Progressive 444 geometry

[Stillserving]

how much sag are you able to achieve on lightest(longest) preload setting out of curiosity, mine unsaddled is sprung tight i can only get 1/4in and that really sets the geometry out of balance.

I have the same problem. I'm about 205lbs and with zero preload on 444 heavy duty springs and I get about the same sag as you. With the wife on it, and no preload I'm right about at 1 inch of sag. So the heavy duty springs are more like super heavy duty in my opinion. Called progressive and ordered standard weight. The guy tells me they will be a little light for 2 up, but I find that hard to believe. If the heavy duty spring is too heavy for me and my wife but giving me the correct sag with no preload, then how will the standard spring be too light? I'm optimistic and I think they will be fine. I should be able to get the correct sag with just me on the bike and if I need to crank the preload to the 3rd mark when she's on with me, then so be it.

Guess I'm just a FAT A$$. With just me on it, I'm right at 1" sag.
Speaking of setting sag, Is anyone else having issues turning the rings by hand? Mine at TIGHT. Might also be that I kind of have to reach at a weird angle to get my hand in the right place with the hard bags and the modified rear crash bars on. I had to actually add a 10 mm spacer between the head of the shock and the crash bars to keep them from hitting the top edge of the shock body (but it was a mod to the bracket I made to clear the stock shock bodies and make the bars stick out far enough to protect the hard bags).

 

[Roscoe]

Rule of thumb setup is 25% to 1/3mof distance sag. Jack the wheel off the ground by 1mm or just so weight of bike is off the rear wheel, measure from a rigid point close to the shock, I use the top shock bolt or an eyebrow fender bolt to the ground, if it is 100 inches when you sit back on the bike have same measurement taken again, it should only be 25% to 1/3 less in other words if it was 100inches unweighted it should be a maximum of 67 to 75inches measured with weight.

 

[Rocket HP]

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

Go for Fournales air if you up the weight u just put a cupple mor bar in them.
I have had progressive and I found them to be ok .
I have had the fournales and have done over 100,000 km on them and can not folt them.