MPR Handling Guide

Written Up From the “SuperBike Magazine Circuit Guide” - Adapted For GP Bikes

Introduction: The Method

As we are starting a setup from scratch, back all available suspension settings off to
“minimum”. (The higher the number Clicks in the GPB Damper settings means less damping
on the suspension (Fastest Suspension movement))
It is important to make only one suspension adjustment at a time as you work through the
process.

As for riding style, it is important to ride as near to normal racing speed as is

comfortable, otherwise the setup may prove to be inadequate once you start pushing on
race day. But ride in control, (Crashing on a lap record attempt is useless) and with sufficient
attention focused on the suspension component under review to be able to make a
meaningful assessment.

(Physics Debug Mode, MaxHUD and MaxTM are all useful tools for aiding in the
feedback section, as we lack a lot of seat of the pants feel in GPB compared to a real bike,
and these help make up for it.)

Tyres and brakes are also not going to be in the perfect operating window
immediately, and won’t allow you to load the suspension up sufficiently to imitate race
conditions, even in GP Bikes. (5 Flying Laps MINIMUM is recommended for a good run on
most mods, and in real life as well.)

Finally, there is no right and wrong in chassis setup. All riders (and GP Bikers) are
different, and settings which suit one racer may very well be wrong for another. The correct
setup is one that suits you, and the best judge is the lap times on the stopwatch.

NB: Due to this guide originating from real life riding and racing, a lot of what will be
stated from here on in, will only work in GP Bikes if the Mod/Bike being used has been made
correctly and realistically. It is a good indicator for testing mods, as if a change/setup
mentioned here provides a different outcome in GP Bikes, then there is a realism issue with
the mod itself.

In terms of using this guide, anything in italics is specific for GP Bikes and/or added
extra to the guide by myself. This will (hopefully) provide ideas on how to better
implement the real world suggestions here into GP Bikes.
 FRONT SUSPENSION

The first thing to get right, is the front end; specifically the fork springs.

For GPB the standard rider weighs 75kg. (This can be found in the rider.cfg) As a result of
this the correct “starting point” for spring rate for a rider of this weight is;

9.81N/mm in the front forks (or as close as possible)

97.87N/mm in the rear shock (or as close as possible)

NB: This is a starting point, it is not the “be all end all” choice. As will be explained below.

Front Spring Rate

On most bikes the aim here is the largest amount of useful travel with the softest
springs, but without bottoming-out. You do this the first thing is to determine the full extent of
the fork’s travel. In the real world you would remove both top nuts and the forks bottom out
under the bike’s weight. You then make a note of the distance between the top of the sliders
(or dust seals) and the bottom yoke. Reassemble the forks.

Then, with preload on minimum, fasten a cable tie around the fork stanchion. Work
up to speed and put in a couple of laps using maximum braking (must be dry). You will find
that the forks have pushed the cable/zip tie down to record the maximum amount of travel
used.
(In GP Bikes, the total travel can be found by looking in the GEOM file of the bike,
using the BikeED program, or a text editor (Notepad etc). Alternatively, a modder may
provide this information in the mods release notes/documentation. As we do not have the
option to stick a cable/zip tie on the fork stanchion, using the additional tools mentioned
above (Debug, MaxHUD and MaxTM) will provide this information directly from the game
with nice accuracy.)

Racers should seek fork travel which almost causes the forks to bottom out. If the
bottoming is excessively hard or frequent, a stiffer spring is required. If there is travel to
spare, try a softer one, until you arrive at the right value. Bear in mind that a change here
also affects damping characteristics: a stiffer spring slows compression/bump damping down
and speeds up the rebound.

(I assume this last point is replicated in GP Bikes but I have not exclusively tested it)

Fork spring selection is just one area where 2 expert riders may prefer totally different
settings. For instance, a rider who brakes hard in a straight line and then drops the bike
sharply into a turn will generally need harder springs than one who brakes deep into the turn
(who would otherwise be in danger of losing the front end with the harder springs). On
heavy, large capacity racers, it may be necessary to tolerate a certain amount of
bottoming-out if the fork springs are to be soft enough to work on the rest of the track.
 Fork Air Gap
(Known as Oil Level in GP Bikes - More Oil the smaller the Air Gap)

All the forks you’re likely to come across contain oil. The viscosity of the oil affects
damping; the volume of oil (or, rather the air-gap above it), affects springing. Handbooks
prescribe how much oil to use, but this is only a guide. It is possible to vary the amount to
achieve a desired effect.

Air gap is the distance between the surface of the oil in the fork leg and the top of the
fork leg itself, typically 120 to 170mm.

(In GP Bikes we measure and change oil level, more oil less air gap, so it would be the
inverse of what is mentioned in this guide)

It is always measured with the spring removed and the forks fully compressed and
bled (pump gently up and down a few times). In the case of cartridge-type or upside-down
forks, let the damper fall as far down the leg as it will go before measuring.

(Most modern forks are Upside-down/Cartridge-types - certainly most in GP Bikes, however

we don’t need to do this due to the fact it is simply measured out in the Garage menus)

Reducing the air gap, (by adding more oil) effectively makes the forks air-sprung: the
more the forks compress, the higher the pressure of the air trapped in them, and the more it
resists further compression. The effect is progressive, only significantly stiffening during the
final third of the fork travel. It can thus be used to fine-tune the amount the forks dive under
braking (for instance at a particularly bumpy or grippy circuit), but should be utilised after
determining the correct weight of fork spring.

Simply add 10mm of oil at a time (to both legs), and then try the rushing into a corner
and braking routine with the cable/zip tie. (10cc of oil conveniently equals about 10mm of
height in a 43mm fork leg.) At first you’ll be able to detect no difference, but eventually the
amount of dive will be reduced. Continue the process until you achieve the desired value.
You’ll soon notice if you put in too much oil: the forks go almost solid.

(Again, as we are in GP Bikes and cannot fix cable/zip ties to fork legs, utilising
Debug/MaxHUD/MaxTM for this measurement is preferred. (Personally I’d recommend
MaxTM for this specifically as you will more accurately be able to see the movement in the
key final third of fork travel))
 Front Pre-Load

A reminder: increasing pre-load does NOT make the suspension stiffer, although it
can cause topping-out: pre-load simply alters ride height. Extra Pre-load is mainly used to
preserve ground clearance, or to alter the steering geometry. Compared with their normal
free length, most forks have a built-in preload of about 15mm (the reason it’s sometimes a
struggle to get the top nut back on).

Because more pre-load makes the forks begin their stroke from a higher position, it
can also help prevent forks bottoming, although stiffening the spring rate is a far better
solution to this particular problem. If there is no facility for pre-load adjustment, spacers -
short length of tube, shims, even coins - can usually be inserted between the spring and the
top nut instead.

(Most bikes in GP Bikes have adjustable preload, and we couldn’t exactly put coins in the
forks if we didn’t, that means the last point is mostly redundant for GP Bikes. But if you race
classics in the real world, knock yourself out)

Fork topping out - often with an audible ‘clunk’ - are usually due to too much pre-load.
The minimum pre-load setting usually offers the best straight line stability.

Fork Damping

Some forks have no specific damping adjustment. Where only one adjuster (per leg)
is present, it will usually be for rebound damping. Some Italian forks have rebound damping
adjusters on one leg and compression damping adjusters on the other - read the handbook.
But even where no adjustment is offered, damping can usually be increased by substituting
a fork oil of higher viscosity (higher S.A.E. number), or decreased with lower viscosity oil.
This will affect both rebound and compression damping. Beyond a certain point, thicker oils
do not increase damping, because at high fork speeds the oil simply cannot move quickly
enough through the orifices, and a partial vacuum results. Very thick oils can also blow fork
seals.

You should bear in mind a fundamental difference between compression and

rebound damping. With any setting of spring and damping, the rate of wheel rebound has a
specific maximum speed, regardless of outside influences. The rate of compression,
however, depends on the speed at which the wheel hits bumps, and the severity of those
bumps, as well as on the actual suspension settings. This is the reason the best systems
have different high and low speed damping arrangements.

(The above segment about oil viscosity isn’t relevant to GP Bikes so much, due to
the fact that oil viscosity is not a changeable option in the GP Bikes garage, and we have
adjustment on pretty much every bike in the game (regardless of if its realistic or not to do
so). The compression and rebound differences is perhaps slightly relevant to GP Bikes, but
it’s for extremely advanced riders, and will only make a difference to those that really know
what they’re doing, and if the bike itself has correct damper settings.
 Rebound Damping

The primary symptom of insufficient fork rebound damping is front-end patter during
cornering (NOT under braking). Again, start testing with damping on the minimum setting. If
judder is present, increase the damping until it goes away. If you can’t get rid of it, there isn’t
enough damping available, so choose a thicker oil. (If the oil is already so thick that it is
captivating yet judder still persists, then the forks may be faulty or require expert reworking.
Many forks can be modified internally to increase damping, by outfits such as Maxton and
K-Tech. It is not particularly expensive, but it’s not a job for the unwary.)

(Again as we can’t adjust oil viscosity in the GP Bikes garage this is not an option for
most players. I say most, as this IS something a modder can edit in the CFG of the
motorcycle, using the values under rebound in the front suspension segment of the CFG. A
higher value has the same effect as making it harder for the oil to flow through the orifices.
So if a bike still judders on 0 clicks of rebound (less clicks means slower suspension
movement/more damping) then increasing the values in the CFG may be a way to amend
this).

More rebound damping also helps prevent the forks from returning too rapidly when
the brakes are released into a turn, which causes a single abrupt wallow. Unless it is really
excessive, rebound damping has little effect on straight-line stability.

Compression Damping
(Known as “Bump” Damping in GP Bikes)

The effect of adjustments in compression damping is felt most of all under braking.
Excessive compression damping will make the forks feel too stiff on the brakes, giving judder
into the turns - very like the feel of too-stiff hydraulic anti-dive. The forks may feel fine when
bounced up and down at rest, but solid under braking. The forks may also kick off bumps,
possibly causing tank-slappers.

Too little compression damping is harder to define. The aim is to have the damping
assisting the spring, so that the spring can be as light as is practicable. The ideal, therefore,
is as much compression damping as the forks will stand without judder. Note that fork judder
can also be caused by disc run-out, deposits on the disc rotors, or by wheels or tyres which
are out-of-balance.

(As with rebound, this is something that a modder can fine-tune in the CFG. As we don’t
have issues with warped/dirty rotors and improperly balanced wheels and tyres, about 90%
of any braking judder can be assigned to incorrect compression setups. (I say 90% as the
Virtual Rider can give false readings if its setup incorrectly.) So, if a mod still judders with
compression (bump) damping set to 0 clicks (less clicks means slower suspension
movement/more damping) then increasing the values in the CFG may be a way to amend
this).
 REAR SUSPENSION

On most machines the rear suspension generally offers the greatest range of
adjustment, and equally the greatest opportunity for error. Rule One of setting up any bike is
that 90% of the problems felt through the steering have their cause at the other end of the
machine, the rear. Some very successful riders appear not to know this, but it is true,

(It is also very true for GP Bikes, providing a bike has decent physics from the CFG
values, most of the setup problems can be fixed/aided via an adjustment to the rear of the
bike.)

Spring Rates

Although fork spring rate is selected (mostly) by trial and error to suit a particular
rider, rear shock springs are usually calculated by reference to the weight of the bike plus
rider and the linkage ratios of the suspension system.

Too-soft springs can cause “weave” (so softer isn’t necessarily better on the Isle of
Man); too-hard ones are associated with rear-end judder in turns or harshness over bumps.
Unfortunately, these symptoms often arise from other, unrelated factors.

The best advice is to consult a recognised shock absorber specialist (or walk around
a racing paddock and see what works on the same type of bike as yours ridden by a rider of
similar weight). Incidentally, it isn’t always correct to install a softer spring for racing on road
circuits, because of adverse effects on the bike’s attitude (the way it sits on the road) and
thus geometry.

(In GP Bikes we have these ratios and rider weights available to us, and the “correct”
starting spring rate is stated at the beginning of this document. That being said, we can
change it in GP Bikes, and other rates may suit your style more. As all GP Bikes riders
weigh the same (on the same bike), asking a faster player what rear spring they're running is
often a viable substitute for walking around a race paddock.)
 Pre-Load

On a typical big four stroke multi, the pre-load should be set so the spring just
supports the unladen bike at full travel (maximum height), but sags 30 to 35mm with the rider
aboard. A lightweight such as a 250cc two-stroke machine should have the same amount of
laden ‘sag’, but so that it tops out slightly with no rider aboard (in other words a slight
downward pressure on the seat causes no suspension movement).

If you have to alter the pre-load by a large amount to achieve this amount of sag,
note that this will also alter the bike’s attitude and geometry. Markedly raising the rear end
may make the bike steer quicker, weave in a straight line, be less stable on the brakes, or all
three.

On the other hand, lowering the rear ride height may cause high speed instability and
head shaking. (Several riders at last year’s Production TT were caught out by this; they’d
assumed that lowering the rear would make the bike more stable by increasing the front trail.
In fact it made the front even lighter under power over bumps, causing the steering to
become even more lively.) If this happens, you should return the ride height to the previous
level if there is any means other than pre-load of adjusting this. Unfortunately, on production
racers there often won’t be unless you go to the expense of fitting a rear shock of different
length.

(That translates to setting the preload, and then utilising alternate methods to
re-adjust the rear ride height to the previous setting - such as rod length or simply using the
ride height adjuster. Can be checked in the garage, or alternatively using the extra tools
stated previously; Debug, MaxHUD, MaxTM. We cannot change the shock length in GP
Bikes either so we have to make do with the alternative adjustments.)
 Rebound Damping

Rear rebound damping problems are probably the single most common cause of
poor handling, especially on production motorcycles. Rebound damping which is too soft
shows up in three ways.

The most common result of inadequate rebound damping on road bikes is ‘wallow’,
particularly through fast corners. Racing bikes shouldn’t ‘wallow’ - if they do they're miles out.

(If they do ‘Wallow’ in GP Bikes, this is so far out it will need a CFG Patch by the
modder editing the values. It is very unlikely it could be fixed in the garage)

Racers are more likely to suffer from rear end judder through turns, or from a rear
end that rises too quickly under braking, hopping and skipping as the brakes are applied
hard. The answer is progressively to increase the rebound damping until braking stability
improves, and the judder or wallow goes.

Rebound damping also has a less easily defined effect on the ‘feel’ of the bike under
power. Correct rebound adjustment increases traction, gives more control under braking,
and reduces reaction to on/off throttle in corners.

At its worst, too little rebound damping can cause those dreaded tank-slappers. Too
little leads to inadequate spring control; too much can cause ‘pumping down’ over bumps
(with loss of travel and unhelpful changes in geometry). If this sort of instability appears at
the end of a race, it’s likely the damping is too soft; if it’s at its worst when the suspension is
cold, the damping is probably too stiff.

(As far as I’m aware GP Bikes does not yet simulate fork/shock oil temperature and
effect, so the latter point about the time when the instability shows may not be relevant in the
Simulator.)
 Compression Damping
(Known as “Bump” Damping in GP Bikes)

Rear compression damping is the setting demanding the greatest sensitivity from the
rider. Small adjustments can make a big difference.

(This is true for GP Bikes as well, providing the bike CFG is set-up correctly.)

Much will also depend on the degree of anti-squat a bike possesses.; Start with
minimum compression damping, gradually dialling-in more until the drive improves out of
corners. You should be able to feel the bike sink under power, finding extra grip as it does
so. With too little compression damping, the bike will sink, but too quickly and not find as
much grip. With too much compression damping (or too stiff of a spring), the rear wheel
judders, also finding less grip. The ideal is a balance in which the rear wheel neither squats
excessively nor loses traction over bumps under power.

Because this bonus of grip is only there as the rear suspension is actually sinking, it’s
of less significance on long corners or on most road circuits, where the same degree of
damping can make the rear end feel harsh and unstable.

SUMMARY

If you’ve followed this system methodically, you should now have a bike that handles
appreciably better than before. But that, inevitably, will have its own penalties: you may be
riding harder, braking more fiercely, hitting the gas more hard out of turns. So you may find,
for instance, that the forks have started bottoming out once again, because the bike is more
stable on the anchors, and you’re using them harder as a result.

If so, you may have to fine-tune the front spring rate again… or the air gap… or the
damping… For the perfectionist, the only solution is to repeat the same step-by-step process
until you are satisfied the bike is handling as well as it can be made to do so.
 RIDING STYLE
(Not very relevant to GP Bikes as we have limited choice of input on the machines but here it
is nonetheless)

Before you get too carried away with your new-found diagnostic ability, it’s important
to remember that the single most telling variable on a motorcycle has nothing to do with
Messrs, Honda, Ohlins, Dunlop or whoever; it’s you, the rider.

There are two ways to steer a motorcycle, and both at first seem opposite to the
desired effect. Using bodyweight actually obliges us to shift part of the bulk away from the
turn. The bike reacts by banking into the turn, at which the point gyroscopic precession takes
over, helping to steer the front wheel into the turn. (You probably think that you shift into the
turn and pull the bike after you, but since the only thing you have to push against is the bike -
which would go the other way - this defies physics.)

(Note: This guide, while still mostly relevant, with the mechanical aspect of things,
was written in the year 2000. Back when the riding style was still “head-up”. The result is
today, the riders get their weight down to the inside of the bike, moving the entire CoG
towards the corner causing the bike to steer in that direction. We can slightly utilise this in
GP Bikes with manual rider movement.)

Counter steering also involves opposites - in this case moving the ‘bars’ left to initiate
a right-hand turn. This causes the bike to topple right - you’re effectively trying to negotiate a
left-hander whilst leaning outwards - causing all those lovely gyroscopic and castor effects to
again come into play. In practice, these steering inputs are usually very subtle and their use
in combination becomes second nature.

(In GP Bikes, Counter Steering is the primary method of bike control. This means
that at low speeds the steering can become awkward, and also there is a tendency for the
bikes to ‘snap’. This puts larter emphasis on the virtual rider and steering damper settings in
the bike CFG, and can also give ‘false readings’ in the other aspects of the setup process.
The rider does use weight and pressure, however Piboso has stated the pressure is applied
from the hips, and not the pegs. This *should* give different force inputs on the bike as the
pivot point has effectively changed, both height and horizontal axis (pegs are further out from
the centre of mass than the hips, so the force should be higher, however, they are also lower
so the force is also reduced in that sense. I’m not a mathematician, or a physicist so I do not
know the exact ratios of this.)

These two modes of steering sometimes give different results. Counter-Steering is

the same thing as applying a torque to the front wheel. This torque is resisted in part by
castor effects, and in part by the tyre’s grip on the road.

Let’s imagine that at the precise moment you counter-steer, the front wheel hits a
bump. The tyre recoils. Result: same torque applied, less grip to resist it: the wheel will turn
too far. Castor effects will bring it back, but probably over-center: a tank-slapper in the
making.
 A similar phenomenon occurs where excessive trail gives a tendency to oversteer,
which obliges the rider to press the ‘bars outwards during a turn. Hit a bump, particularly
under power when the front is lighter anyway, and the rider’s steady pressure becomes an
actual steering movement. So again we have a situation where the wheel is pointing one
way and th ebike another, inviting the bike to over-correct and possibly tank-slap.

(This is a key player in tank-slappers in GP Bikes. Tuning the Virtual Rider in the
CFG is key to sorting this out and/or reducing the effect.)

The inverse of this is bikes with very short trail which try to tuck in, and/or initiate
similar wobble. The difference is that the large castor effect of long-trailed machines will
probably damp out the wobble fairly quickly. But by the time something with inadequate trail
has sorted itself out, you might be on your backside.

If the bike’s designer didn't get it right, and you lack the means to do it for him, the
only solution is to be mindful of these dynamic effects as you ride.

(It is one of the reasons why lowering the rear, and increasing the trail is so effective
in GP Bikes. It helps negate the issues and shortcomings of the Virtual Rider coding.)
 GLOSSARY

> Aeration: Contamination of damping oil with air bubbles

> Air - Gap: Distance between the top of oil in a fork leg, and the top of the fork leg

> Air - Spring: Suspension using progressive compressibility of air as a springing medium.

> Anti - Dive: System used to resist nose-down pitch under braking.

> Anti - Squat: Extent to which a motorcycle resists tail-down attitude under acceleration.

> Bottoming - Out: Condition when all suspension travel has been used up.

> Castor Effect: Self - Aligning effect of the steering system with positive trail

> Coil Bound: Condition where spring coils bear against each other.

> Compression (Bump) Damping: Damping effect resisting the compression of a

suspension unit.

> Damping: (Usually Hydraulic) system for resisting suspension movement

> Fade (= ‘go off’): condition where damping effect is reduced by heating of the damping
fluid.

> Free Length: The ‘natural’ length of an unloaded spring.

> Geometry: The angles and lengths used in chassis design

> Inertia: Tendency of a moving object to continue moving at the same speed in the same
direction.

> Momentum: Mass times Velocity

> Offset: In telescopic forks, the fore-and-aft distance between the steering axis and fork
legs.

> Orifice: Passage of precise size through which oil passes as a shock absorber moves.

> Oversteer: Condition in which opposite lock has to be applied to keep a vehicle on course
through a turn.

> Patter/Judder: Low - Frequency Vibration emanating from a wheel/suspension.

> Pro - Squat: Extent to which motorcycle resists tail-up attitude under acceleration.
> Progressive Rate: One - piece spring which compresses less readily as more loading is
applied.

> Pre-Load: Amount a spring compresses when fitted to a shock absorber.

> Pumping Down: Condition where the ride height of a vehicle lowers progressively over a
series of bumps.

> Pumping Up: Where ride height rises over a series of bumps.

> Rake (head angle): Angle between steering head and vertical

> Rebound Damping: Damping effect resisting extension of suspension.

> Rising - Rate: Suspension in which the wheel rate rises as the suspension compresses

> Sag: Extent to which suspension compresses under weight of stationary motorcycle.

> Self - Aligning Torque: Self - Centering steering force caused by positive trail.

> Spring Rate: Amount of force needed to compress a spring a given distance.

> Stiction: ‘Static Friction’: The reluctance of mechanically loaded parts to move against
each other, esp in forks.

> Tank - Slapper: Violent lock - to - lock oscillation of the handlebars.

> Topping - Out: Condition where the suspension is fully extended.

> Trail: Distance by which the front contact patch leads to the point at which a line through
the steering head would intersect the ground.

> Understeer: Condition in which extra steering effort is required to keep a vehicle on
course throughout a turn.

> Unsprung Mass: Weight of wheels, tyres, brakes, (proportion of) suspension, etc.

> Wallow: Oscillating, yawing movement of a motorcycle, esp. Through a turn - like ‘rowing’
the bike.

> Weave: (Often Rhythmic) straight-line instability.

> Weight transfer: Amount by which rear wheel is unloaded and front loaded under braking;
vice versa under acceleration.

> WheelBase: Distance between front and rear axles.

> Wheel Rate: Force Needed to deflect a wheel vertically by a given distance.
 TROUBLE SHOOTING

How to Use:

Table contains a list of symptoms and causes, if the bike exhibits a behaviour on the left
“Symptom” column, see the “possible Cause” Column next to it. Then Change accordingly in
the garage - For Example:

Bike weaves under braking (Backing in) - Symptom

Rear ride height too high - Cause

Lower rear ride height - Solution

Symptom Possible Cause

Forks Top Out Fork Springs too stiff/too much pre-load/
too little oil/too light of an oil

Forks Bottom Out Forks Spring too Soft/too little pre-load/air

gap too small/compression damping too
soft

Front-end Judder In Turns Insufficient Fork Rebound Damping

Front-end Judder On Brakes Too much Fork Compression Damping

(Also Check Wheels and Brakes IRL)

Rear Wheel Skips On Brakes Insufficient rear rebound damping/rear ride

height too low (Also too low tick over or
changing down too soon, especially on
four-strokes)

Bike Weaves Under Hard Braking Rear ride height too high/steering damper
too stiff/wheels out of line. Fork Springs too
stiff/front compression damping too hard.

Bike Wallows or Judders Through Turns Insufficient rear rebound damping

High-Speed Straight-Line Weave Rear spring rate too soft/rear rebound

damping too soft/steering damper too
stiff/head races too stiff/
rear ride height too low

Bike Unstable at Speed, Prone to Rear Rebound Damping Incorrect (Too Soft
Tank-Slappers or Stiff)/Trail Too short

Rear Wheel Judders Under Power Rear compression Damping too high/rear
spring rate too high
 SUSPENSION BASICS/THEORY

Wheelbase

This is the distance between the front and rear contact patches (or wheel spindles)
with the suspension normally loaded. It is not usually adjustable, except within the narrow
range of chain adjustment, and except by the means of aftermarket swinging-arms. On race
bikes it is usually in the range of 53 to 56 inches (1346.2 to 1422.4 millimetres). A longer
wheelbase will tend to give greater high speed stability and less weight transfer at the
expense of slower low speed steering. Long bikes are also less affected by weight transfer
under braking and acceleration (which means, for instance, less wheelies but also less
absolute grip and a greater tendency to drift).

Rake (A.K.A: ‘Castor’)

Rake is the angle between the steering head and the vertical. (But sometimes quoted
as the angle between the steering head and the horizontal.) On road bikes it usually falls in
the range 24-27 degrees, although it can be as shallow as 29 degrees on customs and
heavyweight tourers (and can vary significantly between supposedly identical machines).

Shallow rake offers more stability, plus a greater self-centering effect to the steering
but less manoeuvrability through tight turns and at low speed. Shallow rake figures also
make for steering which tends to rise and fall as the handlebars are turned and ‘flop’ into
corners.

Trail

Trail is the distance between the front tyre’s contact patch and where a line drawn
downwards through the steering stem would reach the ground. On bikes with telescopic
forks, trail is always related to rake, so that more degrees of rake gives more trail. Trail gives
the steering both its self-centering effect, and its tendency to continue turning into a corner
when the bike is leaned over (as the contact patch moves around to the ‘inside’ of the tyre).

The effect of trail is to make the bike run straight when upright, but to turn the bike in
the direction of lean when cranked over. By altering the trail, designers attempt to give the
steering a neutral feel. Excessive trail may feel like understeer (the bike sits up if pressure is
taken off the handlebars), too little trail like oversteer. On production machines the trail is
never directly adjustable, but may be altered by changing fork offset or by changing the front
and rear ride heights.

Steering Offset

Offset is the fore-and-aft distance between the steering stem and the fork legs. It is
adjustable on some racers, but rarely on production bikes, although a few aftermarket
manufacturers produce yokes with adjustable offset. Less offset gives more trail, not less.
 Suspension - What it Does

The perfect vehicle suspension system is one which completely isolates the
occupants from and and all road irregularities, whilst at the same time maintaining stability
and tyre grip. As of 1996, this is patently impossible. The best that can be achieved is a
compromise which works satisfactorily for the type of use and going a particular vehicle is
likely to encounter. (Its an old guide, Lexus and Bosch successfully manufactured some
active suspension however it is not yet optimised and used commercially, and not entirely
used on motorcycles. Modern SBK have ‘Active suspension’, which, as I understand, adjusts
the preload and damping settings based on the type of riding, but is more reactive than
active. I am not 100% sure on how it works and I have no doubt each manufacturer has their
own system for this. But as was said the guide is old, but the advice is still mostly sound, and
for GP Bikes it’s still more than adequate, as there is no Electronics suspension support
anyway.)

Sprung/Unsprung Mass

The unsprung mass of a vehicle is those items - wheels, brakes, spindles and (most
of) the suspension itself which move directly with the road surface. The sprung mass is all
the rest, including the rider. The perfect case is a vehicle with 100% sprung mass and zero
unsprung mass, which would allow the wheels to conform to road irregularities with zero
inertia whilst the spring mass floats above in unruffled calm.

This, of course, never happens. In practice, when a suspension spring compresses,

in trying to extend again, it exerts equal and opposite forces on the sprung and on unsprung
parts of the machine. The acceleration which results from this force - the amount of energy
put into the sprung and unsprung elements - will depend on their relative masses.

A high ratio of sprung to unsprung weight offers both comfort (less energy transferred
to the heavier sprung mass, rider included), and good handling (quicker response of the
lighter unsprung mass). This is why stripped down production racers, in which most of the
weight has been removed from the sprung mass but the standard wheels and brakes
retained, often handle worse than before unless measures are taken to enhance the
suspension.
 Springs

Springs, usually of steel wire, are the usual means by which a vehicle insulates its
occupan=ts from road irregularities. A coil spring is simply a very long torsion rod, wound
into a spiral for convenience. For this reason shortening a spring by cutting it increases its
rate - in the same way that a long length of wire is easier to twist than a short one.

The stiffer the spring(s), the greater the energy they will put into the sprung mass of
the bike plus rider. As a general rule, therefore, the ideal is to have the softest possible
springs consistent with rare bottoming-out. Unfortunately it is an inescapable truth that the
shorter the available suspension travel, the higher the spring rate must be for any given
application - the reason for the trend to longer suspension travel.

Incidentally, progressive-rate springs are now rarely used on race bikes because
cornering loads will use up the soft part of the travel, leaving the hard rate of the spring to
cope with any bumps. For the same reason monoshock rising rate ratios are usually quite
small.

What springs actually do when they deform in response to a bump is store energy. A
100lb/in spring will store the same amount of energy in compressing by two inches as a
50lb/in spring will in by compressing four inches. Once the bump is passed, the spring’s
natural tendency is to give back more-or-less the same amount of energy in extending again.
In practice, it will do this by oscillating, in much the same way as a rubber ball thrown onto a
hard surface will continue bouncing for some time. In fact, left to its own devices, a bike
would behave pretty much like a rubber ball. This is where damping comes in.

(In GP Bikes a lot of bikes, stock content included, are seemingly lacking on the
damping aspect of their suspension simulation. This introduces the ‘po-go’ effect and makes
it very hard for the virtual rider to control the bikes in certain situations. The damping is
insufficient so you end up with the suspension being mostly on the ‘springs’. This is very
noticeable on direction changes where a few bikes have a tendency to ‘jump’ when the
change is too aggressive. I know real bikes can do this, but in GP Bikes, it seems
exaggerated.)

(My knowledge and reasoning behind this is very limited, all I can really say is the
in-game effects of making some changes, and adding more damping to existing bikes
certainly smooths a lot of their handling characteristics and irregularities. A good indicator of
whether this is the case is if the fastest, most stable setup is on 0 clicks for the damping
settings in the garage. Having too much damping should make the bike as unstable as
having too little damping (but in different ways as highlighted in this guide), so being at the
maximum adjustment across most, if not all tracks, is an indicator of incorrect CFG settings.)

(Example values for GP Bikes conversion:)

100lb/in = 17.5N/mm
50lb/in = 8.76N/mm
 Damping

Instead of putting a spring’s energy straight back into the chassis, a hydraulic shock
absorber causes it to pump oil through the resistance of a system of orifices and valves. This
resistance controls the spring movement, converting the stored energy to hear, which is then
dispersed into the atmosphere.

Although springs compress in proportion to the amount of load on them, hydraulic

damping varies with the speed at which these loads act. Actually, it varies as the square of
speed, so that a four times increase in suspension speed gives a 16 times increase in
damping force. This is why it is largely futile to judge the action of a bike’s suspension by
bouncing it up and down in the paddock. The more sophisticated shocks feature staged
valving, which works differently depending on the speed at which the wheel is moving.

Compression Damping
(Known as “Bump” Damping in GP Bikes)

Compression damping resists the movement of the spring during the compression
part of the stroke. It is the least important of the two types of damping.

Well-matched compression damping, however, can offer a great benefit in spring

choice, particularly at the front. The ‘ideal’ soft spring we might like to use will probably result
in too much bottoming out. However, taking advantage of the phenomenon that damping
force is related to speed of suspension travel, it is possible to have staged compression
damping which has little effect most of the time but comes into play at precisely the times
when bottoming is likely - when the shock moves quickly. In other words, you can have the
soft spring you want, without the penalty of bottoming.

Rebound Damping

There are two opposite approaches to damping/spring combinations: Stiff springs,

little or no compression damping, and lots of rebound damping, at one extreme; and soft
springs, light rebound damping, and heavy compression damping at the other. The former
results in suspension which is prone to pumping-down and very harshly at low speeds. The
latter can lead to pumping-up at high speeds. It also suffers because motorcycle
suspensions must not only deal with bumps, but with cornering loads, too. On long, fast
corners, bikes with too-soft springing and incorrect damping can progressively settle down
on their suspension, substantially reducing ground clearance and ultimately bottoming-out.
The ideal is somewhere between the two.
 Ride Height and Pre-Load

Adding pre-load does not make the springs stiffer, it simply increases the loading
required to make the suspension begin to compress. In the process, it raises the effective
ride height. After that, a 50lb/in (8.76N/mm) spring will compress at the rate of one inch
every 50lbs, whether it’s preloaded or not.

It was often true that dialling-in more pre-load improved handling - but only because it
limited the movement of an imcompetent shock absorber. The real answer, of course, was to
fit a better shock. Besides, adding pre-load, especially to the forks, often results in
undesirable topping-out.

Ride Height - Front

Ride height is most readily altered by adjusting the pre-load (by scre, if fitted, or by
means of spacers), and also by dropping or raising the yokes on the fork legs, providing the
legs are long enough to be fully clamped. Lowering the front end (lifting the fork legs)
reduces trail, also quickening the steering by placing the bike’s centre of mass nearer the
road. Unfortunately it also reduces ground clearance. Raising the ride height will have the
opposite effect.

(Increasing the front ride height value in GP Bikes has this effect, as it is the amount
of fork peeking out the top of the yokes. More fork out the top of the yokes, means a lower
overall front end. It can be a bit counter intuitive, as you’d assume a higher value means the
bike’s ride height is higher, but this is not the case.)

Ride Height - Rear

Again altered by a means of a pre-load collar or, rarely, by means of adjustable

linkages. Ride height can also be varied by installing shock absorbers of different length or
tyres of a different height. Raising the rear end makes for a quick-turning bike with reduced
braking stability. Lowering the rear end can cause high speed instability and head shaking
(despite the fact it also slightly increases rake). Raising or lowering either end by one inch
will change the head angle by about one degree.

(In GP Bikes the rear ride height is how you’d expect. A higher number means you
have a higher bike. I cannot say explicitly how raising or lowering the rear affects the head
angle, or how accurate the change is, but the rake does change should you raise or lower
the bike.)
 Weight Transfer

Whenever a motorcycle accelerates or brakes, weight transfer takes place.

Acceleration transfers weight to the rear wheel, braking to the front. The extent of this extra
loading decreases with wheelbase and the height and distance of the bike’s centre of gravity
from the wheel in question. But its main effect is always the same: traction increases as load
increases.

(More load only increases traction to a point, too much load/weight transfer can
cause the wheel to brake the traction if you overload the tyre. This is very noticeable in GP
Bikes where there isn’t as much control over the riders movement, except for a select few
who have the capability to use this option in the game.)

Weight transfer can be a problem for bikes inclined to wheelie. One common remedy
is to lengthen the swing-arm. This helpfully increases the wheelbase, and moves the centre
of gravity farther from the rear contact patch. Unfortunately, it will also offer less available
traction, which will mean less weight transfer, nullifying the original problem but giving a
different one instead. This closed loop system means that small changes of this type can
have surprisingly large effects. Ofen a significant change can be felt simply by utilising the
full amount of chain adjustment.

(In GP Bikes, and indeed in modern riding, to prevent the lack of traction and
unwanted/incorrect weight transfer, it is often more appropriate to use the rear brake as a
control for the wheelie. It also reduces the amount of electronic interference required,
meaning more speed can be found. It is one of the key aspects as to why thumb/handlebar
mounted rear brakes have become more popular - easier to control and modulate. The rear
brake is now used for more than just keeping the bike stable.)
 Squat

Hitting the gas doesn’t just load up the rear tyre. It loads up the rear suspension, too,
sometimes in unhelpful ways. If the swing-arm pivot is too high relative to the chain run, the
tug on the chain under power tends to sit the rear end down (pro-squat), reducing traction.
Squat is probably one of the last chassis variables for a rider to consider, but it can amount
for some otherwise mysterious handling problems which no amount of suspension tuning
can cure.

The degree of anti-squat is found as follows: extend a straight line forward from the
rear wheel spindle through the swing-arm pivot. Extend another line forward through the top
chain run. From the point where these two lines intersect, draw another straight line to the
center of the rear tyre contact patch. The angle between this line and the ground is the
degree of anti-squat. (This also applies to shaft drive and is behind the concept of BMW’s
paralever.) The degree of anti-squat decreases as the rear suspension compresses, and
increases as it extends.

Too much anti-squat will physically lift the rear end as power is applied - even to the
extent of effectively locking the suspension - encouraging chatter.

Too little anti-squat - pro-squat - gives the opposite effect. As power is applied, the
tyre is physically pulled away from the ground, reducing traction.

The ideal is a modest degree of anti-squat, which promotes traction whilst still
allowing the suspension to work. The degree of squat can be altered by fitting a shock of
different length (shorter shock absorbers reduce it); altering monoshock linkages (more ride
height gives more anti-squat); or fitting different sprockets (smaller rear sprocket gives more
anti-squat, smaller front/gearbox sprocket gives less). As a rough rule of thumb, a rear
spindle 20-30mm below a line through the swingarm pivot and gearbox is about right.

(In GP Bikes our adjustments are once again limited, as changing shock absorbers is
not an option for us. We will have to use the “alternative” methods to achieve this, such as
altering the linkage in the Garage. (Changing Rod length will alter this, but will also alter the
spring ratios as well so may not be ideal.) I am not sure if altering the sprockets adjusting the
pro-squat and anti-squat properties is simulated in GP Bikes.)
 Steering Damper

A steering damper is simply a device, usually hydraulic, mounted across the hinge in
the middle of a bike - the steering head. Its purpose is to resist movement of the steering
assembly relative to the rest of the bike. But it can’t do that without also transmitting any
force applied to the steering into the rest of the bike. So over-tight dampers, as well as giving
a stiff, imprecise feel to the steering into corners, can also cause a slow weave in a straight
line. This is especially true under braking, where rear wheel grip will be reduced and less
able to resist the forces applied through the damper.

(While GP Bikes has had a basic steering damper for years now, adjustable steering
dampers have only just been implemented into the simulator (Beta 20/20b).)

Production Bikes

A typical modern sports machine - the sort of model likely to be raced - has far more
sophisticated suspension than its equivalents of just a few years ago. But, being essentially
a road bike, certain compromises were made in its design. Some of these mean that inferior
components are used than what you might find on a pure racer; some mean that the range
of adjustments is small (even if there are dozens of ‘clicks’), to prevent road riders getting
the set-up badly wrong.

(This also tends to be a trend I’ve noticed in GP Bikes, the range of adjustment is
low. ‘Click’ amount is often OK, but the difference from maximum to minimum damping is
often not large enough. While it is up to the individual modder, it can cause issues with
handling, and give the ‘extreme’ setups we sometimes see, where everything is maxxed out
or on zero.)

Most such machines are too softly sprung at the front and too hard at the rear
(although the ‘96 Fireblade - unlike the ‘95 - is a little too soft at the back as well). Most have
forks offering too much compression damping on small movements. This gives a good feel
for normal road riders on smoother roads, but doesn’t ride bumps too well and can give a
choppy ride.

Soft springs are perhaps the biggest no-no, particularly if they are dual rate (as are
the ‘96 Fireblade’s). As to damping, most production bikes offer an insufficient range of
adjustment for racing use.

One other issue stands out. In the TT for example many competitors make the
mistake of believing that over the Mountatin course you need lots of trail - normally
associated with good straight-line stability. The obvious way of increasing trail would be to
raise the front and lower the rear. In-fact this was the opposite of what most successful
teams were doing. The problem is gaining trail in this way radically alters the attitude of the
bike. Head-Shaking is usually the result of the font going light under acceleration, then made
lighter still as it kicks off bumps. Lowering the rear simply makes it worse.
END