Ducati Monster Forum

powered by:

April 19, 2024, 07:03:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: No Registration with MSN emails
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  



Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: DIY Monster Scrambler  (Read 3359 times)
koko64
Post Whore
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15655


« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2018, 10:03:44 PM »

Thanks for the info fellas. It will be all about finding a compromised and balanced setting. I'll start with MX bars, ergos and dual sport tyres and get a baseline on local dirt roads. Step 2 will be suspension tuning.
Cheers
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 01:28:29 PM by koko64 » Logged

2015 Scrambler 800
koko64
Post Whore
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15655


« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2018, 01:25:08 PM »

Rear wheel travel on the hooped Monsters is 110mm and later ST framed at 140-148mm?  
41mm fork travel is 120mm and 43mm fork 130mm?
I have read conflicting figures in various sources. Was there any change to the 888 style linkage in the late 90's that increased rear wheel travel on the hooped Monsters? Or just inconsistent info?

I'm considering if a 620 may be a better starting point with suspension travel at 148/130.  If I can get 20 mm more travel out of the forks then aside from normal suspension tuning the job would be done. The issue for me is that low tech and carburettors is a preference, so the 750 appeals, but maybe a 620 is a better starting point regarding rear wheel travel. I'm not trying to build an off road bike but a dirt road capable road bike. In perspective the 620 has the same rear wheel travel as a Hypermotard. If the rear seat/frame/tank sections of the Hyper and MTS were not so wide I would have grabbed a Hyper, fitted a big tank and thrown some dual sport tyres on it. My pillion's ergonomic requirements are unique.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 12:23:05 AM by koko64 » Logged

2015 Scrambler 800
Howie
Post Whore
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16849



« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2018, 02:07:45 PM »

Probably inconsistent info, but the 620 does have notably more suspension travel and, IMO, more compliant rear suspension.  I also think the front geometry is better for what you want to do.  As far as carbs go, I don't mind not having needle jet replacement as a regular maintenance procedure.   
Logged
koko64
Post Whore
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15655


« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2018, 05:28:49 PM »

You got me looking at 620's waytogo
Maybe a rare 750ie.
Logged

2015 Scrambler 800
Speeddog
West Valley Flatlander
Flounder-Administrator
Post Whore
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14813


RIP Nicky


« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2018, 06:43:02 PM »

800 motor. Just Do It. They're awesome.  chug

Gen2/ST frame is bigger and beefier, and guaranteed 12mm engine bolts.

The Gen2/ST documentation claims shock travel as if the snubber were gone.
So it's misleading as can be.
A metal-to-metal bottoming out on the shock would be very unpleasant, and it really tears suspension parts up.
So there's got to be something there.
The question becomes ... how much.

I think the effective rear suspension travel is pretty similar between Gen1 and Gen2 bikes.

I found my info, Monster forks + SBK cartridges = 145mm.
Check the length and installation carefully, you don't want the cartridge bottoming.

 
Logged

- - - - - Valley Desmo Service - - - - -
Reseda, CA

(951) 640-8908


~~~ "We've rearranged the deck chairs, refilled the champagne glasses, and the band sounds great. This is fine." - Alberto Puig ~~~
koko64
Post Whore
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15655


« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2018, 03:12:44 AM »

That's dissapointing that actual real world, rear wheel travel is about the same, but it does open up my options.
I think the right bike will be the one at the right price. Wink
Logged

2015 Scrambler 800
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
SimplePortal 2.1.1