Okay,
we threadjacked the HM 796 thread with this but here's a brief summary.
the 696 and 1100 have the same mounting point for their rear shocks but they have different ride heights. one of the reasons (still check if there are others) is the clevis at the top of the shock. it is the part that holds the shock on the frame.
item 3 in the following pictures. on the left is the 696 and the right is the 1100
(thanks to Dave R for posting this and clarifying for us)
(http://ducatiseattle.smugmug.com/photos/671456484_GCDTX-L.jpg)
if you look closely there is a slightly larger shoulder on the 1100's clevis. Also for certain the two subframes and shocks (on the base 1100) are the same parts.
i also cross referenced the forks. and the stanchion tubes are not the same part number (we already know the internals are different since the 696 has only one damper). Someone is going to have to measure how much tube is left above the triple to see how much height you can add to the front (mine's apart)
so as you can see... raising the 696 may be a lot easier then we thought (but i had suspected this before)
Quote from: Raux on October 05, 2009, 09:11:53 PM......the 696 and 1100 have the same mounting point for their rear shocks but they have different ride heights. one of the reasons (still check if there are others) is the clevis at the top of the shock. it is the part that holds the shock on the frame. Also for certain the two subframes and shocks (on the base 1100) are the same parts.
i also cross referenced the forks. and the stanchion tubes are not the same part number (we already know the internals are different since the 696 has only one damper). Someone is going to have to measure how much tube is left above the triple to see how much height you can add to the front (mine's apart)
Damn - just fitted a seedymoto top triple to my M1100 so now I cant measure the amount of stanchion tube which is above the stock triple (the speedomoto triple is almost flush with tops of forks).
But maybe these pics of my 696 will help....
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3351/3646965014_ba341f6194.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3643657516_10debd0d63.jpg?v=0)
Looks like no more than 20mm to me at the outer edge - and remember that the stock triple is contoured so that the inner part of the tubes sit higher in the triple, meaning that theres less room to drop the forks before you sink below the top of the triple...... if that makes any sense. So my guess is that you'll get not much more than 10mm out of that. And you'll also alter the steering geometry....
M1100 (with Showas) has 130mm of front wheel travel vs M696 with 120mm - so its likely the forks are longer on M1100 than M696. Rear wheel travel on M1100 is the same as M696 @ 148mm....... Sooooo... since we know that two subframes and shocks (on the base 1100) are the same parts and that the rear wheel travel is also identical how does the M1100 get to ride higher (apart from your already identified item 3)? Its gotta be the shocker lower mounting point at the SSSA....ie the distance between the SSSA mounting point (for the same shock to the same subframe) relative to the rear wheel axle must be greater on M1100 than M696. And unless I've missed something here, thats gonna be tough to modify on your 696. Although I never say never until I've tried.... gone to bed at 2.15am... & then tried again.... lol...
[update] I'm a make the beast with two backswit. If you want to raise the rear end, then why couldnt you simply fit a different.. longer rear shock?
[end update]Keep us posted on you progress and good luck with it [thumbsup]
well i think raising the rear and raising the front is now possible with the stock 696.
the 1100 clevis and pushing the forks down a bit. it won't be much but it is a change.
When I installed my Ohlins DU 737 shock, I compared them side by side to the old shock (sorry didn't measure them) and they looked the same length.
Comparing the two pics, to me the only difference seems to be a spacer on the neck of the 1100 upper shock mount. I remember when changing my shock there was about half inch neck and lots of threaded area. maybe the 1100 part is simply longer with a spacer?
I also measured the fork tube space above the top clamp, at the outer edge and there was only 7/8",but like ungeheuer posted, the top clamp is curved with only 1/8" at the inner fork tube showing.
Looks like the part sells for $26.89 and we have two on hand..
Quote from: Dave R on October 06, 2009, 11:34:17 AM
Looks like the part sells for $26.89 and we have two on hand..
1 on hand ;D
Quote from: Raux on October 06, 2009, 11:47:01 AM
1 on hand ;D
This will be interesting to watch.... keeps us posted [thumbsup]
Quote from: ungeheuer on October 06, 2009, 03:18:19 AM
But maybe these pics of my 696 will help....
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3351/3646965014_ba341f6194.jpg)
Hello everybody!
Hi, I'm Felisuco696 from Spain. I don't speak english... only with google traslator. I registered in the forum to ask you please tell me which make and model of mirrors and fists bring your bike. It is as if the mirrors are integrated into a fist instead of coupled to the handlebars ... I do not know if I explained well. Thank you.
Quote from: Felisuco696 on October 06, 2009, 03:02:00 PM
Hello everybody!
Hi, I'm Felisuco696 from Spain. I don't speak english... only with google traslator. I registered in the forum to ask you please tell me which make and model of mirrors and fists bring your bike. It is as if the mirrors are integrated into a fist instead of coupled to the handlebars ... I do not know if I explained well. Thank you.
Hello F
The way mirrors mount on a Monster is the same as most other bikes - one bolt into the bracket on top of the brake master cylinder/reservoir.
Popular choices are various Rizoma models and CRG bar end mirrors.
http://www.constructorsrg.com/mirrors/index.html (http://www.constructorsrg.com/mirrors/index.html)
http://www.rizoma.com/Prodotti/ProdottiUniversal.cfm?ID_categoria=1&IDSez=1 (http://www.rizoma.com/Prodotti/ProdottiUniversal.cfm?ID_categoria=1&IDSez=1)
If you search this forum you will have a lot of information about mirrors [thumbsup]
transferred from the Hyper 796 thread... :o
Quote from: Raux on October 06, 2009, 10:02:25 PM
the angle that the new monster shock is mounted helps as the angle of the shock to the moving swingarm does change. therefore changing the geometry.
the sportclassic are almost in line with the arc of the suspension travel therefore continuous rate.
this is correct.. the wheel can only move straight up and down. The shock mounted at the angle like the 696/1100 allows it to get progressively stiffer as the angle of the shock becomes more horizontal.
Quote from: Felisuco696 on October 06, 2009, 03:02:00 PM
Hello everybody!
Hi, I'm Felisuco696 from Spain. I don't speak english... only with google traslator. I registered in the forum to ask you please tell me which make and model of mirrors and fists bring your bike. It is as if the mirrors are integrated into a fist instead of coupled to the handlebars ... I do not know if I explained well. Thank you.
IT Site
http://www.rizoma.com/IT/default.cfm]
[url]http://www.rizoma.com/IT/default.cfm (http://[url)[/url]
Quote from: Dave R on October 06, 2009, 10:53:06 PM
IT Site
[url]http://www.rizoma.com/IT/default.cfm]http://www.rizoma.com/IT/default.cfm]
[url]http://www.rizoma.com/IT/default.cfm (http://[url=http://www.rizoma.com/IT/default.cfm)[/url]
...Spanish... Italian.... su exactamente el mismo ;)
Quote from: ungeheuer on October 06, 2009, 11:13:53 PM
...Spanish... Italian.... su exactamente el mismo ;)
it was late!!
Thank you very much for your answers! [clap]
The truth is that there seemed fists rizoma ... believed they were others.
Thank you very much friends.
Incidentally, if you want to see another photo, stop by our Spanish forum.
http://www.monster696.es/index.php. (http://www.monster696.es/index.php.)
Greetings!
Quote from: Felisuco696 on October 08, 2009, 12:41:20 PM
Thank you very much for your answers! [clap]
The truth is that there seemed fists rizoma ... believed they were others.
Thank you very much friends.
Incidentally, if you want to see another photo, stop by our Spanish forum.
http://www.monster696.es/index.php. (http://www.monster696.es/index.php.)
Greetings!
hey PJFA is on there
Quote from: Raux on October 08, 2009, 12:46:18 PM
hey PJFA is on there
Yes! you're right. Portugal Is a Friend.
I've seen some of her messages here.
Greetings!
Ive already seen this movie ;-)
you can raise the front probably 10mm or so with the stock forks, it doesn't matter if the caps are recessed a bit below the sloping side of the tube--(there's no clamping force there anyway)
modified superbike forks are taller/longer than the 696 forks and allow raising the front by quite a bit.
and yes, there's room to raise the rear ride height about the same amount with about .200" thick washer/spacer placed over the 696 shock mount tread.- essentially the same effect as using the 1100 clevis, with room for adjusting the amount.
-doing that (or using the 1100 clevis) will change the rear suspension geometry. maybe that's a good thing (if the 1100 also runs with a steeper swing arm angle) but at least on the 696, the chain kinda drags on the top of the swingarm already, at normal ride height.- so lowering the swiungarm increase the chain/swingarm rubbing beyond what seems acceptable.
(and running the sag low enough to keep the chain straight defeats the purpose of raising the suspension.)
(I'd like to know how the 1100 is setup regarding the swingarm angle, and chain's path, compared to 696 i describe here.)
another plan is to fit a taller rear tire- a shinko 170 rear will fit the 696 rim raise the back of the bike nearly 10-12mm, while keeping the original swingarm geometry- that larger diameter will effectivel raise the gearing and increase the actual speed closer to the speedo's (8% high) display-enough to equal almost 1 tooth taller on
the countershaft sprocket.
-so the taller tire should be taken into account in sprocket selection.
Quate:
"how does the M1100 get to ride higher ....Its gotta be the shocker lower mounting point at the SSSA...."
======
only if the swingarms are otherwise identiical, and the swing arm pivot/mounting point on the 1100 engine is the in the exact same postion.- (relative to the subfame and upper shock mounting point.)
-if the engine casings have a different layout for the position of the countershaft, or there's any difference in the swingarm layouts, then it doesn't gotta be the lower shock mounting point at all ;-)
there's no question that the ride height can be raised by effectively lengthening the shock in various ways, that's obvious...the protential problem is the resulting angle of the swingarm, it's effect on handling (significant) and how much one want's to allow the chain to rub against the 696 swigarm...-per my other post in this threead ;-)
thanks
Quote from: zippo on October 18, 2009, 04:37:33 PM....it doesn't matter if the caps are recessed a bit below the sloping side of the tube--(there's no clamping force there anyway)
So you are seriously telling us that its alright to lower the fork legs to a point where the top of the fork tube is below the top of the top triple (at its highest point inboard closest to the steering head) coz the top triple doesnt clamp the fork tube all away around its entire circumference???!! I think I must've misunderstood.... enlighten me further please.
Yes. that's what i'm saying ;-)
- the bulk of the load is carried by the (massive) lower clamp.
-the portion of the tube that's exposed above the top clamp is not clamped to start with.
-i've run them that way at full tilt with no problems.
thanks
Quote from: zippo on October 18, 2009, 05:16:44 PM
....the portion of the tube that's exposed above the top clamp is not clamped to start with.
True [bang]. But its entire girth just below is! Unless you lowered it to the point where the clamp no longer fully encircles it and then it becomes only partially held by the clamping force of the top triple. And not something I would personally consider.
you could increase the rear sprocket size to compensate for the chainrub.
thanks to Speeddog I got myself an 1100 clevis for the 696. Im pretty dang excited about this!
will post side by side comparison pics of the two mid swap
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5626603426_4142048bfb_b.jpg)
Yesterday I installed the 1100 clevis on the 696 & it raised the ride height 33mm I was not expecting that much ! (The measurements were taken from axle to fixed point measured perfectly plumb.) So I raised the front exactly 33mm this is only possible due to the 848 forks on the bike. When I installed the 848 forks I kept the stock geometry so raising the front & rear the same should not have changed the geometry. Now with rear & front raised 33mm above stock the chain does rest more on the swing arm but it's riding on the plastic guide & I don't think it's going to create any problems. I took the bike out for a test run & the handling seems exactly like it was prior to ride hgt. change but there is a lot more peg clearance in the corners which is nice, but the rear shock seems a lot more harsh (sag measurements did not change) I think the angle of swing arm is to sever for the stock shock. It is so bad I'm going back to stock measurements. I might try a shim on the stock clevis to gain about 5mm at the rear as 33mm seems way too much for the shock. prior to the ride height change the 848 fork swap really changed the bikes handling & even the rear shock seemed much much better after the fork swap now the bike feels unbalanced maybe an Ohlins rear would fix it but the rear felt fine prior to the change. Has anybody noticed the rear becoming harsh after the height change ?
Quote from: Link on April 17, 2011, 09:13:27 AM
Yesterday I installed the 1100 clevis on the 696 & it raised the ride height 33mm I was not expecting that much ! (The measurements were taken from axle to fixed point measured perfectly plumb.) So I raised the front exactly 33mm this is only possible due to the 848 forks on the bike. When I installed the 848 forks I kept the stock geometry so raising the front & rear the same should not have changed the geometry. Now with rear & front raised 33mm above stock the chain does rest more on the swing arm but it's riding on the plastic guide & I don't think it's going to create any problems. I took the bike out for a test run & the handling seems exactly like it was prior to ride hgt. change but there is a lot more peg clearance in the corners which is nice, but the rear shock seems a lot more harsh (sag measurements did not change) I think the angle of swing arm is to sever for the stock shock. It is so bad I'm going back to stock measurements. I might try a shim on the stock clevis to gain about 5mm at the rear as 33mm seems way too much for the shock. prior to the ride height change the 848 fork swap really changed the bikes handling & even the rear shock seemed much much better after the fork swap now the bike feels unbalanced maybe an Ohlins rear would fix it but the rear felt fine prior to the change. Has anybody noticed the rear becoming harsh after the height change ?
Why were you not expecting this much change, but more importantly, what is the difference in clevises (in mm), to try and get an approximate ratio of clevis difference to ride height difference. (This should be useful in discovering how large a change in one will affect the other)
thats one thing i am worried about, i cant raise the front 33mm, maybe just a 1/4 inch. we will see. if its not crazy geometry change i may just roll with it, worth having a higher seat height. PLus, im no Raux, no autobahn for me, just twisties
can someone give me an idea what a change in geometry like this will do? how dangerous and where will the efffects be noticed? corners? heavy braking?
thanks guys, really looking forward to a higher ride height, im tall, 6'2"
i would love to do a fron fork swap, but may have to wait till winter 2012 to get that done, would be a slow and paced out transition, meaning bike = torn aprt for maybe months. (financial reasons)
the shock is the same shock as the 1100 so there shouldn't be an issue with the change. you just need to work on your suspension setup.
the height difference is very noticeable in the seat of the pants. anyone with an inseam less than 32" will likely feel like it's a bit too tall.
the changes aren't as simple as hooking up new forks and height adjusted in the back. with clipons weight distribution changes, with the ride height geometry is alway a bit different. your swingarm is at a different angle, your forks longer and wheel slightly farther forward, etc.
as soon as I get the cash I'm going to get a proper race mechanic to tune my suspension up right.
if you raise the rear 33mm and the front say 6mm you're going to turn faster as you have done some changes to the geometry that are typically made for faster turning on the older monsters. will it be too much? i would at least have a steering damper on that change. your weight distribution changes as well so you'll be putting more weight on the front forks and they'll dive more under hard braking. not necessary a bad thing for smaller riders but at 6'2" I bet you weigh more than 160lb.
personally i wouldn't raise the rear until you have the ability to raise the forks the same amount or close to it. >1" in the rear and 1/4" in the front... may be too much difference. On the old monsters (notorious for tank slappers from light front ends), I'd say go for it, but the new ones are setup better out of the box for weight distribution.
also, I went back to the 15t front sprocket to raise the chain a bit. if you are wanting the same ratio as your stock rear with the 14t, raise the rear 3t and you'll even get the chain a bit off the swingarm.
oh and check the chain tension correctly, mine got loose (new chain) and i didn't check it soon enough after riding for a bit, ate a bit of my rearset when it slackened.
Quote from: mattc7 on April 17, 2011, 09:23:06 AM
Why were you not expecting this much change, but more importantly, what is the difference in clevises (in mm), to try and get an approximate ratio of clevis difference to ride height difference. (This should be useful in discovering how large a change in one will affect the other)
I guess it comes from setting up race/track bikes where changes of 5mm or less were critical I always had a suspension tuner adjusting those bikes I've never messed with changing ride heights my self. So I was shocked to see 33mm since the difference from stock clevis to the 1100 is only about 12mm. I put the stock one back on with a 2mm washer & it ended up raising the height 6mm (and the rear shock feels much better) so it seems that aprx. for every 2mm at the clevis it increases the ride height about 3 times. Later on I'm going to add another 2mm and see how much height I can get with out feeling that the rear shock is getting harsh. It would be nice to know what the weight bias is on the 696.
Quote from: DucatiTorrey on April 17, 2011, 09:51:29 AM
thats one thing i am worried about, i cant raise the front 33mm, maybe just a 1/4 inch. we will see. if its not crazy geometry change i may just roll with it, worth having a higher seat height. PLus, im no Raux, no autobahn for me, just twisties
can someone give me an idea what a change in geometry like this will do? how dangerous and where will the efffects be noticed? corners? heavy braking?
thanks guys, really looking forward to a higher ride height, im tall, 6'2"
i would love to do a fron fork swap, but may have to wait till winter 2012 to get that done, would be a slow and paced out transition, meaning bike = torn aprt for maybe months. (financial reasons)
IMO scrape together the $ & do the fork swap it changes the bike so much for the better it's hard to describe. I paid $400 for the forks & then you'll have aprx. another 150.00 to 200.00 in misc. parts. spacers/boring. & you don't have to keep your bike torn apart for more then it takes to get the triple bored I gathered up all parts and then had the triple bored in one day so the bike was only down for 2 days. But until then I'd try shimming the stock clevis in small increments maybe 12mm to start with & raise the front as much as possible useally a 5mm change in the front will make a noticeable difference.
grab two scales from walmart and check your weight bias
Quote from: DucatiTorrey on April 16, 2011, 09:25:38 PM
thanks to Speeddog I got myself an 1100 clevis for the 696. Im pretty dang excited about this!
will post side by side comparison pics of the two mid swap
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5626603426_4142048bfb_b.jpg)
DucatiTorrey, are you still planning to raise the front with new forks and the back with the M1100 clevis this winter? I'm pretty excited to see some result pictures about this. Personally I'm still not sure to pick the 696 or the 796, mainly because of the seat height. This solution would be great, also because I'm a tall guy [cheeky] 6'3"
Declaring from the other topics about the seat height this could be a great mod for 696 riders...
Please keep us updated if you're still into the mod
Bringing this back from the dead... This seems like a really useful mod.
Even at correct sag, my sidestand mount scrapes the ground at full lean to the left.... this year I'm setting her up for trackdays, so I gotta get this issue fixed.
So I'm definitely going to go ahead with this mod and have ordered a 1100 subframe shock mount today.
2 questions:
What's a practical, clean and inexpensive way to lengthen the foot of my side stand, and;
Someone mentioned that the rear became a bit harsh due to the new taller rear geometry. Is this simply a case of needing to reset the sag?