StromTrooper banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
I rock at logic
Joined
·
368 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
... the instructions were in German. The pictures were clear though, so
I really couldn't screw things up that bad. :)

While I notice an improvement, it's not quite what I was
expecting, having read so many posts about what an
amazing difference the springs made for other people.

Anyway... the service manual states that the springs
should be installed with the tighter pitch at the bottom of
the fork, while Wilbers' instructions include a picture and an
"achtung" stating that the springs should be installed with the
tighter pitch at the top of the fork.

I installed them per the service manual, but I'm wondering
if it really makes a difference.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
233 Posts
Always go with the manufacturer. There's a reason they want the tighter pitch up top. (Don't ask me, I use Sonic Springs straight rate).
 

·
I rock at logic
Joined
·
368 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I went with the service manual because the stock springs
were progressive and Suzuki installed them with the tighter
pitch at the bottom.

Maybe some physics major can explain why they'd work
better installed one way versus the other. :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
Just put one one way and one the other. :lol: ...... :shock:

Anyway it shouldn't be too hard to swap them around.
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Jonnylotto said:
Always go with the manufacturer. There's a reason they want the tighter pitch up top. (Don't ask me, I use Sonic Springs straight rate).
Tighter pitch should be at top so spring can get "progressively" stronger the more it's compressed. :roll:
 

·
FORUM GODFATHER.....R.I.P. PAT
Joined
·
38,048 Posts
Coil bind would happen on the bottom too.
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
greywolf said:
Coil bind would happen on the bottom too.
Yes I agree but the tighter coil displaces more oil resulting in a higher oil level and if the new ones have a more massive tighter coil resultant oil level would be higher.
 

·
FORUM GODFATHER.....R.I.P. PAT
Joined
·
38,048 Posts
Now that makes sense.
 

·
I rock at logic
Joined
·
368 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I sent the question to Wilbers and got this reponse from Klaus Huenecke:

"No, it does not matter technically, the spring will work correctly either
way. The reason we say to install it with the tighter wound ends up is, that we want to reduce the unsprung weight on the wheel by as much as possible."

I guess I'll take them out and flip them over.
 

·
FORUM GODFATHER.....R.I.P. PAT
Joined
·
38,048 Posts
Since the trapped air can add a little to the resistance to compression, bound coils down could be a little stiffer since they displace more oil and the air volume is therefore smaller. The unsprung weight thing was in my mental hard drive but apparently in a bad sector. :wink:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
233 Posts
LucasD said:
I sent the question to Wilbers and got this reponse from Klaus Huenecke:

"No, it does not matter technically, the spring will work correctly either
way. The reason we say to install it with the tighter wound ends up is, that we want to reduce the unsprung weight on the wheel by as much as possible."

I guess I'll take them out and flip them over.
Now that doesn't make sense...the entire spring is "unsprung weight"
 

·
FORUM GODFATHER.....R.I.P. PAT
Joined
·
38,048 Posts
Nope. It's continuously variable. The top of the spring goes with the fork tubes/sprung wieght. The bottom goes with the fork legs and internals/unsprung weight. More coils on the bottom increases unsprung weight. When the fork gets compressed 5", the inertia of the lower end has to be overcome enough to move 5" in relation to the sprung mass of the bike while the top doesn't move at all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
719 Posts
Old progressive fork spring thread revival

Nope. It's continuously variable. The top of the spring goes with the fork tubes/sprung wieght. The bottom goes with the fork legs and internals/unsprung weight. More coils on the bottom increases unsprung weight. When the fork gets compressed 5", the inertia of the lower end has to be overcome enough to move 5" in relation to the sprung mass of the bike while the top doesn't move at all.
Hi Greywolf,

I'm not picking on you, I'd like your input on this. I understand the logic of what you said here. And it makes sense for a straight rate spring over large, slow-compression bumps. But I just installed some progressive springs and had to ponder the up/down spring thing. Your explanation most accurately (I beleive) describes the currently accepted logic. So it seems a good place to post an alternate point of view. I opted to install the tightly wound end to the bottom of the fork. Here's why: The tighter end is weaker and will respond significantly over small, rapid road irregularities - when unsprung weight is most critical. With the tight coils at the top of the fork the remainder of the spring will have to travel up the fork tube to compress those weaker coils at the top - and become unsprung weight moving upward with the axle. With the softer (tighter) coils at the bottom, the axle can react while the remaining spring above remains relatively inert. Could this be what Suzuki has in mind or do you know if it's more complex than that? Thanks,

Bill
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,893 Posts
I sent the question to Wilbers and got this reponse from Klaus Huenecke:

"No, it does not matter technically, the spring will work correctly either
way. The reason we say to install it with the tighter wound ends up is, that we want to reduce the unsprung weight on the wheel by as much as possible."

I guess I'll take them out and flip them over.
I wouldn't bother. While Klaus is absolutely correct, the difference orientation makes in unsprung weight is tiny compared to the rest of system.
Flip them the next time you change fork oil. :)
 

·
FORUM GODFATHER.....R.I.P. PAT
Joined
·
38,048 Posts
I think in either case the difference will be so small as to be unnoticeable.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,893 Posts
Hi Greywolf,

I'm not picking on you, I'd like your input on this. I understand the logic of what you said here. And it makes sense for a straight rate spring over large, slow-compression bumps. But I just installed some progressive springs and had to ponder the up/down spring thing. Your explanation most accurately (I beleive) describes the currently accepted logic. So it seems a good place to post an alternate point of view. I opted to install the tightly wound end to the bottom of the fork. Here's why: The tighter end is weaker and will respond significantly over small, rapid road irregularities - when unsprung weight is most critical. With the tight coils at the top of the fork the remainder of the spring will have to travel up the fork tube to compress those weaker coils at the top - and become unsprung weight moving upward with the axle. With the softer (tighter) coils at the bottom, the axle can react while the remaining spring above remains relatively inert. Could this be what Suzuki has in mind or do you know if it's more complex than that? Thanks,

Bill
Bill,

If you don't mind my jumping in:

You're overthinking this. The force is felt in the whole spring at once. It doesn't, in any practical sense at least, start at one end and travel to the other. In other words, the spring doesn't know, or care, which end it's being compressed from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,225 Posts
Bill,

If you don't mind my jumping in:

You're overthinking this. The force is felt in the whole spring at once. It doesn't, in any practical sense at least, start at one end and travel to the other. In other words, the spring doesn't know, or care, which end it's being compressed from.
Exactley. . . . . . .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
719 Posts
Bill,

If you don't mind my jumping in:

You're overthinking this. The force is felt in the whole spring at once. It doesn't, in any practical sense at least, start at one end and travel to the other. In other words, the spring doesn't know, or care, which end it's being compressed from.
My point was that over small bumps the soft 20% of the spring is compressing more (per inch of coils) than the other 80% of the spring, not that the compression was traveling from one end to the other. It makes sense to me to have the soft end at the bottom in order to cushion the spring above it and effectively increase the sprung weight of the spring itself, at least over small bumps where it matters. If 80% of the spring has increased upward travel (in order to compress the weaker top coils) there is definitely some added unsprung weight - probably much more than having an extra two or three coils on the bottom.
Ok, the bottom line is that there isn't much difference so this is really more of a mental exercise. I think the logic has been underthunk (new word?) and that only heavy end/light end has been taken into consideration. I'm throwing in lighter/stiffer spring action and the logic appears to oppose the benefit of an extra two or three coils of sprung weight on top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,852 Posts
The unsprung weight thing was in my mental hard drive but apparently in a bad sector. :wink:

Regularly schedule maintence is in order....please "Defrag" immediately to prevent further loss of sector!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,893 Posts
My point was that over small bumps the soft 20% of the spring is compressing more (per inch of coils) than the other 80% of the spring, not that the compression was traveling from one end to the other..
This is true. Doesn't matter which way the spring is oriented, that's what happens.
It makes sense to me to have the soft end at the bottom in order to cushion the spring above it and effectively increase the sprung weight of the spring itself, at least over small bumps where it matters. If 80% of the spring has increased upward travel (in order to compress the weaker top coils) there is definitely some added unsprung weight - probably much more than having an extra two or three coils on the bottom.
The soft end isn't cushioning the stiff end, the whole spring is compressing. The difference in unsprung weight is so tiny compared to the rest of the system (wheel, disks, calipers, tire, sliders...) as to be completely unimportant.
Ok, the bottom line is that there isn't much difference so this is really more of a mental exercise. I think the logic has been underthunk (new word?) and that only heavy end/light end has been taken into consideration. I'm throwing in lighter/stiffer spring action and the logic appears to oppose the benefit of an extra two or three coils of sprung weight on top.
Nope, the lighter/stiffer action has no effect at all. There is the unsprung weight difference that's real, but far to small to matter.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top