-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
Interesting Toe-In Article
- Thread starter Wildrice
- Start date
Highwayman2013
New member
Interesting how they discount the Rolo system which has been shown to work quite well.
Cruzr Joe
New member
I read that the ROLO System is good but with a different equation factored in, as has been applied by Lamonster and other reputable users.
Cruzr Joe
That's the way I read it as well. But it's the first I've heard of anyone not using the settings recommended by ROLO. Hope Lamonster or Cptjam or one of the other heavy users of the system can clarify for us.
jcthorne
Well-known member
Not sure where they get the 0.2mm recommendation from ROLO. They show Lamonster using 3mm over the 15in rim (1.25 in over 150 in laser measuring length) which is in the ROLO range but on the high end.
They also beat around the point that most Spyders in the US are RTs and should be on the higher end of the scale and they are setting up STs and RSs which tend to work best at less toe in. (lower weight, lower CG and more sport oriented drivers).
I don't think they are recommending against the ROLO system as much as they are discussion ways of doing the job without the expense. The recognize that the laser system works well.
I actually picked up a few good hints from the article as it expressed things in a way I had not heard before. Thanks for posting.
They also beat around the point that most Spyders in the US are RTs and should be on the higher end of the scale and they are setting up STs and RSs which tend to work best at less toe in. (lower weight, lower CG and more sport oriented drivers).
I don't think they are recommending against the ROLO system as much as they are discussion ways of doing the job without the expense. The recognize that the laser system works well.
I actually picked up a few good hints from the article as it expressed things in a way I had not heard before. Thanks for posting.
Gray Ghost
New member
BRP has endorsed the ROLO system and recommended it to their dealers. The standard measurements work fine for most people, but it can be adjusted if the bike becomes toe-out when it is loaded.
PMK
Active member
Neat to read. I noticed some errors or concerns that are not focused upon but need to be. The simple statement of adding or subtracting toe based on rider weight is vague.
Also, I may be incorrect, but if the BRP method of using the straight edge along the frame rail aims for .2 mm, combined that becomes .4 mm. Additionally, the BRP method, and rest assured it is a silly method, has detailed charts of toe adjustment specs based on rider weight. These are all based on a set ride height that is controlled by the rigid bars replacing the front shocks.
In regards to the lasers, there have been several articles I read about the tolerances in the lasers. This was one area where ROLO may have spent additional money to gain accuracy. This article uses a room leveling type laser. These can work, but the accuracy of each tripod leg and the calibration of the rotating is super critical. Considering the adjustment and dimension checked is a simple toe adjustment, if the ROLO hub centric adapter is not used, simply magnetically adhering to the disc is within the means of accurate.
In regards to those using the rim to establish the wheels plane of rotation, I will say that do not expect the rim flange to be accurate or true. The rim is cast, then machined. The rim flanges outer lips are not machined. While dynamically balancing our front tires, I noticed a wobble in the rims flange. I expected this was a problem. It was not a problem since I tracked the tires actual bead seat and it rand dead true. If you are not using a ROLO or setup referenced off the disc, I suggest you reference the tires bead seat as a good enough alternate.
All the best with it.
PK
Also, I may be incorrect, but if the BRP method of using the straight edge along the frame rail aims for .2 mm, combined that becomes .4 mm. Additionally, the BRP method, and rest assured it is a silly method, has detailed charts of toe adjustment specs based on rider weight. These are all based on a set ride height that is controlled by the rigid bars replacing the front shocks.
In regards to the lasers, there have been several articles I read about the tolerances in the lasers. This was one area where ROLO may have spent additional money to gain accuracy. This article uses a room leveling type laser. These can work, but the accuracy of each tripod leg and the calibration of the rotating is super critical. Considering the adjustment and dimension checked is a simple toe adjustment, if the ROLO hub centric adapter is not used, simply magnetically adhering to the disc is within the means of accurate.
In regards to those using the rim to establish the wheels plane of rotation, I will say that do not expect the rim flange to be accurate or true. The rim is cast, then machined. The rim flanges outer lips are not machined. While dynamically balancing our front tires, I noticed a wobble in the rims flange. I expected this was a problem. It was not a problem since I tracked the tires actual bead seat and it rand dead true. If you are not using a ROLO or setup referenced off the disc, I suggest you reference the tires bead seat as a good enough alternate.
All the best with it.
PK
lindsayw148
New member
Hi all from the Land Down Under.
Don't know where the PDF version of that web-page came from but it's grossly out of date... (well, I DO know, actually, and it's my fault entirely). The actual web-page on which the PDF was based (YEARS ago!) is http://www.gospyder.net/spyderwheels.html and predates the BRP endorsement of the Rolo system by a long time. I had forgotten that a PDF version of that page even existed, and will now remove it. Look at the html version instead — at least that one gets updated from time to time.
I am NOT bagging the Rolo system. It's just a laser alignment system much the same as other laser alignment systems. It uses a wheel hub-mandrel to ensure accurate attachment to the wheels, and that's the main difference between it and other systems. The main reason why my wheel standoff system was developed into a DIY alignment system was that it is simple, accurate, and Australia is a large country with few Dealers, so owners are always a long way from them. Very few Dealers have alignment gear, and even fewer would know how to use it. Even with BRP now recommending that Dealers buy Rolo gear, DIY alignment is likely to be a fact of life here for years to come.
Cost was the other major factor, of course. The early Workshop Manual instructions for wheel alignment were incredibly long-winded and resulted in very expensive alignment jobs for owners... 3 to 4 times as expensive as a car alignment because of the hours of labor required. At the time the Alignment Kit was pieced together, the cost of the gear was only about 10% the cost of a Rolo system, so making it available for individual owners for DIY alignments was a no-brainer.
And the final reason was that the early Workshop Manuals were vague on alignment specs — basically 0.5mm across-the-wheel for every model, every condition, with no allowance for differences in loading or suspension or riding style. Over the years we have arrived at compromise alignment specs to suit road conditions here, plus allowances for different models and suspension setups, and have accumulated a LOT of very happy owners.
Lindsay.
Don't know where the PDF version of that web-page came from but it's grossly out of date... (well, I DO know, actually, and it's my fault entirely). The actual web-page on which the PDF was based (YEARS ago!) is http://www.gospyder.net/spyderwheels.html and predates the BRP endorsement of the Rolo system by a long time. I had forgotten that a PDF version of that page even existed, and will now remove it. Look at the html version instead — at least that one gets updated from time to time.
I am NOT bagging the Rolo system. It's just a laser alignment system much the same as other laser alignment systems. It uses a wheel hub-mandrel to ensure accurate attachment to the wheels, and that's the main difference between it and other systems. The main reason why my wheel standoff system was developed into a DIY alignment system was that it is simple, accurate, and Australia is a large country with few Dealers, so owners are always a long way from them. Very few Dealers have alignment gear, and even fewer would know how to use it. Even with BRP now recommending that Dealers buy Rolo gear, DIY alignment is likely to be a fact of life here for years to come.
Cost was the other major factor, of course. The early Workshop Manual instructions for wheel alignment were incredibly long-winded and resulted in very expensive alignment jobs for owners... 3 to 4 times as expensive as a car alignment because of the hours of labor required. At the time the Alignment Kit was pieced together, the cost of the gear was only about 10% the cost of a Rolo system, so making it available for individual owners for DIY alignments was a no-brainer.
And the final reason was that the early Workshop Manuals were vague on alignment specs — basically 0.5mm across-the-wheel for every model, every condition, with no allowance for differences in loading or suspension or riding style. Over the years we have arrived at compromise alignment specs to suit road conditions here, plus allowances for different models and suspension setups, and have accumulated a LOT of very happy owners.
Lindsay.
Last edited:
Similar threads
