Intiminator Compared and modified

Discussion in 'Japanese polycylindered adventure bikes' started by AceRider01, Jul 18, 2009.

  1. AceRider01

    AceRider01 Fully Loaded

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    695
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    Hi All,

    As requested and to save reading pages of pages of why and how i arrive to the conclusion after 3years- here are a summary of lists of things one would consider doing to tune it perfect for you:

    ----------------------->>>>> updated Jul 2012

    First thing first - get your Fork Spring correct
    While intiminator is being marketed as a drop in fix all solution - i disagree - the fundamental needs to be in the ball part before getting intiminator. Intiminator fixes ONLY compression damping compromises in the damper rod design. It does not change your spring nor rebound damping. Fork K7 to K11 (not sure about L2) stock fork spring is ok only for people weighing less than 80kg or 175lbs - Sonic Spring Site and Race-Tech (RT tends to be a bit more on the sporty side) site gives you a starting point to get your spring sorted - For data point: My naked 95kg is good with both 0.90kg or 0.95kg, but i prefer more compliance over sportiness, so i picked 0.90kg spring.

    Fork Oil & the Rebound Hole Mod (get your rebound sorted):
    Ricor says no need to mod the damper rod just change to lighter oil for Intiminator to work.

    Lighter fork oil is regardless necessary for the shims to work well; With light fork oil -rebound damping on stock damper rod is reduced - intiminator does NOT work on rebounds, therefore for rebound damping to be adequate - a smaller rebound hole needs to be machined. While damper rod is out, i would also enlarge the 2 existing damper rod compression hole to 10mm as well to ensure all compression damping is directed towards the intiminator.

    Contrary to a lot beliefs about damping - correct rebound damping & spring will give u 90% of your feel on the road. Think about it - springs control mostly your compression motion and rebound ensures that it doesnt spring up and down out of control - rebound damping is the the opposite of spring. You can ride with correct spring and rebound damping only, but u cant ride without rebound any damping.

    For data point i find my 95kg naked body works well with 0.90kg spring and 1.5m (d) rebound hole provide soft but sufficient rebound. ( i am on Sikolene Pro RSF 2.5w & 5.0w mix giving a viscosity rating of approx 17Cst@40c)

    Shim Mod (finally - this affects mostly your chassis movement)

    Shim stack affects mostly low velocity fork movement (chassis
    movement), but also affect high velocity fork movements (bump absorption movement) as the shim stack provides the baseline damping - The by-pass mechanism in intiminator effectively "bleeds" the excessive damping from a hi-velocity movement only.

    Original shim stack for intiminator in 2009 is way to stiff for vstrom, way more than the YMMV variation. Subsequent shim stack shipped by Ricor is progressively getting softer. Get some 0.010 & 0.012 shims when u order your intiminator - i dont think anyone will require additional 0.015 shim other than the 6 that comes with the stock intiminators unless weighing over 110kg or 240lbs.

    To calculate the damping factor for different shim combo: raise the diameter to the power of 3
    Eg: 4 shims of 0.012 and one shim of 0.010 diameter will give is 0.000007912 which is about 8% less damping than 0.012 x 5 shims
    <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="85"><tbody><tr height="20"><td style="height:15.0pt;width:64pt" align="right" height="20" width="85">
    </td></tr></tbody></table>My current setting with the 0.90kg spring is 0.012 x 4 + 0.010 x 1


    Drill a by-pass hole for the intiminator (this allow small bumps and road imperfection to be delt effectively)
    If after all mods you feel the intiminator does not deal with tiny bumps or road imperfection effectively (ie jarring over them) this will solve your problem - posted by Ranger Ron and on advice from Ricor (now only Ricor suggested that from the beginning ) - I am amazed how effective this solution is. I am guessing the reason this mod works so well is that a certain amount of fluid pressure is needed to push pass those shim stack - the by-pass hole provide some relief before the shim stack is pushed up - a bit like the by-pass orifices of RT emulator. giving a more complaint ride on minor stuff. I find a 1mm(d) sufficient for my purpose
    [​IMG]

    By-pass circuit mod on intiminator (maybe small additional benefit)

    see LADDER106's post 17 for the correct way of doing it - essentially no need to enlarge more than the internal area of the hollow shaft - the stock oblong orifices is already quite close - this step can be skipped if you have no desire to mod the intiminator even more


    More orifices on 'intiminator body' to allow more oil flow to shim stack mod.

    i cant mathematically calculate the benefits of this mod but it is in the same principles used by RT with their gold valve mods to shocks and cartridge forks. Essentially drill 4 additional orifices to the bottom of the intiminator body to allow more oil to follow towards the shim stack - you have to be careful not to drill into the rebound valve springs around the inner outside of the intiminator body.

    Sealing Ring mod (reduce friction)
    The sealing ring can be trimmed slightly to reduce friction between it and the internal wall of the fork -


    Other items to ensure your forks is working effectively
    Ensure your forks are assembly of equal height - your axle should be easily tighten with just your finger - tool should only be used to do final tightening - hard to tighten maybe unequal height and therefore greater friction; A fork brace is also recommended; ensure correct procedure followed to tighten axle pinch bolt;


    --------------------------------------------------<<<<<

    original post from here




    I thought i would share my recent adventures into trying to fix my front end with the much talked about intiminator.

    Just a little background first;

    I have a 2008 Wee Strom DL650 ABS, recently installed Elka shock (before that it was modified rear shock), and Superbrace fork brace. I am 195lbs or 86kgs plus riding gear. I do sporty (but not aggressive) rides over crapy roads a lot ( a lot of bumps and broken surface). This puts the system in a lot of damand- Firm enough for Chasis control, yet enough bleed in the system for frequent sharp bumps and dips

    I have also tried RT valves and Pro-valves before, so my damper rod has compression holes enlarged.

    Here is a pic of Pro-Valve:
    [​IMG]

    Pro Valves uses a shims arrangements to control both low and high speed damping. In theroy this should work better than RT Gold Valve. But there is a lot bleed in the system that for high speed to work reasonably well the low speed control is not so good for road riding. The quality of pro-valve is not as good as RT gold valve nor intiminator.

    My original RT gold Valves was bought off the shelf and was not probably tuned and it was shocking. The low velocity damping was very good, but moderate bumps would sent the bike into hydro lock. The preload adjustment on the RT gold valve could never get it right. I sold them to someone else quickly.

    however, I recently rode PeterW 's bike with a properly tuned RT Gold Valve and it was excellent (PeterW seem to be in the same weight range as me)- I think the tuner used a different spring than the two RT made available with its gold valve emulators and have have change the low speed bleed holes to suit local riding conditions


    Intiminator-

    A good quality product with excellent low velocity damping. The "ring" around intiminator body seals it quite well to the point that there's very little uncontrol bleed like pro valve.

    However, in standard form, high velocity damping is way too harsh for the frequent bumps i encounter.

    After some discussions with Ricco (they are sending me different shims to try) and without too much sucess in subtracting a few shims as they have suggested - i cam up with the idea of enlarging intiminator's bleed holes.

    see following diagrams for more info

    First i added a washer to facilitate removal from forks
    [​IMG]


    Below is a picture of intiminator fully disassembled - note the "sealing ring" and different size shims (in that order)

    [​IMG]

    Another pic showing the disassembled parts
    [​IMG]

    See below about the bleed holes - they can be enlarged to no more than 2.5mm dia - from 1.9mm dia approx
    [​IMG]


    I ended up with one 0.012mm shim less and all 4 holes enlarged to 2.5mm. In hindsight, enlarging only 2 or 3 holes, and a different shims arrangement might be better


    Overall conclusion, intiminator is a very good product, but not a miracle cure, and needs further fine-tuning.

    I think intiminator is as good quality as RT Gold Valve emulator, if not better. It seems to be easier to instal as you dont need to drill larger damper rod hole ( i have no experience of this though). this might sway some to buy iniminator.

    A lot of people have given intiminators excellent reviews, but many also given RT emulators good reviews too. When i swapped bike with PeterW (another inmate) last week, we concluded that his well tuned RT Gold Valve works better.

    In the end, whichever emulators you end up with, customisation is a must.
    #1
  2. tri boy

    tri boy Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    727
    Location:
    No nuke zone
    A very fair, and balanced report:thumb
    I have been using RT emulators in the Scrambler. (shimmed and fitted by the NZ national agent)
    They are a great product, but your right when you say they are not a miracle fix for dampener rod forks.
    I am still searching for the optimal setup, but one thing is sure, they are light years better than standard fixed orifice rods.
    Good luck with your search for the perfect set up.
    #2
  3. AceRider01

    AceRider01 Fully Loaded

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    695
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    I should mention, of course, customised or not, whichever you end up with - they are years ahead of standard.

    Bearing in mind that your shock will also have a dramatic effect how your front feel as well. I would suggest putting an elka shock (or wilburs or ohlins) is a must too. My front felt better after Elka shock was put in, even though i had a modified shock before that (and it was better than standard)

    Compare to PeterW's fully adjustable Wilburs, we both felt that with the limited adjustments we did, Elka shocks seem to have been built better for the bumpy roads we have here.


    FYI, i have 0.85 sonic straight springs and weight 195lbs (86kg) plus gear

    To give a score at this moment in time for the four set ups for the front:



    Standard:
    Overall feel : 4, after superbrace 5

    ------

    RT Gold Valve Emulator (standard springs and bleed hole after playing with preload):

    Quality: 9 - Well made, look flash;

    Tunability: 8 - different springs can be purchased and bleed holes size changed, preload on springs changed but skills and money are involved

    Overall Feel: 7 to 9 - without changing standard springs on emulator (not forks), it's not possible dial out high speed harshness whilst remain firm, too much free bleed; PeterW's well tuned version, though, scores a 9 IMHO;

    Ease of Instal 7 - once you overcome the fear, drilling damper rod is not that scary;

    -------

    Pro Mecha's Pro Valve (Melbourne Aust):
    http://www.promecha.com.au/
    it's basically RT using shims

    Quality: 7 - Nothing wrong with it, but they are machined by hand and not Computer

    Tunability: 9 - Easily changed damping charateristics by changing shims and arrangement - home mecahanics can do this easy without / with limited additional money outlay, but see below

    Overall Feel: 8 - Good product, but like RT, a lot of system free bleed, seperation of low/high velocity not so good with my limited tuning;

    Ease of Instal: 7 - same as RT, drilling damper rod necessary

    -----------

    Ricco Intiminator

    I thought it could be the miracle fix for the issues i have Pro Valve, but it ain't

    Quality: 9 - well made, like RT Emulator

    Tunability: 7 - Different shims can be changed, but Ricco does not provide any info in their literatures, and can only suggest shims change - which control mostly low velocity damping and to some extent high velocity - there's no "pre-load" changes on springs because it works on different principle to RT and Pro Valve. If you enlarging high speed bleed holes like i did, process not reversible, and you cant just buy another "cap" to drill like you could with RT. - this could just be that intiminator is a new product; information on rebound effects on using 5wt oil from Ricco is also non-existent.

    Overall Feel: 8 (at this point) With very limited Free bleed due to "sealing ring" on intiminator - low velocity control is always excellent; mid size bumps control are quite good with my enlarged holes - high amplitute bumps is still not great. One thing i would say is that does seperate low velocity and mid/high velocity bumps better than the other two.

    Easy of Instal: 9 people have reported great results with installation not requiring enlarging damper rod compression holes - this didnt apply to me

    _______________

    Conclusion,

    Both RT Gold Valve emulator and intiminator will transform your standard front, period.

    None are miracle fix, at least in standard form. Intiminator might be easier to instal.

    Despite what Ricco says about the miracle inertial valve, and that it does work differently to RT, results in seperating low/ high speed damping is similar.

    Intiminator tunability seems to be less, though this might increase with time when Ricco provide further info and parts on how to do it.

    If you already have RT, i suggest perhaps play around with different emulator springs (a softer one for better high velocity response) and perhaps chaning low speed bleed hole size, even if you have to buy a new cap.

    Intiminator will give u better chasis control (due to i think better sealing around the side), but it has problem dealing with the really bumpy stuff and the limited tunability is an issue at least at this point. It has potential to better RT, but Ricco needs provide better info and spare parts for us to play with.

    BTW, you will need to ring Ricco to send you different size shims if want to play with chaning shims - they are imperial and not metric as commonly the case. I believe they use similar shims as ones in Fox shocks?

    If someone has been playing with intiminator, please share your experience

    A
    #3
  4. AceRider01

    AceRider01 Fully Loaded

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    695
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    Ricor has since sent me their " tuning kit" which consists of multiple 0.010, 0.012 and 0.015 shims and a tool which allow disassemblies without a vice.

    Here is my final result.

    1) 2x0.015 shims follow by 0.010 X 4 shims. (instead of the standard 2X0.015 & 4 x 0.012 shims combo)

    2) By pass holes enlarged to 2.5mm size (all 4, but suggest others try 2 or 3 to start with) Read post below before you drill though

    The end result of this combination is that the brake dive control is still very good, as good as 90% plus of intiminator in standard form. But compliance is on medium to big bumps is waaaay better. If you ride on relatively smooth road, perhaps enlarging only two holes rather than all four.

    Even though the shim control mainly the low velocity damping, it still has an effect on high velocity damping.

    The increase in size for four by-pass holes from the standard 1.9mm to 2.5mm resulted in an increase flow surface area of 70%

    The overal effect is now 90% of what i want. the last 10% may only come from either a bit of tweak on the rebound hole and/or stumbling on the perfect shim combo.

    <<<<<<<but read="" post="" below="" first-="" drilling="" might="" not="" be="" that="" effective=""><read post="" below="" first="" before="" you="" drill-="" drilling="" might="" not="" be="" that="" effective="">>>>>>>>>>>></read></but>
    #4
  5. ddlewis

    ddlewis Long timer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Oddometer:
    2,507
    Location:
    South/central Va
    Acerider, thanks for sharing all this. :thumb
    #5
  6. thistle66

    thistle66 Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Oddometer:
    376
    Location:
    Scotland
    +1 Thanks for this write up> This is a great thread for someone like me I have the Intimators from Ricor; just too busy recently to get em in.
    #6
  7. Navaho

    Navaho Long timer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Oddometer:
    1,093
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Thanks for the research. I just installed mine last weekend on the BMW and I'm impressed.

    I also replaced the RT emulators with Intiminators in my DR650 but have not tested them yet.
    #7
  8. hnsimpson

    hnsimpson n00b

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Oddometer:
    3
    Thanks for this write up.

    Just ordered a set from Ricor. Looking forward to the install.

    -simpson
    #8
  9. Night_Wolf

    Night_Wolf Leg Humper

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Oddometer:
    11,275
    Location:
    Lat: N 90°00'00" Long: N/A
    Just added this to the Wee Strom Thread Index :thumb
    #9
  10. weevee

    weevee 2014 Yamaha ST 1200 True Blue

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Oddometer:
    10
    Location:
    Washington - Real close to Oregon but not to close
    Installed mine a couple months ago - way to stiff with the suggested preload. I removed the spacers and cut them down so the caps fit with almost zero preload - works much better. I have the factory cap backed all the way out. Happy with the product - no more clunk on big bumps -
    #10
  11. AceRider01

    AceRider01 Fully Loaded

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    695
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    Hal from Ricor contacted me the other day and pointed out to me that the high velocity "bleed holes" are resitricted by the amount of oil flowing thru the hollow shaft.

    I measured the internal diameter of the hollow shaft - it's about 6.21mm. Area Mathmatics tells me then the 4 bleed holes need not to be bigger than 1.5mm to provide a unimpeded flow of oil. And the standard "bleed holes" are 1.9mm more than sufficient for the application. So technically my drilling the holes to 2.2mm should have no effect at all. The ID of the hollow shaft is the bottle neck.

    I am truely baffaled now - because i am certain that i felt a distinct difference - more than anything else i have done to it in terms of getting better high velocity compliance. Playing with the shims is more like fine tuning. But according to Ricor, only shims make a difference. I dont know whether the larger holes allow more efficient flow of oil as the oil had to come out at a 90 degree angle.

    So if you decide the drill the hole larger like i did, bear in mind this mathmatical fact. Although i cant see any harmful effect on drilling those hole larger as long as it is less than 2.5mm in diametre- so that the gold sleeve collar can fully cover the holes on normal position.

    Rebound hole mod:

    In the meantime, I have welded the rebound hole on the standard damper to counteract the effect of using of 5 wt oil on rebound. The rebound is definitely too soft with 5wt oil and my 0.85kg spring. I get an extra bounce after going speed hump and i get a bit wide on turn-in. The standard round hole is only 2.2mm. I thought of going to 1mm- but decided that i can always drill later - better weld it up first and see what happens. The damper now has NO rebound hole - rebound damping now all comes from system free bleed.

    I am going to go for longer ride with wife tomorrow over some bumpy roads around here and will test the result- my first day off in the last 3 weeks. But short rides around my place tells me the rebound adjustment is certainly right as my turn in after braking is a very good now. she holds a tight line going in.
    #11
  12. Steph T

    Steph T n00b

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Oddometer:
    4
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    OK, OK, I'm champing at the bit, what happened on the ride? Did welding up the hole make a difference, are you going to try a 1mm hole? What type of welder did you use? Drilling out welded holes is normally quite difficult, and 1mm bits will likely break, so hopefully the hole isn't required.

    Thanks for sharing your experiences,

    Steph
    #12
  13. AceRider01

    AceRider01 Fully Loaded

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    695
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    took the intiminator out again!!! re-meausred 6.21mm is correct(actual measurement 6.20mm to 6.25mm), so it looks like i forgot to multiply by 2 when working out the diameter of the holes needed to ensure unimpeded oil flow - the diameter should be 3.10mm. This means my 2.5mm hole did make a difference. - i wasnt just imagining! [​IMG] The other issue is that the by pass holes are not excatly circle more a slight oval shape. In the interest of science, anyone know the fomula to calculate area of oval?

    Regardless, I gave $20 to local suspension guy to weld up the rebound hole. Rode the bike over 800kms, including a ride of 500km with PeterW and other bikers today. My conclusion is as follows. ( i am mainly a road rider, who likes the bike firm, but ride over a lot of bumpy roads- weight 85kg/190lbs and use 0.85kg straight spring

    1) Beefing up rebound is definitely necessary - By welding the rebound hole the flow area has decreased by 390% - i havent decided yet whether this is too much for my application or i should drill a 1mm hole.

    2) If you are road only rider, welding up the hole provides a good increase of rebound damping. if you ride very very very bumpy roads or off road, maybe a smaller size rebound hole is still necessary.

    3)We rode over some very bumpy roads today, average potholes were one to two inch deep, some are over 3 inches - the bike was firm but compliant enough that i have not been thrown off line even on a lean going over some nasty bumps;

    4) The high velocity compliance now is very good while still being on the firm side and that my turn-in after braking now holds a tight line without wanting to run wide; low velocity travel is a bit too much on the firm side - evidence by very low brake dive - i will be experienmenting with less shims in a few days.
    #13
  14. Steph T

    Steph T n00b

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Oddometer:
    4
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    To calculate the area of an oval the formula is

    pi*a*b

    a = half the length of major axis (horizontal)
    b = half the length of minor axis (vertical)
    #14
  15. Steph T

    Steph T n00b

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Oddometer:
    4
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    By the way, if you have 4 holes drilled at 2.5mm each, the combined area of the 4 holes will be 19.64mm squared. The area of a 6.2mm hole is 30.19mm squared. So it would take four 3.1mm holes to match the area of the 6.2mm hole and have unimpeded flow.

    Four holes of half the diameter of a larger hole will always equal the large hole's area exactly.
    #15
  16. AceRider01

    AceRider01 Fully Loaded

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    695
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    I have to measure accurately for the oval shape, but the bleed holes are not circles - a little bigger than circles - The design of the intiminator meant that diameter cannot be larger than 2.6/2.7mm so 2.5mm is probably the largest i get drill. The gold sleeve needs to cover the holes completely in default position so as to not introduce further free bleed in the system
    #16
  17. Ladder106

    Ladder106 It's a short cut, really

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Oddometer:
    6,163
    Location:
    Davis, CA
    AceRider,

    I've bee working with Ricor to assist with the Transalp, Africa Twin and Suzuki DR750 development.

    Ricor has been amazingly generous with product and helpful with advice.

    After testing the shim stack for the Transalp, a few have been sold and the results have been very positive. But some riders report that they'd like a softer high speed and medium speed action. After many trials with different shims (I actually got down to one .015 and one 0.10 at one point) I'm convinced that the shims do not do anything for high speed bleed and little for medium speed bleed.

    To date, I've had the best improvement with modifying the holes under the inertia valve very similar to your mod.

    I did something a bit different, however. Reasoning that if I wanted more bleed on medium speed impacts the inertia valve would have to have an effect EARLIER in it's travel. Coming from the world of 1970's MX I thought I could just raise the port (similar to lowering the exhaust port in a 2-strok) height of the valve and accomplish two things: (a) allow the inertia valve to open the holes earlier reacting to a smaller impact and (b) increase the overall size of the bleed holes to allow softer high speed damping.

    Here's what I came up with:

    [​IMG]

    I changed the height with a small riffler file and only modified two of the four holes.

    As I raised the top of the hole, I used compressed air to test the valve was not bleeding air with the inertia valve in it's normal "at-rest" position. Surprizingly, I was able to raise the hole quite a bit without a "leak"

    On the bike, the inertia valve now opens sooner on smaller impacts and I swear it's also softer on large shoe-box sized rocks. I read what the Ricor boys had to say about the size of the vertical tube being the limiting factor but that's NOT what I'm feeling while riding.

    I wrote to Ricor and documented my changes. I have not heard back from them for the past week. I do know that they are in the initial stages of rear shock development and are incredibly busy, buying new machine tools and hiring people. So if you have not received any feedback from them recently, give them a bit more time. It will be interesting to see what they have to say about my changes. (They'll probably tell me I just wrecked a pair of valves)

    The initial tests of the rear shock sounds fantastic.

    Hopefully this will add to the knowledge base on these parts and also let you know that you're not alone in trying to make these things perform to their maximum.

    Looking forward to your next mod.

    Ray
    #17
    cyclopathic likes this.
  18. AceRider01

    AceRider01 Fully Loaded

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    695
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia

    Ladder 106,

    It's great you posted this here - i was starting to doubt myself. I knew that the drilling of larger "bleed holes" has the most obvious effect. The shims, in my opinion perhaps made a small contribution to high speed compliance.

    I put it this way when people ask me: If you feel there is a problem in med/high velocity compliance, then enlarging the holes will solve 70% of the issue. The shims , imho, does have an effect because one does hit a lot small size bumps at slower vehicle speed too. But it's a compromise - i have got down to 0.055 total thickness of shims (0.015 plus 0.01x4) and that was too soft for chasis control - my current setting is 0.062- which is a resonable setting. Regarding the ID of shaft being the limiting factor - see calculation above.

    I drill the hole right in the centre of the existing oval holes. I do see your point about it being closer to the top. I think the difference would be small - yours would be better on bumps where the inertial valve just starts to open a couple mm.

    I think people are giving a lot of positive reports because their starting point is the standard system - i dont know about translap, but with Wee Strom, just about any emulator in the market would give a 80% improvement straight away. Unfortunately for me, i had have RT Gold Valve and Pro Valve - so the bar is a lot higher for me, especially after sampling PeterW's well tuned front end with a customerised RT Gold Valve.

    Ricorr, if you are reading - we should have a collection of different springs, as well as a different sleeve so that larger bleed holes can be drilled as required.

    Hopefully this will trigger people to start experimenting and post their findings - i really dont see any downside for enlarging bleed holes for road or non-technical unsealed road riding - maybe if people want to do big jumps may need firmer high speed damping.

    do share more with us of your experience with the intiminator
    #18
  19. AceRider01

    AceRider01 Fully Loaded

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Oddometer:
    695
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    as posted eleswhere
    http://www.vstrom.info/Smf/index.php/topic,10393.msg120252.html#msg120252

    Another ride over 250km potholes and bump infested back roads today. Combine with the findings i have from last week, these are mine findings.

    1) Welding up the robound holes is a good idea - i wonder whether a 0.5mm or 1 mm hole would give a better results - but 0.5mm and 1 mm holes are just too hard to drill on the damper rods without risk of the drill bit breaking so i am content with the rebound just a touch firmer - but the steering is definitely not wooden or difficult in doing fast S

    2) my current shim set up is 0.012 X 1 plus 0.010 X 5 - this setting gives very good chasis control - easy to turn in and very controlled brake dive - (when the shim thickness was at 6.5mm- bike felt a little too bumpy and harder to turn in) while being acceptable on smaller amplitute bumps. shim thickness of 0.055 is too soft for road riders in terms of chasis control - 0.065 is a tag too firm for the roads i encounted - so perhaps 0.06 to 0.065 is suitable for mainly road riders doing a lot of bumpy back roads - i have 0.85kg spring and am 87kg (200lbs) in weight approx.

    3) it almost feel like medium to large bump absorptions are now better than the tiny ones [​IMG] strange! - those enlarged bleed holes certainly helps.

    4) Overall this is very good and i have tune my Elka Rear to match - off road riders may want to use a softer springs perhaps.

    Perhaps let me expand it a bit.

    My bike has centre-stand fitted, Rear top box and panniers racks (not panniers) living permanently. Bash plate is also installed - so there is probably an extra 10-15kgs live on the bike. I am 87kg and am a road rider - any unsealed roads are ridden with a lof of causion - no off road bike background. I would classify my self as semi aggressive rider with average skills.

    My bike is set up with sonic 0.85kg springs (softer than most recommendations) in front together with my "tuned" intiminator - i have a preload of about 13mm (through spacer and adjusters) to give a free sag of about 35mm, or 24.6% of measured fork travel of 142mm (not 150mm as the manual says). That preload also yields a rider sag of 42mm (29.6%) with 3/4 tank of petrol and no other add-on in front. Wilburs' " Suspension in Detail" seem to suggest my springs is towards the heavier end of the scale for a road rider. (20-25% free sag).

    My rear is fitted with Elka Three Way ( they build it with my advised weight and advised "broken asphalt and unsealed" roads with my "average" skill level) - All adjusters sits more or less in the middle - i think a set the low speed compression to be a click firmer from middle, high speed compression a click softer and rebound right in the middle. Rider sag is approximately 44mm.

    The bike, when ridden over relatively smooth free way, feels a little soft over certain small undulation. When on full attack over bumpy and pot-holed roads, it feels a tag firm especially when going over small bumps. Mid and larger bumps were well absorbed - i never jump out of line even with when going over bumps and undualtion on a lean angle of at least 45 degrees from vertical.

    The bike turns in quite easily, without it feeling collapsing beneath me ( comparable to my previous 06 FZ1 and 04 Fireblade, not not as fast as my old 954 Fireblade) - this was quite a bit better than last week when i had shims of a total thickness of 0.065 (current thickness of is 0.062) - the quick switch-back over "S" bends are also better - it was a little more sluggish to turn with 0.065 shim thickness. I couldnt tell the difference in brake dive, but the compliance over rough suface is certainly better (0.062) compare to last week(0.065).

    When i had more shim thickness of 0.078 (standard setup) and original rebound hole with the 5wt oil, the bike was a bit sluggish on turn in, then as soon as i get of the throttle and just crack open the throttle, it wanted to run wide. I held the throttle, gave a bit more shove, it would tighten the line, but as soon as i roll on the throttle, i starts to run wide. The last issue is solved with one more click on the rear low speed compression. The turn in after braking issue is solved with the welding of rebound holes.

    The little bumps are still transmitting through the chasis - more than PeteW's well tune bike (from what i could remember) - His front seems to be able to absorb small bumps without being felt by the chasis - The only thing i didnt like his is the wooden feeling - i dont know whether that was due to different rebound/compression setting, taper roller steering bearings, tauter handlebar, or different fork brace. - But as he says - it works and one just need to trust the bike. Last week, when i was out with PeteW, i push down his spring- his seems a lot softer than mine and perhaps less low speed compression damping. That and the fact that Wilburs book suggest my springs being on the firm end, caused me to wonder if the springs can be softer. He is about the same weight as me but rides a lot more dirt. The springs was a Wilbur progressive of some sort. Ricorr also suggested that i used the original Wee Strom springs, which i no longer have. PeteW's front end is professional tuned and we dont have all the settings value.

    I am at a point now that i think there still room for improvment but i can no longer say which direction - in other words, things are getting very close to what i want. Short of having better understanding and tuning skills on suspension, i dont think i could do much more. Perhaps my energy would be better directed at improving my riding skills. My wife has been forever wondering why i take apart a perfectly good bike only to put it back later- her favourite question is " so you are going to the garage to pull things apart again and so that you can see whether you can put it back again" [​IMG] - "Yes dear - that's one thing you would never understand!"

    Perhaps some one has now decided to play round with the iniminator and share with us the findings
    #19
  20. twowheel

    twowheel n00b

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Oddometer:
    1
    Hi All
    Just been made a member and got to pass a comment
    on this intiminator development work being done by
    AceRider01 and Ladder106 brilliant stuff you guys
    I own a 650 transalp, have got the intiminators and
    I identify with the standard setting problems, I will be
    working on them in the near future this forum
    makes the job a whole lot easier.:thumbup
    #20