FZ07R is the R6 Front End swap worth it?

[TenRacing]

On 4/16/2018 at 8:03 PM, foss said:

My thoughts....from a race only perspective. I have one with stock forks and ktech cartridges and R6 forks with stock cartridges on the other. I don't recommend going R6 if you plan to keep internals stock. With more tuning I think I can get the stock R6 to perform as good as FZ with the ktech, but I don't think it will ever exceed it. My suspension guy agrees. More of the reason for going R6 is better brakes (completely unnecessary if you ask me) and having access to more parts like used wheels and rotors if you need replacements. With FZ parts becoming more readily available all the time, I don't see a lot of benefit. 

 

Hit me up if in the end you decide you want to go R6. I might be interested in getting rid of mine with aftermarket rim and rotors.

did you ever sell the R6 front end?

[TenRacing]

from what i've learned so far... I am just starting a race build on a 17 FZ07.  

 

The trouble point is not enough trail when you get the link in the rear to get the geometry to race bike specs.  

 

A custom set of trees for the stock forks may be the best way to go.  

[mossrider]

Just now, TenRacing said:

from what i've learned so far... I am just starting a race build on a 17 FZ07.  

 

The trouble point is not enough trail when you get the link in the rear to get the geometry to race bike specs.  

 

A custom set of trees for the stock forks may be the best way to go.  

Don't fall for all the 'gotta have a slipper clutch, r6 forks, diff tripples, better brakes, r6 wheels, blah blah' bs from the peanut gallery.

 

An r6 fork is an upgrade but it brings its own problems. It'll work but requires more work to make it work like the stock front already does. Its not as simple as swapping tubes as you already know. If it were folks wouldnt need the r6 fork extenders, custom tripples, special tuning set ups blah blah. Its too stiff for the stock chassis and upsets the geometry when pushed hard. Upgrade the stock forks, let em flex with the rest of the bike as it was engineered to and it'll haul ass.

 

As far as brakes; I don't understand why some folks think they need R1 brakes on a bike with 100 less hp and a top speed down 50 some mph. AsIde from not being radially mounted the 07 has the same spec calipers as the R6 but with different rotors.  Put ss lines on it and good pads and the brakes de-haul ass.

 

Wheels; we've recently weighed and found that r6 wheels are only 3 lbs per pair lighter than 07 wheels. 

 

As mentioned several other places throughout this forum my bike does have AP's link. I also run an after market shock at 12 9/16" eye to eye. I run my forks up 8mm in the stock tripples. I have a simple set of carts in them. I've never had so much as a twitch from the front due to geometry. Of course i can get it to run wide on corner exit when I reef in throttle on a hot sticky 180/60 but i can also feel the frame and the swingarm flex to keep traction and it hauls. I can also feel the forks and frame flex when i twist its head down into a corner hard on the brakes. So what?, it's not an M1 but geometry is close enough for expert level club racing.

 

You need an R6 front end to go fast. I call bs. 

I'll admit r6 stuff is higher spec than fz stuff but we're talking about an inexpensive lightweight/twins class bike. You can't just bolt on 1 higher spec part w/o affecting the rest of the package.

I'm just tired of getting accosted by every racer trying to justify their want of upside down forks. 

 

 

End rant.

[foss]

13 hours ago, TenRacing said:

did you ever sell the R6 front end?

I don't have the wheel anymore, but still have a set of forks. 

[blackout]

10 hours ago, mossrider said:

Don't fall for all the 'gotta have a slipper clutch, r6 forks, diff tripples, better brakes, r6 wheels, blah blah' bs from the peanut gallery.

 

An r6 fork is an upgrade but it brings its own problems. It'll work but requires more work to make it work like the stock front already does. Its not as simple as swapping tubes as you already know. If it were folks wouldnt need the r6 fork extenders, custom tripples, special tuning set ups blah blah. Its too stiff for the stock chassis and upsets the geometry when pushed hard. Upgrade the stock forks, let em flex with the rest of the bike as it was engineered to and it'll haul ass.

 

As far as brakes; I don't understand why some folks think they need R1 brakes on a bike with 100 less hp and a top speed down 50 some mph. AsIde from not being radially mounted the 07 has the same spec calipers as the R6 but with different rotors.  Put ss lines on it and good pads and the brakes de-haul ass.

 

Wheels; we've recently weighed and found that r6 wheels are only 3 lbs per pair lighter than 07 wheels. 

 

As mentioned several other places throughout this forum my bike does have AP's link. I also run an after market shock at 12 9/16" eye to eye. I run my forks up 8mm in the stock tripples. I have a simple set of carts in them. I've never had so much as a twitch from the front due to geometry. Of course i can get it to run wide on corner exit when I reef in throttle on a hot sticky 180/60 but i can also feel the frame and the swingarm flex to keep traction and it hauls. I can also feel the forks and frame flex when i twist its head down into a corner hard on the brakes. So what?, it's not an M1 but geometry is close enough for expert level club racing.

 

You need an R6 front end to go fast. I call bs. 

I'll admit r6 stuff is higher spec than fz stuff but we're talking about an inexpensive lightweight/twins class bike. You can't just bolt on 1 higher spec part w/o affecting the rest of the package.

I'm just tired of getting accosted by every racer trying to justify their want of upside down forks. 

 

 

End rant.

Glad you are here to keep me from spending money I don't have!  lol

[mossrider]

Just now, blackout said:

Glad you are here to keep me from spending money I don't have!  lol

Other than the cool factor on a street fz there is no reason or need for the conversion. Dont get me wrong, cool is good, but expensive.

 

On a race bike it's really not the improvement in suspension performance as it is access to spare parts, the pits are rife with r6 parts. That and the ability to use quick change parts, improved durability and better hardware make life a little easier off track.

 

Just my opinion

 

 

[fishtaco]

On 2/7/2019 at 8:12 PM, mossrider said:

Don't fall for all the 'gotta have a slipper clutch, r6 forks, diff tripples, better brakes, r6 wheels, blah blah' bs from the peanut gallery.

 

An r6 fork is an upgrade but it brings its own problems. It'll work but requires more work to make it work like the stock front already does. Its not as simple as swapping tubes as you already know. If it were folks wouldnt need the r6 fork extenders, custom tripples, special tuning set ups blah blah. Its too stiff for the stock chassis and upsets the geometry when pushed hard. Upgrade the stock forks, let em flex with the rest of the bike as it was engineered to and it'll haul ass.

 

As far as brakes; I don't understand why some folks think they need R1 brakes on a bike with 100 less hp and a top speed down 50 some mph. AsIde from not being radially mounted the 07 has the same spec calipers as the R6 but with different rotors.  Put ss lines on it and good pads and the brakes de-haul ass.

 

Wheels; we've recently weighed and found that r6 wheels are only 3 lbs per pair lighter than 07 wheels. 

 

As mentioned several other places throughout this forum my bike does have AP's link. I also run an after market shock at 12 9/16" eye to eye. I run my forks up 8mm in the stock tripples. I have a simple set of carts in them. I've never had so much as a twitch from the front due to geometry. Of course i can get it to run wide on corner exit when I reef in throttle on a hot sticky 180/60 but i can also feel the frame and the swingarm flex to keep traction and it hauls. I can also feel the forks and frame flex when i twist its head down into a corner hard on the brakes. So what?, it's not an M1 but geometry is close enough for expert level club racing.

 

You need an R6 front end to go fast. I call bs. 

I'll admit r6 stuff is higher spec than fz stuff but we're talking about an inexpensive lightweight/twins class bike. You can't just bolt on 1 higher spec part w/o affecting the rest of the package.

I'm just tired of getting accosted by every racer trying to justify their want of upside down forks. 

 

 

End rant.

I needed to hear this, thanks for the good info and insight.

[True2theblue]

glad i read this before making my next purchase!

[blackout]

3 minutes ago, True2theblue said:

glad i read this before making my next purchase!

Lol.

[Spatt]

You don't need r6 forks.  What you do need is swingarm angle and trail.  You can get those with stock forks but once you solve the issue of a flat swing arm to get the bike to drive harder from the corner you'll soon be faced with a limited amount of trail.  A ride height link will get your swingarm in place, puts you farther in the progression of the stock linkage but for a budget, it'll work just not a perfect solution.

I'm glad to talk through set up with guys.  It's not an OSFA solution and there are differing opinions on set up, I'd find a suspension tuner you can work with and get the bike measured.  Build a plan for the bike and go from there.

Every bike I've built or worked on at the end of the day to get geometry in line with a track bike it comes down to a rear solution in the form of linkage and a set of offset triples to get trail numbers where you'd expect them to be.  The bike was never meant for track use and geometry numbers confirm that.

With all that said its a rideable bike in stock form.  All depends on budget and goals.

[pgeldz]

2 hours ago, Spatt said:

You don't need r6 forks.  What you do need is swingarm angle and trail.  You can get those with stock forks but once you solve the issue of a flat swing arm to get the bike to drive harder from the corner you'll soon be faced with a limited amount of trail.  A ride height link will get your swingarm in place, puts you farther in the progression of the stock linkage but for a budget, it'll work just not a perfect solution.

I'm glad to talk through set up with guys.  It's not an OSFA solution and there are differing opinions on set up, I'd find a suspension tuner you can work with and get the bike measured.  Build a plan for the bike and go from there.

Every bike I've built or worked on at the end of the day to get geometry in line with a track bike it comes down to a rear solution in the form of linkage and a set of offset triples to get trail numbers where you'd expect them to be.  The bike was never meant for track use and geometry numbers confirm that.

With all that said its a rideable bike in stock form.  All depends on budget and goals.

Which is why I'm doing triples and rear link

- Paul

[cornerslider]

Looks like I showed up late to the party... (not sure how I missed this thread???) My suspension guy mentioned that the R6 front end can over-stress the FZ-07 frame. It is rare, but the "stiffer" R6 front end won't flex like the OEM front end. This puts undue stress on the front end of the frame, and can cause some issues. Like I said, it's RARE. I'd run the OEM front end, and put some cartridges, or whatever upgrade you choose. Just my two cents-

[scratchpad]

On 7/9/2019 at 12:21 PM, Spatt said:

You don't need r6 forks.  What you do need is swingarm angle and trail.  You can get those with stock forks but once you solve the issue of a flat swing arm to get the bike to drive harder from the corner you'll soon be faced with a limited amount of trail.  A ride height link will get your swingarm in place, puts you farther in the progression of the stock linkage but for a budget, it'll work just not a perfect solution.

I'm glad to talk through set up with guys.  It's not an OSFA solution and there are differing opinions on set up, I'd find a suspension tuner you can work with and get the bike measured.  Build a plan for the bike and go from there.

Every bike I've built or worked on at the end of the day to get geometry in line with a track bike it comes down to a rear solution in the form of linkage and a set of offset triples to get trail numbers where you'd expect them to be.  The bike was never meant for track use and geometry numbers confirm that.

With all that said its a rideable bike in stock form.  All depends on budget and goals.

What are the magic trail and swingarm numbers? Are these numbers what every top level racer starts a base from and uses? 

shet, i have oem (ak-20s) forks and oem (modified) linkage and have yet to have any issues on the racetrack. The geometry and suspension is not holding me back, gauranteed. While im not on the top step of the MA box id bet that a A1 jockey could be with my setup. 

Im curious, i seriously want to test the triples and linkage and feel the difference. It may change my mind.

[mossrider]

Just now, scratchpad said:

What are the magic trail and swingarm numbers? Are these numbers what every top level racer starts a base from and uses? 

shet, i have oem (ak-20s) forks and oem (modified) linkage and have yet to have any issues on the racetrack. The geometry and suspension is not holding me back, gauranteed. While im not on the top step of the MA box id bet that a A1 jockey could be with my setup. 

Im curious, i seriously want to test the triples and linkage and feel the difference. It may change my mind.

+1 from me too. I'm curious what the behavior characteristics are for a bike with 'proper #'s' as compared to what I'm running? What problems or tendancies are corrected? I've never encountered any abhorrent behaviors from mine but I might not know what I don't know. Mine seems to ride, run and race like all my buddies middleweight supersport bikes, albeit a weak one. 

[Spatt]

1 hour ago, scratchpad said:

What are the magic trail and swingarm numbers? Are these numbers what every top level racer starts a base from and uses? 

shet, i have oem (ak-20s) forks and oem (modified) linkage and have yet to have any issues on the racetrack. The geometry and suspension is not holding me back, gauranteed. While im not on the top step of the MA box id bet that a A1 jockey could be with my setup. 

Im curious, i seriously want to test the triples and linkage and feel the difference. It may change my mind.

There are normal ranges for the trail on a race bike, Normally 100-110mm.  Depending on the riders speed and needs those numbers tend to change.   Bike set up is always a series of trade-offs.   

No Idea what a modified linkage is.  But if its a stock link and link arm mechanically the bike is limited on leverage to drive out of the corner since the swingarm is already pretty flat.

The bike is no way unrideable stock.  Doesn't have ideal geometry for trackwork.  When you try to get swingarm angle trail drops down in the low 90's.

[Spatt]

39 minutes ago, mossrider said:

+1 from me too. I'm curious what the behavior characteristics are for a bike with 'proper #'s' as compared to what I'm running? What problems or tendancies are corrected? I've never encountered any abhorrent behaviors from mine but I might not know what I don't know. Mine seems to ride, run and race like all my buddies middleweight supersport bikes, albeit a weak one. 

I guess to more specifically answer your question its the same with every set of clamps I sell in that its customer to the rider and the suspension tuner they are working with.  If you're not working with a suspension guy already I would suggest it.  Faster flowing tracks you can run more trail and tight technical tracks you might want less to transition the bike easier.  

Or at least take notes of changes you make and record conditions at the track with lap times.  Its really only how serious you're taking your track time.  Just want to go out and turn laps with friends or race at a competitive or national level.  No wrong answers, skill, budget, and goals all factor into it.  I get a lot of guys that want to build a competitive MA level bike with less than 10k... I am 100% honest with them and tell them this isn't the bike for it.

 

[cleverriver]

@Spatt with your 41mm kit, which inserts to you generally recommend for people to run?

[Spatt]

On 7/19/2019 at 11:32 PM, cleverriver said:

@Spatt with your 41mm kit, which inserts to you generally recommend for people to run?

Sorry been traveling for work and missed the mention.  depends on the geometry you're looking for.  For the numbers I wanted I used 26mm since the stock forks are so long.

[cleverriver]

On 8/10/2019 at 2:40 AM, Spatt said:

Sorry been traveling for work and missed the mention.  depends on the geometry you're looking for.  For the numbers I wanted I used 26mm since the stock forks are so long.

Also do you have a recommend amount on how much to drop the forks through the triples?

[Spatt]

Just now, cleverriver said:

Also do you have a recommend amount on how much to drop the forks through the triples?

Totally depends on what you’re looking for set up.  These bikes need to be measured.  The two bikes I’ve built have different heights for arrive at the same numbers. 

The frames flex and move around a lot on top of manufacturing tolerances.  Even 1 degree difference at the neck has a ton of effect on set up.  

Thats why my answer is always for people wanting to build one for racing is get the bike measured first or work directly with a suspension tuner.   People think I’m just being difficult but it’s the correct answer.   If you don’t have ~$300 to measure a bike you don’t have the money to fix one when you send it down the pavement either.