Replacement Rear Shocks

[Midlifecrisis]

OK, I know that the benefits of replacement rear shocks has been well covered, and I add my enthusiasm for Hagon Nitros to the list. But I also want to say how pleased I am having gone for 340mm long shocks rather than the standard 320mm (for a Classic). I think the bike has a much better stance with the 340mm shocks and I'd swear that the steering is less ponderous. Not only that, but at 5' 10" I can still get both feet flat on the ground. Happy all round!

 

[mully95]

Glad to hear. I would have went with longer shocks but I would have had to find longer legs somewhere.

 

[1olbull]

Good on ya!
I like the 340mm idea, but at 5' 11" my inseam is just 29" and WAY TOO short for them!

 

[Mittzy]

Good on ya!
I like the 340mm idea, but at 5' 11" my inseam is just 29" and WAY TOO short for them!

Me too

 

[1olbull]

Me too

Tony,
Are you going with taller shockies that those Hagons?

 

[Mittzy]

Tony,
Are you going with taller shockies that those Hagons?

They are great mate,
I have a low seat and would now think about longer shocks

 

[barbagris]

KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON YOUR SHAFT UJ AND SPLINES.

 

[cr0ft]

Steering would be less ponderous, as hiking the rear will directly change the rake and trail of the bike. Raising it a little in the rear shouldn't bad but you have given up some high-speed stability with that procedure, and it's easier to steer at low speeds. You're riding closer to a front-end wobble with an elevated rear though, and with sufficiently low trail (probably not achievable without modifying the actual frame...) it can get downright dangerous.

 

[dougl]

Don't Hagons have manual dampening? I had that on my last R3 and didn't know what to do with it. How does one know? I'm planning to get Progressive 444.

 

[JoseyR3Wales]

Good on ya!
I like the 340mm idea, but at 5' 11" my inseam is just 29" and WAY TOO short for them!

It ain't the inseam, it's the bucket of balls.