Well,
I went and did some laps after work today at my test track and then rode home. When I arrived, I went to put my kickstand down and noticed half the foot was missing. I didn't realize that it was even hitting the ground. After a little bit of studying of riding techniques, I now realize more of your body needs to leaning in than the bike.
So I am wondering if the 1100 has a smaller (footprint) than the welded steel one on the 696....
Anyone attempted this yet?
Quote from: ryanracer on June 10, 2011, 10:10:12 PM
Well,
I went and did some laps after work today at my test track and then rode home. When I arrived, I went to put my kickstand down and noticed half the foot was missing. I didn't realize that it was even hitting the ground. After a little bit of studying of riding techniques, I now realize more of your body needs to leaning in than the bike.
So I am wondering if the 1100 has a smaller (footprint) than the welded steel one on the 696....
Anyone attempted this yet?
it has a smaller footprint and I'm pretty sure it's a AL
also it's taller
Have you raised your bike?
Quote from: Raux on June 10, 2011, 11:57:00 PM
it has a smaller footprint and I'm pretty sure it's a AL
also it's taller
Yup, Raux is correct. Smaller footprint, cast aluminium, but longer overall than stock steel 696 item.
I haven't raised the buke yet Raux, in fact I'm running a spring length of 160mm and 10 clicks off full stiff on the shock. The roads to work suck. I am running 32 psi front and 34 psi in the rear and I weigh in at 155 lbs. I by no means know anything about bike setup, so I was taking a shot in the dark.
personally i would run the bike without the kickstand on the track.