Just my opinion but, if I was getting a wobble of any kind on a rocket below 110 mph then I would start looking at all the variables that affect the geometry first before adding a device to cover up the problem. These bikes are heavy enough and the geometry is correct that they should be tracking past 100mph easily with good stability.

The reason dampers are used and necessary on super sport ****** rockets is the bikes are light and their geometry is designed for very quick response left and right. They may come from the factory ready to fly on a closed circuit track, but out on the street where they encounter all kinds of irregularities in road surface they are not that stable at high speeds.
 
The only reason I syayed away grom the Scotts style on the R3 is because of the height once mounted and the controls. GPR looked to be a lower profile with the controls in the front not up on top like the scotts. Another thing is the gpr fits around the modified the tripple tree nut where the svotts is up over the top. I am sure the Scotts is a fine unit.
I was referring to Scott Szczepaniak - I hear he knows a thing or two about R3's.
 
Just my opinion but, if I was getting a wobble of any kind on a rocket below 110 mph then I would start looking at all the variables that affect the geometry first before adding a device to cover up the problem. These bikes are heavy enough and the geometry is correct that they should be tracking past 100mph easily with good stability..
On the whole I agree. The geometry is lazy even after mucking about with it (tyres/suspension etc).
But since fitting higher/pulled back bars I have noticed a tremble every so often - usually cross wind related.
Having a big screen and cases does not help.
It's not often and it's easily caught when one is "fresh", but after a 400km run my reflexes are fading. Age is a bugger.
Add rain or cold and - any help is good.
 
The only reason I syayed away grom the Scotts style on the R3 is because of the height once mounted and the controls. GPR looked to be a lower profile with the controls in the front not up on top like the scotts. Another thing is the gpr fits around the modified the tripple tree nut where the svotts is up over the top. I am sure the Scotts is a fine unit.

The valve control system has pretty well been perfected. It is a custom Rocket 3 mount that is in need. Show us the picture of the proto again, would you. Perhaps you can raise enough money to CNC/cut a proto and test it. I think yours went below the handlebar top clam or the handlebar rested on it. The chassis fixing point would be the gas tank front fixing point.

I have had my front with large windscreen do the wiper thing. At least it was not a shake.
 
That's a good description, "wiper thing". Mine is slow, but deliberate. Having had a poop your pants tank slapper on my Kaw ZRX1200r at speed, I tend to notice it maybe more than others that have not had such an experience.
 
That's a good description, "wiper thing". Mine is slow, but deliberate. Having had a poop your pants tank slapper on my Kaw ZRX1200r at speed, I tend to notice it maybe more than others that have not had such an experience.

We were hurrying up the Galveston bridge north bound in a breeze and traffic and I punched it. As we reached the top and started downhill, was well warned by the wiper bike to back off which I did and she settled immediately.
 
Last edited:
The valve control system has pretty well been perfected. It is a custom Rocket 3 mount that is in need. Show us the picture of the proto again, would you. Perhaps you can raise enough money to CNC/cut a proto and test it. I think yours went below the handlebar top clam or the handlebar rested on it. The chassis fixing point would be the gas tank front fixing point.

I have had my front with large windscreen do the wiper thing. At least it was not a shake.
Here's what I was messing with

P9270024.JPG


And a few of the Scotts with reversed rivco risers.
IMG_20130705_162128_298.jpg

0928161840.jpg

0928161435.jpg
 
Just my opinion but, if I was getting a wobble of any kind on a rocket below 110 mph then I would start looking at all the variables that affect the geometry first before adding a device to cover up the problem. These bikes are heavy enough and the geometry is correct that they should be tracking past 100mph easily with good stability.

The reason dampers are used and necessary on super sport ****** rockets is the bikes are light and their geometry is designed for very quick response left and right. They may come from the factory ready to fly on a closed circuit track, but out on the street where they encounter all kinds of irregularities in road surface they are not that stable at high speeds.
I concur - and under normal circumstances my R3T15 handles high speed like a dream -BUT i have a sidecar attached, a coffin deck as I use my R3 as a hearse, or am about to start to, and that smashes the balance dynamic, not badly but it does. I'm going to find some dampener to fit i have no choice in that...at present i'm looking at Toby very seriously.
 
Amazing to see those radial dampers actually mounted. That would be the perfect solution.

Well, I agree that a Rocket should be stable at 110 under normal circumstances, but it is more about those moments that are not quite normal.

For instance, some time ago I was trying to shake off another biker at "slightly elevated" speed. Overtaking a truck in a curve at about 85 with gusting side winds, suddenly the handlebar started shaking wildly, and the R3 really felt like it wanted to kill me. I had to back off and let the other guy drive away. When I came home I was totally pissed with the bike's bulky, bad handling - until I found the nail in my back tire. Pressure was about 10psi.
In moments like that one, a damper can decide your fate. I got away that time. But I'd go for one, the moment I have a chance to.
 
Back
Top