TI spring vs regular spring


34 replies to this topic
  • shun911

Posted 18 July 2007 - 10:31 AM

#1

I know there is a weight differencs but how much. How much does an average pring weigh and how much does the TI spring weigh. Also what other benifits do you get from a TI spring.

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • mog

Posted 18 July 2007 - 10:56 AM

#2

The weight isnt much difference and the downside is they tend to be more progressive than they claim.

  • Ryan at Eibach

Posted 18 July 2007 - 02:21 PM

#3

Better ways to save a pound in my opinion :thumbsup:

  • why_zed

Posted 19 July 2007 - 04:50 AM

#4

I'm just about to pull my ti out of my 06 YZ250 and replace it with a stiffer steel Eibach.
I'll weigh them up and post.

  • why_zed

Posted 19 July 2007 - 05:47 AM

#5

ok, both springs on scale.

ti = 1.09kg or 2.92lbs
steel = 1.79kg or 4.769bs

  • thehiredgun21

Posted 19 July 2007 - 06:44 AM

#6

The supposed advantages is one, the wieght, and two, Ti springs will be more consistent and durable since the have a super high cycle life, aka their overwhelming tendency to want to return to their original shape for a long, long time. I would run Ti spring if they were the same price as steel or if I were sponsored by ICS. Otherwise, not very effective cost to benefit ratio.
rock on.

  • rks1

Posted 19 July 2007 - 07:00 AM

#7

The problem is that Ti springs aren't more consistant or reliable than steel! At least - not a quality steel spring. When we were selling RCS Ti Springs, the rates were never what they claimed and they were all over the place - no two that were supposed to be the same rate, were. And the life expectancy is rather short - remember when Ricky broke his Ti spring? Doesn't happen often, but it does happen - more often than steel.
However, that being said, I have not heard of an OEM Yamaha Ti spring breaking.
IMO - it is a cheap way to save weight, but the fact that it (and I'm talking aftermarket here) could fracture at any time would always be in the back of my mind.
:ride:

  • why_zed

Posted 19 July 2007 - 09:31 AM

#8

The problem is that Ti springs aren't more consistant or reliable than steel! At least - not a quality steel spring. When we were selling RCS Ti Springs, the rates were never what they claimed and they were all over the place - no two that were supposed to be the same rate, were. And the life expectancy is rather (and I'm talking aftermarket here) could fracture at any time would always be in the back of my mind.
:ride:


That is what I heard too and I know that my stock ti rear spring is not 4.9 as the spec sheet says (seat of the pants), my 02 sits up way firmer in the rear… I’ll take the ti one to ProAction and have it tested.

However, that being said, I have not heard of an OEM Yamaha Ti spring breaking.
IMO - it is a cheap way to save weight, but the fact that it (and I'm talking aftermarket here) could fracture at any time would always be in the back of my mind.
:ride:


I had a stock, steel, KTM shock spring snap on me while going a Patsy MX pace . So I’m always (ti or steel) thinking or remembering.

  • thehiredgun21

Posted 19 July 2007 - 10:16 AM

#9

All I have to say is that the physical and chemical properties of a titanium spring dictate it's performance. the fact that one company made some bad spring doesn't deny the fact that titanium is a superior spring material than steel. There is not one single form of extreme high performance racing where steel is used over titanium because it was the better material, excepting possible the whole 4X4 crowd, but that's a whole different story. The biggest disadvantage to using Ti is Almost always the cost factor. It simply doesn't make sense to use that type of material if you won't subject it to any more stress than you would a steel unit. I have personally spoken with Honda's F1 team manager and lead mechanic and they have done nothing but extol the material. Now, the springs you werer able to get a hold of may have not been the best quality but again that does not have a thing to do with the performance of the material. Remember, Ti is an extremely difficult material to work with, mostly because of the fact it bends away from the blade in a CNC machine and other situations like spring making. That could definitely lead to the inconsistant rate. And, as far as RC's broken spring, Titanium is a highly crystaline material which brings with it a high degree of difficulting in working the material as possible planes of fissure are difficult to analyze without extensive and expensive x-ray testing. As experience with these types of materials increases, failures of this nature will be forgotten. If race teams were really seeing this as a problem, they would not be using Ti for axles, seeing as how a broken axle will cause way more damage to a rider than a broken spring. Typically, Ti has a cycle life that is 4-5 times better than steel. Ask anyone who builds super high performance racing motors what kind of metal they use for valve springs.
rock on.

  • rks1

Posted 20 July 2007 - 07:20 PM

#10

hiredgun - all the things you say are true and I totally agree with you, but a small valve spring has a shorter stroke than a shock spring. Even at high RPM, you have to consider the differences. Renton coil also makes Ti valve springs and they had great success with them. That's what lead them to believe they could make a shock spring. "How tough could it be? Those dirt bikes won't cause more stress than our springs can handle!" They had to re-think that idea.

It's true that a Ti spring can work. Again, I point at KYB. The magazines say it's "American Ti, sent to a manufacturing plant in Japan". Others have said it's cheap Russian Ti. All I know is that I haven't heard of one breaking and Renton had ALL kinds of problems with their springs. And losing 2 pounds from your bike for $500.00 is a pretty good bargain, IMO.

:ride:

  • thehiredgun21

Posted 21 July 2007 - 08:09 AM

#11

That was the point. The material, by nature, is ideal but processing it is a pain in the a**. I just can think of many other ways to spend $500. Like on lessons and such but as far as ways to make your bike lighter for less money, it is a good method. IMO just a waste of money. Gary Semics would make me way faster in 2 days than any $500 part could, but that's me...
rock on.

  • rks1

Posted 22 July 2007 - 08:42 AM

#12

Oh, absolutely.......but we aren't talking about a part making you faster. The point is making the bike lighter. For some people that's important.

But you raise a good point about where to spend your "moto-money". It always amazes me that people won't think twice about spending $500 to $1000 on an exhaust system for their bike that does nothing but make the bike louder. But when I tell them it's $800 for a suspension revalve - something that WILL take seconds off their lap time, they start sputtering like a 1980 YZ490 with a fouled plug!

:crazy:

Thanks again for the posts!

  • thehiredgun21

Posted 23 July 2007 - 04:22 AM

#13

haha...
Yeah, well, as for me, I'm going to be taking another 2-day class with Donnie Hansen in a month or so in Texas. Hope fully this time I won't be remembered as the kid who launched his bike into a grapefruit tree!
rock on.

  • bdkw1

Posted 01 August 2007 - 10:00 PM

#14

Others have said it's cheap Russian Ti.



The only thing about Russian Ti thats cheap is the price. From years of making nuclear subs out of the stuff they know what they are doing. Also not having the EPA breathing down there necks lets them get away with things that make nice alloys, things we can't do here. Steel is the same way, if you want some good virgin alloy that hasn't been recycled 10X and has large carbide particles, you need to go to Italy.

  • BWB63

Posted 02 August 2007 - 09:09 PM

#15

Saving two pounds is a huge deal.

  • thehiredgun21

Posted 03 August 2007 - 08:59 AM

#16

Saving two pounds is a huge deal.


220lb bike + 180lb rider = 400lb total
2lb spring savings / 400lb total = .5% difference
99.5% of the bike and rider mass is unaffected.

  • skipn8r

Posted 03 August 2007 - 02:34 PM

#17

I know nothing of Ti, but I suspect there are significant differences between OEM/KYB and RCS springs. What I do know is that I was at Factory Connection West a couple of months ago and noticed a small selection of RCS springs on a shelf in the parts room. When I asked about them, I was told that what they had was left-over inventory and that they no longer sold RCS Ti springs due to "problems" - no explanation. He didn't try to steer me to a steel spring, he just said "no" to the RCS Ti. That's about all I know...

  • baja me

Posted 03 August 2007 - 05:04 PM

#18

So is RCS the only Ti spring supplier?

I have been thinking about this for a while. One to fit my bike looked lke it was about 400 and if your already going to spend 100 or so on a new spring then it's only 300 extra for two pounds off.

  • chapel

Posted 03 August 2007 - 07:19 PM

#19

In addition to the huge benefit of loosing 2lbs, Ti springs handle the bumps better because you don't get as much of a wave action(similar to a slinky) on each bump. This allows your suspension to be more responsive and give you a better feel. If I could find a good progressive one for my KTM I would get it in a minute.
Greg

  • SpDyKen

Posted 06 August 2007 - 07:35 PM

#20

Oh, absolutely.......but we aren't talking about a part making you faster. The point is making the bike lighter. For some people that's important.

But you raise a good point about where to spend your "moto-money". It always amazes me that people won't think twice about spending $500 to $1000 on an exhaust system for their bike that does nothing but make the bike louder. But when I tell them it's $800 for a suspension revalve - something that WILL take seconds off their lap time, they start sputtering like a 1980 YZ490 with a fouled plug!

:crazy:

Thanks again for the posts!

The 1980 model was a YZ465. 1982 was the first year that the US production model YZ was a 490. Of course the YZM's (or OW-?; whatever they called the factory bikes back then,) were possibly up to 490cc by 1980, I suppose.

I get your point, though. I guess that is one of reasons I will not be buying a 4-stroke race bike anytime soon!





Related Content

 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

Register Close
If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.