Ride height adjusment on my 696

[ducnymph]

The 696 already feels pretty quick turning in...I might have to consider a steering damper if it got too loose. Another thought I had was would I possibly need to consider getting a taller front tire if I raise my rear more? The reason I ask is because with my current setup I have maybe 2mm of unused rubber on my front tire and 1/4" left and 1/3" right unused on my back tire. I not hell bent on getting rid of chicken strips on my back tire -they stop where things start to drag. (As a result of making these adjustments I may be able to get rid of them some day  )  What concerns me is that I don't have hardly anything on the front. I was told I could swap out the front from the 120/60 to a 120/70. Given that I'm using the tire all the way to the edge, is this something I should consider? Would the taller tire would also make the bike turn in slower?

I'll have to check out the Penske, Thanks!

[Popeye the Sailor]

Bring it to the next wrench day-there'll be some suspension peeps there. It's on the 8th in the South bay.

[ducnymph]

Bring it to the next wrench day-there'll be some suspension peeps there. It's on the 8th in the South bay.

During the day?

Oh, duh! The Vindigo good bye bash! Yes, I think I might come by for that 

[Popeye the Sailor]

During the day?

Oh, duh! The Vindigo good bye bash! Yes, I think I might come by for that 

Yeah-you can have 8 drunken idiots loosen various things on your bike. It'll make the ride back interesting.

[ducnymph]

So can anybody chime in on the front tire question from before?

With the current setup and current clearance of my Monster, I'm using most of the front tire, but not all of the rear. Should I consider getting a taller front tire if I raise up the back with a longer shock? With this change, I'll get more lean angle, but I'm just worried with more lean angle I'll run out of front tire... Sorry if this is confusing and ass-backwards. My logic my be all wrong.

Another solution would be rearsets which I wouldn't consider before because the only brand, Rizomas, were ridiculously overpriced. Now woodcraft is supposedly coming out with some in August. We shall see. I feel like that may not entirely solve my problem. To scoot the reasrset back would be better, but any further up would be horribly uncomfortable on my knees. I think a combo of moving the rearsets back and getting a longer shock would be the way to go. Or not? Any thoughts... I think knee pressure is supposed to be relieved when the rearsets are pushed back and up, correct?

Sorry for being obsessive! I'm just trying to understand how the shock, tire, and rearsets could be changed to improve the bike's handling.

[Speeddog]

As far as the front tire is concerned...
Not sure how the profile compares for the /70 vs the /60.
With it being taller, you do get a bit more ground clearance, and it'll slow down the handling a bit.

Rearsets further back won't really address ground clearance.
Rearsets higher will make your knees less comfortable, but gain ground clearance.

Can you drop the forks in the triples a bit to raise the front?

[stopintime]

I'll try thinking out loud, using whatever logic I might have - others may correct me...

Rearsets - back position will lower your knees, which pushes your torso forward. I'm not sure if that is a good thing on the 696, which has a more upright position (closer bars). I guess it depends on how tall you are. It certainly requires working more with your core muscles and squeezing the tank with your thighs.
Lower knees mean flatter angle of the lower leg (body part name?) and the feet will be more at an angle than on stock pegs - the toes will point down a little, which requires you to rest the feet at the ball of the toes, to avoid toe dragging.

Front tire - a 70 will be higher than a 60 and if it's the same brand/model it will probably be rounder, which gives you more lean angle. Given your description of tire use, this sounds like a good idea. It will turn in quicker because of it's roundness, but slower because of the added height. So, raising the rear a little "should" be ok. The added flex of a 70 won't be an issue on motorcycles as it would be on cars, I think.

Suspension - I'm a little undereducated, but I believe you don't outweigh the stock suspension. Maybe a linear spring would suit your riding style/skills better.

[caperix]

If no one makes a ride height adjust for the 696/1100 is does not look like it would be overly difficult to make one.  The top shock mount shows in the parts catalog to be bolted to the frame.  If one could make a copy of this mount with a little more threads it you could raise the rear by installing spacers. 

[ducnymph]

As far as the front tire is concerned...
Not sure how the profile compares for the /70 vs the /60.
With it being taller, you do get a bit more ground clearance, and it'll slow down the handling a bit.

Rearsets further back won't really address ground clearance.
Rearsets higher will make your knees less comfortable, but gain ground clearance.

Can you drop the forks in the triples a bit to raise the front?

I may end up going with a 120/70 tire in the front next time to see how that goes since it will provide some more ground clearance. The turn in feels pretty fast already so I don't think the slower steering would be a bad thing.

I'm not sure about dropping the forks in the triples... I don't think there's a whole lot of room to do that. I will bring it up when I'm in the shop next time. That will bring clearance from the front of the bike, which I hadn't even thought of aside from the tire.

I'll try thinking out loud, using whatever logic I might have - others may correct me...

Rearsets - back position will lower your knees, which pushes your torso forward. I'm not sure if that is a good thing on the 696, which has a more upright position (closer bars). I guess it depends on how tall you are. It certainly requires working more with your core muscles and squeezing the tank with your thighs.

Lower knees mean flatter angle of the lower leg (body part name?) and the feet will be more at an angle than on stock pegs - the toes will point down a little, which requires you to rest the feet at the ball of the toes, to avoid toe dragging.


Suspension - I'm a little undereducated, but I believe you don't outweigh the stock suspension. Maybe a linear spring would suit your riding style/skills better.

My concern with rearsets is that I already feel cramped with my stock pegs. It could be that I just have bad knees(very possible). I like the position on a couple of sportbikes I've ridden and find the peg positon comfortable, but then I eventually feel cramped. I just got a long inseam or bad knees. I may have to at least try the Woodcraft to see what they're like because, even on the ball of my foot, I've dragged toes.


Definately going to look into a new spring 

If no one makes a ride height adjust for the 696/1100 is does not look like it would be overly difficult to make one.  The top shock mount shows in the parts catalog to be bolted to the frame.  If one could make a copy of this mount with a little more threads it you could raise the rear by installing spacers. 

That a good point! I think I know of a machine shop that could make that for me 

[Big Troubled Bear]

If no one makes a ride height adjust for the 696/1100 is does not look like it would be overly difficult to make one.  The top shock mount shows in the parts catalog to be bolted to the frame.  If one could make a copy of this mount with a little more threads it you could raise the rear by installing spacers. 

That would be correct and the spacer would only need to be about 2 mm thick
Part number 3 just needs longer bolt

[Raux]

it's minor, but that also changes the pivot location of the shock.