• Required reading for all forum users!!!

    Welcome!
    Register to access the full functionality of the GSResources forum. Until you register and activate your account you will not have full forum access, nor will you be able to post or reply to messages.

    A note to new registrants...
    All new forum registrations must be activated via email before you have full access to the forum.

    A Special Note about Email accounts!
    DO NOT SIGN UP USING hotmail, outlook, gmx, sbcglobal, att, bellsouth or email.com. They delete our forum signup emails.

    A note to old forum members...
    I receive numerous requests from people who can no longer log in because their accounts were deleted. As mentioned in the forum FAQ, user accounts are deleted if you haven't logged in for the past 6 months. If you can't log in, then create a new forum account. If you don't get an error message, then check your email account for an activation message. If you get a message stating that the email address is already in use, then your account still exists so follow the instructions in the forum FAQ for resetting your password.

    Have you forgotten your password or have a new email address? Then read the forum FAQ for details on how to reset it.

    Any email requests for "can't log in anymore" problems or "lost my password" problems will be deleted. Read the forum FAQ and follow the instructions there - that's what we have one for...

  • Returning Visitors

    If you are a returning visitor who never received your confirmation email, then odds are your email provider is blockinig emails from our server. The only thing that can be done to get around this is you will have to try creating another forum account using an email address from another domain.

    If you are a returning visitor to the forum and can't log in using your old forum name and password but used to be able to then chances are your account is deleted. Purges of the databases are done regularly. You will have to create a new forum account and you should be all set.

82 kat Re-build

  • Thread starter Thread starter jwhelan65
  • Start date Start date
John Kat said:
Very nice project:)
Does your front end come from a GSXR 1100?
I would be concerned by ground clearance with this type of fork?
Having a 4 into 1 will help but it will still be very low...
I did a project with the RSU version of this fork and here's the result.
The unloaded fork length was 745 mm ( front axle to stanchion top)
In the end I used Bandit Ph1 stanchions at 775 mm to regain the lost height.
GS1000XPvisu1.jpg
Click to expand...

John Kat,
The 89-90 GSXR 1100 triple with Bandit Station is a very nice combination, but the 1991 GSXR 1100 is also a viable option as I think it is only 0.5" less than yours.

I have attached a spreadsheet showing the relative comparison. The two other big factors for your GS1000 are that you have a stock exhaust which has almost the best in ground clearance (even better than a 4:2:1) and you did a mono-shock which could have increase your rear ground clearance.

In the spreadsheet I gave you 0.5" for both shocks and exhaust and with your bandit forks you end up only -0.31 on your mid ground clearance. Depending upon Joe's exhaust and shocks I have him loosing -1.33". In comparison I may have went over board but have no ground clearance issues as a result. I went with 18" wheels, extended shock and a 4:2:1 so I actually ended up with 0.49" positive according to the calculations in the spreadsheet.

Jim

P.S. let me know if you want a copy of the spreadhsheet.
 
Jim,

Are you accounting for the 954 triple? This will add an inch in fork length, not sure of how much it will increase ground clearance.
 
jwhelan65 said:
Jim,

Are you accounting for the 954 triple? This will add an inch in fork length, not sure of how much it will increase ground clearance.
Click to expand...

How much do you thing it drops the top of the clamp? I can add that in one of the column "O".

Column O comment:
Distance from the top of the fork to the top of the head set; compensates for drop triples
Click to expand...

I changed column "O" to -0.5 v.s. -1.0 and the overall clearance went from from -1.33 to -1.11. I still think you are loosing about 1". On the other hand the USD forks with cartridge design do not need as much clearance as they don't tend to dive as much.
 
Last edited:
It dosnt drop the clamp, the top clamp has a step in it so you gain an inch. So I gues it actually pushes the head up 1".
 
Still some spacing to address and some fabbing to make the rear m/c actuator clear the swingarm..

katproject2_zps46e4a740.jpg
 
posplayr said:
John Kat,
The 89-90 GSXR 1100 triple with Bandit Station is a very nice combination, but the 1991 GSXR 1100 is also a viable option as I think it is only 0.5" less than yours.

.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim, I agree it seems very little but if you consider it from a lean perspective it shows a very different picture:o
On top of that,I believe you have computed the clearance at the mid-distance between the two wheels?
The issue on the GS's is the side stand and the left crankcase cover that are closer to the front wheel...
Personally, I don't feel confident if a bike does not have a minimum of 45? static lean angle.
Don't forget that at this angle of lean the bike is subject to 1.41 times it's static weight that further reduces the ground clearance.
This is somewhat compensated by the fact the bike rolls on the circumference of the tire and not on it's center.
Let's suppose the bike was at 150 mm from the ground initially with the 45? lean capability.
Now we lower the bike by 15 mm, the lean angle now becomes arctg .9= 41.9?:mad:
Definitely in the danger zone to me:oops:
And we haven't hit a bump mid-turn yet!
 
John Kat said:
Hi Jim, I agree it seems very little but if you consider it from a lean perspective it shows a very different picture:o
On top of that,I believe you have computed the clearance at the mid-distance between the two wheels?
The issue on the GS's is the side stand and the left crankcase cover that are closer to the front wheel...
Personally, I don't feel confident if a bike does not have a minimum of 45? static lean angle.
Don't forget that at this angle of lean the bike is subject to 1.41 times it's static weight that further reduces the ground clearance.
This is somewhat compensated by the fact the bike rolls on the circumference of the tire and not on it's center.
Let's suppose the bike was at 150 mm from the ground initially with the 45? lean capability.
Now we lower the bike by 15 mm, the lean angle now becomes arctg .9= 41.9?:mad:
Definitely in the danger zone to me:oops:
And we haven't hit a bump mid-turn yet!
Click to expand...

John,
I agree with most of what you say and for that reason the calculation is intended to only be a relative calculation at laden (bike and riders) weight compression of the suspension as measured mid point between the axles.

All of the design variables of fork length, rear shock length, triple clamp height, fork rake, tire/wheel size can be embodied in this single calculation. So it is useful in evaluating the various design options and the net effect of each on this single parameter (mid axle clearance).

For example, when you go to a 17" wheel size it is very hard to keep from losing some ground clearance, on the other hand it is unnecessary (with a modern USD fork) to maintain the full stock clearance. Having said that there are certainly examples of excessively low 17" conversions that have had turning issues and an application of the spreadsheet will show that. From what I recall, you will have issues if you loose more than about 1.5" at center.

There are certainly other factor, if your springs are too soft (with excessive compression in bumps or turns) or you have large case guards. Those factors are not included. As a another argument in support of the validity of this calculation, one of the main ground clearance issues I have seen even with a stock suspension is running over speed bumps and hitting the middle of the exhaust on a 4:1 exhaust. So in terms of relative ground clearance for speed bumps, that is basically what the calculation does.

Jim
 
This is 4 or 5 pages late but this is what a Canadian 1982 750 Kat looks like, circa 1985(ish):

Katana.jpg
 
jwhelan65 said:
So much for the build thread..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So is it a build thread or are you flipping it? By the way if I could find a decent one for sale that wasn't too far away I'd be all over it. I loved my Kat. Rode it for about 4 yrs, guy I sold it to wrote it off the first day he had it!:cry:
 
Sadsak said:
So is it a build thread or are you flipping it? By the way if I could find a decent one for sale that wasn't too far away I'd be all over it. I loved my Kat. Rode it for about 4 yrs, guy I sold it to wrote it off the first day he had it!:cry:
Click to expand...

It is a build for a friend not mine..
 
That's a nice looking, complete bike to start a project with. I'm definitely jealous and will follow your progress. Keep us posted.:)
 
Having some issue with swingarm clearance where it meets the brake acuator... time to escalate to higher order. :confused:

KatanaSwinger_zps0a4d99fa.jpg
 
jwhelan65 said:
Having some issue with swingarm clearance where it meets the brake acuator... time to escalate to higher order. :confused:

KatanaSwinger_zps0a4d99fa.jpg
Click to expand...

Aren't you running rear-sets with an externally attached rear brake master.

I kept the stock rear brake master but had to offset my swing-arm in the frame by about 5mm to do it.
 
Last edited:
posplayr said:
Aren't you running rear-sets with an externally attached rear brake master.

I kept the stock rear brake master but had to offset my swing-arm in the frame by about 5mm to do it.
Click to expand...

On my E yes, on this one I had planned on some aftermarket bolt-ons. I know this has been done need to get with Katman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top