Steering Dampers

[roostafish]

Let me start by clarifying something. A steering damper is a damper, like a shock, I don't care what one company calls it, it's a damper, not a dampener. A dampener is something that makes something damp, or wet.

Stepping off my soapbox and lesson in English.

I run a damper. Have had the WER, and now run a Scotts. I do enjoy the "safe" feeling it provides, but I run mine on a very low setting as well as hasslbri, as mentioned in the ec300 comparisons thread. I have found that since running one, I can run without one and ride just the same. It's strange, occassionally I'll ride a bike without a damper and think the bike is seriously messed up because it feels so loose, but the trick of tightening the headset would cure that. It would indeed save a grip of cash if one didn't need a damper wouldn't it.

[Skidad]

IMHO cranking down on the steering head bearing assy is really not a great idea/solution although it works to a certain point. Tighten it down so the wheel hardly moves side to side under it's own weight and you can eliminate some looseness I suppose but at the potential risk of premature bearing wear. Even at that point there is no way it can handle the sudden "hit" of a nasty unseen rock or root and react like a damper does to help prevent the bars being wrenched out of your hands.

I say if you want to try it go ahead but don't get carried away tightening it down or you risk bearing wear and it could become to heavy at low speed as well. Kind of a fine line in adjustment really.

It does seems quite a few riders lately are moving away from the use of dampers or at least trying their bike without one. It does make setup easier (and less $$$) but I think I'll keep mine TY.

[F_G]

Got my new to me '08 EC300 a couple of months ago after riding my buddies exact same bike. Put a stabilizer on it out of habit as my KTM's in the past were almost unrideable at speed without one. Took a test ride on a new 515 the other day with my buddy riding along and we swapped bikes, me back on his 300 without a stabilizer and now I question why I spent the 500 clams in the first place, these GG's turn, but are very stable also. Conventional wisdom would dictate you can have one or the other, but not both at the same time. Of course, after riding my GG for awhile now, I realize my KTM did neither really well. I suppose the stabilizer will still help with the occassional rock we encounter out here in the Southwest, hey, I need to justify the money spent somehow.

[Nick]

I have a Scotts not for stability reasons but for the protection it affords in deflection off of rocks, etc.

[hasslbri]

Originally Posted by Skidad

IMHO cranking down on the steering head bearing assy is really not a great idea/solution although it works to a certain point. Tighten it down so the wheel hardly moves side to side under it's own weight and you can eliminate some looseness I suppose but at the potential risk of premature bearing wear. Even at that point there is no way it can handle the sudden "hit" of a nasty unseen rock or root and react like a damper does to help prevent the bars being wrenched out of your hands.

I say if you want to try it go ahead but don't get carried away tightening it down or you risk bearing wear and it could become to heavy at low speed as well. Kind of a fine line in adjustment really.

It does seems quite a few riders lately are moving away from the use of dampers or at least trying their bike without one. It does make setup easier (and less $$$) but I think I'll keep mine TY.

Damper/ Dampener... Always get it wrong. I don't just crank down the steering head nut. Read closely, I snug it. From the factory, the bikes are boarderline loose, sometimes they have vertical play. Just SNUG it so the bars don't slam side to side. My bars do not drag or require any more effort to turn side to side. To test this you only need to give the bars a tiny one finger tap. If they flop to one side (from dead center) don't slowly stop mid way, and just slam into the the stop - then it is too loose. Doing this, I have never worn out a set of steering head bearings on a bike , ever. Again, if the bars swap/ shake side to side while riding, there is a set up issue 99 times out of a 100. I would also agree that some chassis are flawed from the get go and might need them (98 KTM 200 = horrible handling bike!). Set up needs to go 1. ergos, 2. chassis, 3. suspension, 4. engine/ jetting, 5. bolt ons. You ride and race with the Euros and you will see what I mean. Most of them shake their heads at us. I am not putting anyone down for using one. Just make sure it isn't a bandaide for a poorly set up bike. It should only make something that is great even better.

Brian

[SpeedyManiac]

Mine's a safety device. Rogue rocks and roots are my nemesis. The damper helps with these a lot.

[AZRickD]

When first I first purchased my bike it didn't have a damper (just and over-bar mount for a Scotts). So, I rode the '05 DE250 for several weeks encountering our Arizona rocks, hard-packed ruts, and my poor technique in sand washes.

Yeah, yeah. As we all take for granted, the GG paradoxically turned quickly while at the same time being quite stable. I almost elected not to buy a damper, but I did so anyway.

I still (sometimes) wonder why I bought one -- I have the slo-circuit set very soft and even the fast-circuit is backed off to mid way. But every now-and-again a couple off-line hits that sent my bars to near full deflection (controlled only by the Scotts and God) at race pace, reminds me that I made the right choice.

The cost-benefit analysis is somewhat like theft insurance, I guess.

[roostafish]

The only reason I really keep my damper is because I move it from bike to bike. It adds nothing really to the value at resale, so I take it. It may make or break a sale, but it doesn't seem to add value. I left my WER on my GG 250 when I sold it mostly because it was worn completely out and needed serviced or replaced. Plus, I had chopped the headlight to bits to get it to work. The Scotts I have now will stay with me for a while. It took a while to get it to work for me in the woods like the WER, but it works great now, and it is just that added sense of security.

[GMP]

I have a Scotts not for stability reasons but for the protection it affords in deflection off of rocks, etc.

+1

On my Scotts, I run the low speed very light, and the high speed about one turn out (1.5 stock). I will turn the low speed up on high speed sand roads with deep ruts, the large knob option makes that easy.

[Rickster]

Originally Posted by Nick

I have a Scotts not for stability reasons but for the protection it affords in deflection off of rocks, etc.

Like wise....it has saved my butt a few times.