xeris

I plan on installing a rear hugger. Modifying one to fit an "aluminum pipe" wasn't what I wanted to take on. My time is very limited and that was one less detail to deal with.
Yes the wheel is a "cost" as I had to pay for it. Until the if or when I sell it happens, it remains part of the expense of this mod.

VTRorist

Hi if you are interested, I will soon sell my complete rear swingarm is a vtr 1000 2001 reinforced with a wheel 929 with the axis chain tensioners spacers and a good adjustable shock absorber. there's a mount on the bike any changes to predict, I'll mount a rear hybrid SP2 / CBR 1000. You can see the photo on "My VTR"

xeris

Thank you for the offer. I'm going to see my project through to the end.
My swing arm mod is mostly paid for and I have a fork swap to fund. I'm at my limit budget wise. Besides the shipping would be really expensive.

VTRorist

I've got the front too

JamieDaugherty

Something that I saw elluded to in an earlier post that wasn't really covered in detail, but I think is very important to this topic: swingarm length and it's effect on wheelbase.

The 900RR brace is probably the best idea as it maintains the stock wheelbase. Ideally the VTR could use a shorter wheelbase as that would benefit the bike quite a bit. Sure, the long wheelbase adds stability, which is great for cruisers....

Any other newer/better/etc swingarm will be longer. That will add to the VTR's already excessively long wheelbase. I feel that any gains you get by reducing flex are lost on the new chassis geometery.

I think it is very important to keep the whole system in mind and not just focus on "I need a braced swingarm, I need a braced swingarm." Some things are easy to do, while almost everything is easy to do wrong!

mikstr

On the other hand, a shorter swingarm would shift even more weight to the rear, making the VTR's stock rearward weight bias even worse.....

NHSH

With a CBR1000RR front you also make front shorter as well, so you do compensate a bit if you have the SP2 rear in this combination, but you do shift some more wight on the front wheel due to this, as Tweety's bike, geometry changes are also a matter of preference. not sure about the SP front length though in a combination with the rear SP2...

scottiemann

Now this old thread has got me lost about what direction I want to go with my *** end...

My goal with my bike is stiffer suspension with more "flickability" but also to lighten it as much as possible...

As some of you know ill be doing the cbr1000rr front end but as my budget is running low with still a lot of time and money to go into the engine I have 2 options...

I can leave the stock swingarm as is and wait until next year to drop in the sp2 swinger which is stiffer and lighter or I can brace my swingarm now and do the sp2 later... any suggestions?

Keep in mind my budget is real low on this

mikstr

a shorter front and longer rear will both help shift weight forward (not counteract one another)..... unless, of course, I misread or misunderstood......

NHSH

I guess you misread, I meant that with the longer SP2 arm by about 2.5" the Shorter front end of the CBR1000RR kinda compensates on the longer wheel base as it is shorter by at list 1" to 1.5", so in theory you may have just an inch longer wheel base with both ends on the Hawk, but due to the change in geometry and center of gravity you do have more shifted weight on the front wheel in this setup

scottiemann

So I'm guessing I should just deal with the flexible rear until I can afford a sp2 front next season

NHSH

You meant SP2 rear
BTW this set up will not effect your ability to wheelie despite the added weight on the front, by changing to CBR1000RR front you already loosing weight from the front end.
Another thing Scottie, you are not a heavy guy, the G force you get on the turns is not enough to flex the arm you already in advantage so no worries mate!

scottiemann

Sorry I meant sp2 rear

scottiemann

Good advice Ruv, I wish we had a chance to ride after you got your cbr front all set up

NHSH

Yea... I know, I guess we will get to compare the two when you done rebuilding... I got to tell you though, that front end mod worth every penny spent!!!

scottiemann

it better be... i still need rotors and pads

HRCA#1

Anybody know what wheels and tires are pictured? Sent PM but never heard back.

NHSH

Tires are Metzeler Sportec M1
Wheels look like Carrozzeria

JamieDaugherty

Weight bias isn't really much of an issue here. The VTR isn't terrible in that department, and in fact can use a bit more reward weight bias and it would be just fine. Changing the wheelbase, on the other hand, is something that makes a noticeable impact on the overall handling. In this case shorter would be going in the good direction, longer is the bad direction. There are some negatives to having too short a swingarm so a limit exists on how far you want to go there. Plus it's kind of hard to find a shorter swingarm anyway!

Please don't confuse front ends with the swingarm discussion here. That's opening up another level of complexity. A fork change will not significantly decrease the wheelbase, in fact it's just about 6mm or so max if everything is setup properly. Not sure where the numbers came from that are thrown around in the above posts. Up front the biggest thing, IMO, to be concerned about is rake and triple clamp offset and it's effect on trail. The VTR's stock rake is just about right, so "dropping" the front reduces trail. The VTR's are alread on the boarderline of having not enough trail in stock trim. Swapping complete front ends usually changes the fork offet (the new triples) down to 30mm from the VTR's stock 36mm. In that case it is best to increase the front ride height by 5mm to get good trail numbers.

Food for thought!

xeris

Have been doing some planning, which included many searches on the subject, to educate myself for my future fork swap (SP1 forks, lower triple, stem, All ***** bearings and 954 upper triple).
Reducing offset adds trail. Right? In this case you're recommending to add more trail by lowering (raising ride height) the forks in the triples. Is this because the reduced offset doesn't add enough to get to where you like it? Or am I reading this wrong?

JamieDaugherty

Don't forget, chassis geometry is a tricky thing. What happens in the front depends on what is going on out back. A good setup on the VTR will have about 20-25mm of increased ride height in the rear. That decreases the trail up front by about 6mm. The VTR already has only 100mm so that is going in the wrong direction. Switching to a front end with 30mm of triple clamp offset gains that back plus a bit, but that's not enough. In order to get into the desired range of 102-105mm of trail you would need to raise the front another 5-10mm. That nets you a couple mm of additional trail which helps.

xeris

Thank you. That clears it up a lot for me.
In addition to a shim in the rear to get most of the rear height increase, what about rest made up with a Dunlop 190x55 Q2 rear tire? By my calculations that tire size would net about 5.5mm in height. Which is a little different than what was posted by nath981. https://www.superhawkforum.com/forum...ard-rim-28606/

2whltuner

HRCA#1; sorry for the delay to your PM but no PM received, but HSNS is correct on the wheel/tire combo in the 900rr brace pictures.

2whltuner

JamieDaugherty

I'm really glad you brought this up - it's something often overlooked. Actual tire diameter will affect chassis geometry. If the bike is 100% stock it probably doesn't make a heap of difference, but if you have a suspension setup that you are happy with, changing to a different tire OD can certainly throw things off.

Tripper777

A great thread.
I have just started my VTR project and all the above has sent me on the path I needed to go down.
I will post its progress.

I am now chassing a front end and by what I have read 98 1000RR might be the go, the other option is a GSX1100R??????? anybody gone down that track?????.

Sorry I will look for that tread somewhere else.

Cheers