Cosentino damping cartridges

L.E.N. said:

Snorton74 wrote:

I've got a Heckler and a Nomad. I haven't rode much since I broke my scapula downhilling at a local ski area a couple of years ago. Need to get back to that.

Sorry to hear about the broken scapula. That sounds difficult to mend well. I've also had some bicycle injuries including two broken thumbs, concussions, and a broken pelvis and the odd lot of assorted stitches and not from the same incidents. I think that bicycles are sometimes more dangerous than motorcycles for me and I don't even do "downhilling" or park riding except very seldom at North Star at Tahoe, or Snow summit at Big Bear. So far I've only had road rash or dirt rash from my motor bikes (knock on wood).
I know this is a thread on damping cartrides and related subjects. This relates because of the Notes about the Fox forks and shocks. These are good, great bicycle untis using air springs and oil damping. I saw a recent Supercross where Ryan Dungee had done very poorly in the heats and barely made it out of the LCQ into the main. He won the main and during the interview he said that they switched back to the regular forks from the new air spring models. He wasn't bad mouthing the new units but said they had a way to go with them to make them competitive. I'm sure that somethings that work well on a bicycle may not work as well under the more rigorous testing that the weight ,powe,r speed, and punishment of a moto.

Click to expand...

Air springs do have some reasonably big compromises such as sticktion and the very non linear spring rate, although this can be designed out with negative air chambers etc. Even with MTB suspension a coil fork or shock (of equivalent spec) will be more compliant over small bumps. Some frames are specifically designed for air shocks and a falling rate linkage through the mid travel to minimise or even reverse the rate increase from the shock, I think the Nomad is one such frame.

Yeah, the Vanilla on my Heckler was always smoother for gravity riding and the VPP was better for the all-mountain stuff.
Anybody that enjoys mountain biking, owes it to themselves to spend a day riding somewhere with lift access. Just about the only thing that compares to canyon carving on a motorcycle.

I'm going to get a set of these when I have the cake. I like suspension that can be dialed in to ignore the small stuff and remain big bump compliant.

Well I have to speak to this it was indeed Hobit who first told me about this modification at that time he told me that a man in Australia had made him aware of it. So his design no not really but key things like a source for make up springs and the fact that Norton had used the valve slamming against the inside of the dampener cap were making it very easy to figure out the rest and Hobit had a pair that worked here in North America in the late 90’s or so. The kits I make were a collaboration using four Norton owners as Ginny pigs. First to see that it worked, than how it worked, than how long it worked and if you could break it. Than kits were made it was all done in the open right here on this forum for all to see and say what they liked or disliked about it. Since that time much more has been done no one got hurt and not a lot of money has been made by me at least. Is a 900 dollar kit better than a 100 dollar kit I hope so. I am still happy to be on the bottom of the pile having a laugh. Greg

Greg, The real history is that rider Bob Davis, B & M <bobmel@bigpond.com.au> in Australia on BI and NOC list supplied me with data on every Roadholder item dimensions ever made and issued, each slider length, each spring length, each stanchion length and each model sold with which combo. I sewed and sewed on this and all the various modifications and upgrades, Convent to Csentino, to find everyone one was putting a solid spacer in for the top out stop, I sewed and sewed til it hit me, desperate Norton bean counters made a batch of too shorts springs work in the Commando - so why not put a spring in there and the rest is history. Bob Davis did not come up with the spring idea and to this day has never experienced what so many are missing out on so easy with any sag height ya like. Is it the best WFT knows just its more than good enough for me so have long moved on from fork improvements. Greg I apologize for being associated with your fine products but its pure hobot at base camp and relieved its not hurt anyone but feelings.

john robert bould said:

Time to produce something else?

Click to expand...

Please keep me informed as to what it is/will be, I like to support cottage industries run by enthusiasts.

Vince

Vincent,
Mayby a fresh look at the ISO's ?

john robert bould said:

Time to produce something else?

Click to expand...

Why can't your insert be used/adapted for other British bikes ?
The BSA type fork was used on a myriad of models including Triumphs.

Hello Time warp.
I have made dampers for T120. T140 T110, T150v T160v laverda, honda, scott, Bob Hensford race's a Bsa Rocket three , three seasons, and he likes them.
The T140 are a bit long winded to produce as i have to make all the parts ,un-like the commando which are batch produced on a Mori C.N.C .
But mayby "tooling" up for them may be on the cards...Mike Gray on this forum as my first "trial" pair...not sure if he rates them?

I was at the International Motorcycle show in Chicago last night and had the opportunity to sit through a session on motorcycle suspension, geometry and set up presented by Lenny Albin, owner of Superbike Classis LLC (Anthem, AZ) and authorized OHLINS dealer. This fellow seems to "get it" and is tuned up on the knowledge curve.

He made a clear explanation of the use of and reasons for trail braking and how the fast guys use it. It's great to understand but I would say for most street riders it's a risky proposition and can have varying results depending upon suspension geometry, tires, spring rates and damping. At the risk of overstating the obvious, my take-away from this sesion is - the front wheel rules (my words, not his).

He presented a pretty clear case for stepping through a suspension system for a given application to assess/set geometry, determine spring rate (strong case for variable spring rate), set sag and then set low speed and high speed damping (springs, shims, valving and oil viscosity). He pointed out the somewhat obvious that any commercial motorcycle comes off the showroom floor with suspension set up for the average rider (height and weight) and odds are that the actual rider is not average, thus worthwhile having a look at an individuals particular circumstance.

Lenny also made a solid case for high speed and low speed damping as they are both important for tire compliance. It's nice when you can get a suspension package and advice that has most of the "dialing in" sorted out.

The hot shots that come out to play in Ozarks told me about the trail braking while powering technique most a decade ago so I practiced that on THE Gravel and paved chiacanes to come to firm conclusion its only a corner crippled way to ease around on unstable unpredictable pilot killers. THE Gravel, imprints to spinal column level best controlled braking is done full upright inline and best acceleration is done full upright tires in line and best turning is done with full mass of on both tires or full bike mass on rear tire edge anything else subtracts tire vectors from full control effects. Trail braking unloads rear so it can't hook up as much forward thrust and tends to trip out from under. Trail braking uses front tire edge with less grip to try to slow in time. Powering rear lifts front out of full traction, especially if front is dragging on edges of trail braking. In my world the sooner you can finish braking, rather than as late and deepest braking, the sooner I can be on hi power to begin turns. Get sideways just enough both tire edges will act like brakes in one direction, w/o brake use, while converting that energy into new direction with some small losses of energy in noisy tire heat. THE Gravel teaches ways to use brakes as lean up or down aids and bike steering by spinning on vertical CoG but only useful to save a turn gone wrong d/t extra slick section encountered or hazard in the way of the perfect fully committed line, which no longer means anything to Ms Peel. Power steering Rear Rules my Roost.

I think trail braking is primarily for road racing. Pretty dangerous for average street rider for sure. Front braking thru turn confuses tire btwn gripping and turning.

Agree Snorton74 as it is best used by racers.

Trail braking keeps the rake angle relatively steeper (better for turn in) than if the bike were neutral free wheeling or worse yet, on the throttle where rake angle increases (chopper). What the fellow was saying though is that while on the front brake in a turn the trail also decreases and he was saying the trail reduction equates to traction. That part I have not been able to get my head around.

When you think about it, with trail breaking and some throttle (if the rear of the bike is anti-squat) you can even further reduce the rake and trail and apparently the professionals (you know, the real fast ones) use this technique at times.

So what does this all have to do with damping of the bike? All the above works and but you have to have a compliant and functional suspension. In my opinion, get the best that you can afford but be real about your true needs. My street Commando still has the stock front dampers and I don't have any near term plans to change them.

I don't want to offend anyone but IMO, trail braking is a fundamental skill and everyone ought to be doing it.

Why? because it is critical to traction and maintaining control while entering turns and in getting through them, safely.

With telescopic forks, when we apply the front brake the forks dive and the geometry changes. Then, if you do NOT keep the front brake on as you enter and continue the turn and keep it on through the moment of apex/exit, then the fork will rebound. That rebound destabilizes the entire machine by changing its geometry and disturbs front wheel traction. So, dragging the front brake through the apex, holds the forks in compression, and thereby maintains the attitude of the machine. That is a good thing.

Let me hasten to add that with Earles type, leading link, front suspension, fork dive is not present and therefore these considerations do not apply.

Now comes the other half of it.

As for why some riders keep the throttle open while simultaneously dragging, or trailing, the front brake, this has to do with the effect of the chain's pull on the rear suspension. Most bikes will squat when the power is applied and rise when the throttle is chopped. That is, under power, the rear suspension is compressed by the pull of the chain across the top of the swing arm. This tends to increase rake and accordingly to increase trail too. Similarly, chopping the throttle and/or compression braking will release the rear suspension to extend and raise the rear of the bike. So . . . when one brakes goes into a corner and simultaneously chops the throttle, the rear rises at the same moment that the front brake is causing the front forks to dive, so rake is getting steeper and trail is decreasing instantly and radically - for two reasons - the front is diving and the rear is rising. Now . . . . if one, at this moment, suddenly releases the front brake AND gets back on the gas, the opposite happens - instantly and radically in the opposite direction, the front rises and the rear squats. Not good in mid-turn when front wheel traction is dicey.

Another exception - shaft drive. Unlike chain drive, depending upon where the pinion is placed on the ring - front or rear, the rear suspension will rise or fall when power is applied.

So . . . . to trail front brake while holding the throttle slightly on will stop the porpoising of the chassis that not doing so will tend to provoke.

Personally, I do not hold the throttle slightly open to prevent the rear end from rising. Instead, I trail the rear brake too, to accomplish the same thing. I've asked those who do so use the throttle if they use the rear brake and they tend to be among those who don't touch it. Typically, the reason they don't use the rear brake is that they can't . . . . because they ride on the balls of their feet, not their insteps . . . . and they do that because they are among those who hang off and being on the balls of their feet is critical to doing that. With their weight on the balls of their feet, their toes can't reach the foot brake.

World Champion Mick Doohan's rear brake was controlled by his left hand, a second lever below the clutch lever. Yes, an injury to his right foot was involved in this but still, it enabled him to use the rear brake while on the ball of his right foot.

All that said, there is no connection between hanging off and trail braking. All of what I've said applies to any old chain driven telescopic forked bike going into any old corner at a plebian pace; the same principles apply. Forks dive when you put on the front brake and the rear suspension rises when you chop the throttle and everyone does both of those things at the end of every straightaway.

xbacksideslider said:

..........., trail braking is a fundamental skill and everyone ought to be doing it.

Click to expand...

I agree, in the ideal world, yes; I am all for rider knowledge and proficiency but unless one is very proficient there is the chance that it will do more harm than good.

Your use of the term "ought to" infers "obligation to". Opinions vary on this matter. Wikipedia has a good write up on the matter at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_braking

Read the section titled "Controversy".

Furthermore, for trail braking to be effective one needs to be able to modulate the brake. I have had the opportunity to ride and race bikes with drum brakes that are like light switches and even some that tend to self actuate. I don't see how these could be used effectively other than for facilitating the quick turn in. I think each bike would require specific inputs.

BS! Trail braking is a fundamental skill to learn only d/t having to use it some d/t sudden hazard. Its a fundamental skill to learn how limited and dangerous it is. Its stupid dangerous unless going so slow there's some effective brake traction and likely could just balls to the wall power on around scared but through faster. Xbackslider I rest my case on your own video showing you flying wide over the double yellow braking like crazy not to fly off the far edge. If traffic had been there that instant then bad juju. You Did Not Save Yourself By Trail Braking You Wisely Got YourSelf Bolt Upright Both Tires INline To Slow, Because You Knew if You'd Tired That Neccesary Slowing Trail Breaking You'd of Broken Your Back Side.

You want a Fundalmental Skill to learn about braking while leaned at speed, learn how to use rear brake stomp on stab to save a sudden front trail brake wash out that low sides ya. It can save your bacon.

People need to buy my extra parts so I can afford these cartridges. See For Sale section.

Well, what the Wiki posting actually says relates to beginners, not everyone else:

"Controversy

Guides such as the Motorcycle Safety Foundation Basic RiderCourse teach that the safest way for a beginning rider to approach a corner on a motorcycle is by performing all of the slowing before the entrance of the turn, discouraging the use of any brakes while the motorcycle is leaned over. The argument against trail braking on the street, at least for beginners, is that the steep learning curve of trail braking makes it appropriate only for the race track. The benefit of learning trail braking to the street rider is that knowing and understanding how to slow while entering a corner gives a greater safety margin, particularly in blind, decreasing radius or downhill corners."

And, as for that Wiki entry's reference to what Keith Code says, or doesn't say, I've known him, personally, for nearly 35 years; I used to ride with him in Griffith Park. No matter what terminology Keith may use, he trail brakes.

Well if the Wiki posting "relates to beginners, not everyone else", why would they put it under the subject of controversy?

I think the Wiki posting sums it up nicely as a controversy.

The catch is the steep learning curve. I venture to say most street riders are clueless about the mechanics of trail braking let alone the benefits. Where are they going to learn this technique and the mechanics/dynamics, who is going to teach them. What bikes will they use this on: catchy non-modulating drum brake, cruisers with a rake angle of 30 degrees? What you are talking about is in my opinion, an advanced technique. I say one must walk before they can run and it's best to slow down for conditions (example increasing radius, road obstruction etc). Even walking or running too fast for conditions can lead to disasters. With practice comes perfection and an advanced technique takes practice; otherwise you will likely do more harm than good. Many riders just don't put the saddle time in to achieve, let alone maintain that proficiency.

As for Keth Code and "at odds with" or "opposed to"; I see their statements and theories are consistent with each other.

Again, your original post infers all riders are obligated to learn trail braking and I say in the ideal world, yes. So I agree with you but there's a cold hard reality check there.

I feel bad arguing about it and yes, we agree, trail braking is a good thing to know how to do.

As the wiki article admits -

" . . . . The benefit of learning trail braking to the street rider is that knowing and understanding how to slow while entering a corner gives a greater safety margin, particularly in blind, decreasing radius or downhill corners."


I just have to disagree with Wiki's bald assertion that there is a "steep learning curve." Malarky. You just continue to brake albeit lightly all they way through corner entry and on until the throttle is reapplied. In fact, it's kind of automatic with the right hand squeezing the brake and then releasing it when the throttle is turned. What I said about controlling the suspension is critical too, and a point missed by the Wiki author.

As for the best way to learn how to do it . . . . ride a dirt bike down a hard packed dirt road and get the feel of wheel slip, both ends.

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Again, your original post infers all riders are obligated to learn trail braking and I say in the ideal world, yes. So I agree with you but there's a cold hard reality check there.

Click to expand...

The reality check being not all riders are of the same caliber and not all bikes will respond safely. You claim to have picked up the technique rather quickly.

Furthermore, by example, not many people have access to a dirt bike and dirt road to test and learn. Your bald assertion is that everyone is obligated to learn this trail braking technique; opinions vary there. You can learn it and understand it but to be proficient at it is another thing. As for giving a greater safety margin one can simply enter a turn a little slower if it is blind or one is not familiar with it. I would say someone relying on trail braking for that extra margin of safety is kidding themselves if they are not proficient and practiced.

Maybe the MSF should consider a phase two training for experienced rider; maybe they already weighed in on the matter - I don't know and will likely ask if I remember to do so.

Going back a bit in this thread about Cosentino damping cartridges I asserted the importance of good suspension components (ex. high speed and low speed damping) and proper suspension set up and geometery in order appreciate trail braking.

No worries about the arguement part.