rear shocks, old vs new

[RoadToad]

I see the new Roadster has a 20% softer rear suspension. For you experienced Rocket riders... is this a good or bad decision by Triumph? (were the original shocks too stiff?)

Thanks for any input!

 

[Trirocket3]

YES

 

[Joker]

Original shocks were over sprung and under damped.

 

[step1]

suspension is a minefield.

 

[MountainMan]

Original shocks were over sprung and under damped.

Perds, does that gor for the front springs, as well?

 

[atomsplitter]

Original shocks were over sprung and under damped.

Perds, does that gor for the front springs, as well?

Nope, Under sprung and under damped up front.

 

[Joker]

Original shocks were over sprung and under damped.

Perds, does that gor for the front springs, as well?

I'm not as certain as Atom on that one mate.

I fitted progressive springs and heavier oil at the same time but ended up reverting to standard oil after I found the front end too harshly damped.

I'm happy with them now.

 

[MountainMan]

But you did match the front to the back. Progressives up front and behind?

Any thoughts on mixing and matching?

 

[Joker]

But you did match the front to the back. Progressives up front and behind?

Any thoughts on mixing and matching?

Yes, originally they were matched, HD440s on the rear. I had the 440s on the back for months before I put the new springs in the front. Replacing the rears were a much bigger improvement than the marginal improvement at the front. Worth doing, but not the MASSIVE improvement at the rear.

I'll let you know about mixing later this week when I get the bike back. I've still got the progressive springs up front, but I've now got Hagons on the rear.

It's like I know what you want before you even ask. :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[MountainMan]

You're scaring me, Perds.

OK, What am I thinking now?