Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gordy]

I was going to install the Progressive Suspension Monotube Fork Cartridge #31-2500 in my 2009 SERG.  Thought I would check with the manufacturer first if this kit works with the CVO bikes.  Their reply was to determine if the tubes and lower legs are same (length) as a standard Roadglide.  Anybody know the answer to this question?   

[hd-dude]

The CVO RG does not have a lowered front end so yes they will work.

[hard10]

The CVO RG does not have a lowered front end so yes they will work.

And you didn't try to sell him on the Traxxions why?

[RickC]

And you didn't try to sell him on the Traxxions why?

My thoughts, precisely!

[GregKhougaz]

I was going to install the Progressive Suspension Monotube Fork Cartridge #31-2500 in my 2009 SERG.  Thought I would check with the manufacturer first if this kit works with the CVO bikes.  Their reply was to determine if the tubes and lower legs are same (length) as a standard Roadglide.  Anybody know the answer to this question?   

I think I do as I went through a rather strange experience with the rear shocks:  Factory Put The Wrong Rear Shocks On My '09 SERG ! ?.  Seems my SERG wound up with 13" regular rear shocks rather than the 12" SERG shocks compatible with ABS.  I thought about keeping the 13" because it road well.  In the process, we checked the front height and the SERG does have the lower, 21" front springs, HD part # 48787-09.  I don't recall the regular RG front spring part 3 but we did check at the time and it was different.  Hate to disagree with Gary but I have to say the SERG does have a lowered front end.

Does someone have the stock RG front fork part # and length?  That would clear this up.

[SBB]

This is confusing.

JIM?

 

SBB

[hd-dude]

I checked the parts manuals again on the forks. The SERG has the same lower legs, upper legs, damper rod, and top out spring as the other 09 dressers. The only difference is the main spring . I do not have measurements but my assumtion is the spring rate is different. Ride height is typically determined by the upper leg, damper rod and top out spring.  If the forks from a SERG and another 09 dresser were standing side by side without load they would be the same length. Having said that i lighter weight spring would collapse more and give the appearance of it being lowered.

[greglyon]

I checked the parts manuals again on the forks. The SERG has the same lower legs, upper legs, damper rod, and top out spring as the other 09 dressers. The only difference is the main spring . I do not have measurements but my assumtion is the spring rate is different. Ride height is typically determined by the upper leg, damper rod and top out spring.  If the forks from a SERG and another 09 dresser were standing side by side without load they would be the same length. Having said that i lighter weight spring would collapse more and give the appearance of it being lowered.

so if i went with aftermarket works or progressive 13inch on my 09 fltrse3 the height would likely not change on the front end?

[Dan_Lockwood]

Has there been a definitive decision made that other than the front fork spring rate, the frontend on a SERG is the same as any other non CVO '09 Touring bike?

I've been thinking about upgrading the front to the Progressive setup and going with a stock height 13" rear shock.

All things considered, with my fat butt on the seat the stock height is probably closer to the average guy with the lowered suspension anyway...     

So if the front end is part for part the same between stock Touring and SERG Touring and the main spring is the only difference, there should be no issues with the monotube Progressive setup.  That would probably still be okay even if the rear was left with the 12" lowered shocks.  Someone said that a lowered rear alone is better than a lowered front alone; not a good combination with just the front lowered.

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Thanks for the great information.

    

[HOGMIKE]

Has there been a definitive decision made that other than the front fork spring rate, the frontend on a SERG is the same as any other non CVO '09 Touring bike?

I've been thinking about upgrading the front to the Progressive setup and going with a stock height 13" rear shock.

All things considered, with my fat butt on the seat the stock height is probably closer to the average guy with the lowered suspension anyway...     

So if the front end is part for part the same between stock Touring and SERG Touring and the main spring is the only difference, there should be no issues with the monotube Progressive setup.  That would probably still be okay even if the rear was left with the 12" lowered shocks.  Someone said that a lowered rear alone is better than a lowered front alone; not a good combination with just the front lowered.

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Thanks for the great information.

    


There is a change from '08 to '09 on the front fork guts. Spring rate is higher (per the folks at Works), and some internal parts have changed.
Be aware that a change in fork fluid weights will affect the ride quality. You can't really use the combo you used for pre '09 forks to compare as they are different.
The new forks have a valve (like the "Gold valve") installed in the forks, these are what most refer to as "cartridge" forks.

I haven't pulled one off the shelf to look at, but, found out that the new forks are very sensitive to fork oil weights.
SE oil tends to make for a choppy/stiff front end!

IME

[Talon]

I left the springs alone, I think the cartridge is the better suspension, but not wanting to spend that kind of money I started looking a fork valving as a more precise way to adjust the front end. I almost went with Race Tech cartridge emulators, but when Ricor came on the CVO site and I hear from people here about their experience, I went with Ricor. I really like mine, handling and cornering is greatly improved. This is just my opinion, but I feel that controlling the fluid flow is a much finer adjustment that swapping springs. It also adds a little more pressure on the springs because it add about an 1" to the height, once their under the springs. Just my thoughts.

 http://www.racetech.com/page.aspx?id=59&menuid=67

http://store.ricorshocks.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1

Craig

[HOGMIKE]

I left the springs alone, I think the cartridge is the better suspension, but not wanting to spend that kind of money I started looking a fork valving as a more precise way to adjust the front end. I almost went with Race Tech cartridge emulators, but when Ricor came on the CVO site and I hear from people here about their experience, I went with Ricor. I really like mine, handling and cornering is greatly improved. This is just my opinion, but I feel that controlling the fluid flow is a much finer adjustment that swapping springs. It also adds a little more pressure on the springs because it add about an 1" to the height, once their under the springs. Just my thoughts.

 http://www.racetech.com/page.aspx?id=59&menuid=67

http://store.ricorshocks.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1

Craig