requires a softer spring. I actually went up 50lbs to keep the same settings. I would not sag the rear ride height. I lowered the rear to keep the same height when running 209's or the sportmax slick. It tank slapped terrible. A revalve is nice and the cartridges are excellent..... but...... it kills you when you spent all that money on suspension and a stock one goes around you. According to traxxion one of the most unadjusted things on track bikes is the front free sag. Alot are set at 10 to 12mm and in fact it needs to be around 20.
Also the rear free sag on these things makes a big difference. Most people set at 3-5mm. Set it at 10 and see what happens. Of course this is going to require a stiffer spring but all the sportrider.com and generic settings are not ideal for the track. Ex.. sag total and free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,537 Posts
i'm not racing mine so if and when i do attend a trackday i'm not real aggressive with it so my feedback may not be of much use however i am aware of how my bike works or doesn't.

My 1 and only test of the 056r dogbone & link setup was a street ride for 90m and yes it is less abrupt on bumps, expansion joints etc then the OEM dogbone/link and it certainly seems as though the spring is too soft now but i have yet to take any measurements to confirm my suspicion.
I do agree with madkaw about fork static sag #'s as 10-12mm leaves the frontend too high and its hard to get into the middle of the stroke so yes 20mm of static sag (bike weight only) is a good starting point (mine is 21mm and i can use the OEM springs for my suited 190lbs)

Tito the 6r dogbone/link is an improvement over stock when it comes to the suspsnsion using more of the stroke in a linear way then say progressive and while you may think it doesn't translate to quicker lap times it truly does in the form of keeping the tire planted on the pavement under acceleration. (most important)

BD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Here is what I have done so far. Found that .95 spring = 530 rate (found spring converter on google). So I was even stiffer in the rear than I thought. I lowered the rear to the max low with ohlins shock. To help with weave and headshake. No change in the harshness and weave.
Bike felt like a brick not using much travel in front or rear (acording to data acquisition)
Went to 475 rear. This past race weekend world of diff. Went straight. Head shake is calmed down, and I was able to increase rear ride height to get turn better. At first I was dragging pegs and shifter through fast turns with the softer rear spring, and less front preload.
The rear tire looks great now, wearing properly, Good corner exit tracktion. Rear is not bottoming over bumps, amd still only using 3/4 of the travel most of the time.

The front... took a lot of preload off to soften the front, now running lots of sag. 40mm. Fork barely bottoms at 2 hardest braking zones (remember I have full suspension data acq). Fork is ridding deep into the travel during fast sweepers, wich lowers the avail cornering clearance. The front is also chattering like a bitch, feal nervous through ruff sweeprs, shaking the bars and moving wide over bumps. Tire also looks like a cheese gratter was used on it. So something is deff not right in the front setup.

Next change will be .90's front raise the front height to 30 mm sag or so, and see what happens. This should help with clearance and make it more stable ( more rake) witch should allow me raise the rear again to make more clearance. ( dragging hard lately)

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
IMHO, I don't think that you are going to be happy with .90 front. If you are barely touching bottom with the .95 and 40mm sag then you are going to have more bottoming with the .90 and 35 sag. Your compression settings sound off on the shock.
If you went with a softer spring in the back how did you gain ride height? If you went with a softer spring then you had to loose all of your free sag, Front tire probably looks worse because it is squatting more in the rear now, hence why you run wide in sweepers.
Just suggestions, I don't want you to think that I am criticising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,427 Posts
I am not race set on mine either. But here is my plan. .95 springs on the traxxion, 525lb on the penske and close to 190lb loaded.


Sag has not been set since I am still installing the components.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,537 Posts
Dragone said:
I am not race set on mine either. But here is my plan. .95 springs on the traxxion, 525lb on the penske and close to 190lb loaded.


Sag has not been set since I am still installing the components.
Ted

My Penske has a 500lb spring and prior to the 6r parts being installed it was right on for my 190lbs suited but as i mentioned above things have changed so perhaps we can meet @ my house and do both bikes if your interested.

BD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
madkaw said:
If you are 200 then the .975 is actually ideal for you on the track. A little stiff but not too stiff. I just got off the phone with traxxion and they confirmed that .950 is a touch light and .975 is a touch heavy for 200 lbs. Like I said before if you cannot bottom these then it is either rider of fluid. I could bottom the 1.0 after taking about 6mm of fluid out. Setting them to 96mm instead of 90 as stock. But it was still too harsh and pushing.
I think wstaab done the initial 636 mod. I found the opposite of what he stated that going to the 636 linkage requires a softer spring. I actually went up 50lbs to keep the same settings. I would not sag the rear ride height. I lowered the rear to keep the same height when running 209's or the sportmax slick. It tank slapped terrible. A revalve is nice and the cartridges are excellent..... but...... it kills you when you spent all that money on suspension and a stock one goes around you. According to traxxion one of the most unadjusted things on track bikes is the front free sag. Alot are set at 10 to 12mm and in fact it needs to be around 20.
Also the rear free sag on these things makes a big difference. Most people set at 3-5mm. Set it at 10 and see what happens. Of course this is going to require a stiffer spring but all the sportrider.com and generic settings are not ideal for the track. Ex.. sag total and free.
RE: 636 mod, I understand the concept of the linear suspension action and all that good stuff, and it all makes sense. However, I haven't heard a fast racers opinion on the end result. All opinions count, don't get me wrong, just want more feedback so i can make an informed decision whether to try it out. What benefit would I see riding at race pace? If it makes you faster, by how much? Does it help finish the corners better? Is this a no brainer mod? Can someone spell it out for me?!:heyyou: Thanks in advance.:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,537 Posts
Tito i can't say what the end result would be @ race pace so naturally my remarks/opinions on the subject are based on my very limited experience to date however the 06 zx10 has the very same dogbone & links as did the Haydens SS bikes from 04,5 if thats worth anything.

BD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Big Daddy said:
Tito i can't say what the end result would be @ race pace so naturally my remarks/opinions on the subject are based on my very limited experience to date however the 06 zx10 has the very same dogbone & links as did the Haydens SS bikes from 04,5 if thats worth anything.

BD
That is worth something, just don't know how much:crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

I wonder why this mod isn't discussed as widely as other go fast mods... maybe it doesn't make you go fast?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,537 Posts
Tito said:
That is worth something, just don't know how much:crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

I wonder why this mod isn't discussed as widely as other go fast mods... maybe it doesn't make you go fast?!
but then maybe it does and thats why its not such a shared secret amongst racers. :mrgreen: racers are a funny lot don't cha know.

BD
 
  • Like
Reactions: madkaw

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Big Daddy said:
but then maybe it does and thats why its not such a shared secret amongst racers. :mrgreen: racers are a funny lot don't cha know.

BD
Yea, and I have seen the supersport guys last year at VIR with the 636 linkage on the 10r. Guess ama thinks it is supposed to be there because I thought you were not supposed to change it.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top