Progressive 444 geometry

[rng3]

Although I am sure everyone is tired of talking about rear shocks I would like to throw out a couple thoughts and questions to the experts who will hopefully correct any misconceptions. This relates to a Roadster.

I do not know what it is about the stock rear shocks but they sure doe not instill confidence in me on a bumpy or washboard road.

I would think progressive spring rates front and rear should provide a smother more stable ride.

The valving on the Progressive rear shocks seem to be a big step up from stock and they come with a progressive spring rate.

The Progressive 444 is available in a couple of different lengths 11.5” – 12” – 12.5” - 13”.
Stock height being 12.5”

Changing the rear and or front height will change the bike's geometry. Wheelbase, rake angle, ground clearance, etc. and thus handling.

I believe Claviger has suggested that using a smaller front tire and lowering the front makes the bike more responsive. I would suspect that raising the rear will have a similar effect to geometry but also increase ground clearance. This has been suggested by Ishrub.

Further reading suggests that this will make the bike more responsive but less stable.
I would guess that Triumph would lean toward making the Rocket 3 more stable than responsive so adding a 1/2” rear height should be fine.

Being tall and around 200 lbs. and only having a passenger around 10% of the time the standard spring rate with the 13” shocks should work well. No problem flat footing for me. I could preload the rear for the passenger.

As a side note the Rocket seems to be sensitive to small changes, Just adding a few pounds pressure to front tire to help with low speed handling made a big difference.

Rick

 

[warp9.9]

Although I am sure everyone is tired of talking about rear shocks I would like to throw out a couple thoughts and questions to the experts who will hopefully correct any misconceptions. This relates to a Roadster.

I do not know what it is about the stock rear shocks but they sure doe not instill confidence in me on a bumpy or washboard road.

I would think progressive spring rates front and rear should provide a smother more stable ride.

The valving on the Progressive rear shocks seem to be a big step up from stock and they come with a progressive spring rate.

The Progressive 444 is available in a couple of different lengths 11.5” – 12” – 12.5” - 13”.
Stock height being 12.5”

Changing the rear and or front height will change the bike's geometry. Wheelbase, rake angle, ground clearance, etc. and thus handling.

I believe Claviger has suggested that using a smaller front tire and lowering the front makes the bike more responsive. I would suspect that raising the rear will have a similar effect to geometry but also increase ground clearance. This has been suggested by Ishrub.

Further reading suggests that this will make the bike more responsive but less stable.
I would guess that Triumph would lean toward making the Rocket 3 more stable than responsive so adding a 1/2” rear height should be fine.

Being tall and around 200 lbs. and only having a passenger around 10% of the time the standard spring rate with the 13” shocks should work well. No problem flat footing for me. I could preload the rear for the passenger.

As a side note the Rocket seems to be sensitive to small changes, Just adding a few pounds pressure to front tire to help with low speed handling made a big difference.

Rick

Remember changing wheel size alters centline axle to ground. A 140 bring the front axle lower then the rear. Changing shock length does not alter this.

 

[sonny]

I ride with progressive 444's (Stock Length) and progressive springs up front. 140 Scorcher up front and Emax rear. Very happy with this set up. Stable and smooth. For the money it is a sweet set up. Much improved over the stock set up. I would not run the 13 inch myself but that's up to you.

 

[rng3]

Remember chaning wheel size alters centline axle to ground. A 140 bring the front axle lower then the rear. Changing shock length does not alter this.

So it is the relationship / height of the front and rear axle C/L, a longer rear shock may raise the rear of the bike and transfer more weight to the front but may not have the same effect?

Thanks,
Rick

 

[1olbull]

And longer shock gives you more travel and raises the seat height.
Going with a 140/75 on the front brings the front axle down. The 240/55 Exedra max on the rear brings the rear axle up.
The stock roadster is on a reverse Daygo, with the rear axle lower than the front axle. For good handling this needs to be reversed, which the 240/55 rear and the 140/75 front will do for you.

 

[sonny]

In layman's terms. go with the stock length on the shocks.

 

[Tal]

I run stock length Ohlin shocks which have been made for my bike...progressive front fork springs with 7 grade oil, a 55 profile rear exendra max and a stock size avon on the front. I find this is way more stable than the stock setup...bumps aren't as harsh and it gives me confidence in the corners.
Our roads are on average a very coarse asphalt and so i wasn't keen to experiment with a 140 front tyre due to possible scuffing the shoulder of the tyre. Just my thoughts out loud.

 

[WyldCFH]

I used +.5" 444s on my R3R with the 140 front/240-55 rear and progressive fork springs with 7wt oil.

It was not unstable, there were no downsides. In fact for me, being 6'4.5" the extra half in higher seat height was nice.

 

[1K9]

What was your preferred preload setting? I just got a new set of 444 and don't know how to set them other than by the butt-feel method.

 

[Tripps]

I raised my front forks about 1/4" in the triple tree, but I have an issue with high speed weave (R3T), and I live in the flatlands, so I'm going to drop them back down when I install my front Chrome, I'll see if it makes a difference.
Even if I lose some handling, I should still be able to keep up with @warp9.9 pretty easily.