thoughts on leveling links for Royal Stars

[pegscraper]

The '96 - '01 Royal Stars have a different rear suspension than the 2nd gen Ventures, and no one makes any leveling links for them, so I'll be making my own. That opens up the option of being able to raise the bike any amount I want. Since the 1st gens are said to handle so well I compared the rake angle of the 1st gen to the 2nd gen, and did some calculating to see just how much the leveling links change things. The rake angle on a 1st gen is 28.5*, and the 2nd gen is 30*. The 1" that the standard leveling links raise the bike changes the angle of the bike by .86*, creating a fork rake angle of 29.1*. To get to a 28.5* fork rake angle the back of the bike would have to be raised by 1 3/4". I could always split the difference somewhere by raising the rear say like 1 1/4" and dropping the front 1/2". As long as the rear rise plus front drop equals 1 3/4" it's all the same thing. Myself, I would prefer the full rear rise for the most cornering clearance, and I'm such a tall guy I wouldn't mind the higher seat either. This weekend I propped the rear wheel up 1 3/4" with boards and sat on the bike and it felt fine. My only real concern is that with that much rise on the bike the kickstand will be a little short. On the boards in the garage it seemed okay, but I wonder how it would be if a parking lot somewhere was sloped the wrong way or something.

 

So the question is - for those of you with the standard 1" leveling links, how much concern is there about the slope of the ground where you park? Any at all? I'd like to get a feel for how much rear rise I could get away with as far as the kickstand length is concerned. I'd really like to not have to make these more than once. I suppose with some extra work I could design an adjustable link. Then I could make a height change in only a few minutes. Thoughts anyone?

[pegscraper]

Nobody has any thoughts on the length of the kickstand when leveling links are used? This doesn't have enough effect on the length of the kickstand that you have to be careful where you park?

[Freebird]

On my RSV....it has not had any major effect. You have to realize that the 1" lift is measured at the back...probably only half that or less at the mid point where the stand is located. It has made no difference at all on my bike.

[pegscraper]

Do you suppose there's room for much more? I'm thinking I'd like to raise the rear of the bike by 1 3/4", which would make the kickstand effectively 7/8" shorter. I know all anyone can really do here is guess.

[FreezyRider]

Well Lynn, I can't really answer your questions....but heck, that never stopped me from offering my opinions!

 

A friend of mine has 2 Royal Stars, a 97 and a 99. Bought them last fall, intending to resell them this spring (now he's wavering...may keep the 99!)

I have noticed that both of those bikes have a pretty steep "lean angle" when they are on the sidestand. When he parks on a slope running down away from the left side of the bike it takes a herculean effort to pick it back up off the stand. My 99RSV weighs a bunch more than his RS but is much easier to stand up. I think that is because the front has been lowered by an inch. The rear has the stock links on it (it had been lowered in the rear when I bought it. Didn't like it....too easy to drag in curves). When I raised the rear back to stock height I was worried a bit that this would cause more lean angle when on the side stand. But if it has, it is so slight that I can't tell it. Seems the same to me.

My advice (like you're looking for advice!) would be to reach your desired rake by raising the rear 1" and dropping the front by 3/4". I think you wouldn't see any increased lean, probably less.

 

Good luck.....and we gotta meet for a ride soon.

Another subject....last night we and another couple rode down to Portland to eat at the Bandido's there. Met up with another RSV (Black) heading North on hwy 27 just north of Geneva. Hadn't seen that one around. He had the look of a "local"....no helmet, just a T-shirt. Didn't look like he was equipped to ride far. Gonna have to see if I can find out who it is and point him to this site.

 

Have a good one!

Joe

[Freebird]

Another thing you could do. Just run the rear tire up on a 2 x 5 board. That will give you about the lift you are talking about and then check the stand.

[Boomer]

Nobody has any thoughts on the length of the kickstand when leveling links are used? This doesn't have enough effect on the length of the kickstand that you have to be careful where you park?

 

I have them installed and have not experienced any issues with the stand.

[pegscraper]

Joe, you should have given me a jingle last night then. I would have loved an excuse to go for a ride, and you could have seen the shiny tins. The weather is warming up around here. We'll do it soon. Last summer I saw a white one parked at Ivanhoe's Ice Cream in Upland. That's another fun destination. There are at least two Black Cherries and two midnights running around here somewhere too. I've seen them go through the dealer.

 

Don, I've already done that, mentioned back in the initial post.

[FreezyRider]

Lynn, sorry I didn't think to give you a buzz....it was one of those last minute things that just popped up. Next time for sure! Gotta see those shiny tins!

 

We were at Ivanhoe's on Sunday afternoon. The Harley dealers down that way must be rolling in the dough! There were at least 20 new or fairly new HD's there. Made me want to follow them out of town for a little "sport"! hehe

But I resisted the impulse.

[pegscraper]

I drew up plans of a link to raise the rear of the bike about 1 3/4". Yesterday I started laying out the drawing on a piece of steel and I'm looking at the proportions of the thing, and then I had an incredible brain storm idea. In drawing up the new link I had of course measured the old one. On this bike it's a triangular piece, and I noticed that none of the sides were the same length. (I forget the technical geometry term for that. Bite me.) Two of the sides are pretty similar, but not the same. Suddenly it hit me that if I simply installed the existing link backwards, switching these two similar sides, that it would raise the bike. I thought about trying to calculate out on paper how much it might raise it, but then realized that it would take a lot longer to do that than to just remove the links and flip them and see what happened. So, I took measurements two different ways of the height of the rear of the bike, flipped the links, and measured again. The rear of the bike stood within a 1/32" of being a full inch higher. What stupid, accidental luck! I took off for a ride with pleasant results. I hit one of the very few non-straight winding roads we have around here at 70+ mph. (That's Winchester Rd. for you there, Freezy.) It's actually a paved over old Indian trail. For the moment I'm thinking I'd still like to try the 1 3/4" rise that I had figured out, but this was too easy of a partial step in that direction. I didn't have to fabricate anything and it took me all of 15 minutes to do.

 

:cool10:

 

So for any early Royal Star owners who have wanted to try raising the rear of the bike for the improved handling characteristics that everyone claims but haven't been able to because no one makes such links for our bikes, here it is. Simply remove the links, flip them front to back, and reinstall them. Yamaha couldn't have screwed up and made this any easier if they tried. Or maybe they screwed up and didn't make it difficult. Whatever the reason, this couldn't be any easier.

[Freebird]

WOW....now THAT is some good information. I'm pretty sure that it's not the same on the RSV though. I think they are the same any way that you turn them. Great catch on your part.

[pegscraper]

For those early Royal Star owners who would like a picture, or anyone else who doesn't follow what I'm talking about because our suspensions are so much different, here's a pic. The front of the bike is to the right. (Yes, my back tire is toast and desperately needs replaced. I have some new Avons on the way.) These links are now installed backwards from the way they came. The fatter leg used to be at the front. The bottom mounting hole at the shock stays in place and the top two holes switch places. The fatter rear leg is 102mm and the front leg is 107mm. There's not much difference there, but it's just enough. What happens when the links are flipped is that the mounting hole that goes to the shock is moved further back. Then the swing arm has to come down a little farther to bring the bolt hole in the link forward to line up with the bolt hole in the shock.

 

This has to be the strangest suspension setup I have ever seen. The top rear hole is the mount to the swingarm. The top front hole mounts to a pivoting link that mounts to the frame above. That link can swing front to back. When the bike hits a dip and the suspension compresses, the link will rotate clockwise (in this pic) and pull the shaft out of the shock. Yes, this shock works backwards. The shock actually extends when the suspension "compresses". In this case suspension compression is actually suspension extension. Or would it be called tension? Strange.

[Squeeze]

Hi,

 

can you tell what those two 'Hook-Nuts' are able to move/adjust ?

 

If you're right on the Movements, which i seriously do not doubt, they can't be for a 'Pre-Unload' of the Shockspring.

 

As i see the Picture and your Explanation, they should determine the 'Ride-Height' of the rear End. If so, they are now in the upperend Position.

 

So, if you fabricate two new Pieces, with a closer Position of the top Holes, maybe 54mm instead of the stock 62mm, they would lift the rear for around 3 Inches ? Should be calculated, but you would be able to adjust the Ride-Height in a new Range. So those 3 Inches may be too high, but you can turn it down to the Ammount you are comfortable with.

 

Just my Thoughts, if i'm talking Crap, please ignore what has been a Pain to your Eyes the last 30 Seconds....

[pegscraper]

Those locknuts supposedly adjust the shock preload. I have it set in the stiffest position. I don't know if moving that would change the ride height or not. If it does it couldn't change it very much anyway. The total range on the locknuts is only a couple turns or so. Once the shock is set to the desired stiffness, it's best to modify the ride height another way.

[Squeeze]

Sorry,

 

at the Moment, i do not understand how this Suspension works.

 

I take a Look in the Manual and try to understand. Not that i need to know that, but it's allways interesting how Things work.

[Rick Butler]

Lynn,

 

If I understand your linkage from the photo you provided, the right side of the triangle is attached to the frame and the left side attached to the swingarm? If this is true and when the bike goes down and the swingarm up, then extending the length of the left side of the triangle will raise the bike. But you can measure the distance you need by taking the swingarm linkage bolt out and raising the bike up to get the rise you want. With that bolt out you will be able to determine the extra length you need to make the left side of the linkage triangle. This means you are going to need a 1/4" plate to do this. And stack drill both sides to make sure you get the holes even.

 

But 1 1/4"? Remember you also need to keep track of the angle of your drive shaft so you don't ever put the U-joint in a bind, but you may be ok on the Royal Star since I think it set's just a bit lower overall than the RSV. And you are stuck with that shock because NO ONE makes a replacement shock (besides Yamaha) that extends when the bike goes down.

 

I'm also curious if you have checked the sag in your stock fork springs (if they are still stock)? After 10 years the sag may be about gone.

 

And if the spanner nut is to adjust preload, then it's purpose IS ONLY to change ride height where it looks like it is maxed out now. In other words, Preload on a spring (or shock) only changes the Ride Height and has nothing to do with the Spring Rate (or whatever is used in this shock). There might even be an internal spring inside of this shock?

 

Hope this helps,

 

Rick

[pegscraper]

Extending the length of the left side of the triangle link (in this pic) would raise the swing arm - lower the bike. Making the rear arm shorter and/or the front arm longer will raise it, like what happened when I flipped these links over. I think Y consulted extensively with Rube Goldberg when they designed this suspension. I couldn't imagine calculating through all the lever ratios and forces through this thing to figure out what spring rate you might want. What a disaster.

 

I wanted to try raising the rear 1 3/4" to get the fork rake angle down to 28.5* and see what happened. I calculated the change in the swing arm angle and thought about what that did to the U-joint. At 1" the swing arm changes 2.8*, and at 1 3/4" the swing arm changes 4.8*. I haven't heard anyone talking about the U-joint failing with a 3* change. I doubt that 5* would be enough to cause trouble, as the swing arm moves plenty more than that in normal riding. But it might. I put two different angle finders on the forks this weekend and I measure just a hair over 29*, which is right where my calculations said it would be, assuming it was actually right at 30* to begin with. I didn't think to check it before I raised the bike. I should have done that, but I'm not going to go back and do it now. I'd still like to get it down to 28.5* just to see how the thing responds. But I'll probably run the bike for a while with the 1" rise to get a good feel for it there before I try it, especially since I'll have a brand new tires in a few more days. These are shot, and that will change the feel of things too.

 

Yes, I'm pretty well stuck with this shock, like it or not. At least I haven't heard that Y has had a lot of trouble with this shock. I know a guy who swapped in the full air ride rear suspension from a 2nd gen. He said it required some cutting and welding. I don't think I'm going to trouble myself with that.

 

How do I check front spring sag? Is that the same as checking the ride height in the front? I'd have to know what it was to start with, measured on this bike 10 years ago, because I wouldn't trust it to have been exactly whatever the spec in the book is. I'm sure the springs are original and they've probably sunk some. And the rear spring would have done the same thing.

 

The term preload is a confusing one. The owner's manual calls it preload, and then refers to the different settings as hard or soft. I'm heavy enough all by myself to get into the upper air pressure range for the rear tire. I plus the wife plus luggage puts us well over the recommended weight limit of the bike. So I set the rear shock all the way to hard. I didn't think I felt any real difference in ride stiffness, but I left it there anyway. The rear suspension spring must be inside the shock housing, as there isn't a spring anywhere else. If the rear shock bolt is removed the rear wheel falls to the ground.

[Squeeze]

..

 

How do I check front spring sag? ...

 

Normaly, the front Spring's Lenght's is measured outside the Tubes. If they are as long as the Workshop Manaul says, they aren't worn out...

 

 

But, if your going that deep into Suspensions, you might better check the static and dynamic Ride-Heights on the Bike. If the Bike stands alone on the Tyres, there should about 10 Percent of the complete Travel of the Damper be used, Front also 10 Percent. Dynamic Riede-Hight is:You sit on the Bike, Feet on the Pegs, stabilizing against a Wall with you right or left Hand, the used Travels should increase to 20 to 25 in Front, around 20-25 Percent on the rear.

 

That should be the best Way to determine

[Gearhead]

This is cool stuff. I have a VR so my setup is different. I've a couple comments though, which you may have already thought of, but here goes:

 

1) Scalene triangle :-)

 

2) Strictly speaking, preload is the amount you compress a spring before any service load is put on it, according to Hooke's law, F=kx. Fork springs are commonly preloaded about 1", that is, in the process of installing the fork cap you compress the spring by an inch, which is "x". Multiply by the spring constant "k" (which represents the spring rate in lb/in) and you get the preload force.

 

3) Practically speaking, changing preload (by further compressing or relaxing the spring) does change your ride height within your given range of wheel travel and within certain force limits. In contrast, what you are doing with links changes the whole range of travel, which is what you need to do to achieve your goals. (I think that adding air to a fork or shock increases both preload and effective "k".)

 

4) The motion of all those parts probably produces a progressive, rising-rate situation, where the suspension gets stiffer (rising effective "k") as compressed. Changing the geometry could modify the rate rise, for better or worse. I think changing the distance between the top two holes would be most likely to alter the spring rate.

 

5) Can you slide your fork tubes up 3/4" in the triple tree? That would be an easy way to get your rake angle mod for trial purposes, at least, and you could tell if lowering the front is really a problem.

 

6) Regarding "dynamic ride height", I've heard it referred to as static sag - the suspension compression at rest with the load aboard. (If you have 4" of wheel travel, and you measure 1" of that "used up" under these conditions, that's 1/4 = 25% static sag.) I've measured it as Squeeze said, except I had my dad sit on the bike and keep his feet on the floor, but just barely enough pressure on the floor to keep the bike upright. And I think 20-25% is appropriate for a sport bike on a track. 30-35% is better for a big street bike. More load (passenger, luggage, beer-belly) obviously increases static sag which can be partially made up for with increased preload, but higher spring rate is better. I think that makes air pressure an effective way to go because it increases preload and spring rate.

 

7) Finally, about kickstands. I currently have 3 basically stock 87 Yamahas. The Virago leans WAY over on the kickstand; always has. (It has a lot of wear in the stand pivot, which might be the cause.) The stand has always been plenty strong, but I have to pay extra attention to a firm surface for the stand and park appropriately. The Radian barely leans over at all, and is light to boot, so that once with a cover (sail) on it blew over in the lot at work. If I'd paid better attention it wouldn't have happened. The Venture leans "just right". All 3 are functional and simply require little adjustments in parking strategy.

 

Jeremy

[pegscraper]

1) Yes, that's the term. I remember now. When I first started figuring out how to change the dimensions of that link to lower the swing arm, I measured the lengths of the sides and thought I would need to know the angles too. With the links still installed on the bike so I didn't have any down time, I couldn't measure the angles. So I thought I would calculate them from the three side lengths. When I started thumbing through an old college math book about how to figure that I started seeing bunches of math terms that I once knew and had forgotten, and I started feeling really stupid. I finally turned up the formula and was amazed at how complex it was. I decided I would only wade through that if I had absolutely had to, and I ended up realizing I didn't need them.

 

Since I have the shock adjusted to the maximum hard position as it's called in the owner's manual, or its minimum length, I guess that's all I can do with that.

 

4) Interesting idea, but with the way the links are positioned I don't think that's what happens. The arc segment(?) through which the shock mounting hole travels is for the most part largely perpendicular to the shock travel. In its travel it look like it probably runs back and forth over perpendicular. If the arc segment through which the shock mount bolt travels were farther up the side of the circle, that would effectively produce a variable spring rate through its travel. In fact, if anything here, it looks like the farther the shaft is pulled out of the shock and the farther it moves up the arc through the links' rotation, the easier it would be to pull it out further because of the leverage of the links, making the suspension soften the more it's compressed rather than more firm. Again, backwards.

 

5) Yes, there's room to move the forks up quite a bit. I may try that rather than having to fabricate links.

 

I could wish I could put an airbag suspension under the rear of the bike instead of the spring, like is available for many other bikes. But with the way this shock works, there's no way to do it.

[Gearhead]

Regarding the progressive linkage idea, I'm looking at the pic again and I see it differently than you. I agree with your assessment of the motion of the lower bolt, but let's look at the top two. Bolt UR (upper right) stays more-or-less in a constant place - let's assume for the moment that it doesn't move. Bolt UL (you guessed it - upper left) moves up with the wheel on suspension compression. As it moves up, the distance between its motion path and bolt UR decreases due to the change in the angle of the link. With decreased distance, the wheel has less "leverage" on the link and thus on the shock unit, which is another way of saying that the suspension would be stiffer at this point. Yes? No?

 

Jeremy

[pegscraper]

Yes? No? Well, at this point I don't really know. First off, the distance between the upper left bolt and the upper right bolt doesn't change, but I think I know what you're trying to say. That is what I might call, for lack of a better term, absolute horizontal distance. So you may be right then. I don't know. This has gotten to the point where I don't need to try to figure it out anymore. What's left that I don't understand I don't really need to understand, because it won't do anything practical for me anyway. I would just be playing with my mental blocks. I figured out how to raise the rear of the bike like I wanted, and IMO it rides pretty nice whatever the spring rate does. I just have too much else that I'm trying to do with my time and my brain cells. Like I said earlier, I think they consulted with Rube Goldberg extensively when they designed this mess.

 

I received my Avon tires yesterday, and got them mounted and balanced today. But this evening it is raining here, so I will wait until tomorrow to put the bike back together and ride it. I'm anxious to try this brand out, and I'm just plain anxious for new tires. My old ones were in really bad shape.

 

The thing I don't like about raising the forks up in the trees to further straighten up the rake angle is that it lowers the front and lessens my ground clearance for the floorboards. I already don't have enough of that as it is. I may try it at some point to see what happens handling-wise, but I don't see that lasting because of the ground clearance issue.

[foundryratjim]

I just installed a set of links that i made from info froum this group and they do work great!!!!!