OK so the project begins. I bought the SSS bike but it handles like a mess & I need to dial it in. My old 98 has a race tech front end & handles well. I think the longer wheelbase creates really bad geometry & a non-turning bike. Lots of bump steer, plows wide in turns (almost wont turn). I jacked both ends up to max preload & it helped. The forks are sticking way up past the triples (1-1.5"). They are able to bottom up to the triples. The belly of the bike sits extra low. The bike actually had a steering damper to cope with the geometry issue, but it is really a bandaid on a broken bone.
I plan to put in a penske I have (raise the rear ride ht), and a CBR1000 front end. Anyone ever done this fix & have any advice? Thanks guys

 

is the rear ride height stock?

 

Its a stock shock but its a single sided swingarm so it sits a little lower..
ALSO.... Riding this bike back to back with my other VTR that has CBR F4i brakes makes the stock ones feel PATHETIC. You have to plan ahead to stop. If you guys havent got some f4i brakes, do it now, its like night & day.

 

With the rear lowered it is increasing the rake of the front end. I would find way to get the rear up to the correct height for starters.

 

and i thought it handled very good....guess i should have ridden your race bikes. I can say it handles much better than my harley...

 

It seems to be the same thing I had during testing with my longer RC51/SP2 swingarm... Bump steer and goes wide... Raising the rear helped a lot... A more firm and compliant front end should also be a good idea...

I have my rear higher than stock to get the same geometry up front and the 1000RR forks are all the way flush in the triples, belly sits about one cm higher than stock on mine...

 

that`s not saying much, lol

 

How much longer is the wheelbase than stock? I'm inclined to agree with those who suggest getting the rear higher. The stock SuperHawk has too much weight on the rear, and, as you know, a common mod is to raise the rear ride height to quicken the steering. Putting more weight on the rear, which is what the longer swingarm does, and effectively lengthening the rake can only make things worse.

 

I think lengthening the swingarm moves the weight bias forward, not back

 

Depends on the geometry, if you lenghthen the swing, but keep the stock height you get a longer wheelbase, same geometry at the front and roughly the same bias, possibly slightly forward bias...

Lenghten the wheelbase and lower the rear as is done, and you get the weight at the back and along with a different front geometry because of the angle of the frame, you get all kinds of wierd handling...

Combine the high rear with a long swingarm and you get marginaly longer wheelbase, weight forward and a quick and precise handling... Mine is rock solid in a straight, needs a firm input to drop into the corner but once you do that the steering is light and precise... Before it was a bit lighter on turn in but more apt to go wobbly mid turn if you where pushing...

 

I havent pushed to find what happens past the front end wanting to sort of flop the front end into the turn. (which is what the damper was supposed to stabilize) Like I said, I am going first with rear ride ht. The longer WB indeed does make a rear wt bias and lenthens the rake.
Tweety, do you have stock internals on your cbr forks?

 

Nope... Öhlins insides... But they where actually more than good enough stock...

I just happened to need new oil and was lazy, so I asked the guy at the Öhlins booth on a track day what that would cost... The price he gave me sounded a bit high... Until he told me that was a complete rebuild with shims/cartridge and setup... My response was, "Yeah, how long do I have to wait? A week?!" His response, I have the stuff here, so it should be rebuilt and ready for the setup by the next session... I had my wallet out in less than a second...

 

For an equal ride height, lengthening the swingarm moves the weight bias forward. Just imagine adding a 10' longer swingarm (yes, an exaggeration, but for illustration purposes), the weight bias would become much more forward biased.