Laser Schmaser ?

[PMK]

Does this align to the chassis or to the rear wheel?

I read through the linked info. Seeing they measure from the rear wheel, it appears it may based on the rear rim.

They do a few other things that seem incorrect, but if it is working, then so be it.

 

[BajaRon]

I think this is one of those "You don't know what you don't know" situations. The bike may seem OK. But after having a proper alignment suddenly you realize just how much you were fighting the steering control. After having mine aligned by Joe, I could ride almost any road condition using just two fingers on the handlebars. I didn't realize how much I was constantly fighting the steering and the fatigue it produced. A correctly aligned bike is a lot more fun and easier to ride for long periods of time..... Jim

:agree: 100%.

In the early days, Lamont & I took several, excruciatingly careful runs at aligning our Spyders. We followed BRP's instructions to the letter. They used the frame as the basis for alignment. It never worked regardless of how accurate and careful we were. That is because the frame is a very inaccurate way to align the front wheels. What you want, after all, is for all 3 wheels to be going in the same direction. When ROLO came out with their product and process for alignment. It really was a 'DUH!' moment for us. It doesn't matter what the frame orientation is. If the rear wheel is fighting (directionally) the front wheels. The Spyder is never going to handle correctly.

The 2 major things that ROLO did was move the base line from the frame to the rear wheel using lasers to magnify (greatly) the error in alignment. The Spyder is so sensitive to alignment, that unless you greatly magnify the error, you just do not have a chance of getting it right. Rulers, tape measures and lines marked on the floor can easily be misaligned. Believe me. It only takes a little bit off and you're wasting your time.

To be sure, the laser equipment is not magic. It still requires an operator that not only knows what they are doing. But are also willing to be meticulous in their adjustment process. A sloppy job is no better with lasers than with any other form of alignment.

The alignment people can tell you that customers come in saying that they are very happy with their current alignment, no issues, runs straight, etc. But just want to get it checked out. (Many purveyors will not charge you if your alignment is within spec.) Only to discover that, indeed, their Spyder is out of spec. And, the customer is then quite surprised at how much better the steering is after getting a correct alignment. It's just another 'Didn't know what I didn't know' moment.

 

[Highwayman2013]

I read through the linked info. Seeing they measure from the rear wheel, it appears it may based on the rear rim.

They do a few other things that seem incorrect, but if it is working, then so be it.

Just wondering because our 2016 F3L had good alignment between the front wheels but not to the back wheel. It was crabbing slightly.

 

[Lew L]

????????????? …. did " Lew L " mean " Shirley " ????????? ….. Mike hyea:

Surely you jest Mike. Surely you've seen the movie "Airplane!" I'm going skiing today----- surely, you are also??? :joke: "And' don't call me Shirley" :joke::joke:

Merry Christmass to you and yours.

Lew L

 

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

Surely you jest Mike. Surely you've seen the movie "Airplane!" I'm going skiing today----- surely, you are also??? :joke: "And' don't call me Shirley" :joke::joke:

Merry Christmass to you and yours.

Lew L

:roflblack::roflblack: …. I posted this using the wrong Quote ( but couldn't delete :banghead: ) …. I've seen the movie a few times and always thought what He said was " Shirley " ????? …. No sking today, but I have gone 16 times to date …… Merry Christmas back at ya ….. Mike hyea:

 

[Eckhard]

I have just had a quick read of the method used by the Aussie fellow and he makes mention that he measures the rear wheel at the rear most point. This is insufficient to know the orientation of the wheel in the horizontal plane. You need to measure a second point, preferably at the front most point of the rear wheel. to determine its orientation. Once you have determined the orientation of the rear wheel you can proceed to align the front wheels parallel to the rear wheel or at a specific desired angle to the rear wheels.

It may be that the alignment of the wheels is sufficiently insensitive that an approximation of parallelism based on one longitudinally measured point on the rear wheel is sufficient to improve the alignment to a point where it feels better to drive but it is insufficient for accuracy.

 

[PMK]

I have just had a quick read of the method used by the Aussie fellow and he makes mention that he measures the rear wheel at the rear most point. This is insufficient to know the orientation of the wheel in the horizontal plane. You need to measure a second point, preferably at the front most point of the rear wheel. to determine its orientation. Once you have determined the orientation of the rear wheel you can proceed to align the front wheels parallel to the rear wheel or at a specific desired angle to the rear wheels.

It may be that the alignment of the wheels is sufficiently insensitive that an approximation of parallelism based on one longitudinally measured point on the rear wheel is sufficient to improve the alignment to a point where it feels better to drive but it is insufficient for accuracy.

Also, the method shown, accounting for camber will not provide an accurate reference datum for the alignment.

Consider, they suggest a machinist square to reference the left and right datum points. Unfortunately, any toe in or toe out at this critical measurement will alter the points projected to the ground. Add to this, the variance / tolerances at each measurement and some precision is surrendered.

 

[Jetfixer]

How do you reset the BUDS?

I have BUDS. You need it to reset the steering angle offset, etc.

 

[Jetfixer]

Does this align to the chassis or to the rear wheel?

To the rear wheel, which is better if you already have your belt tracking right.

 

[UtahPete]

I have BUDS. You need it to reset the steering angle offset, etc.

That was my point. Not everyone realizes this.

 

[Jetfixer]

Also, the method shown, accounting for camber will not provide an accurate reference datum for the alignment.

Consider, they suggest a machinist square to reference the left and right datum points. Unfortunately, any toe in or toe out at this critical measurement will alter the points projected to the ground. Add to this, the variance / tolerances at each measurement and some precision is surrendered.

You're right about the front datum points possibly being way out to start, which would completely affect the rest of the process. This would be the case if you were trying to use this method after having incurred some damage to the front end like a bent tie-rod. Also if the belt tracking was way off you could assume that the measurement at the rear wheel would throw everything else off too. This method assumes that the Spyder is already at least factory aligned and has the proper belt tracking at the rear wheel. Using that as a starting point, (which is how most of us have had our Spyders laser aligned), this method does a very good job of providing the final adjustment needed to get the better handling of a truly aligned front end. For even better accuracy, you could also project the "alignment box" forward from the front wheels which would double check the adjustment.

 

[PMK]

You're right about the front datum points possibly being way out to start, which would completely affect the rest of the process. This would be the case if you were trying to use this method after having incurred some damage to the front end like a bent tie-rod. Also if the belt tracking was way off you could assume that the measurement at the rear wheel would throw everything else off too. This method assumes that the Spyder is already at least factory aligned and has the proper belt tracking at the rear wheel. Using that as a starting point, (which is how most of us have had our Spyders laser aligned), this method does a very good job of providing the final adjustment needed to get the better handling of a truly aligned front end. For even better accuracy, you could also project the "alignment box" forward from the front wheels which would double check the adjustment.

Politely, I beg to differ. As you and I are both jet fixers, consider my words. If, the Spyder has toe out prior to alignment, the laser point projected to the square will not be the accurate track width, plus laser and fixture. Add to this, the machinist square uses a small base, that amplifies error as the square may not be truly square on the floor.

The ROLO setup, uses a laser fixtures that swivels to project downward, eliminating the error induced via incoming toe settings, and the machinist square transferring a point to the floor.

Both methods are working to obtain the same reference datum points.

Your setup uses pie plates on stanchions. If the stanchions are each exactly the same, the pie plate runs true in plain without runout if the wheel could be spun. (The brake caliper prevents this). Possibly your setup could point the beam down, similar to ROLO, and would allow you to compare the two methods for accuracy. Downside to this being, if you have already established accurate toe setting, that error is eliminated or reduced. Whereas, the swiveling setup has no care of incoming toe setting.

 

[Eckhard]

Please tell us more about the pie plates?

 

[PMK]

Please tell us more about the pie plates?

The Aussie method has you make large circular round flat plates. These are on standoffs that are measured and adjusted very accurately, The standoffs, flat circular plate and brake disk establish the mount for the laser.

Since the circular flat plate is rigidly secured to the disk by magnets, there is no easy method to obtain an accurate / true track width, which is the basis for all other parameters.

As the Jetfixer mentioned, if the alignment is very close already it could work ok. On a never aligned machine, it appears a bit risky and less accurate.

 

[Jetfixer]

Politely, I beg to differ. As you and I are both jet fixers, consider my words. If, the Spyder has toe out prior to alignment, the laser point projected to the square will not be the accurate track width, plus laser and fixture. Add to this, the machinist square uses a small base, that amplifies error as the square may not be truly square on the floor.

The ROLO setup, uses a laser fixtures that swivels to project downward, eliminating the error induced via incoming toe settings, and the machinist square transferring a point to the floor.

Both methods are working to obtain the same reference datum points.

Your setup uses pie plates on stanchions. If the stanchions are each exactly the same, the pie plate runs true in plain without runout if the wheel could be spun. (The brake caliper prevents this). Possibly your setup could point the beam down, similar to ROLO, and would allow you to compare the two methods for accuracy. Downside to this being, if you have already established accurate toe setting, that error is eliminated or reduced. Whereas, the swiveling setup has no care of incoming toe setting.

I agree with you except that if either method (Rollo or Aussie) points the lasers down, now you have to account for the factory set and unchangeable camber. Since the Aussie system uses magnetic laser line generators, they can be pointed down even though the plates cannot be moved due to the caliper. When you have the time, read the alignment info post here: http://www.lindsayroland.com/spyder/spyderwheels.html that is written by the guy who devised this setup. He mentions his system versus Rollo and Lamonsters'. I had my 15 RTL laser aligned and then compared my homebuilt setup with what was done. It's pretty much dead on with what the Rollo system set. This system is not perfect, for instance, I made a set of greaseplates instead of his newspaper setup. Far less resistance to adjustment.

 

[PMK]

I agree with you except that if either method (Rollo or Aussie) points the lasers down, now you have to account for the factory set and unchangeable camber. Since the Aussie system uses magnetic laser line generators, they can be pointed down even though the plates cannot be moved due to the caliper. When you have the time, read the alignment info post here: http://www.lindsayroland.com/spyder/spyderwheels.html that is written by the guy who devised this setup. He mentions his system versus Rollo and Lamonsters'. I had my 15 RTL laser aligned and then compared my homebuilt setup with what was done. It's pretty much dead on with what the Rollo system set. This system is not perfect, for instance, I made a set of greaseplates instead of his newspaper setup. Far less resistance to adjustment.

I had read the linked topic a few times to grasp each step, and what the method stated was working to achieve.

Someday, when time permits, I will check the camber angles, Left vs Right, laden and unladen, then see how they compare.

 

[SNOOPY]

Since I do all my own work, I built my own laser alignment system, based on plans found here, with some modifications. http://www.lindsayroland.com/spyder/spyder-DIY-gear.html

I made my own laser set up also. Did my Spyder 6 years ago when I purchased the bike. I’ve been through 3-4 rear tires (obviously lol) but still on stock front tires which are wearing perfectly. With a few measurements and two cheap lasers it wasn’t hard at all.

.

 

[Joel The Biker]

I had read the linked topic a few times to grasp each step, and what the method stated was working to achieve.

Someday, when time permits, I will check the camber angles, Left vs Right, laden and unladen, then see how they compare.

I am also going to check mine the next time I do a laser alignment. I assumed, but shouldnt have, that the camber was zero. If it is not zero, then not only will homemade laser alignment tools be inaccurate, but ROLO will be also. Ideally, you would need a device that attaches to the hub with a level on it to ensure accurate track width measurement when the laser is pointed down.

 

[PMK]

I am also going to check mine the next time I do a laser alignment. I assumed, but shouldnt have, that the camber was zero. If it is not zero, then not only will homemade laser alignment tools be inaccurate, but ROLO will be also. Ideally, you would need a device that attaches to the hub with a level on it to ensure accurate track width measurement when the laser is pointed down.

Yes and no. If the camber angle is equal or merely close, the error projecting from axle center downward to the floor is a very small error.

There is more chance for inaccuracy based on assuming toe angle / dimension is equal left and right.

Regardless, either method is no doubt better than oem.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

I am also going to check mine the next time I do a laser alignment. I assumed, but shouldnt have, that the camber was zero. If it is not zero, then not only will homemade laser alignment tools be inaccurate, but ROLO will be also. Ideally, you would need a device that attaches to the hub with a level on it to ensure accurate track width measurement when the laser is pointed down.

Why do you need the track width at the wheels? The concept of the ROLO is to mount the laser on the center of the wheel, then project the laser to the front and to the back. The toe-in is measured by the difference between the left and right laser points an equal distance in front of and behind the wheel centerline. Since the lasers are horizontal for both measurements camber does not affect them.