Raising the tail end

[cbowman78]

Hey,

Any advice on how I can go about raising the rear end of my bike approximately 0.5 - 1.0 inch?

I understand you can use Hayabusa lowering links, but I believe that raises the rear end two inches and I dont want to go that high.

[KURT]

Maybe a taller tire? What size do you have now?

Cranking the shock up, will make the spring compress less, when you are on it... What is your objective?

[cbowman78]

Soon to be BT-016 150/60R17. I have them but havent had the time to get them installed.

Does anyone make raising links for the rear of our bikes? I searched quite a bit last night, but didnt find anything other than lowering links.

[JMcDonald]

I've thought about raising mine. I made some cheap lowering links out of some old bar stock to lower the bike about 2" for the GF. They are extremely simple, just a flat bar with a couple of holes in them :P . Mine have three holes in them and normally it is at stock height (there is about 1.5" extra link that sticks below the bike), and we just move the bolt to the other hole when she wants to ride. Based on Kelly's observations after lowering the front I have contemplated make another set of links with a slightly offset "base" hole to raise the rear about half an inch from stock when on "my" setting, for the a similar same affect on reducing rake as lowering the front.

[cbowman78]

How thick is the metal used in lowering links? Maybe I will just make mine.

I have the front lowered 22mm at the moment, and wanting to raise the rear a bit to get the rake that I want. I do not want to lower the front end anymore as I really do not want the forks to stick out any further.

[JMcDonald]

I think 3/16" x 1-1/4" steel was closest to stock. However, Im sure you could go much thinner or narrower. Look at how little material there is between holes on aftermarket adjustable aluminum links, and you will see it really can't take much to hold it all together. But I went with near-stock dimensions because I didn't care enough about a half pound of weight savings on my street bike to potentially risk them giving out :P .

[cbowman78]

I may just make mine! I would have to take some measurements, it does seem easy enough..

Has anyone ever used the Hayabusa lowering links to raise their 250r? And if so, how much did it raise the rear? You can find these links for $20 on Ebay, it would definitely be the easiest option if the height would be ideal..

[JMcDonald]

2" Sounds like a huge amount! I have no numbers or data to support this, but it seems like you could end up with chain tension problems because there would be a more forward-rewardcomponent of motion ot the rear wheel when the swingarm pivots over bumps.

Yeah I just took off one of the links and used it as a template. I clamped the link together with two strips of barstock and drilled through the original link and through the bars on my drill press. I then just estimated the distance to the hole based on reviews. On most links, it seems with the holes right next to eachother, they each adjust the bike's height by about 1". So, I put the holes about 2 spaces next to eachother, and indeed it lowered the bike by about 2". For raising it, I might just offset the hole by just the radius of the hole, to get about a half inch higher. You could also stagger the holes so you could have .5" and 1" raised. This would just give you some more adjustability between a full 1" and stock.

[cbowman78]

I agree with you. 2" is way too much!!!

I really want to stay between 0.5 - 1.0 inch.

I contacted Soupy's who said they can make a custom adjustable arm, which would allow me to raise/ lower the bike 2 inches each way. But, $123 plus shipping sounds a little rich for me.

[JMcDonald]

Ah heh, yeah Im sure it would be very nice but yeah it would be a bit too much for me too . I would have no hesitations about it if you have a drill press. Just clamp the two pieces together (or even tack weld them if that's an option, and just grind it off later) and drill two holes in them, heh. Just make the holes be about 5mm closer together and that would be about a half inch lift on the bike.

[cbowman78]

I am going to try and find some links with 5mm to 10mm tighter spacing.

By chance, you wouldnt know what the spacing for the holes are on the factory links, do you?

I can check when I get home, but that will be a few hours from now. lol

[backinthesaddleagain]

what about a thicker, more comfortable saddle?

[JMcDonald]

I've been looking for an excuse to go ride somewhere, so I'll go measure the links in a few minutes at my parents' house :P .


backinthesaddleagain, he wants to raise the rear so the whole bike leans "forward" a tiny bit more. This will have the affect of making the angle of the forks a hair more vertical, which will make the steering a little quicker and more aggressive (it will require a bit less force to turn the bike, basically).

[backinthesaddleagain]

ah i should have read his other posts.

[cbowman78]

[QUOTE=JMcDonald;241185]I've been looking for an excuse to go ride somewhere, so I'll go measure the links in a few minutes at my parents' house :P .


QUOTE]


JMcDonald, you are the man!! Thanks!! Trying to get these links ordered today, and its difficult to get out of work to go visit the bike. lol

[JMcDonald]

K, the distance between the inside edges of the factory link holes is 5.99" or 152.2mmm . The hole diameter is pretty snug around a 31/64 ( 12.2mm) drill bit. So the distance between centers is 164.4mm.
Posted via Mobile Device

[wvninja]

Raising the rear is fine and dandy but how do you go about raising the front without buying new forks?

When you move one end you have to move the other end.

If your doing this because it sags to much when you sit down you need to adjust the rear shock preload.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by cbowman78

Soon to be BT-016 150/60R17. I have them but havent had the time to get them installed.

why would you need to raise the rear of the bike due to these tires?

[backinthesaddleagain]

I think in a post subsequent to his original post he is looking to make turn in easier by effectively changing the rake and/or trail. I myself think the ninja has easy turn in, but can probably increase ease of turn in with different tires.

[wvninja]

Originally Posted by backinthesaddleagain

I think in a post subsequent to his original post he is looking to make turn in easier by effectively changing the rake and/or trail. I myself think the ninja has easy turn in, but can probably increase ease of turn in with different tires.

Wow effectively changing the rake or trail could be quiet a task and not attempted by the beginner. You start moving things out of whack and you can really mess up how the thing turns.

Solution to problem? Lean more.. I have had the pegs hitting ground around turns no problem.

[backinthesaddleagain]

Yeah Nate could easily lose stability when changing geometry of the bike.

[ithaca00]

If you're really interested in having true adjustability you can always try making or buying a turnbuckle style dog bone that has "infinite" adjustability.

[JMcDonald]

Originally Posted by wvninja

When you move one end you have to move the other end If you don't want to change overal geometry.

Fixed . As he is trying to change the geometry, this does not apply.

Kelly, I don't think he is trying to compensate for the tires, but was merely answering another poster's question about which size he had / was planning on. Also, it seems he is raising the rear for the exact same reason you considered doing so (though you chose lowering the front instead):

Originally Posted by kkim

I ordered a front lowering kit to allow me to slide the fork tubes up in the triple tree clamp to steepen the head angle and hopefully make the ninja a bit sharper turning bike. To me, the bike could benefit from a bit quicker steering. I could have raised the rear to steepen to accomplish the same thing, but I'm 5' 7" and like the bike's relatively low seat height. Lowering it a bit might be even better for me, so I went with lowering the front.

Me personally, I would raise the rear before I lowered the front, given my 34"+ endseam (dress pants 34, riding pants 36 :P ), but yeah it should accomplish the same thing provided varying chain tension doesn't become an issue.


And here is another quote of Kelly's explaining exactly why someone might want to do this:

Originally Posted by kkim

I warm up the bike then head up the road for a bit of winding roads. Get to the first curve and lay the bike in. Initial turn in is IMMEDIATE. Like riding a bicycle... only with a lot more stability. "Holy crap... the bike feels like it's silk through the turns", I think to myself. Whip it back and forth and the front end feels so light! Gone is that slight hesitation you feel with the stock bike when you hit the turn in point and lay the bike over... it now happens when you think it! I was riding some roads that I had been on before and when I started the turn in when I used to, the bike now turns in too quick and I had to correct. It will take awhile to relearn riding.

If you are a new rider and want a bike that is user friendly, stay with the stock setup. If you are a bit more experienced and want a quicker turning/handling bike, this is the ticket. I didn't feel the new riding position to be a hindrance and I have not run into front fender clearance problems that I thought I might have with the front lowered.

I have been somewhat hesitant to make these changes, though. While I think it might be cool to have a more aggressive-riding bike for when I ride, I have had headshake on three occasions (all when slowing down on higher-speed curves on the highway) and I feel it would only be more likely with less rake. I know headshake is nothing to pee yourself over, but it is one step closer to a nice tank-slapper :P .

[wvninja]

I dunno I don't see the point. I rode my 250 pretty hard keeping up with the 600 + bikes and never had a problem. If anything I had a harder time keeping up on the straight aways than in the turns.

I'll note though my 600 turns like a dream compaired to the 250. The 600 wants the turn everytime, its no effort at all to get leaning into them.

[cbowman78]

Originally Posted by kkim

why would you need to raise the rear of the bike due to these tires?

Im not raising the rear end due to the tire.. Playing with the geometry of the bike to see what works and what doesnt..

[JMcDonald]

Originally Posted by wvninja

I don't see the point
...
The 600 wants the turn everytime, its no effort at all to get leaning into them.

I feel like that exactly explains the point of doing this.

[wvninja]

Well conidering the 600 has a completely different setup as far as rider position bike height and length not to meantion tire size and roll from lip to lip. These are all major factors in how the bike handles.

[cbowman78]

kkim,

How low is your front end? I think I remember reading that you lowered your front end 1 1/2 inches..

I essentially want to do the same thing but I have lowered mine 7/8 of an inch in the front. I do not wish to lower it anymore as I do not want the forks sticking out any further. This is why I am looking to raise the rear end of the bike approximately 1/2 inch.

[cbowman78]

Originally Posted by wvninja

Well conidering the 600 has a completely different setup as far as rider position bike height and length not to meantion tire size and roll from lip to lip. These are all major factors in how the bike handles.

Agreed! And I am not going to questions anything you have mentioned. But, my intention is to get the 250 to react a little more so like a supersport. I know it will never be one, but also experimenting with my first motorcycle and learning a lot along the way.

I dont think I am doing anything to drastic (Im not raising the rear end 3 inches and lowering the front 3 inches). I do realize that every slight change does make a difference, and maybe I will stay with my front being lowered 22mm.

[cbowman78]

Originally Posted by JMcDonald

K, the distance between the inside edges of the factory link holes is 5.99" or 152.2mmm . The hole diameter is pretty snug around a 31/64 ( 12.2mm) drill bit. So the distance between centers is 164.4mm.
Posted via Mobile Device

Thanks for doing that! Its really appreciated!

[kkim]

Originally Posted by cbowman78

kkim,

How low is your front end? I think I remember reading that you lowered your front end 1 1/2 inches..

I essentially want to do the same thing but I have lowered mine 7/8 of an inch in the front. I do not wish to lower it anymore as I do not want the forks sticking out any further. This is why I am looking to raise the rear end of the bike approximately 1/2 inch.

the forks are presently sticking up 1 5/8" above the top of the triple clamp surface.

[cbowman78]

Originally Posted by kkim

the forks are presently sticking up 1 5/8" above the top of the triple clamp surface.

Considering some of the feedback in this post, what is your take on how your bike responded to the geometry change.. I have read a few positive posts regarding changing the rake.. This is why I was considering the rear..

Currently, the forks stick out one inch from the top of the triple clamp..

I would love to hear your feedback!!!!

[kkim]

if you're looking for a quicker turning bike, lower the front end.

I can't see trying to manufacture your own links to raise the back unless you are really good at fabrication, know how to properly design for the intended result and know your materials well enough to make the correct selection on what the needs are to support the entire rear section of the bike. The last thing I would want would be to be second guessing my choice of a home made link in the middle of a fast, high speed sweeping turn.

the front end kits are pretty much proven to work w/o issues, so I would do that instead. On the other hand, if you add clipons, you wouldn't even need a front end lowering kit and can play with the amount of drop that works best for you. I wouldn't go too low with the forks, but I've had no clearance problems with the setup I have.

Add a set of rearsets in addition to the clipons and the bike takes on an entirely new, sporty flavor that leaves you wondering how you lived without them once they've been installed.

Not the best combo (clipons and rearsets) for the new rider as it's not the most friendly setup with regards to slow speed ergonomics and developing back muscles, but for a rider looking for a better/quicker turning and a more aggressive riding position to work from, it can't be beat.

[cbowman78]

Well I think I will leave the rear end alone.

I have just installed Woodcraft Clipons and a set of the Cycle Control rear set adjuster plates. While installing the clipons, I lowered the front forks at the same time. I havent had the chance to ride it yet(Damn Canadian winters) but it feels a lot different sitting on the bike with those modifications.

I will enjoy it as is..

Hopefully Santa brings me more goodies!!!

[JMcDonald]

Originally Posted by wvninja

Well conidering the 600 has a completely different setup as far as rider position bike height and length not to meantion tire size and roll from lip to lip. These are all major factors in how the bike handles.

All I was saying is if the quick handling of a supersport is a subjectively desireable characteristic, and we know it's possible to at least partially mimic to that characteristic on a ninjette by simply reducing rake, then there is clear point to raising the rear / lowering the front.
Posted via Mobile Device

[kkim]

One more thought on raising the back end.

it can be done by using a slightly longer rear shock. I think Ducky installed a zx6 shock in his bike... yup, here it is.
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36055

[JMcDonald]

Ah, good to note.


FWIW, the stock links are just annealed hot-rolled steal (about the most basic steel you can get). Mine are made of the same stuff, and I've had them for maybe 3-4k miles with obviously no problems. I wouldn't trust drilling the hole as close as they did without a lot of testing to make sure they will hold up, but making a basic fixed-height link should not be any cause for worry.