Cafe Racer Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Emulators... RaceTech.. 35mm.. '78 Yamaha SR500.. street bike.

Are they all that and more as I have been reading??
Sounds as though they are the ideal for a street bike ridden under various road conditions and thru some twistys..I have progessive springs set my weight and the bike ..I also use one .75 inch spacer that can be reduced for the emulators additional thickness....

I have read the bits here posted thru forum search especially enjoyed the thread originated by joe c., yet none have posted their findings all that well as to their improvement or not.....

They sound like a nice additional handleing upgrade....thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
What did Joe C's thread say? He's a racer, I'm just a street stroke with a keyboard.

I'd dumpster those progressive springs. Straight-wound until someone builds digressive. I suppose you could put them in upside down.

Springs control the wheel. Damping controls the spring. Fixed orfice damping rods have one theoretical shaft velocity they're right. Talking shaft velocity not ground speed.

SO you plomp in your emulators, you now have variable orfice valving. Theoretically they can be made right for a range of shaft velocities= more better.

I put a pair in my 86 GSXR, even did an installation thread if'n you want to search. Haven't ridden the bike enough to be definative, but it's better. Makes you realize how bad the rear shock sucks right off. Until the bike's balanced suspensionally you'll never be able to take full advantage.

Now it drives the front wheel in the ground so it'll cut rather than laying over like a fat girl, but that's from the springs, but you have to change the damping, less compression more rebound, to control a stiffer spring.

You could make damper rod forks cut as good, but then they're going to be clunky in low-speed situations, here again talking shaft velocity not ground speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
What did Joe C's thread say? He's a racer, I'm just a street stroke with a keyboard.

I'd dumpster those progressive springs. Straight-wound until someone builds digressive. I suppose you could put them in upside down.

Springs control the wheel. Damping controls the spring. Fixed orfice damping rods have one theoretical shaft velocity they're right. Talking shaft velocity not ground speed.

SO you plomp in your emulators, you now have variable orfice valving. Theoretically they can be made right for a range of shaft velocities= more better.

I put a pair in my 86 GSXR, even did an installation thread if'n you want to search. Haven't ridden the bike enough to be definative, but it's better. Makes you realize how bad the rear shock sucks right off. Until the bike's balanced suspensionally you'll never be able to take full advantage.

Now it drives the front wheel in the ground so it'll cut rather than laying over like a fat girl, but that's from the springs, but you have to change the damping, less compression more rebound, to control a stiffer spring.

You could make damper rod forks cut as good, but then they're going to be clunky in low-speed situations, here again talking shaft velocity not ground speed.

Would it matter if a progressive spring were put in upside down? The spring doesn't know up from down. Force is put to it and the weaker end compresses first no matter what end it is on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,449 Posts
Would it matter if a progressive spring were put in upside down? The spring doesn't know up from down. Force is put to it and the weaker end compresses first no matter what end it is on.
You should really fit straight rate springs with emulators, progressive springs 'confuse' them
The reason for having closer coils at the top is to reduce unsprung weight
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Not sure if this is allowed here but here is the link to that thread... http://www.caferacer.net/forum/vintage-motorcycle-racing/16948-shocks-forks-springs-explain-me.html

thanks for the replys. I do think that from whats in joes thread and in various other searches here and on different sites that these would work as well with progressive springs...I am gathering that they regulate fluid control (oil ) so much more effectively than a fixed orfice especially under harsh compression and rebound.. I have also read that they intended to be used with fixed rate spings , but have read that with progresives, they have been effective..
I have never had an issue with this not holding a turn well ,exit or entry , it just tends to dive on the big front brake like I got a fat girl on the back when stopping ....The factory orfice sizes work well , just thinking that these could improve front control even more and to some degree the rear as it is affected by the fronts reaction to compression and rebound..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Having thought it over this week and applying 'what would I gain by this?' that I will stay with just the progressive rate springs, rather than adding emulaters into the mix..I am happy with handling on this bike bike from the factory other than it needing more resistance to front end dive while braking .... While in the tubes replacing 35 year old seals, I'll clean up the orfice openings to facilitate better fluid control and experiment some with oil weight and quantity.. thanks for your replys..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,780 Posts
I have been happy with Yamaha forks on my racebikes without emulators. If you are getting too much brake drive, try a little more preload on your Progressive springs. I use Progressive springs in my FZ600 forks. They have air fittings and about 5lbs of air helps a lot.

Ken
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top