Front Lowering Kit

[grubsie]

Maybe someone can clear my thinking on this kit. I already have Race Tech springs, but thinking about lowering the front 1" to make the steering a little quicker. I would have my machinist friend cut them down to 1".

These are the spacers I am talking about. https://www.baronscustom.com/catalog...559/index.html

I understand how these work and the principle behind them and know that I will have to cut the top spacers 1" and all that, but I am probably over thinking things.

I know that these spacers in the lowering kit go on the underside of the dampener piston along with the top out spring. There are 2 holes drilled in the lower end of the dampener tube near where the bolt that secure them to the lower fork, but if I remember correctly, there are 2 smaller holes the the tube a little over 1" from the underside of the dampener piston.

2 concerns here:
1) as the forks compress, the top out spring and spacer have no pressure and can slide freely slide up and down the dampener tube as their sole purpose is to limit the fork length when fully extended. Can the spacer block/interfere with the 2 smaller holes in the tube depending on how compressed the forks are and can limit the dampening? If i remember correctly the larger holes on the bottom are for compression and the 2 smaller holes at the top for rebound. The spacer can't interfere the lower holes because top out spacer prevents that. I think a solution would be to have spacers made up so they fit tight on the tube and install a set screw in the spacer to lock it in place so it acts like it is part of the piston therefore never interfere with the upper holes.

2) With the 1" spacers in, the 2 top holes are now 1" lower in the lower fork. Or I guess 1" further from the bottom of the upper fork tube. Would this change the timing of the job the upper holes in the dampener are doing? If that's the case, I am thinking I would rather have my machinist remove a 1" section form the dampener tubes, weld them back together, clean up the welds and slip a fitted tube over the welds and weld that to the dampeners tubes as backup strength. This would eliminate the need for spacers. Ideally, the best, easiest route would be to be able to buy 1" shorter dampener tubes but I doubt they exist.

[Doc_V]

You can save yourself all that trouble by simply loosening both triple clamps and sliding the fork tubes up an inch. That way you don't sacrifice travel, and best of all, if you don't like it you can easily switch back.

[grubsie]

You can save yourself all that trouble by simply loosening both triple clamps and sliding the fork tubes up an inch. That way you don't sacrifice travel, and best of all, if you don't like it you can easily switch back.

Yeah, Know that trick. I don't care for the look. I tried that with my RSV and discovered that ears on the lower forks that the fender bolts to will hit the bottom of the lower fork tins causing dents if and when the front end bottoms out. Happened a few times on my RSV and it's not a very nice sound or feel. Both bikes have the same exact forks with what I am assuming different springs rates in stock form. The only true way to eliminate this problem is to shorten the travel.I really liked the feel with the RSV front lowered though.

[Shores]

Yeah, Know that trick. I don't care for the look. I tried that with my RSV and discovered that ears on the lower forks that the fender bolts to will hit the bottom of the lower fork tins causing dents if and when the front end bottoms out...........

The same thing may happen with your method. By shortening the spacers you are lowering the upper tubes down into the lower tubes and shortening your travel but still putting the trees and tins closer to the fender brackets. Sounds like you need a little more fork oil, a heavier weight oil or some preload washers on the top of the springs.

[grubsie]

The same thing may happen with your method. By shortening the spacers you are lowering the upper tubes down into the lower tubes and shortening your travel but still putting the trees and tins closer to the fender brackets. Sounds like you need a little more fork oil, a heavier weight oil or some preload washers on the top of the springs.

Shortening the upper fork tube by taking 1" out of the spacer and adding it to the lower tube will not cause any problems with fender brackets contacting the bottom of the lower tins.

I have attached crude drawings. Don't make fun of my artistry. I am using hypothetical numbers to explain.

Figure 1 shows the fork in the stock position. top of upper fork tube flush with top of upper tin/triple tree. There is 5 3/4" between the bottom of lower tin and top of lower tube fender ears. Th lower travel is 5" so fully bottomed out, there is still 3/4" between the ears and the lower tin.

Figure 2 shows the upper fork moved up in the triple tree 1", leaving 4 3/4" between the ears and the bottom of the lower fork tin. With still having 5" of travel of the lower tube, the ears will contact the bottom of the lower as they will want to travel 1/4" more than the 4 3/4" available.

Figure 3 has the 1 " spacer in the lower tube and the forks set back down flush with the top of the upper triple tree. You have the same 4 3/4" distance between the ears and the bottom of the lower tins. The difference now is you only have 4" of travel resulting in the lower ears stopping the same 3/4" distance from the bottom of the lower tins.as happens in the stock setup. This is basically the same as figure 1 except that the distance between the lower ears and the tins is reduced 1" but the travel has been reduced 1" also.

It simply lowers the front 1".





I am by no means a math wiz. I am a show me type of guy so I experimented. The way I figured this out was by removing the cap and the top spring so there wouldn't be any resistance on the lower tube so I could fully compress. Tried it with the stock setup, then with the upper tube raised in the triple trees without a spacer in the lower tube and with a 1" spacer in the lower tube with the upper tube back in it's stock flush position.

Since I got that all figured out, I turned to the damper just so I could overthink that issue.

Now I'm just waiting for you to bring that saying have about "hurting the team".

[Shores]

So if in figure #2, the 4.75” space resulted in the brackets hitting the tins, then figure #3, also with a 4.75” space, may result in the forks bottoming out. I’ve never heard of folks having issues when lowering their front using kits.

[grubsie]

So if in figure #2, the 4.75” space resulted in the brackets hitting the tins, then figure #3, also with a 4.75” space, may result in the forks bottoming out.

Figure 2 hit because the lower tube still had the stock 5" of travel so it would hit. It's the stock setup with just raising the upper tubes in the trees.

Figure 3 has the 1" spacer in the lower tube which only allows the lower tube to travel 4".

I’ve never heard of folks having issues when lowering their front using kits.

Because the spacer placed below the piston of the dampener tube shortens the travel distance of the lower tube by whatever the length spacer is used.

Fortunately, I was able to figure to figure that out by physical experimentation. Unfortunately, the damper tube issue can't be figured out physically and it's definitely above my pay grade to figure out that kind of math. I'm thinking I should try contacting one of the suspension companies like Race Tech to see if they may have any insight on this issue.

[ElVispo]

I might be very stupid right now, but please explain this to me...
If you put a distance, or spacer as you guys refer to it inside the bottom of the lower fork leg, how can that make it lower?
In my head it would be an inch higher?
How can it possible be lower?

So please help me straight out my mind, cause now i'm confused!

[Lug Nut]

Rsv is fine if you do 3/4 in....mine didnt bottom out

[ElVispo]

Anyone who could, please explain to me how this works?
See my question two posts above...