Smaller primary rollers

[cannondale27]

49/43?

Sounds right. Thanks. Still think if your rpms hold steady or rise with mph on top thats it in clutching dept. Just need power at that point.

 

[ClutchMaster]

49/41 that's a decent helix but not for powder.

 

[murdered141]

49/41 that's a decent helix but not for powder.

How about a straight 37 for a turbo long track?

 

[putz21]

Anyone remember what the Ulmer K Helix is? Clutchmaster I think you are on to something.

I have it in my notes as a 49/41 for the Ulmer K Helix.

 

[ClutchMaster]

How about a straight 37 for a turbo long track?

Oh yea that would be good choice with aggressive weights like supertips loaded up with a 190hp kit. With over 200hp you might have issues keeping it off the limiter with a 37.
I like your thinking!
I'm not a big fan of reverse angle helixes, just load those supers up!

Should be awsome for mountain riding.

 

[cannondale27]

I have it in my notes as a 49/41 for the Ulmer K Helix.

Thank you! I engraved it on there now so won’t have to ask again.

 

[Stubbs]

Keep in mind that Ulmer helix’s are very aggressive. They act much steeper than the #’s imply. That 49/41 will act more like a 52/44 from someone else, say a Dalton. It’s hard to directly compare his to others.

 

[cannondale27]

Keep in mind that Ulmer helix’s are very aggressive. They act much steeper than the #’s imply. That 49/41 will act more like a 52/44 from someone else, say a Dalton. It’s hard to directly compare his to others.

Is that because they start further up the pads and end further before next angle? Angles must be same right?

 

[Stubbs]

I’ve been told it’s because of the aggressiveness of the cut, and the finish of the ramp surface. Different manufacturers “measure” their helix’s in different ways, that’s why it’s best to stick to one manufacturer when testing. At least that’s the case if you are trying to compare a difference in performance vs angles being used directly. For perspective, the Yamaha 51/43 acts the opposite of an Ulmer helix, meaning less aggressive than the angles would suggest. It compares closely to a 48/42 Dalton in performance.

 

[cannondale27]

I’ve been told it’s because of the aggressiveness of the cut, and the finish of the ramp surface. Different manufacturers “measure” their helix’s in different ways, that’s why it’s best to stick to one manufacturer when testing. At least that’s the case if you are trying to compare a difference in performance vs angles being used directly. For perspective, the Yamaha 51/43 acts the opposite of an Ulmer helix, meaning less aggressive than the angles would suggest. It compares closely to a 48/42 Dalton in performance.

Geeze that should be a simple measurement and I always polish and wax my ramps so surface finish is always same.

 

[Studroes144]

Keep in mind that Ulmer helix’s are very aggressive. They act much steeper than the #’s imply. That 49/41 will act more like a 52/44 from someone else, say a Dalton. It’s hard to directly compare his to others.

Same with primary springs in the aftermarket world. Just Tested 2 different manufacturers springs recently , both were 170# preload, one engaged 300-350 rpm higher than the other one.

 

[cannondale27]

Same with primary springs in the aftermarket world. Just Tested 2 different manufacturers springs recently , both were 170# preload, one engaged 300-350 rpm higher than the other one.

Disappointing but true. Guess I cant blame others for wanting a edge. I do it myself with the shocks. Been screwed more than once when being too helpful.

 

[ClutchMaster]

Same with primary springs in the aftermarket world. Just Tested 2 different manufacturers springs recently , both were 170# preload, one engaged 300-350 rpm higher than the other one.

Many times springs need to take set, once they have been compressed a few times they change in force. Seems to be more common with secondary springs but I don't know why.

Goodwins secondarys are horrible