What is the 'ideal' Ride Height? Should the front shocks be biased toward more clearance or less?

[Danvirsse]

I know that CanAm (and aftermarket shock resellers) say that you should have 3-1/2" to 4" from the ground to i-beam in the front, with rider and gear. My question is what is "ideal"? Should they be biased toward more clearance or less? At least in my world, a half an inch seems like a huge margin.

 

[Mikey]

I would lean towards the higher end of that scale! The bike's too low to the ground anyway, it needs all the help it can get!!

 

[AndysF3S]

The shop manual suggests that the ride height should be:

I bought a digital shop manual and on page 292 it has a short description for adjusting spring preload. Make sure the vehicle is on a level surface, normal cargo load (rider, passenger and bags). Measure the distance between the upper and lower shock absorber mounting bolts. This distance should be 420mm (16 and 17/32"). Make sure you roll the Spyder forward or backwards after mounting it to allow the suspension to settle for a good measurement.

A bit more discussion in this thread: Checking ride height for all riders on new or new to them Spyders

As per the thread I have not changed my adjustment since posting this thread and the F3S is much more fun to ride. I now have almost 10K miles and the tire wear on the front tires is nice and even. FYI.

 

[BajaRon]

4" is what I suggest. However, your Spyder will settle differently every time. +or- 1/4" is pretty common. So, you won't get the same measurement every time no matter what you do. And it isn't that critical as long as you are in the ballpark while typically loaded (passenger/s and gear).

I do not recommend going too much over the 4" setting unless you intend to get your front-end alignment checked. Alignment on the Spyder/Ryker/Canyon changes with ride height (as well as articulation in turns).

This is one reason a stock Spyder tends to oscillate in turns, and why the sway bar upgrade improves handling. It helps keep the alignment within spec by controlling the lean angle. It's not a matter of opinion. It's simple physics at play. Change the physics, and you change the ride.

Misalignment is small at first. But as geometry changes increase, that misalignment increases at an exponential rate. Another reason to return your bike to its intended ride height when loaded. It all makes more difference than you may realize.

 

[Danvirsse]

THANK YOU! I adjusted my ride height to approximately 3-7/8". It improved the handling over the 3-5/8" height and allowed me to "plush" the ride a bit more. These shocks are so dramatically better than the stock shocks I can't begin to find enough superlatives to describe them. We're heading to the PA Grand Canyon area for a week the end of July and that will be the first test of the bike with full luggage. I made the trip on my Ryker several times, so I'm anxious to do it with the F3-T. I'm sure I'll love the BajaRon/JRi shocks on the twisties.

 

[mecsw500]

I know that CanAm (and aftermarket shock resellers) say that you should have 3-1/2" to 4" from the ground to i-beam in the front, with rider and gear. My question is what is "ideal"? Should they be biased toward more clearance or less? At least in my world, a half an inch seems like a huge margin.

Some folks fit 165/60R15 car tires instead of the stock 165/55R15's.

They also run 18 psi pressure in these car tires with the much stiffer sidewalls instead of 20 psi in the stock tires.

Both of these factors will lift the front likely by at least 1/2" and they report improved handling.

I think the RT LTD and S2S are low enough with only 4" of clearance to avoid scraping the front too often.

So, perhaps an increase in ride height of 1/2" is less dramatic on the handling characteristics of the bike than it might seem at first.