[Author Index]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [ST] First question!
At 00:48 23/06/2004, Mike Bostock wrote:
>Stephen and I have disagreed about this before on the Wales and SW list.
>I actually believe the ST's suspension is perfectly adequate for the
>average rider on average roads doing the job it was designed for - namely
>a slightly sporty tourer.
Woah there cowboy! I only reported what the guru said. I'm an average rider
on average roads. The suspension has not thrown me into a hedge, ditch or
shough (for the Oirish among you) yet, so I reckon that for me, it's more
than OK. Of course it could be better, but then the bike would cost more
new. In the same way, I could also be better, and that also just takes
training and time.
My issue was with the harsh front end (for my slight 10 stone / 63.5 Kg) frame.
This has been resolved with lighter fork oil and Hyperpro springs. The rear
is also better with the Hyperpro spring. However, what we did observe when
doing this work was that the damping adjuster did not seem to have a great
effect on the rear damping. Hence the comment (partially in jest) as to
what the "S" and "H" markings actually meant.
I am no suspension guru, but I do concur with the train of thought that the
best you know is _only_ the best you know. Until you try something else,
you will never know if it's better or worse - but hopefully at that point
it's not to late to restore the former set-up if it all goes wrong. It's
such a subjective topic. I guess that's the fear we all have. We want the
best we can get, but without limitless resources (cash) we continually
search through other's experiences trying to draw parallels with our own
riding situation.
I have no doubt that a good set-up for South Lanarkshire in Scotland would
be terrible for a resident of Austin, Texas and yet we all expect the
"standard" bike to perform admirably in both surroundings. It ain't going
to happen, and that's the real issue with a mass produced item - it has to
work satisfactorily in all environments. I think it's a remarkable
achievement that they work as well as they do.
>This is illustrated by my comments to a friend following a 2000 mile jaunt
>in Europe in company with a Honda Fireblade which were as follows:-
>
>7. Despite all the ST forum's criticism of Triumph suspension and the
>aficionados assertion that RaceTeking the front end and ....
I can only agree with this as my machine has been transformed by the
softer, more plush suspension I now have. I also noticed that the weight of
luggage on the rear also "settled" the bike really nicely. Maybe I should
carry a bag of cement on the pillion seat at all times? ;-)
That's why for me a grey import 400 (Honda Super Four for example) is an
ideal suspension set-up. It's designed for someone of my weight and is a
relatively short wheelbase to tackle the tighter roads I encounter. The
only issue is that riding at 12000 rpm for significant time can be really
tiring .....
>8. A Fireblade feels like a toy bike compared to a fully loaded Triumph
>and the wheelbase is a whole radius of the rear wheel shorter than the
>Triumph (which probably explains "7" above).
Absolutely, and on a really wild, wet and windy day like today in Scotland,
the ST is a great bike to ride. Stable and confidence inspiring.
Sorry Mike, but I actually agree with you on this one. ;-)
- - Stephen McS.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The ST/RS Mailing list is sponsored by Jack Lilley Ltd.
http://www.TriumphNet.com/st/lilley for more info
http://www.TriumphNet.com/st for ST, RS and Mailing List info
=-=-=-= Next Message =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=