pattonme

if you don't balance both ends you will not be happy with the results and especially at your weight. You can put any of the common springs on a Nitron so I would question your source of info. The R2 is probably as high a price/feature you'd want to go. You can get feature parity from K-Tech, Ohlins, and Penske for same or less money. Is Nitron well supported where you are?

it's because the engineer is a CAD monkey and has no concept of the actual toil involved in servicing his creation. On his computer screen it's all perfect and compact. Another contributing factor is no doubt on the factory floor there is no tupperware, FI lines, or air-box at this point, no exhaust mounted, and no wheels so it's trivial to get at stuff from the top and no mechanical interference. I don't charge enough (comparatively) to install customer shocks. I curse every time and believe me, I'd use a lead pipe to "smack" some sense into the engineering department. it's very helpful if you first align the holes at either end since as you observed you have to put the bolt thru the bottom clevis first and then rock/wiggle the front up and into it's slot. Here too there's no need for precision fit you aftermarket shock makers!!! Just 1mm of clearance would be such a massive help. I use a length of 10mm fork cartridge rod (naturally) to hold the front of the shock aligned while futzing to get the bolt back in.

I thought you were in SW PA? Come on down to Summit some time. Grattan is ok, but you really must try Mid-Ohio.

Sorry for the bit-rot. Added a good handful of options and also items from Stoltec. The most likely candidates for drop-in cartridges from other bikes is probably the FZ1, but there are years with proper cartridges that are rebuildable and more recently several years where Yamaha went to pains to make them useless.

it appears this was a one-off screwup. All units I've seen since have had the correct body and the new style rings.

yes the UK/EU map is worlds better than the USA one - or at least the user can tune it via CO. I could understand running poorly at the EPA measured openings and RPM ranges but to screw up idle/off-idle and on/off throttle transitions is just sloppy IMO. But I haven't read the regs, maybe the CO standard is so asinine there is no way not to cause the more egregious fueling issues. if Trump's EPA could do just one thing right - throwing out the stupid on emissions would garner them a huge PR boost.

Thanks and fixed. Everyone selling Ohlins at a discount got our ears pinned so now everybody pays the same price no matter where you get it from. But if you read carefully...

http://fj-09.org/post/21517 should answer what you're looking for. Generally speaking a Remote Preload adds 170-200 to the base price.

added Cogent Dynamics' product info page to the top post. http://www.motocd.com/product/fj09-rear-shock/

Correct. I've been known to ride a mile and "hit things" with the pinch (and fender) loose to make sure things get worked out. Then when you come into the shop try to keep the bike as upright as possible when dismounting, put it on the centerstand and then tighten the pinch. Admittedly the above is a little over the top, normally I just push the bike into the side of the sidewalk curb to impart the desired force.

The Andreani's can be fixed.

Matris and Hyperpro both offer Remote Preload adjuster options.

Do the DL650 guards not work/fit? I've used them on several other bikes to good effect. If you want good weather protection - hippo hands. Same as you see on snow mobiles and ATVs.

Torrington bearings are a Forks-by-Matt value-added upgrade (free) until such time as the factory changes their mind.

Photo proof of two FZ/FJ09 shocks that arrived at my door this afternoon. Open the image Metadata and you'll see they were taken by my phone. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/180639/Forks-by-Matt/K-Tech/IMG_20161223_175141.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/180639/Forks-by-Matt/K-Tech/IMG_20161223_175213.jpg

Here are the new rings and tool that will be used in future builds and will be available as retrofits. Also the factory is tracing back the serial number of the problematic shock since it was supposed to have threads below the upper ring (just like the FZ07 shock pictured) so it may be a case of a production run using the wrong body.

The shock that started this thread was purchased within the last month. How recently is 'recently'? And can retrofit parts be requested by end-users? If the design has been superseded, was there a plan to recall inventory from distributors or update at point of sale? I don't believe damping performance has ever come up as being a weakness. And neither was there any intent to imply that 36mm < 46mm and therefore must be inferior. Some of what is at issue is optics. Some is day to day 'livability' and suitability across expected usage patterns. Some is rooted in improper carry over of assumptions and design parameters from 'twin-shock' application that demonstrably no longer apply. I for one am eager to see K-Tech succeed and offer a better product thru community feedback. It is unfortunate that the thread got started with such a strong negative connotation.

It's alright @piotrek outer tube orientation doesn't matter. If you're going to up-end the forks for maximum drain and also not remove the fork cap, then there is a non-trivial chance you're going to have air in the cartridge and effectively no damping. Unless your name is Hulk Hogan trying to bleed the forks while fighting the fork spring isn't going to be fun. You either Mighty-Vac the forks right side up and replace with ~equivalent volume of new oil, or you bite the bullet and take the cap and spring out so you can do a proper bleed and oil height measurement. Or you ride around with somewhat sketchy damping until it gets worked. out. Hard and deep static pumping of the fork using the bike's weight to help compress can work. Set preload to minimum and rebound adjuster fully CCW. You can tell it's good when you set the rebound all the way tight (CW) and it'll come up smooth the whole way and not have a sudden easy spot.

Now I'll address the preload range. I believe it's reasonably accurate to say shocks are commonly shipped with 8-10mm of preload in the system. From there, a person light for the spring rate might take 2mm out, and heavy for the rate could add another 5 maybe even 10mm once you add the bags and pillion. This is a contrived example that assumes a linear relationship. I think I'm doing it right, but take with skepticism. Let's say 90Kg rider + 205kg bike, 60% rear weight bias = 295 * .6 = 177kg weight applied to the rear axle. Let's say the 10mm of factory preload yielded 30mm rider sag. I now add 70kg most of which by virtue of where the passenger is in relation to the rider (let's say 1.5x as far from the fulcrum) applied to the rear and becomes 105Kg equivalent. I would need 10mm more preload to get back to 'zero'. Or more practically we'll suck up say 5mm in shaft displacement (total sag is now 30+5*2.5=43mm) and add the other 5 to preload. The point being it's not unreasonable to want to add at least 5 and maybe 8mm+ of preload to a shock from baseline. The lower threaded portion of the shock is 24mm long. With the upper ring at it's lowest most bound, the first (we'll ignore the 2nd lock ring) silver ring sits just flush at the bottom of it's section and provides ZERO preload. Basically all we've done is take up the slack. QED *all* of the 10mm of desired factory preload now has to come out of the 24mm section. But since the ring itself is 5mm tall (plus 4mm for the spring centering lip but doesn't count), our 24mm section is effectively only <19mm long. So in other words, having cranked in 10mm to achieve baseline there really is 8mm more available and even at negative 5mm still lets you fit the lock ring on behind the primary. Does it look right? No it does not. It just screams 'wrong'. Now if you were to use a Penske-like 8-10mm thick single ring you would start off with some threads hanging off the bottom at zero slack but no biggie. IMO K-Tech should replace the lower silver ring pair with a 1-piece that lends itself to EASY rotation by combining a torrington with a meatier and more sensible tool. In fact, I would just re-use the upper ring, flip it over for lower duty with the proviso to lose the scallops and instead use 5mm pin wrench(meh), slots for an ER40(+), or maybe better the 6mm 'bent rod'. For the sake of "doesn't look wrong" and not needing to add 7" springs to the SKU just for the Fx09 series or other 320-330+mm long shock applications, I might machine a 20mm long spacer that nests into the lip and spring. A slip-fit over the upper body threads would keep the tool paths simple.

I'm coming off 23hr straight hours at my day job so I won't make this too long. I want to preface this by saying I reached out directly to K-Tech in UK and have exchanged a couple rounds of emails. The last note was a little terse and I hope the language ("you're 100% right. I'm forwarding everything you wrote to the design department") was not just to make me go away. But it would seem I'm not the first to raise issues with the design and FWIW a remote preload adjuster is in the offing, as well as other unspecified improvements. Timeline to be determined. "Do not buy" is a bit over the top, IMO but @clint is well within his rights to declare it unsuitable for his purposes. I hadn't seen a FZ09 application in the flesh (just FZ07) and the website is just stock photography so until he sent the unit back to me I didn't realize the extent of the design shortcomings. I think I've sold something like 6 K-Tech shocks to date and folks have been happy with the damping performance so at least that team appears to be on the ball. Some background. (12/20 Edit: Apparently I had some incorrect information. The DDS/lite series is a 36mm twin-tube configuration.) AFAIK, K-Tech is unique in taking the small diameter (36mm piston) shock body from their 'twin' series and using it as a 'single' in applications like the FZ07 and FZ09, R3(?), and Ninja 300. By twin, think Harley, ZRX, other UJM standards, classic-look Triumphs, Guzzi classics and so forth. Everybody else uses a 46mm piston shock with it's larger body and "industry standard" 2.25 inch main spring combination. Twin shocks use smaller springs for obvious reasons and by virtue of there being 2 units working together spring rates are around 30-60N/mm on each side. Said springs actually tend to be pretty long (7-9"). But for FZ07 duty the spring needs to be in the 110-140N/mm range and for the FZ09 95-125. This means a much beefier coil and limited length. K-Tech elected to have the high rate units wound in 6" length across the board. Ohlins just so happens to have the full spectrum of rates for the FZ09 in 7" length but nothing in the FZ07's range at any length (caveat my spring catalog is a couple years old). So to answer the question posed: no, there are no longer springs available from K-tech. I'll address the matter of preload range a little bit later and deal with the simpler topic of adjustment difficulties and poor follow-thru in design. As a 'twin' the shocks sit fully outside the bodywork and frame members and getting access to the lower or upper rings is really quite trivial. When that same arrangement is put centerline, then tommy bars and general access is significantly/severely hampered. K-Tech supplies a pair of 4mm diameter tommy bars, what others called a pin punch and that's a perfectly accurate characterization. Punches are hit from above and so their spindly nature isn't in issue. One would NOT, however, try to use a pin-punch to induce torque into a ring and clearly not if the 4mm diameter shaft is a full 40mm long! I know of at least 2 if not 3 cases where people have broken the tool and I very nearly did so myself! If one were to use a tommy bar then clearly the correct solution is to make the narrow shaft portion only as long as needed to get good purchase in the hole; in this case 7mm. One can also take out an easy inch from the 4" long 'handle' to make things easier in tighter quarters. Their choice of tommy bars aside, if you're trying to spin a preload ring and there's a lot of spring pressure on it (more so if the bike has no center-stand and thus resting vehicle weight is compounding the problem) one would use some kind of hook/pin wrench like we're all familiar with. The diameter of the rings are smack in the range of common industry tools: 55-63mm but in pin guise the "standard" is a 5mm pin, not a 4mm. All they had to do was make the primary ring 7mm thick instead of 5 and the hole would have fit. I guess they were going for "thin is sexy". Furtherance to the choice of ring size and design, the OD is again perfect for an ER40 collet wrench which comes in 3-tang or single. Now an ER wrench is pretty damn long but they do make sideways versions and shorties which would be the kind needed for a center-line shock. Having 3 points of contact on a ring would be HUGE. I don't know about you but I've royally skinned my share of knuckles. Also most other shocks the rings are ~same diameter as the OD of the spring for most surface area. Theirs are smaller by 3mm on each side, or 6mm total. Why? Probably because they wanted to machine it from 2.5" round bar instead of having to go up to 3". They make Torrington's for 1.8" ID springs (what this is) but the OD is likely to be the full diameter so K-Tech's ring would be only covering half of the roller length. To this "I stayed at a Motel 6" engineer it seems patently obvious that the main ring should have been made to full OD, and about 10mm thick in the vein of Nitron and in particular Penske where they employ a "bent rod" of ~6mm diameter to swing the ring around. A flat-tip set screw would have made sure it stayed put.

The XSR900 uses 1TD-16383-00-00 (spring) and 1TD-16384-00-00 (seat). You will probably have to adjust plate thickness though to get just the right amount of pressure on that belleville spring. Ask a real engine builder.

they are inter-changable. Shock oil just has a much better VI so it's damping characteristics are more stable across a wide temperature range. It's a side-effect of very little quantity of fluid doing a lot of work, whereas a fork as a ton of fluid under very little stress by comparison.

Also there's this: http://www.carpimoto.it/en-US/32027_CM03SM-Front-Wheel-Fork-Stand-CM03SM.htm Not sure how well it works. A lot depends on the throw of that lever.

over on fz09 there is a similar thread. the "consensus" (if you can call it that) is Yamaha neglected to put a spring in there to damp the thrashing the basket gets since idle is not exactly steady RPM. I don't know what the right part number is but there are many a Yam that uses the same clutch basket and the off-road models might have said spring.

The cheaper stands may not be tall enough for the FJ. In which case a length of 2x4 under the wheels suffices to provide the needed extra height.