Yuku free message boards

I put the 440 Progressives on my rear. I actually came here tonight to investigate that very issue further. here's the rundown.

I have the 98 Tourer. Before taking off the older shocks, which appeared to both my shop and I to be OEM, we measured them at the curb (full weight) AFTER they had gone bad (probable loss of some height). The measurement that we got was just over 13" (maybe 13.25").

Now, I have a 36" inseam, so I had no interest in lowering my ride height, and actually would have preferred to raise it so I could lean further over in the twisties before sending sparks off of my floorboards, but Progressive ONLY has listings for "1100 ACE, Spirit...[etc]", offering 11" and 12" lengths.

We went with the 12" lengths.

The improvement was noticeable over the badly shot old shocks (which had totally destabilized my ride even at very low speeds, and probably was the cause of me going down before the changeout).

I ride heavy and hard, so I set my shocks about 1/3 preloaded out the door after install, then turned them up to maximum after they were broken in.

It's a much stiffer ride on the Progressive 440 shocks, even at the softer end of the settings (though I didn't try the softest available). The overall travel of the shocks seems shorter, which means they have to absorb more force in a shorter distance, making it a stiffer ride. But, other than my mostly high speed (or loaded) wobble problem, it gives a more sure footed feel, if less of a Cadillac feel.

Here's the rub:

Rub #1
My high speed handling problem ("The Wobblehead Effect") never went completely away. After the shocks, we replaced the steering head bearing TWICE(!), and still didn't fix the high speed wobble (other handling problems were fixed though, so it wasn't a wasted fix effort).

Recently, I changed the tires again, and the shop talked me (without much arm twisting at all, I must admit) into some oversized tires they said had just recently come out for my bike. I actually really love those tires as they lower the center of gravity dramatically, and I now feel glued hard to the pavement. BUT, the high speed wobble worsened a little bit, and I was hearing this funny growling/humming sound vaguely similar to riding over a bridge with a metal grate for roadbed instead of pavement. Then, with passenger, the sound got dramatically worse, and I smelled hot rubber!!

When I looked, my fender, slightly off center, was rubbing the tire at even modest speeds from expansion of the tire. The fender had heated enough to scorch the paint!!!

I flared that side of the fender a bit where it encroached more than it should on the tire, and pulled it away enough not to rub. However, I still had high speed wobble, and I still had that sound with a load. On further inspection, I found the backside of the mounting bold for the frame/fender, 2/3 up from the lower flare of the fender, was rubbing the SIDE of the tire, near the very edge of the tread.

AHA! It seems that, even with regular size tires, with the combination of an off-center rear fender and a lowered suspension, at high speed my tire was expanding enough to rub that damn bolt backing plate and give me really aggravating and unsettling wobble every time my speedo passed beyond 80.

I've e-mailed Progressive (and a couple of their vendors) to check on the accuracy of their spec of 11.25". I've told them that, although the ACE Tourer is a sister bike to all of the other Shadow 1100 models, it is not a VT1100C model, despite sharing the VT1100C2 engine, and I asked them if they knew if their spec was accurate for the VT1100T. They responded that I should check with the dealer to verify the spec they list, and then let them know - they might have to update their specs.

I haven't yet had a chance to contact the dealer, but I'm even skeptical of their ability to answer the question as I've been in the dealer shops and seen them fail to differentiate the T from the C. I think a much better measurement can be had on this forum from owners who still have factory delivered oem shocks on their T and can measure them - if anyone still has them. Any help there?

Rub#2
Within 9 months, my new Progressive 440 shocks were shot. Probably just a product of my hard riding, not so much their fault. They have lifetime warranties, though, and my shop decided to just replace them with new ones and take care of the warranty repairs on the old ones, which they would resell later as used and reconditioned for super cheap (my shop LOVES me - I'm sure in there enough).


After examing the specification sheets for ALL of the shocks that Progressive offers, looking at preload rates and ranges, lenghts, lengths of travel, and all the other data they provide, I concluded that, IF my 13+" measured shock is the proper factory OEM shock length, then the ONLY Progressive shocks that would be appropriate for the T (without lowering ride height) would be from their 412 series.

In fact, the Progressive model that I want to try is the 412-4014, which is actually 14.25", and which I believe would give me almost exactly 1" more ride height than came with my bike. I don't even know if it is possible to raise it one inch above what I originally had. Because I bought it used, I can't be sure that the 13+" shocks were indeed the factory OEM, but they sure looked like it and we all sure thought that they were. So, it's possible that it had already been raised.

IF it can't be raised on 14.25" shocks, there is another 412 (I don't have the part number handy, but can post that later in a few days when I get back to my research papers) that has the exact same specifications as the 412-4014, but in a 13.25" lenght that I am absolutely 100% confident will work on my bike (and is perhaps the only actual model that matches what was on my bike when I got it and still has appropriate load specs). The only reason I'm not already ordering that set (and ignoring the Progressive citation of 11.25") is that I really want to find out if I can get those 14.25" shocks jammed in there.

I'm very hopeful that regaining my original ride height, and perhaps even increasing it beyond my original, will really help resolve that wobble effect, and help me enjoy those twisties more again. I'd still like to see if the fender/wheel alignment can be addressed, too. In my view, the LAST step in dealing with my rear end will be to try downsizing back to a smaller tire - and frankly, if the other two things are resolved, I really don't expect to need to. In fact, I think restoring ride height alone may take care of my wobble concerns.

Perhaps a lot more detail than you were looking for, Andy, but there it is. IF you go with Progressive, be aware of the potential lowering concern and any fender/tire issues that that may engender.

If you have factory OEM on board now, could you also do me the favor of measuring them and posting those measurements (anyone else here, too, if you will)? I'm really hoping to gather some data and go back to Progressive with some follow-up, if appropriate. If they need to update their specs, that could be important as so many shops rely on the specs that they put out. And, even though I'm not going to rely solely on the dealer's knowledge on the topic, I do intend to see what they have to say.

Marpesia

Gee, I don't recall that I had to manually type in HTML line breaks on the EZB version of this board. Adjustments, adjustments... at least I finally found this board again.

UR welcome

From what I've gathered (and if they tell you different I'd love to hear it) an "HD" rating is based upon intended bike application, not stricktly on 'heavier' versus 'lighter'. I'd have to study the papers in front of me again, but, for example, I recall that some "HD" shocks had significantly less preload rating than the non-HD shocks for the Shadow 1100 but earned "HD" by virtue of their intended application on bikes whose non-HD shocks were even less preload rated.

Did I state that in an understandable fashion?

If that did make sense, then the next part is that to really understand which shocks provides "HD" (relative) capacity for the Shadow 1100 requires studying all of the pages of the Progressive tech spec pdf file that lists all of their shocks in one place.

As I recall (and for example), "HD" rated Goldwing shocks appeared to have significantly less preload rating than the basic non-HD shocks listed for the Shadow 1100 (which I thought shocking). In fact, looking at the preload specs, there were only two preload ranges offered across the entirety of the Progressive lines that exceeded that of the non-HD listings for the Shadow 1100 model bikes: the "440HD" labeled shocks listed for the Shadow 1100; and the few shocks that shared the preload range of the shocks I listed above as my hoped-for ideal (412-4014). Interestingly, the 412-4014 and sister shocks have a wider ranging preload range such that at softest setting it is below the lowest setting on the Shadow 1100 non-HD shocks, but at stiffest setting the preload rating exceeds that of the "HD" rated Shadow 1100 shocks.

Marpesia

I spent the morning working the phone and found out that the Honda length spec is just simply not publicly available information: the service manual, the dealer database, the distributor database, even the Honda Customer Service line databases does not have that blasted measurement.

I did learn, however, that (and this surprised the dealer, but I was insistent) the part number for the OEM "T" shocks IS different from all of the other Shadow 1100 part numbers.

Aha! Methinks we are on to something!

I e-mailed Progressive back and told them that it now seems almost certain that their lumped together Shadow 1100 spec was NOT appropriate for the "T". I told them that all I could do more on the issue was post here for a survey of measured lengths. Beyond that, they'll have to investigate the proper measurement themselves to come up with a more accurate number.

I will start a separate thread to query the folks here for that data.

Also, Tony, can you say what year your "T" is? Do you know what setting (1 through 5) that those shocks were at? I always kept mine cranked up to 5, yet I measured 13"+ even with the bike's own weight resting on them, so I'm wondering if the setting directly impacts length and to what extent.

I expect all model years are the same, but if this is going to be a survey, it should probably at least fake some resemblence to propriety.

Marpesia