Ride height adjustment on a SFV4S

Alkhater said:

Don't let attitudes dishearten you... I appreciate your experience.

Would adjustable offset triples offer the possibility of improving the SF handling in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Probably. Have to see the specs. Its ($108 for both) cheaper to change the eccentrics if you're doing the work yourself but harder as they're pressed in. So with the bike assembled you'd need to cut them out with a die grinder, put the eccentrics in the freezer then heat the front frame with a heat gun and then smack them in with a rubber hammer.

Your buffer must be full again causing you to invoke the chicken strip.

Do you see me giving advice on how to PR COTA? No, because I stay in my lane and don’t pretend to be an expert. I mean, you’re clearly smarter than the team who worked on the SF having uncovered the fact that Ducati made a pig that can’t turn.

I don't know what you're smoking by the 22 SF and Pani both have a head angle of 24.5º and trail of 100 mm

baggerman said:

SF and explain to me what the 26.5 up 2mm

Click to expand...

2 mm??? I think you mean degrees. You can't even keep your units straight...

SuperDomestique said:

All those stickers don't make YOU the expert of all experting

Click to expand...

Same old ........no wonder no one takes anything you say seriously!

SuperDomestique said:

2 mm??? I think you mean degrees. You can't even keep your units straight...

Click to expand...

Kicking the head out 2 degrees at this offset increases the trail 2 mm. The SF head is 26.5 degrees and 102mm trail. The posted specs are BS. Personally, I don't care if you believe me. I was simply trying to explain to Aleko why the bike pushes with the stock set-up.

I'm beginning to understand Dietrich Bonhoeffer's struggle.

baggerman said:

Kicking the head out 2 degrees at this offset increases the trail 2 mm. The SF head is 26.5 degrees and 102mm trail. The posted specs are BS. Personally, I don't care if you believe me. I was simply trying to explain to Aleko why the bike pushes with the stock set-up.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. I stand corrected. But shouldn't a 26.5º head angle make the bike steer more quickly? I guess the added trail could offset this (but doesn't seem like a lot)? Either way, changing these headstock bushes is no easy feat. I'd be exploring every other avenue before changing them.

SF headstock bush set


Here's what Trevitt says about corner troubleshooting

another engineering gem....

SuperDomestique said:

Here's what Trevitt says about corner troubleshooting

Click to expand...

That first item in the table is exactly the issue I am seeing with the SF, steering is slow and trail needs to be reduced (not increased) to address this, either by raising the rear or lowering the front or adjusting the rake angle of the triple clamp if it was adjustable

Alekos said:

That first item in the table is exactly the issue I am seeing with the SF, steering is slow and trail needs to be reduced (not increased) to address this, either by raising the rear or lowering the front or adjusting the rake angle of the triple clamp is adjustable

Click to expand...

I'd go with increasing preload first. It's the easiest. Adjusting shock ride height may be feasible in situ but you have to have all the right tools to get in there and even then it'd be tough. Realistically, it'd be easier just to pull the shock out and do it that way (which is also not an easy feat).

SuperDomestique said:

I'd go with increasing preload first. It's the easiest. Adjusting shock ride height may be feasible in situ but you have to have all the right tools to get in there and even then it'd be tough. Realistically, it'd be easier just to pull the shock out and do it that way (which is also not an easy feat).

Click to expand...

Agreed increasing preload is the easiest, but preload affects sag and in general (per several very experienced AFM racers in the Bay Area and per Dave Moss) it is not advisable to use preload to adjust ride height (besides maybe slightly increasing it when going from the street to the track on the same bike to make the bike steer more aggressively and less neutrally).

Also I don't want to drop the front more as in general I don't want to reduce ground clearance. My original question was around how difficult it is to get to the ride height adjuster at the bottom of the shock and what the stock settings are on other bikes as I got my bike used (even though I highly doubt ride height had been messed with anyway).

SuperDomestique said:

But shouldn't a 26.5º head angle make the bike steer more quickly?

Click to expand...

To my understanding, bigger rake angle (a bike feeling "raked out") means the bike feels more like a chopper and less agile and can increase a bike's tendency to understeer both on entry and exit with the added benefit of more stability.

Having messed with geometry on my previous bikes quite a bit my impression is that non-superbike/supersport bikes tend to have more rake and trail to have more stability (perhaps as they might target a slightly less experienced or aggressive rider on average). I prefer my bikes to feel almost nervous and super prone to dive in a turn with a slight tendency to oversteer on the gas on exit. The SF feels the opposite to me.

Alekos said:

Agreed increasing preload is the easiest, but preload affects sag and in general (per several very experienced AFM racers in the Bay Area and per Dave Moss) it is not advisable to use preload to adjust ride height (besides maybe slightly increasing it when going from the street to the track on the same bike to make the bike steer more aggressively and less neutrally).

Also I don't want to drop the front more as in general I don't want to reduce ground clearance. My original question was around how difficult it is to get to the ride height adjuster at the bottom of the shock and what the stock settings are on other bikes as I got my bike used (even though I highly doubt ride height had been messed with anyway).

Click to expand...

Sag is just a number. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

Alekos said:

To my understanding, bigger rake angle (a bike feeling "raked out") means the bike feels more like a chopper and less agile and can increase a bike's tendency to understeer both on entry and exit with the added benefit of more stability.

Having messed with geometry on my previous bikes quite a bit my impression is that non-superbike/supersport bikes tend to have more rake and trail to have more stability (perhaps as they might target a slightly less experienced or aggressive rider on average). I prefer my bikes to feel almost nervous and super prone to dive in a turn with a slight tendency to oversteer on the gas on exit. The SF feels the opposite to me.

Click to expand...

I deal more with bicycles so I’m more familiar with head angle instead of rake angle which seems to be a motorcycle thing. Whoops

it gets better...

where do you thing rake angle is measured.....through the steering head!

Alekos said:

To my understanding, bigger rake angle (a bike feeling "raked out") means the bike feels more like a chopper and less agile and can increase a bike's tendency to understeer both on entry and exit with the added benefit of more stability.

Having messed with geometry on my previous bikes quite a bit my impression is that non-superbike/supersport bikes tend to have more rake and trail to have more stability (perhaps as they might target a slightly less experienced or aggressive rider on average). I prefer my bikes to feel almost nervous and super prone to dive in a turn with a slight tendency to oversteer on the gas on exit. The SF feels the opposite to me.

Click to expand...

You can raise the rear and it will help turn-in. Raising the rear shortens the rake (and the trail). But also adds anti squat which is the reason you lose traction at the rear ultimately if you get carried away. You raise the fork tubes and it will help turn in. Raising the fork tubes shortens the rake (and shortens the trail). Or like me you can do both. This will make the turn in tolerable but the front doesn't really like to be lowered (by raising the forks) because the change in the CG (makes the bike heavier to pick up out of the corner). The frame was designed to be at 24.5 with neutral set-up. And like you I will give away rear traction to get the bike to turn harder. But neither should be necessary with the Pani head bushings. The bike should turn harder and you will have the bike at the original CG and the rear at the original ride height so traction isn't compromised. And if you need it to turn yet faster you can get there.

SuperDomestique said:

I see what you're saying. I stand corrected. But shouldn't a 26.5º head angle make the bike steer more quickly? I guess the added trail could offset this (but doesn't seem like a lot)? Either way, changing these headstock bushes is no easy feat. I'd be exploring every other avenue before changing them.

SF headstock bush set
View attachment 52268

Here's what Trevitt says about corner troubleshooting
View attachment 52269

Click to expand...

Thanks Super. I was just trying to make everyone aware of what Ducati had done.

andyb said:

it gets better...

where do you thing rake angle is measured.....through the steering head!

View attachment 52271

Click to expand...

I’d argue that these headstock bushes control “head angle” (or steering angle however you want to call it) rather than rake. These bushes are inserted into the frame and therefore determine head angle. From my understanding rake is a function of offset in the suspension NOT at the chassis.

So there’s nuance which isn’t your forte

This is how bikes geometry is defined
https://calfeedesign.com/geometry-of-bike-handling/
Deviation from this thinking is dumb if that’s the case for motorcycles

bagger is making this assumption unless this has been documented by Ducati. No offense, but I’d trust Ducati’s info over speculation despite how much incorrect stuff that they do. I’d also be wary of determining a measurement from what was stamped into the headstock bushes. This could refer to some angle other than rake. Rake and trail could also stay the same and Pani but the SF needs different headstock bushes because the swingarm/pivot/gearing/etc are different between the 2 bikes. Therefore, it needs different bushes to get it back to the 24.5°/100 trail.

The only way to get a true geometry would to literally do the measurements on your own. Also, all this stock geometry goes out the window when you sit on the bike and sag and weight and all kinds of factors get introduced to the system.

If you increase ride height at the rear then you will decrease trail, increase anti-squat and the bike will turn in quicker, its a good idea to approach this systematically. YOu can do this dynamically or statically depending on the characteristic you're adjusting. Bear in mind that if you are not so experienced you will benefit by making quite big changes- say 8mm at a time in measured ride height so you can feel it, but take notes and count threads so you can go back to stock.You dont need to know too much about the finer points of suspension setup but you do need the same stretch of road that you can use each time you make a change. Adjust, ride, review, take notes, rinse and repeat etc focusing on the characteristic you want to improve bearing in mind that a setup for a fast pace is going to be different to normal riding. In the end it comes down to feel which is why the nerd arguments of the definitions of rake etc are a bit of a sideshow. Dont ignore tire wear and pressure either, as for how to get to the adjusting nut you need to get down and dirty

What feels good to you may be way off for others, on the 1299 I had a 60 profile tire, 5mm longer shock and forks raised 4mm to get the turn in feel I liked but on the V4 its been front springs, oil level and playing with free sag.