|
|
Post by kawajockie on Nov 8, 2021 12:40:26 GMT -5
Hello all,
I picked up a Tr1Ke a few months ago. It was partially assembled by the previous owner. Rear shock has a 650Lb. Race Tech spring fitted. Rear was very low, so I installed an adjustable dogbone to increase the ride height. This seemed to work well, until a few weeks ago. The frame bracket that the dogbone connects to failed and the rear frame was on the ground. Keep in mind, I'm not diving this yet, this is all in the garage. :-(
So I got a new frame bracket made from 1x2 C channel (beefier than what the stock bracket was made from) and put it back together. Was finally able to get it around the block (in 1st gear) and noticed the rear was lower than it was previously. After taking a look, the new bracket appears to be bending (just like the last one did).
So I have a few questions.
Could my adjustable dogbone (shorter than stock length) be causing this? Could my triangle be connected wrong? Anyone else had an issue like this? Need to figure out how to post pics. Will work on that now.
|
|
|
|
Post by kawajockie on Nov 8, 2021 12:51:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fatherchuck53 on Nov 8, 2021 23:34:38 GMT -5
I'm unfamiliar with the setup the Tr1ke uses on the rear suspension and it's mounting. Is it replicating that of the earlier R1's? On those changing the ride height by varying length of dog bones does dramatically alter the load on the frame. Do you have pictures or diagrams showing the complete layout of you system. It would be easier to determine where the stresses are being brought about.
|
|
|
|
Post by liteway on Nov 9, 2021 8:19:46 GMT -5
Pardon me for asking the obvious but did you first max out preload before resorting to the dogbone? My guess is the race tech spring is short, with the owner anticipating track use or maybe he just wanted a low rider.
|
|
|
|
Post by kawajockie on Nov 9, 2021 9:02:32 GMT -5
I'm unfamiliar with the setup the Tr1ke uses on the rear suspension and it's mounting. Is it replicating that of the earlier R1's? On those changing the ride height by varying length of dog bones does dramatically alter the load on the frame. Do you have pictures or diagrams showing the complete layout of you system. It would be easier to determine where the stresses are being brought about. This is supposed to use the 2005 R1 swingarm, dogbone, triangle, and shock. The top of the shock mounts on the tr1ke frame and the other end of the dogbone also mounts on the tr1ke frame. I'm thinking the shorter dogbone over stressed the frame as well. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by kawajockie on Nov 9, 2021 9:04:33 GMT -5
Pardon me for asking the obvious but did you first max out preload before resorting to the dogbone? My guess is the race tech spring is short, with the owner anticipating track use or maybe he just wanted a low rider. Yes, preload was maxed out but the ride height was still quite low to the point it was close to bottoming out with one passenger. Was thinking about a stiffer spring (900lbs up from the current 650 lbs) but concerned that may also over stress the the dogbone mount. I'm going to put the stock dog bone in and see what it looks like. Thank you for the comments. |
|
|
|
Post by davej98002 on Nov 9, 2021 22:39:40 GMT -5
Stewart Mills designed these tR1kes as mostly 'Track Day' trikes. It was made streetable enough so you could drive it to the track, tune it up for racing and then drive it home.
|
|
|
|
Post by noahkatz on Nov 11, 2021 15:18:41 GMT -5
A 650 lb spring for such a light vehicle indicates that a lot of leverage is being applied and magnifying the force on the chassis.
You could double the strength and stiffness by connecting that crossmember to the nearby parallel one, and by an order of magnitude if you connected them with full width sheets to form a large rectangular tube.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatherchuck53 on Nov 12, 2021 0:23:45 GMT -5
I don't believe going to the 900 lbs. spring is a good idea. The original spring is approx. a 450 lbs. Yes they figure in metric. I would not think you are carrying that much load on the rear of it. And as far as needing a stiffer spring for performance, the loads are not going to vary on the rear as much as they would on a 2 wheeled bike. The heavier spring will also input more stress on your frame at bumps and probably hinder performance. Shortening the dogbone changes the angle on the linkage and strains it. I would look into possibly installing a longer shock or lower the upper shock mount to gain ground clearance. That would help maintain a better angle on the linkage and relieve strain on the frame.
|
|
|
|
Post by davej98002 on Nov 12, 2021 0:28:37 GMT -5
I'd give Peter Dove (Dove Racing) in Texas a call and see if he has any information he can share on this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by kawajockie on Nov 12, 2021 11:02:59 GMT -5
A 650 lb spring for such a light vehicle indicates that a lot of leverage is being applied and magnifying the force on the chassis. You could double the strength and stiffness by connecting that crossmember to the nearby parallel one, and by an order of magnitude if you connected them with full width sheets to form a large rectangular tube. I'm taking the shorter link out this weekend and see how bent the support is. I can tie the two cross members together, but need to leave room for the exhaust. |
|
|
|
Post by kawajockie on Nov 12, 2021 11:03:57 GMT -5
I don't believe going to the 900 lbs. spring is a good idea. The original spring is approx. a 450 lbs. Yes they figure in metric. I would not think you are carrying that much load on the rear of it. And as far as needing a stiffer spring for performance, the loads are not going to vary on the rear as much as they would on a 2 wheeled bike. The heavier spring will also input more stress on your frame at bumps and probably hinder performance. Shortening the dogbone changes the angle on the linkage and strains it. I would look into possibly installing a longer shock or lower the upper shock mount to gain ground clearance. That would help maintain a better angle on the linkage and relieve strain on the frame. Will look into a longer shock or lowering the mount. Thanks for the input. |
|
|
|
Post by kawajockie on Nov 13, 2021 17:05:34 GMT -5
Got it taken apart again today. Dogbone mount is bent and c-channel is slightly bent. Back to the stock dogbone. Will also see about tying the dogbone mount to the engine mounts, or the c-channel to the other parallel cross member.  Will look at lowering the top shock mount to gain ride height. Thank you all for your input. |
|
|
|
Post by davej98002 on Nov 13, 2021 18:16:22 GMT -5
I would grind off those two thin steel brackets and weld in some much thicker ones and maybe add some gussets to support them better. Like below
|
|
|
|
Post by kawajockie on Nov 13, 2021 21:41:24 GMT -5
I would grind off those two thin steel brackets and weld in some much thicker ones and maybe add some gussets to support them better.
Yeah, was thinking of tying the dog bone mount to the engine mounts. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by kawajockie on Dec 3, 2021 14:59:15 GMT -5
Hi All... I wanted to share an update after getting this thing figured out. We made the dogbone mount again, this time with thicker material for the uprights (same as engine mounts). We also noticed that the bottom of the shock was hitting the dogbone and the top of the shock was hitting the frame. We took the upper shock mount off and built another one. The new one positions the shock further from the frame (now nearly vertical) and we have 3/16" of space between the bottom of the shock and the dogbone. Before this rework, I had to compress the shock to get it installed, now after all this, it slides right in like it is supposed to. I guess that is what you get when you have serial #1 of the TR1ke. :-) Thank you to Lee at Z-Fab and Gary for your awesome input and assistance! Z-Fab Custom Welding   I'm using the stock dogbone for now. If ride height becomes an issue, I'll likely get a taller rear tire. |
|
|
|
Post by davej98002 on Dec 3, 2021 15:43:56 GMT -5
I have never been a 'Minimalist' when it comes to bracketry. I have seen so many things done with 3/16 inch plate that should have been 7/16.
|
|
