Q: Who “Needs” a Steering Damper?

[emry]

It's very hard, if not , under commercial aspects, impossible, to do this rake thing just because you can't keep the vertical distance between upper and lower clamps constant or as designed. Tolerances and such things you know. It's no problem as long as you have the 3 boreholes parallel to each other. If you have them tilted you've lost. There you need the shims, between the clamps, not in the top view like RH's sketch.

If you want to keep your assy line running this would mean Harakiri. For nothing. It brings no effect besides a slightly variing trail under different load conditions (wheelbase kept constant, of course).

 

 

 

More trail makes a bike more prone to wobbling. You've probably watched wobbling shopping trolly wheels or maybe also the uncontrolled front wheel of a vintage sports plane. Good examples of wobble caused by trail. Remember that with a longer trail you also have bigger reaction forces which may make a steering damper indispensable because of the risk of an overshooting stabilisation (Greg's Death Wobble). Massive wheels, fenders, rifle holders, rollers and bullshit more like this at the front fork might multiply this risk.

 

Hubert

 

Sorry, Luhbo. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of steering. Please take the time to Google "motorcycle steering geometry" and do some reading, even wiki post will help you.

 

The HD V-Rod and the Yamaha Raider both use raked triple trees on a mass produced assembly line bike. Machining has come a long way since they did it by hand.

 

Quote from the Raider portion of www.yamaha-motor.com - raider feautres

 

A 6-degree yoke angle—the first ever on a street-legal Star Motorcycle—makes it possible to achieve that custom look as well as neutral handling and straight-line cruisability: 33-degree rake plus 6 degrees yoke angle gives total rake of 39 degrees and 102mm of trail.

 

No shims needed.

[luhbo]

Sorry, Luhbo. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of steering. ....

 

Everybody here is allowed to write what comes to his mind, so you're welcome. Nevertheless the Yamaha homepage, it's Yamaha USA btw., is wrong. 33° rake and 6° yoke don't make 39° rake. It might look as if it was that flat, but active still are only 33°. Not a good source this one. It's meant for a different clientel anyway.

 

Edit: besides that, it seems not to be the very common thing when they underline it so explicitely.

 

Hubert

[emry]

Luhbo,

 

Educate yourself before you debate online. The reading is free. I understand the perhaps there maybe a language barrier and have tried to be sensitive of that previously.

Clientele??? That has nothing to do with steering or mass production, per your posts. Please re-read your posts and my comments.

 

Thanks for the decent post Ratchet!!

 

This topic has been fun, but I have to agree just as it gets technical and also informative the hereitcs bow in. Shame really, particularlly for the those who actually have the desire to better understand the subject at hand. I feel for the new Guzzi owner who comes to this site to find information and has to wade though pages of bicker and nonsense.

 

I really need a heretic picture Ratch. could you hook me up??

[luhbo]

Come on, Emry, language barrier. That's a good one

 

Now, what's with this 33° + 6° equals (?) 39° theory? Have you googled after it or maybe even looked into wiki posts? This might help, you know ;)GuzziMoto had posted the same: it makes no difference to rake and given trail if you add what they call yoke angle. It's just that the forks looks even flater. What else did I write?

 

And if we come back to Greg's tales: Guzzi kept the rake constant (no change to the frames) and they kept the wheelbase constant. But they, as gossip claims, tilted the forks? Why that? This would make no sense, only problems and cost a lot of extra money what they never had. Guzzi is not Yamaha nor is it H-D which would spend money for such cosmetical gimmicks.

 

That's why I say he's made the whole thing up.

 

Hubert

[docc]

. . .

It is all about finding a balance . . .

That, I agree!

 

I'd like to see one of these skewed-triple RedFrames.

 

Any one ever see one? Have one?

[GuzziMoto]

You are right, luhbo, in that if they kept the same wheelbase and trail that raking the fork tubes would not help the stability of the V11 much if any. It does add a variable in that as the forks are turned from straight ahead the geometry would change from what it would be with normal forks. I see little to be gained and potential to make things worse. But I was stunned when Guzzi spent lots of money developing Hydro valves for bikes with valves that are incredibly easy to adjust, and then they did a poor job of it and screwed the pooch on that one.

But all that aside, the fact remains that production bikes can easily be built with offset clamps or whatever you want to call it. And while I would agree that it is not a true definition of rake as I said earlier that is why they usually describe it as one plus the other equals a total of. If you choose not to believe Greg that is your choice, but none of your arguments to disprove him have panned out so it really just comes down to believing someone or not. That's your choice but it does not make a compelling argument.

Sorry if this seems argumentative.

[Greg Field]

 

 

The knob quotient one can find on this list is unique in the vastness that is the WWW.

[emry]

 

I just have to peek.

 

Greg, why do we bother... Don't we have better things to do or are we just hoping that good Karma will come of this??

[dlaing]

 

I just have to peek.

 

Greg, why do we bother... Don't we have better things to do or are we just hoping that good Karma will come of this??

Careful, your Car-ma might run over Greg's Dog-ma

Do you realize Greg thinks raking out at the yokes is a good idea, designed to save lives!?!!?!

[gavo]

found this while thumbing through an old copy of performance streetbike by Mike matheson and Ian Falloon

[dlaing]

found this while thumbing through an old copy of performance streetbike by Mike matheson and Ian Falloon

"Either way it's hard to argue that a steering damper isn't a good back-up device anyway, just for those times when everything goes haywire and the front end wants to beat the steering head to death."

And yet on this forum we have people unsuccessfully taking on the challenge of presenting such an argument. Incredible.

[Greg Field]

And yet on this forum we have people unsuccessfully taking on the challenge of presenting such an argument. Incredible.

 

If the subject that started all this was "Why It's a Good Idea to Have a Steering Damper as a Back-up," you'd have a point. As you know, that wasn't the subject. It was "Who Needs," arguing that everyone NEEDS one. That's just hogwash.

[GuzziMoto]

It is a matter of opinion.

And honestly, if you have screwed the pooch and made an error so bad that you are no longer in control of the situation and you are depending on the steering damper to save you, not only is that wrong to begin with but the steering damper may not save you anyway.

The question is, is a steering damper worth the trade off.

The answer to that question is not the same for everyone. It may be worth it to you but on a bike as stable as my V11 I would rather have the lighter, quicker steering and better feedback I get with out the damper. If you or any one else feels like they need a damper for any reason then run one. But please don't tell me that I need one because you do.

[dlaing]

Thanks for clearing up that difference. Then I am not sure why you were arguing with me all this time.

We just have a few things to clear up, like GuzziMoto and his beliefs that raking in increases rake, and that raking out is bad except when Guzzi does it. Also, I am on the fence as to Greg's claim of the existence of the raked out yoke on later red frames. I don't know if I could measure or detect a half degree difference, but I could probably measure the necessary setback for such a thing.

And then there is the belief that lowering the front end makes the bike less stable. I'd like to put a nail in that one. The bottom line is that the better weighting of the bike when the front end is lowered, trumps the small decrease in rake and trail. If you don't believe the plethora of people who have tried it, give it a try yourself, just don't whack the bar while riding no handed.

[GuzziMoto]

Thanks for clearing up that difference. Then I am not sure why you were arguing with me all this time.

We just have a few things to clear up, like GuzziMoto and his beliefs that raking in increases rake, and that raking out is bad except when Guzzi does it. Also, I am on the fence as to Greg's claim of the existence of the raked out yoke on later red frames. I don't know if I could measure or detect a half degree difference, but I could probably measure the necessary setback for such a thing.

And then there is the belief that lowering the front end makes the bike less stable. I'd like to put a nail in that one. The bottom line is that the better weighting of the bike when the front end is lowered, trumps the small decrease in rake and trail. If you don't believe the plethora of people who have tried it, give it a try yourself, just don't whack the bar while riding no handed.

Uh...I was one of the first (the first I believe) to point out that changing the fork tube angle is not the same as changing the rake. And I do not think it is a good idea to do it in either direction. As far as Gregs claims I simply have no reason to doubt him but I have repeatedly pointed out that if Guzzi did do that it would not be the first or last dumb thing Guzzi has done (hydro valves?). And lowering the front can increase stability as long as you don't go too far and lose too much trail, but I believe you are wrong in that it has a smaller effect on weight distribution then it does on trail. As I said before, trail is a funny thing. You can take it away little by little with out much effect on stability until you get to the point where you now do not have enough trail and then it makes a big difference quite quickly. I have done it (dropped the front), along with jacking up the rear end as well. It can be a good thing in the right situation but it does have its down sides, especially if you go to far. But I don't need to do that to my V11 as it works perfectly fine the way it is. By the way, you do realize that you can accomplish much the same results by adjusting your sags front and rear to give a better balance to the bike with out physically dropping the front end?It is more a mental thing for some to be able to see the change they made so they can feel the improvements, but the bike does not care how you accomplished the ride height change, only that you did. And honestly, my V11 does not need a steering damper and it does not have one. I seem to have it set up quite well based on my own knowledge of geometry. If you choose another way to go that is fine and I wish you success, but for me my way works fine.

Hope this clears up any confusion.