|
Chrisj CMA
|
 |
« on: December 11, 2014, 03:26:22 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 11, 2014, 03:30:15 PM by Chrisj CMA »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
matt
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2014, 03:31:30 PM » |
|
I like how they look, need to let us know how it holds up
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jess from VA
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2014, 03:39:13 PM » |
|
Very nice.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
old2soon
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2014, 06:49:19 PM » |
|
Looks good. Neat way to bring a new look to old equipment.  RIDE SAFE. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Today is the tommorow you worried about yesterday. If at first you don't succeed screw it-save it for nite check. 1964 1968 U S Navy. Two cruises off Nam.
VRCCDS0240 2012 GL1800 Gold Wing Motor Trike conversion
|
|
|
R J
Member
Posts: 13380
DS-0009 ...... # 173
Des Moines, IA
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2014, 07:11:58 PM » |
|
That brings a sparkle to that girl.
Good show.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
44 Harley ServiCar   |
|
|
|
Chrisj CMA
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2014, 08:01:26 AM » |
|
Sat on the bike today (have not ridden it yet) but these shocks feel a little bouncier on 3 than the other ones. You people that have and have had multiple Valkyries...do you find the shock setting to be constant or have you had to go up or down a setting from one bike to another to get the same ride?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jess Tolbirt
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2014, 10:00:06 AM » |
|
different mfg's have different rebound rates..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Windrider
Member
Posts: 137
2000 Valkyrie Tourer
SE NE
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2014, 10:49:50 AM » |
|
Those look Really Nice! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chrisj CMA
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2014, 01:50:17 PM » |
|
different mfg's have different rebound rates..
These are OEM IS shocks same as the ones I took off. After a ride they seem a tad softer but not worth adjusting up until I see how it does 2up |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gryphon Rider
Member
Posts: 5232
2000 Tourer
Calgary, Alberta
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2014, 01:53:10 PM » |
|
Now we need a pic with the whole bike!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chrisj CMA
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2014, 02:07:47 PM » |
|
Now we need a pic with the whole bike!
ok, just because you asked  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jess from VA
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2014, 02:26:21 PM » |
|
Jeff, the newest IS shocks, at least those that came on a bike from 2001, are now some 13 year old. And all have been used, some more than others. It would seem likely that various pairs of IS shocks floating around would be in various states of degeneration internally (both by use and age) (even if both pair are perfect on the outside and not leaking). I think Honda OE Showas are pretty good stuff, but all shocks are wear items.
And I don't know for sure, but think it's possible shocks sitting in a box for some years may degrade faster than those on a bike ridden easily and only occasionally. They are designed to sit for years on a bike under the load of the bike itself when parked, and have no load on them at all in a box (I could definitely be wrong on this). And then there is salt air.
Anyway, with these variables in mind, it seems entirely likely to me that two pair of used (13-15yo) IS shocks in use on two bikes may give closer to the same ride with one pair on 3 and the other on 4 (or even 5).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 02:29:07 PM by Jess from VA »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chrisj CMA
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2014, 02:33:13 PM » |
|
Jess. I guess there was a reason these things were on five. Now the PO was heavier than me but still. The older shocks (riding good on #3) have well over 100K miles on them. These new ones have not been sitting in a box. They came off a 99IS that got totaled last year. I took them off the bike and the ODO read 13K and change. So there seems to be a difference that is not related to age or miles. Once Judy rides with me and we go over some bumps Ill decide whether or not to go up to 4.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Firefighter
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2014, 02:54:04 PM » |
|
Look nice but I don't know their story, (what you did)? I have a 2000 IS with 48,000 miles, some progressive shock, don't know which one. Rode with adjustment on 5 all the time and felt good, but if wife rode with me, it felt like it sank too low. Installed progressive 440's and now ride on 1 or 2, a lot of difference. Think I like them but need to ride more,, expensive, good thing I work for a living. Firefighter
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2000 Valkyrie Interstate, Black/Red
2006 Honda Sabre 1100
2013 Honda Spirit 750
2002 Honda Rebel 250
1978 Honda 750
|
|
|
Willow
Administrator
Member
Posts: 16771
Excessive comfort breeds weakness. PttP
Olathe, KS
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2014, 08:46:30 PM » |
|
The Interstate shocks differ from the Standard and Tourer. Specifically they are intended to carry a heavier load. Initially I would expect a three on an IS shock to be a bit tighter than a three on a Standard shock. Then again who is to say? The five positions of the IS shock obviously do not correspond directly to the five positions on a Standard shock. Maybe a three on the IS is further down the scale?
Maybe we've been kidding ourselves all this time and the Interstate shock actually isn't as heavy as the Standard shock ???
I hope wrapping them in that external additional layer didn't have anything to do with the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chrisj CMA
|
|
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2014, 05:08:44 AM » |
|
The Interstate shocks differ from the Standard and Tourer. Specifically they are intended to carry a heavier load. Initially I would expect a three on an IS shock to be a bit tighter than a three on a Standard shock. Then again who is to say? The five positions of the IS shock obviously do not correspond directly to the five positions on a Standard shock. Maybe a three on the IS is further down the scale?
Maybe we've been kidding ourselves all this time and the Interstate shock actually isn't as heavy as the Standard shock ???
I hope wrapping them in that external additional layer didn't have anything to do with the difference.
Carl, I am comparing two sets of Interstate Shocks. One which has over 100K miles and runs fine on #3, the other that has less than 20K miles and seems soft on #3 Im no rocket scientist, but I cant see how some paint and tape could change the spring tension or rebound inside a shock. Im wondering if years of riding on setting 5 have rendered these different and now by virtue of being wound up tighter for a long time, they just don't behave the same turned down to 3? I don't know, I will probably turn them up to 4 soon and just let them ride for awhile |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bonzo
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2014, 05:13:54 AM » |
|
Regardless of functionality, they look awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Woops, I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Tailgate Tommy
Member
Posts: 1438
2000 Interstate, 2001 Interstate and 2003 Standard
Fort Collins, Colorado
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2014, 10:20:06 AM » |
|
Jeff, those really do look great!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Willow
Administrator
Member
Posts: 16771
Excessive comfort breeds weakness. PttP
Olathe, KS
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2014, 10:42:49 AM » |
|
Carl, I am comparing two sets of Interstate Shocks. One which has over 100K miles and runs fine on #3, the other that has less than 20K miles and seems soft on #3
Im no rocket scientist, but I cant see how some paint and tape could change the spring tension or rebound inside a shock.
Im wondering if years of riding on setting 5 have rendered these different and now by virtue of being wound up tighter for a long time, they just don't behave the same turned down to 3? I don't know, I will probably turn them up to 4 soon and just let them ride for awhile
Sounds like you have a good handle on it, Jeff. I didn't realize you were already running with Interstate shocks. As to the wrapping I just couldn't tell from the pictures whether any moving surface was wrapped. Likely that wouldn't make them seem soft, though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
