• WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO POST AND ACCESS MEMBER ONLY CONTENT AND FEATURES
    Join / Upgrade / Renew your membership to enjoy full membership and posting privileges.
    For simple instructions, click here
  • Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

Will this fit a C-10?

connie_rider

Member
Member
I've been considering a lower profile Radial for the rear of my C-10.
I've seen several reports of wobble after some mounted the few radials that are currently available.
Thought that maybe part of the problem is the sidewall height/profile of a C-10 rear tire.
  {150/80R-16}

Was unable to find a lower profile 150 or 160 that fit my needs.
Another rider claims that a 180/60R-16 fits ok.
I've never heard of a tire this size fitting a C-10???
Does anyone know if it will fit?

NOTE: I think this tire fits some of the Goldwing's so it's certainly able to support a Connie's weight.
          One of the brands in which I found this size, are sold as a Sport Touring Tire, but most are sold for Touring or Cruiser's..

Ride safe, Ted

 

rwulf

Guest
Guest
I have run a tire meant for the Goldwing 1500. It gave lot of miles, 20,000 plus.
The down side it's a hard tire this compromises traction. It's also a taller tire
this effects acceleration. Would I recommend it, no. Traction is most important,
money you can always get more.
 

MAN OF BLUES

Guest
Guest
RWulf said:
I have run a tire meant for the Goldwing 1500. It gave lot of miles, 20,000 plus.
The down side it's a hard tire this compromises traction. It's also a taller tire
this effects acceleration. Would I recommend it, no. Traction is most important,
money you can always get more.

The tire Ted asked about, is NOT taller, it's smaller in o.d., significantly...
almost 1", so it equates to sitting 1/2" LOWER...
but, wider... aspect ratio makes a big difference...

https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?tires=150-80r16-180-60r16

I know its an automotive tire website, but comparable data fields are the same, when considering the differences and outcome..... based on tire measurements.







Mounting different aspect ratio tires requires a bit of research on the allowable bead width specified by the rim rating,

more here...
https://jcmotors.com/SizingChart/tire-sizing.html

and here
https://thisiscasperslife.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/motorcycle_rim_width_tire_size_chart.pdf


they don't go high width tho... sorry...

 

CRocker

Sport Tourer
Forum Subscriber
Ted,

I've never heard of a 180 on a C-10...could be possible, though.  I do know a 160/80-16 will fit with no modifications...GL1500 size...whether it be a radial...or, a bias ply tire...might be more tires to choose from... :-\
 

bajasam

Scooter
i would be most concerned with rim width compatibility followed by sidewall width fitting between swingarm, but why does everyone hate the stock size so much?
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
We don't hate the stock size.
Several have reported a increased wobble with the Radials that are currently available.
  (Not many are available anymore)
I suspect that a possible reason is the current radials are flexing due to the high sidewalls, heavy bike, tall windshields.
NOTE: I rode with a friend that had visible {scary} wobble when he came up behind a big truck.
          He went to a Bias ply tire and solved the wobble.
          I like the radials, and was offered this tire to try.
            Was told it would fit.
          So, I'm thinking I might give it a try...

Posted here to ask if it would fit.
ie; Has anyone ever had a 180/60R-16 on their bike?

Ride safe, Ted
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
PS: Thanks everyone for your input to my question. {Particularly MOB}
      MOB, the dimensions you supplied are what I had guessed.
              ie; Too wide for the rim and OD too small.
        But I had hoped the OD was closer to the correct OD than it turned out to be... {gloom}

But; being me, I have to ask questions.
    Is the rim width a requirement for safety, or is the rim width required to keep the {as designed} tire profile?
    If installed on a smaller rim than specified, wouldn't the profile become narrower/rounder and the OD taller?

Ride safe, Ted

PS: The tire I was offered is a Dunlop Elite 4.
 

MAN OF BLUES

Guest
Guest
without digging out my bike, which is covered with tons of stuff right now, all I can say is measure the clearance you have now, between the widest point on the 150/80 and the swingarm at the closer points, then assume you need s similar clearance a half inch closer to the axle, and measure there...  based on the tire width in the chart, if you feel comfy with adding width, jump on it..  :great:
I'd do the measurement if I could see my tire.... :mad: :mad: :))

I do like the concept tho, and a smaller diameter tire does in fact increase "acceleration" rate, kinda like a gear modification.. you loose a bit on the top end, but can accelerate using less H/P..
If I didn't have very low miles on COGZilla's tires, I'd even wanna try some experiments like that..

all in all, it comes down to the tire, on the rim... every tire has different sidewall characteristics; some are stiff, and due to the way the chords are laid, actually resist getting "larger in O/D, mounted on a narrow rim, and in fact, get even "squatier", some with soft sidewalls, and more resistance, may grow in diameter when mounted on a narrower than spec'd rim... difficult to say, they all differ when mounting them on a rim width below the "design factor" of the tire.

do some measuring, it may well be feasible, if you have the side clearance you need, at a point 1/2" to 3/4" closer to the axle between the arms, and can stick yer 'pinky finger in there... meh',  :great: :great:
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
Did a finger clearance test on my bike.    Can get all my fingers in … 
      "No", I don't want any snide comments about that description! :-X

Still some reservations about the 180/60R-16, so looked for other sizes that might fit.
Found a 180/70R-16, a 170/70R-16, and a 160/60R-16.

Hoping someone can give me the OD size and rim requirements for those..??

Ride safe, Ted

PS: The 180/60R-16 is a Dunlop Elite 4, with 500 miles on it. Was offered to me at 1/2 price, my current tire {Metezeler ME-888 150/80-16 Bias Ply} is not badly worn, and this is my spare Connie that I like to tinker with. 
So, this is not a must do. This is just one of those experiment's that I sometimes get myself into.
 

MAN OF BLUES

Guest
Guest
use that site I linked to...
https://www.tacomaworld.com/tirecalc?tires=150-80r16-180-60r16

you can plug in various tire sizes, and compare the dimensions, its a really nifty tool I stumbled upon last month, and it gives you all the data for comparing...

:great: :great: :great: :great: :great: :great: :beerchug:

you spurred/jostled my dead braincells enough that I'm really curious about that 180/60 tire...
If in fact it does fit in the swingarm, it is a cool idea, and will lower the back end 1/2" nicely, without messing with lowering links... and, will make for a "quicker launching" bike to boot... win win in my book, as I don't have a "7th gear mod", and just want the fastest acceleration short of adding a flux capacitor, on my old bike... especially when I get done swapping in my Ninja Cams, and my "5th gear" mod output gears.
 

jim snyder

Member
Member
Ok here you go Ted.
 

Attachments

  • me880.jpg
    me880.jpg
    262.9 KB · Views: 112

connie_rider

Member
Member
Used the info Jim and MOB supplied and calculated the various Radial sizes that are available.
          {180/60R-16, 180/70R-16, a 170/70R-1616 and a 160/60R-16}

The 170/70- 16 is very near the same diameter to the stock 150/80-16.
The 180/60- 16 is the next smallest diameter to the stock 150/80-16.

I think the Diameter of the wider tires will increase slightly when installed on the smaller/stock C-10 width rim.
If so; I suspect; the 170/70- 16 will be a slightly larger diameter than the 158/80-16.
                        the 180/60-16 will remain smaller.

Ride safe, Ted
 

MAN OF BLUES

Guest
Guest
as I noted, don't be so sure that putting the wider/low profile on that rim, will really make it's O.D. grow as much as you may think... I say this as the low profile tires side wall chording, and direction/construction, may be stiffer, to prevent it from really growing... this, combined with the tread windings, is where the resistive strength of the low aspect tires get their "damage prevention" strength to prevent rim damages when hitting holes and such, may surprise you when they are inflated to "normal/recommended" pressures... so yeah, you may make them "grow", but it will take more air pressure in them than the operational limits actually allow, in order to see the growth.

so it ain't really a cut and dried assumption that the tire will "grow" in diameter, on the narrower rim...
I say this from experience in putting excessively wider tires, with low aspect ratios, on other vehicles with stock rims, and only find them to "pooch out" further from the rim, while not really growing in diameter.
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
I agree with you. I don't think there will be much change, but there could be some.
  I wanted a different profile, but want the OD to remain slightly smaller than the 150/80.
  Based on that, my last note was not stated correctly. Will correct that..

{My apologies; I neglected to give you the numbers previously}
  180/70-16 Diameter is 25.92".    Larger than stock dia.
  150/80-16 Diameter is 25.45".    Stock dia
  170/70-16 Diameter is 25.37".    Slightly smaller than stock dia    {+.03% Dia increase = 25.45 Dia}
  180/60-16 Diameter is 24.50".    next step smaller than stock dia
  160/60-16 Diameter is 23.56".    Too much smaller than stock dia.

Ride safe, Ted
 

MAN OF BLUES

Guest
Guest
put the dog gone 180/60 on the rim, andd let me know... your killin' me with antici-pation...

I think it's a winner, and the aspect ratio, may really be a nice stiff tire, with a nice tread....
and still not be a "darkside" candidate...


get'r done dude.... :great: :great: :great: :great: :great:
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
That's the plan. Waiting for the guy to reply.
Then; I have to spend $100 without "the Boss" catchin' me...
                                :67:

Ride safe, Ted

Update; The tire I was planning to use, has been sold already.
            Would have been cheap e'nuff to do the test...
              So, I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Still asking. Has anyone reading this "ever had a 180/60R-16 on their bike, or know of anyone else?




Ted
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
Earlier question. Has anyone reading this "ever had a 180/60R-16 on their bike, or know of anyone else?

I'll have an answer to my question soon.
I just ordered a 180/60R-16 to "try" to install on my bike..
Hoping the lower profile will prevent the wobble that some of  the stock height (150/80R-16) radials are doing.

Currently have an old belted/bias ply tire on the bike and decided to experiment..  >:D

Ride safe, Ted
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
I was concerned it would be to hard to do at home so I had the 180/60R-16 installed on my bike..  :great:
  They said even with their professional tire machine it was pretty difficult to get it on and seated.

NOTE: Before installation it was over 1" wider and 3/4" shorter than the tire that was on the bike.
            After squeezing it onto the stock C-10 rim it's only about 3/8" wider and 3/8" shorter.
Side walls are considerably shorter than the stock 80 series tire.
No problem getting the wheel back on the bike. Lots of clearance....

One possible problem is the profile is definitely "rounder" than the old tire and/or {probably} radials on the correct width rim.

Have not done a long ride yet, but turn in is noticeably "quicker" than it was before.
    That quickness is probably because of the rounder profile.
The bike easily falls into a turn rather than taking a bit of pressure to initiate the lean.
Stays leaned without having to hold it there.
So far, I like it...


No wobble, but suspect the bike may be more apt to wander.

Will report in after we do a good ride.

Ride safe, Ted
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
We did a 200 mile ride yesterday to check out the new tire.
Initially, it was a bit twitchy, turn in was pretty fast, and you had to work to hold your line..
We reduced the tire pressure from 38 psi to about 32, and things improved.
  Most of the twitchiness went away, the turn in wasn't quite as fast, and it sticks great in the turns.
      "IIiiiii like it!".  :motonoises: :motonoises:

You will recall; I installed the 180/60 tire on the stock width (4") rim. It is supposed to be on a (5") Rim..
                        I noted that the tire profile became more rounded because of the narrower rim.
                            According to this video, it was probably too rounded.
                            The reduction in air pressure decreased that roundness.  :great:
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCMP2Fkq8U4

Ride safe, Ted
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
Update; We still haven't got to give the tire a real workout.
            We were pretty happy on the twisties we've done, and took the bike on a highway run in Houston.
            Riding near big trucks was scary as the bike was pushed around much more than normal.
                We think that was because of the extra round profile of both new tires 110/80ZR -18 {front} and 180/60R-16 {rear}.
              I had a wheel with a 160/80-16 Bias ply on it, so we installed that and got a lot of improvement on the hwy, but slower turn in .

This weekend we intend to go to the TeXaS Hill Country (the 3 Sisters) and try the bike with both tires to see what we think.
I suspect the  180/60R-16 will be better in the twisties, but overall a failure for everyday use because of city riding..

Ride safe, Ted

PS: After installation of the 110/80ZR -18 {front} and 180/60R-16 {rear} we immediately noticed the bike would fall into a turn quickly, with very little effort.
That quickness was intimidating at first, but with time we got used to it.
Once into the turn, was great!!!
NOTE: Decreasing air pressure slowed the quickness of the turn in.
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
The saga continues...…
NOTE: This is my project bike and I'm enjoying the tinkering.  :great:
          My nephew/Chris is riding it, and I'm on my C-14...
              So "how it feels" is based on his thoughts.

Remember that I have a 110/80ZR -18 on the front of this bike instead of the stock 120/70ZR-18.
So the bike already turns-in faster that it did with the stock set up.

Before we headed for the Texas Hill Country we installed a rear wheel with an old/hard (bias ply) 160/80-16 on it.
    Then we headed out to ride the Twisted Sisters {at the Wildflower ride in Hunt Tx}.  :great:

Installing the bias ply tire made the bike a lot more stable, the turn-in slowed, and then,,,, he thought it slipped in a couple of turns.  :-\
  With those slips, the pucker factor increased "a lot"!!  :sign0137:
  So we went back to camp and reinstalled the wheel with the 180/60ZR-16... {again}

That made the turn in very quick again, and the bike didn't feel stable e'nuff {again}...  arghhhhh..  :-[
We knew that lowering the rear tire pressure helped previously so we did it again,,
      and "this time" we "also" lowered the front tire pressure.  :great:
          ie; 40 lowered to 35 in both tires.....
      Turn-in slowed a bit, the bike got a bit more stable, and Chris got more used to the bike.. 
        We left it there, and rode it for about 300 miles of twisties.
            He liked it! We had a blast!!

NOTE: As we are on public roads, we were not at a race pace.
            We were sport/tour riding, with the emphasis on sport... :motonoises:

After returning home; We did another 200 miles {North of Houston}.
  Many miles were highways, and some were good twisties.
    All these were done in heavy cross winds.
        Bike was reasonably stable in these conditions too.
          Yahoo, we're getting closer!  :D

Ride safe, Ted
 

boomer

Crotch Rocket
Forum Subscriber
If you want stiffer sidewalls there are lots of crossplies available for the C10.
It was actually designed for them and only fitted with Radials later.
I've never understood the Bias tyre users. Why go back to 60s technology when you end up sacrificing grip and handling.
I've never had a wobble caused by a tyre in over 250k miles on C10s on crossply and radial tyres. If you have a wobble, check your suspension, bearings, and make sure the fairing is central first.
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
I'm probably miss-wording when I say "bias ply".
When I sed "Bias ply", I was referring to any belted tire that is not a radial construction.
Wasn't being specific...  :-[

Can you explain cross ply construction and give us names of tires that are cross ply?

The stock 150/80 or 160/80 radial's are high sidewall.
What started my project was an attempt to find a radial with a shorter sidewall that was still the same basic OD as the stock tire.
The 180/60 (installed on a too narrow C-10 rim) accomplished that.

Ride safe, Ted


 

Bud

Member
Member
Sounds like when he says cross ply that he's referring to bias ply tires.  Sounds like you had fun Ted!
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
Watched a video and agree, Cross ply and bias ply are the same..
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cross+ply+vs+bias+ply+explanation&view=detail&mid=EEEC7711195A655767A3EEEC7711195A655767A3&FORM=VIRE

I've seen bikes that wobbled when current radials were installed. Also saw improvement to that wobble when the radial was replaced by a Bias Ply.
Most seem to think that wobble was cause by current radials because the sidewalls are too weak for the weight of a C-10.
I'm not in completely in agreement with that thought.
This experiment was intended to try to get around that (possible) weak sidewall.
  I thought it would be more stable than a std sized radial on the highways. It IS  NOT!
  It  was also intended to improve the turn-in and cornering quickness.  Man did it do that!

Overall; Installing the 180/60ZR-18 was probably an error....
          The 4" vs 5" rim width changed the profile of the tire "drastically"...
            My rear tire profile is now very similar to a 110/80ZR-18 front tire profile.
              ie; It's round.

Many have changed from a 120/70ZR-18 to a 110/80ZR-18 on the front to quicken turn-in.
I basically did that same change to both ends of the bike...
  {110/80ZR-18 Metzeler Roadtec Z8 Interact / front, 180/60ZR-18 Shinko Journey / rear}
So, you can understand why my turn-in is really quickened. {as in; OMG Quicker!}
Not a whole lot of fun on the straights, but in the twisties, it sure is fun!  :great:

Ride safe, Ted

 

tdbru

Member
Member
Ted,
this search for good tires for the C10 rim sizes is what prompted the 17" conversion for me.  have you ever considered a 17" conversion for your C10?  or is that throwing too much $ at your C10 when you already have a C14?
-tdbru
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
I considered a 17 rim, but never got around to it. The existing 16" and 18" were sufficient..

Now that I have the C-14, I'm just tinkering with the C-10 tires/suspension and didn't want to invest that many $$.

But OMG I've put a lot of $$ in the tinkering!  :-\

Ride safe, Ted

PS: As we've rode the bike, and got used to the quick handling with these tires, it's a blast!!
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
Update; At the recent COG National in Eureka Springs, I took my C-10 with me for Hans (OtP Boss/Sweden) to ride.
The plan was for him to use the C-10, {but it happened that he had Ingegerd with him on most of the rides} so I had him ride my C-14 and I rode the C-10.

(I was shocked!) Wow!! The handling was great! (See below)
I fell in love with my C-10 all over again!
So much so that I rode the C-10 the entire National and Hans/Ingegerd rode the C-14.

If you go back in this discussion, you'll see that (about 4 years ago) I modified my suspension with stiffer springs/Emulators, C-14 Shock at the rear/Lowering rocker and set the sag.
I also installed {110/80ZR-18 Metzeler Roadtec Z8 Interact / front, 180/60ZR-16 Shinko Journey / rear}

I later realized that I had never (really) ridden the bike in the twisties after all the work.

(Err; Duhhhh) 😵

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:

Merle Lowe

Member
Member
Two questions:

1. How much better are the forks with the emulators and springs? I have a leaky fork seal and am pondering doing the whole works while they're off the bike.

2. What about the handling improved? Turn-in? Stability while cornering? Precision? I imagine the damping must be worlds ahead of stock.
 

ONOBob

Member
Member
Two questions:

1. How much better are the forks with the emulators and springs? I have a leaky fork seal and am pondering doing the whole works while they're off the bike.

2. What about the handling improved? Turn-in? Stability while cornering? Precision? I imagine the damping must be worlds ahead of stock.

I rode Ted’s bike at the AR rally. To see how it compared to my stock C10.
The handling was vastly different.
It rode more like a sport bike than a Touring bike.
Stability, Cornering precision, feed back was very good. Very impressed.

I am not an aggressive rider, so I will set mine set up just a little softer in the front when I do it this winter. but just a little softer, not a lot
😁
Best
Bob
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
Merle, I can't say how much it's improved.
I'll be honest. I can do changes, but I'm not skilled at feeling improvement.
I am not an expert. Just a tinkerer. So, all I can say is; it "is" improved.
I can answer some questions for you.

The biggest improvement you can do on a C-10 is prevent dive.
That dive happens because the springs are too soft.
NOTE: On the springs, you don't need to buy new springs.
Just cut the original down in length and install a spacer. (ie; Free)

The Emulator gives a person the ability to adjust the damping.
Without it, all you can do to adjust Damping is change the oil weight and level.
The emulator (w/shipping) are only about $60.
So, "If you're going to do the forks anyway" I think it's well worth the money.

If you opt to install Emulators', I recently posted information on the changes you would need to do to install the Emulator.
(ie; With the forks apart, all you need to do is drill some holes in the inner tubes and Emulators).
Most of the info you would need is in this discussion..

Lastly, after you do the install; you may want to adjust the emulator and/or make oil level adjustments.
Doing so, requires that you use more Fork oil.
You can use Automatic Transmission Fluid instead of the Fork Oil.
"Both are anti foaming hydraulic oil", and synthetic ATF is 10-15 wt. "Ideal for a Connie".
But ATF costs only about 1/2 of Fork oil.

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:

Merle Lowe

Member
Member
You used the emulators in the link? They were listed as for HD and the vendor said he only knew of fitment for HD. Are they universal 41 mm units?

I suppose if they don't fit the C-10, they'd be good in the FL.
 

Bud

Member
Member
Ted is correct. This isn't new information. Don't tell him I said that. His head is big enough. 🤭
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
Yes, those are exactly the ones I bought (even the same seller).
Their copies of the early Gold Valve. (That others sell for $200)

Shhh (Don't tell anybody).
Harley doesn't make their own forks.
ie; Their metric (41 mm) not 1 3/4 or 2".
Theirs are probably built by the same place that makes our C10 Forks. :eek:

Below is a newer model Emulator.
Comes with several different springs, but I'm not positive that it is for a 41 mm.
Scroll to the bottom to see excellent photo of Emulator installed.

Note that the plate (Low-Speed Compression Damping Orfice) below the spring has 3 holes.
** You'll need to add 2 holes to the Emulator I used. (the extra holes make it smoother on small/stutter bumps)
You'll also have to drill holes in the Damper tubes while you have the fork apart.
(Info for those holes is on my original post)


If you buy quickly here's another for a few $$ less. Even sez Harley/Kawasaki/Yamaha/Honda.

Ride safe, Ted

PS: Bud, my head ain't big.
 
Last edited:

connie_rider

Member
Member
Woo Hoo; (Another) Better price.
Might wanna buy 3.


Below is the damper tube. Note that it sez Harley.
Not sure of length, but otherwise, it's almost identical to what's in your bike.
I'm posting it for visual purposes.
On your tubes, you will drill the 2 holes bigger and add 2 more sets. (6 hole total)
They are EZ to do and are NOT precision holes.
Their being added to flow so much oil that the Emulators take over the oil flow control.

Emulators shown inside of fork tube.


Gold Valve Cartridge Fork Emulator FEGV S3501 77-0926 FEGV-S3501


Click to enlarge

Last NOTE: I learned all of this from Steve Sefsick. He developed/posted the settings that he developed many years ago.

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:

connie_rider

Member
Member
Woo hoo!!
This is so EZ that even ONO can do it.
Err, ONO. Are you watching?

Just found this; Damper Tubes shown with 6 holes

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:

ONOBob

Member
Member
Woo hoo!!
This is so EZ that even ONO can do it.
Err, ONO. Are you watching?

Just found this; Damper Tubes shown with 6 holes

Ride safe, Ted

Yes, I'm watching. :ROFLMAO:

I'll get around to it one of these days.
Lord knows my C10 NEEDS it!

Cheers
ONOBob
 

tdbru

Member
Member
when I did the 17" front/back conversions, I also put a custom fully adjustable shock (works performance, I think they're out of business now) and had RaceTech work over the front forks. stiffer springs, GVEs, etc. Made a huge difference in handling. I still like the C10. the C14 has advantages over the C10 in many areas though. Tough call. I'm glad for Ted that he has one of each. I don't get enough miles on my C10 to justify adding a C14 too. I saw in the C10 classified that someone was selling a MS rear wheel. Needs the machining, but once that's done you have a lot of 17" new style tires available from many manufacturers you can try out. Anyway, if you like tinkering, like Ted does, there's a lot of improvements you can make to the stock C10 in terms of suspension & wheels. Enjoy,
-tdbru
 

Merle Lowe

Member
Member
My concern is mostly eliminating the harshness on fast wheel travel that damper rod forks have. I tend to wander off on back roads with bad pavement and the emulators should really help there. The rear suspension never does anything to draw my attention so it might just stay as-is.

Have a MS wheel ready to go along with a ZX6D front. Also have Heli-bars that haven't been installed yet.

Back in October I bought a non-running Road King project that used up a lot of my time and now I'm gainfully (painfully???) employed again, so getting to Connie projects is a bit challenging.
 

connie_rider

Member
Member
Merle,
There are people out there that can tell you more than I.
But, I really think this will help you.

If you're installing the Emulators and also stiffening the springs, the front "will" feel more harsh.
(It "will" handle better, but (because of stiffer springs) it will feel harsh).
You'll want to soften the preload and damping for the small stutter bumps.

(New springs) Not sure which you choose.
Us the least amount of spacer you can.
Whatever length spacers you install, I suspect you will want to shorten them more.
NOTE: Don't forget that the emulator is acting as a spacer. (I think the Emulator body is 3/4" tall).
So reduce your spacer length by 3/4" to balance that out.

Also set your preload adjusters to no/"0" pre load.
(After you get the emulators) Be sure to drill the extra 3 holes in the top plate.
Those extra holes will smooth the small/stutter bump's.

The number of turns on the emulator spring, will handle the larger bumps.
I think I adjusted mine to 2 turns. (Will check my notes).
1 1/2 turns would be less harsh but might increase dive.

I also raised my oil level.
(There is a smaller air cavity at the top so it builds pressure more quickly when the suspension is compressed).
That pressure increase acts like a stiffer spring.
I think I set my oil level at 6 1/4". (Will check my notes).
DO NOT use the volume method to set your oil level.

I highly recommend Synthetic ATF. Will work fine and cost less.
You can also change oil or oil weights thru experimentation.

I'm just a tinkerer. I did this initially to improve front end dive.
The dive was greatly decreased.
But, I didn't realize how much of a damping improvement I got until a recent ride.

Ride safe, Ted

From my notes;
I added 3 holes to the valve.
Don't recall exact size, but slightly smaller than the original 1 hole.
Original 2 holes in the damper rod are now 6 (5/16" dia) holes.
I used ATF {10-14wt}, set level at 6 1/4" from top {with forks collapsed}.
Spring preload is still set at 2 turns.
{Bike still dives a bit more than I want during hard braking.
Think I will eventually change to 3 turns, or increase fluid wt to improve that}.
 
Last edited:
Top