Morton
For external use only
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,097
- Reaction score
- 84
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 36
- Location
- Melbourne
- Members Ride
- Fairstar the Funship
My understanding was the spring was engineered to be stiffer therefore accounting for he reduced number of coils. If you have a stiffer coil, you can reduce the coils and therefore the height. This is why ride comfort is often reduced due to reduced travel.
I see no benefit to having 3-4 coils static like that. A variable rate spring is designed to compress at a variable rate, ie, there are coils which will give out more easily than others in order to retain some of the original dynamics.
Im most likely wrong but that image seems to be a mechanical design flaw to me.
On a side note, i reckon your gland packing nut is loose and that's the rattle, your shock is probably loose.
aZk.
You could be right, I certainly shouldn't be anybody's final source of info on this subject But the way I understand springs, if Kings engineered the front springs to sit unbound when static, AND be stiff, then when you had a lot of front end extension, the springs wouldn't have enough "bounce" left in them to extend far enough. If you get my drift? Because the front struts can extend further than they SHOULD IDEALLY do from the superlow height. So you have the "progressive" spring, with the tighter coils at the top, which basically act as gap filler.
All VN/VPs with superlows and ultralows I've seen run bound when static