You mean one would ADD rebound damping when increasing preload, yes?

Increasing preload alone won't necessarily require more rebound, at least not with standard spring in place. Test ride the bike, give suspension a try, adjust as needed.

But if you add a heavier spring, then (as I mentioned) you may need more rebound. Trial and Error thing once again. Budget shocks lack rebound quality so sometimes you have to add in more rebound for heavier spring on a loaded bike to actually feel the rebound in action. (depends on shock and it's innards). If it lacks rebound it needs a specialist to re-valve it ... and make it like an Ohlins!!

More weight means more sag, which means you're using more travel and compressing spring coils tighter ... so it can kick back harder once compressed further ... so more rebound required.


Linkage design and figuring progressive rates/geometry are WAY above my pay grade too. But if it works ... do it! Riding is ultimate test! :thumbup1:
Does the RR kit Raise the bike with a link ... or lower it? This does change rate and geometry. Do you think the change screwed it up?

You ride a lot of bikes so I'm sure you have a good feel for what good suspension feels like and what it should be and when it's bad. That's the key.

When learning suspension I'd always have more experienced (suspension wise) buddies take a ride and give feed back/advice. Slowly I learned what was what ... but it can still be a bit of a dark art and can have us spinning round chasing ghosts trying for perfection. Even the Guru's get stumped sometimes.

Let us know how the Honda's doing on your tour. Hope all is well!

bier

Don't know if the plates raise the back ~2 inches or just the longer shock. A bit of both maybe - J-Mo will know. I think John calculated it on a computer once he realised simply re-using the Honda links was not an option to do a proper job. For fully loaded travel a bit more stiffness is needed and I don't know if drawing in the 3 plate holes by a few mm may achieve that.

We did a rough mountain piste yesterday that typically beats up riders and suspension but is doable on a GS12 at a steady pace. Uphill too, which is a bit more tricky when it comes to modulating speeds. I tried to concentrate on how the suspension performed and I have to say the back is pretty much dialled in now. I could bottom it gently if I tried (launching off a hump at 30kph for example) but generally it coped well. Load is light and rear tyre is hard too (28psi) which may all affect it.

But now I'll be doing my own ride with all my winter and camping clobber, I'll need to crank the preload up one rotation: a 5-second job on a shock with an accessible adjuster knob - at least a 25-minute faff with the RR Tractive unit, but one that gets easier the more you do it. That may be why I have the impression the Hyperpro XCo shock felt better: adjusting the preload to suit the terrain or load was effortless; the 3 damping dials I never touched. But that unit cost nearly €1000 and one bloke on the last tour was buying a £1200 Tractive unit for his KTM starship. So really I think the RR shock suits the budget-oriented CB500X perfectly and anyway, the bloke from Tractive told me a remote preloader was not suited to it (too short; no room).

Front end doesn't absorb low-speed hard edged hits like embedded stones, rock steps or potholes so well, but afaik this has always long been the test of a tele fork for off-roading: swallowing the small hard hits as well as big compressions like a ditch all the while remaining firm and well damped on fast bumpy highway bends. As on some other forks I've had, I hear what I take is the sound of oil squelching through the valves and past shims - or maybe just spring creak?
RR use a full length linear spring and progressive damping with preload adjustment. All I know is last year's ~10% lighter XCo (with a UPD) had a prog spring and no adjustment or modified damping but felt better all round. Intuitively I feel a progressive fork spring would work better, but perhaps only because I can see how they work; progressive damping is less easy to visualise.

Of course, apart from the terrain and loads and rider, XCo and 500X is not a like-for-like comparison. Afaik progressive springs are made individually so cost more but from what I've read are less suited to steady-load-and-surface apps like road racing; linear springs can be made by the mile then chopped up.
Again, I see it as a price-conscious solution from RR that improves and extends and adds preload adjustment to the otherwise cheap OE front end which would have been beaten to a pulp on what we've been riding.

Like you say it's all trial and error plus compromise and budget considerations. The suspension on the XCo cost nearly half what I paid for that bike and I dare say you could easily spend twice as much on 500X suspension than RR charge.

I rode a Tornado for a few hours yesterday - a 75,000km rental that ran like new. Great little bikes with un-Jap-like long, hard suspension that eats it all up. Getting back on the 50% heavier 500X the word 'plush' came to mind.

More impressions shortly.

That's the point Molly - there isn't a shock with a remote preload adjuster that will fit the CB500X, which is why, even though we had a shock specially developed for this bike, we were not able to fit a remote preload adjuster - there is no space, particularly on the ABS equipped bikes (well, not for a hydraulic one anyway, we are still looking at the feasibility of manufacturing a mechanical cable driven worm drive).

If I might address a number of the comments between you and Chris (without trying to quote all the individual posts) to the thread in general...

As Mollydog explains, preload of the shock is essentially for setting the ride-height depending on the load carried (unladen vs. with luggage and/or a pillion etc.) and that it is the damping settings that will affect how the spring reacts under various conditions - thanks for the summary of what each adjustment will do btw. Molly...

To answer Chris - The Rally-Raid/TracTive Adventure shock is longer to give more travel, while the new linkage plates are designed to retain (as closely as possible) the original leverage geometry, so that the full length of the shock is utilised*.

*This enables the shock to work more efficiently and feel more plush than if the reverse were to happen and the ratio was changed so that less shock stroke = the same distance travelled, and why that ultimately a 1:1 ratio would be the most efficient of all.

It is interesting that Chris is suggesting a stiffer rear spring for the bike - it's not necessarily something I disagree with, but as I trust everyone will appreciate, the primary purpose of the Adventure conversion was to bestow greater rough road comfort and ability on the bike while travelling over long distances, not turn it into some sort of enduro machine.

Fundamentally, not only does soft[er] suspension help to soak up the bumps at a modest pace, but it also helps to maintain traction (and steering and braking) by allowing the wheels to follow the ground more accurately - all things we considered important on this sort of bike.

At the end of the day, this bike only has 170mm of travel at each end, so ultimate speed off-road is always going to be limited by the physical.

Interestingly, the editor of Adventure Bike Rider commented recently that the 'problem' we now have is that actually the Adventure conversion to this bike is so good, it encourages you to ride the bike far harder and faster than you might otherwise consider prudent on any other mid-size (on indeed full size) twin-cylinder 'adventure' bike - and where ultimately the limits of the suspension travel become apparent. The saving grace perhaps is that the quality of the damping means that at least when the limit of travel is reached, it is not harsh or abrupt.

Indeed, we consider it flattering that he chose to compare it to something like an XT660 which is far more dirt-bike derived, rather than our original target which was the F700GS, and to a lesser extent the [more road biased] 650 V-strom, and the venerable KLR650 of course.


As both Molly and Chris have commented, the forks on this bike - despite the revised internals - are still of a basic design, and I would add can only ever offer limited overall travel. While the Rally-Raid kit offers a huge improvement in the action and damping control compared to the OEM, it is not going to ride like a bike with a £1000+ set of forks on it.

We are currently speaking to TracTive with regard to offering some stiffer rate springs for both the front and rear of this bike, for those people who want to go harder and faster - but please be aware that is likely to reduce the feeling of plushness you get at slower speeds and in more technical terrain.

Everything is a compromise.

Jx

Thanks for added details and explanation, JMo. Was out today recce-ing routes. On the road ride here (full load) the suspension felt plush and balanced now it's been cranked up all round.

But of course I could not be arsed to back off the preload for today's unloaded day ride and paid the price with harshness as expected. Not that drastic, just tiring at the end of the day. So a mechanical remote preload sounds like a great idea. Never heard of them but just looked up an XTRIG.

Suggesting a stiffer spring was not so much to go harder and faster (last 2 fill ups 91 and 88mpg - that's how slow I am ;~) but to cope better with heavy loads on such tracks. Although I suppose that adds up to the same thing - go slow enough and it won't bottom out. My loads have been quite light on the piste - yours looked the same on TAT, JMo. But I would visualise someone with a full hard-luggage/camping set up as this kind of MoR bike (in OE form) might attract. I guess time will tell once L3s start getting properly overhanded.

Good reminder that it's only 170mm (<7") travel so again it partly comes round to easily adjustable preload - that would greatly broaden the compromise (or give that impression). Full steam ahead on that worm drive, then!

Hee hee - we'll see what we can do Chris...

I was speaking to John about this very subject earlier today, and he agrees it is something that we need to revisit and try and prioritise now since it's clear a remote adjuster would make a huge difference, especially as it is such a fiddle to reach the preload ring manually on the ABS version of the CB500X.

Watch this space as they say...

Jx

I believe there are several versions of mechanical preload adjusters on shocks.
I remember my 2002 Vstrom 1000 had such a system. KYB shock with small adjuster knob. Very useful. Used some sort of cable or worm drive I believe, can't recall exactly. (over 10 years ago now)

Space is always the issue. Ohlins have a system (on some shocks) where you use a 1/4" drive socket extension bar (8") ... just barely slips through to reach adjuster. You then crank preload up or down mechanically using your ratchet.
Very nice. (like everything Ohlins!)

Seems this system could work on most any bike if you positioned the adjuster correctly. Dunno? You need less than 1/2" opening with a clear shot to adjuster bolt.

Saw the new sand colour 500x at the nec show and it was getting lots of interest.

I thought it looked ace and if I had the 5.5grand I'd snap one up it just looks so much manageable on the rough than the bigger Africa twin yet when you sit on the bike it doesn't feel cramped just well proportioned.

Am I right in thinking Honda have actually improved the standard suspension on this years bikes?

When you look at what you get with these Honda's there is not much to touch them for the money, especially given that the MT 07 is far more road orientated.

Always good to see what Chris is riding on his travels, I bet that would have made dispatching easy back in the day Chris.beer:scooter:

As far as we are aware, the only change has been the addition of preload adjusters for the fork caps. The rest appears to be unchanged from the previous years (I had a poke around while I was there too)...

As you say, it is an excellent bike for the money - well proportioned, manageable, and if people were no so swayed by the 'bigger has to be better' mentality, for a genuine long-distance all-road (and trail) 'adventure' bike, I'd say is the perfect size?

Certainly that is why Rally-Raid have invested so much in this particular platform.

Jx

Should you feel the need*... a little something else:

http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u...psjfigqfyz.jpg

Please note this is the pre-production version (for testing) - the final link pipe will also have a stainless-steel head shield to protect your heel/calf, and the option of a replacement pillion peg on the right hand side should you wish to carry a passenger.

Jx

*I say 'need', I mean want of course ;o)

What's the advantage over a Suzuki DL650? Seems like the CB500X with the RR kit plus the stock DL650 work out about the same price, same ground clearance, and almost the same weight.

Is it basically better quality suspension (Honda + RR) Vs more power (Suzuki) or are there other reasons that the Honda makes a better RTW bike that I'm missing?

Hi Anotherbiker - regarding the DL650 (V-Strom), you just need to park the two bikes next to each other to see the difference...

The V-strom is much longer and lower than the CB500X (with the Rally-Raid Adventure kit fitted) - in fact even the spoked-wheel XT version of the V-Strom only has similar suspension travel and ground clearance to the stock CB500X.

The shorter wheelbase of the CB500X, combined with a lower weight and lower centre of gravity makes the bike feel far more nimble than the V-Strom - in fact it feels more like a 650cc Thumper in that regard.

In comparison, the 650cc V-Strom feels like a larger GS or Triumph Tiger to ride - no bad thing of course over long distance, but far more of a handful of you are taking it more seriously off-road than a gravel trail.

The reason Rally-Raid chose the CB500X as a platform in the first place was very much because of this key attribute. It's like a 4/5ths size version of the current adventure twins (consider the comparison of something like a Yamaha Serow vs. a full on enduro bike) - it offers far more manageability for off-road conditions than any other twin, while still retaining all the key attributes of a larger bike - the fuel range, comfortable seat, wind protection, engine refinement (the CB500 engine is one of the smoothest twins out there, although I agree the Suzuki 650 V-twin is also an excellent power-plant).

Indeed the comparison with a Serow should only be taken so far, as fundamentally the CB500X doesn't sacrifice any road comfort to the larger adventure machines - it will sit at 80mph all day if wish, and was perfectly comfortable over the 1000 mile Iron-Butt I rode this summer.

Ultimately your personal choice of bike can be dictated by any number of factors - for me, quite apart from the physical benefits of having a more compact and nimble twin-cyclinder bike for off-road use, I simply feel the CB500X is a better proportioned and visually pleasing machine - yeah, even I can be that shallow sometimes!

I would also point you in the direction of my recent Trans-Am 500 ride - crossing the States twice, including the full length of the Trans-Am Trail. Even if you just look at the photos (around Moab in particular) - you'll immediately see where the CB500X excels over any other twin-cylinder adventure bike (save perhaps the KTM950 - although they come with a host of negatives including seat height, economy and general reliability) when the going gets rough, or if you are heading into the unknown.

You probably wouldn't want to be on a V-Strom here for example:

http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u...ps8mlielnr.jpg

Hope that helps...

Jenny x

Been there and tried that. It's fine so long as the Wee has been dropped previously to lessen the cost of the damage and you have a good back. :innocent:

Is the Wee the better road tourer though or no real difference? I moved back to a road bike as I only ever used the off road capacity when I needed to, so wondering if you can have the cake and eat it?

Andy

Interesting...

I should say, I did have a V-Strom in the past, so know all about its good qualities as a road bike, but never took it off road.

I'm a pretty big guy and could get both feet flat on the ground on the V-Strom. Would that change your calculation here at all, or does the shorter wheelbase, slightly lower weight (I believe around 20lbs difference) and lower CG of the Honda still make all the difference?

The CB500X is actually closer to 20Kg (40+lbs) lighter than the V-Strom when they are both fully fuelled, and combined with the lower centre of gravity, this really does help - it is also very slim between the knees, which also helps off-road - particularly when standing for example.

Certainly the shorter wheelbase also has a significant effect on how the bike feels and handles both on and off-road - it feels a lot more eager and 'sporty' if you know what I mean?

note. the CB500X has a 56" wheelbase - so more similar to a sports-bike in that regard. The V-strom has a 61.4" wheelbase, so significantly longer, and longer than than many other dual-sport/adventure bikes too. That is great for stright-line stability of course, and increased cockpit space if riding two up, or if you want to fit large panniers - but the compromise is the much larger turning circle, and less agility - around town, on twisty highways or off-road.

I would add that in combination with the 19" front wheel that is part of the Rally-Raid kit, the CB pulls off the clever trick of remaining nimble while increasing stability at the same time.

Although the CB is more compact that the V-Strom, it does have excellent ergonomics for all sizes and shapes of rider, and even 6'+ riders say they find the relationship between the seat, bars and pegs very comfortable.

If you're big/tall you probably won't mind the CB500X Adventure (that is with the longer travel Rally-Raid suspension fitted) has a seat height of 34.25" (970mm) compared to the V-Strom at 32.9" (835mm) - so just under an inch and a half.

I would concede that the CB is probably not as ideal if you regularly ride two-up, especially touring (although I have carried and been a pillion on a number of occasions over shorter distances on the freeway, and it is surprisingly comfortable two-up too). However, as a solo long-distance all-terrain travel bike, I honestly believe it is nigh on perfect - and taking everything into account, I think Chris Scott would probably agree.

I'd suggest you try and get a test ride on a CB500X to see what I mean. Obviously with the Rally-Raid kit fitted it's going to be a couple of inches taller, but otherwise the dimensions are the same.

Hope that helps!

Jenny x

In that case, very interesting!

To be honest, I still think I'll probably get a big 1000cc bike (against all good advice on here... Sorry guys!! lol). But I did always think that if I ever gave in to sanity and decided on a cheaper bike for these sorts of travels I would just get another V-Strom. But now it sounds like there's perhaps a better option...

Thanks mate!