As you all know, Coffee (Dean) passed away a couple of years ago. I am Dean's ex-wife's husband and happen to have spent my career in tech. Over the years, I occasionally helped Dean with various tech issues.
When he passed, I worked with his kids to gather the necessary credentials to keep this site running. Since then (and for however long they worked with Coffee), Woodschick and Dirtdame have been maintaining the site and covering the costs. Without their hard work and financial support, CafeHusky would have been lost.
Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working to migrate the site to a free cloud compute instance so that Woodschick and Dirtdame no longer have to fund it. At the same time, I’ve updated the site to a current version of XenForo (the discussion software it runs on). The previous version was outdated and no longer supported.
Unfortunately, the new software version doesn’t support importing the old site’s styles, so for now, you’ll see the XenForo default style. This may change over time.
Coffee didn’t document the work he did on the site, so I’ve been digging through the old setup to understand how everything was running. There may still be things I’ve missed. One known issue is that email functionality is not yet working on the new site, but I hope to resolve this over time.
Thanks for your patience and support!
Dwight,
How would woods/enduro vs. motocross affect these settings, if any?
You have an interesting theory, i am going to try it. The questions i would have would be how does the leverage ratio created by the husky linkage affect it as opposed to the Husaberg or KTM linkless? There would have to be a percent of load factor incurred in the change. I think this would be overly harsh for a link less setup because of the difference caused by the multipliers created by linkage. I am not able to explain the equation by typing it, but you know what i am saying. Just as leading link transfers energy so would the difference in shock location relative to shock preload and spring rate. The front end is a great example for this math, no worries. Also how does rider use play into it? Fast or slower, tech or wide open. Anyway i printed it off for use just cause it shows a great deal of thought with good results. Great post.
I was speaking of spring rates/sag in particular. IN you opinion does the % travel numbers used to calculate sag change with enduro,trails / MX.
For the record, the software we are using does not have the 'copy post' function like we used to have, and you probably still have on TT. That would be much more preferable, and that is how the previous tech articles were handled.
Isn't this backward? Less preload = more sag??Reporting back...
I cut spacers- to 43mm length (4.8mm shorter) which should result in less static and rider sag as suggested above. I will check this weekend as to the results: measurements and some test riding…
![]()
Isn't this backward? Less preload = more sag??
Reporting back...
For reference- my forks are open 50mm Marzocci’s
PVC Spring Spacers:
I made some pvc preload spacers from what I had: 1 ½” and they didn’t work the OD was too big by a few mm’s. (I had 1 ½” at home at the time)...... I then went at it from a detailed standpoint- the stock spacer is: 47.8mm in length, 46mm OD, and 38.7mm in ID, wall thickness is 3.6mm. . I considered the minimum ID being that of the OD of the spring guide on the dampner tube. (33.8mm). I checked a chart online for specs on PVC sch 40 and 80 and found that 1 1/4” Sch 40 was the closest to the stock spacer that would work: 42.16mm OD, 35mm ID. SO 1 ¼” SCH 40 PVC is what to use.
I cut spacers- to 43mm length (4.8mm shorter) which should result in more static and rider sag as suggested above. I will check this weekend as to the results: measurements and some test riding…![]()