TLZone Forums banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know that inverted forks are the wave but what is the real gain with that? Is it to stiffen the top of the bike and have the flex minimized down by the tire?

I just wonder this because I was at my local dealer and he was ranting and raving about how the SV1000S will corner circles around my TLS. I laughed at him for saying that and said back "How can he corner circles around me if he cant catch me?". This of course started the discussion of how much of a dinosaur the TLS is. Well last last time I looked the 97 TLS Specs are better than any of the SV1000S specs. Correct me if I am wrong on this.

He mentioned though that the front forks on the SV are superior to the forks on the TLS, even though they are a standard style on the SV. I just need some feedback as to the fork differences between the two bikes, such as.

Which is better for high speed stability, cornering, taking bumps in generally...Things of that nature.

Also, do TLS's and TLR's use the same forks?

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,965 Posts
Your dealer is an idiot. Not only are they damping rod forks, which are inferior, the brakes are the shit too. They are Katana/SV650 style, a generation behind the TL binders. Most TLS's are undersprung, it seems the SV's are too. The damper rod front can be made better, however the TLS front can be made right, big improvement in front end flex and stability with Upsidedown front end. Limits fork flex under hard braking. He may be right in that for the avcerage guy on the street it won't matter, but I can attest that replacing a flaccid SV front end with a TLS front end was a huge improvement.

Finally, the damn SV front end is significantly heavier that the TLS fron end and the spacers aren't captive as in a TL wheel.

From this



To this

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks much appreciated! But of course this is the same guy who has a brand new 2001 996 superhawk and wants $8,399.00 hahaaha

Thanks, but are forks the same on a TLR as a TLS?

Thanks!
 

·
Will ride for Food
Joined
·
697 Posts
Brand new 2001... I would bet the dealer said it just like that too.

That bike is 5 years old, I don't care who is counting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,965 Posts
Offer him $5500 for the brand new VTR and cry when it is worth $3500 in an hour.

The TLR forks are shorter, have stiffer valving, have clickes in the adjusters, have stiffer springs, (.934 kg/mm vs. .74 kg/mm) There are a few other subtle differences, but mainly the length and the spring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
As a matter of fact he did! He also has a 2003 honda interceptor that is "brand new". I tried to tell him that they are not new because if I purchase that 01 and drive it for a summer and put 5,000 miles, it is not worth the same as a 2006 with 5,000 miles. It is hard for him to imagine that there is any difference.

Also he told me he would give me $3,100 for mine trade in.....hahaha

I remarked about the junkyard special TLR they had and they stickered it for $6,500 and it was no wear near as nice as mine. Imagine this!

1998 TLR
24,000 miles
Yosh RS-3 slip on cans
Scratches all around.

$6,500.00 Must be scratces are sold like battle wounds!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
OldTLSDoug said:
Finally, the damn SV front end is significantly heavier that the TLS fron end and the spacers aren't captive as in a TL wheel.

From this



To this

What!? SV front-end heavier then the fattyfat TL forks?? serious? :dowhat

Usds are less prone to binding when braking hard! Which leaves the frontend more reactive under hard braking.. And I reccon unsprung weight is better (lower) on usds..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,892 Posts
Doug, I'm pretty sure the SV1k has cartridge forks (unlike the 650) but I could be wrong:)

I suspect that the SV1K does handle much better than a TL stock for stock and I'm sure its suspension isn't any worse than a TLS front or back.

On conventional vs inverted forks I don't think it really makes much difference if you compare similarly priced forks with similar technology. In theory inverted forks should flex less for a given weight. Wether this is a good or bad thing depends on a lot of factors. Off road (i.e. dirt other than motocross) guys generally perfer conventional forks, although quality conventional forks are getting hard to find as the market for them is pretty small and so many people have the notion that inverted forks are innately better.

As an example of a good conventional fork look at the one on the 96-98 RM250's - its a 49mm twin chamber showa that worked very well and was head and sholders above anything else available at the time.
 

·
Pygmy looking for a new name
Joined
·
14,150 Posts
Sheesh, are we gonna sit around speculating all day or do I have to go to www.suzukicycles.com and find out for sure.

Ok, here ya go, off the SV1000 page.

Suspension Front: Telescopic, cartridge-type, adjustable preload, adjustable compression & rebound damping

And for reference....SV650 page

Suspension Front: Telescopic, coil spring, oil damped, fully adjustable preload
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
BikePilot said:
Doug, I'm pretty sure the SV1k has cartridge forks (unlike the 650) but I could be wrong:)

I'm pretty sure "bike pilot " was just triing to be nice when he said "pretty sure":laugh

PS: the dealer that said the SV is better than the TLS is no idiot ,he's a "salesman"
It's his job to sell what SUZUKI makes. and the stock SV1000 probably does handle better than a stock TLS/R (no rotory damper ) but none of these are exacty "state of the art":)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,965 Posts
I appreciate the sensitivity to the use of "idiot" in the post, but just because a salesman said it, doesn't mean he still isn't an idiot.

As to the weight, as you can guess, I had both front ends off at the same time. The SV650 stock front end is much heavier than the stock TLS front end. The Katana style wheel which SV's and Bandits use is also marginally heavier. The front end may indeed have a cartridge which is an improvement, however the brake calipers are still better and I bet pound for pound, part for part a TLS or R front end is a higher tech better sorted front end than the stock SV.

I would also like to conclude by saying, you are welcome to come compare my TLS to a stock SV1000 if you like. A stock TLS on a smooth road is awesome. My experience with the SV is that it is not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,892 Posts
Doug have you been on an SV1k? I haven't, but the mags seem to think it goes around corners pretty well:O Of course mags arn't always all that reliable a source of info but its all I've got to go on. Physically the bike is narrower than a TL which is a big improvement imho but I just can't get over how ugly/bland the current generation of SV's are:puke
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,965 Posts
I had a short spin on one a year or so ago. I compared it to my TLR and of course it sucked relative, but I now have a basically stock S, the SV has stiffer springs, but even the TLS brakes are better.:coocoo
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,892 Posts
Cool:thumbup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Thanks for the input!

I was going to get the superhawk last year for $6,299 but they jacked the price back up! Thank god I got the suzuki, the TL is like a C5 corvette and the superhawk is like a new Mustang GT. Yeah the superhawk looks good, sounds good, and boasts about its engine, but the vette flat out smokes it and made more horse and torque 15 years ago....lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,965 Posts
I guess I should point out that the SV is by no means a POS, it just isn't a TL IMHO
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,697 Posts
Forgetting aobut the springing and valving, etc. for a moment, and just looking at how the male and female tubes fit and the limitations on their lengths and length they overlap...

For an easy-operating fork with good alignment and resistance to side forces, you want a lot of distance between the slider at the seal and the piston end. A lot of "overlapping distance" where the male is inside the female for a longer overlapping distance. Without it being a really long extended chopper-like front end...

On a right-side-up normal fork, the outer female and inner male only overlap for a short distance, and when the fork is fully extended that's a VERY short distance. Effectively, the length of the active overlapping working part of the fork is ALL located below the lower triple clamp. The area of the fork between the lower triple clamp and the upper triple clamp is pretty much useless wasted space as far as just how the tubes interact. A right-side-up is like a short fork below the tree, with steel handles sticking up above.

But an upside-down fork can have really long male and female, with lot of overlapping length! The area inside the triple-tree is a fully-useful area of the fork. The inner male can be inside the upper female without being limited by the lower triple clamp. On a RSU the lower will smash into the lower triple clamp, the clamp limits the travel and overlap.

For instance, let's exaggerate. If your fork needed to have the sliders overlap at least 14 inches at all times, and you wanted 6 inches of travel, and your triple tree was 10 inches between upper and lower clamps.

A RSU fork would need to be at least 14+6+10 = 30 long fully extended, and 14+10 = 24 fully compressed with the female lower's seal smashed right against the lower triple clamp.

A USD fork would need to be at least 14+6 = 20 fully extended, and 14 fully compressed.

Big-ass difference!

So, that's why RSD forks often have the male and female overlapping for only a shorter distance.

And the triple clamps girp the larger female better than the smaller-diameter male.

The USD usually has more play, more clearance at the sliders, but on a RSU any play is multiplied by the length of the lower female and made worse by the short overlapping distance. The thin steel males bend more than the bigger stiff aluminum females too, so why have the springy part up-top with the fork length lever amplifying the motion from such springiness?

My BMW telelever achieves long overlap in a RSU by eliminating the lower triple clamp entirely (A-arm balljoint attached to the brace on the lowers instead moves with the fork, so the female lower lower can't ever smash into a lower triple clamp that's not there), and by using a very very long female lower. The entire length of the male is used.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,892 Posts
The overlap thing is why old conventional forks had a bunch of underhang below the front axle. The more modern ones use bigger tubes and less overlap for little to no underhang.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top