Riding position changes

Legal notice

The information on this website represents the opinions of the author only. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the material presented here is accurate, no liability can be accepted for any mistakes contained in or use made of these data.

2006/11/01

What's this page for?

The standard Multistrada riding position suits my 1.88 m frame just fine for normal road riding, indeed it's the main reason why I chose the Multistrada in the first place! There's a good distance between the footpegs and the seat, ensuring that one's knees aren't tightly angled, and the handlebars don't place a lot of weight on one's wrists, shoulders or neck. This position is very comfortable for speeds up to 130 km/h.

I also enjoy track days and, not being able to afford a dedicated bike for this, use the Multistrada on track two or three times a year. The track has a different set of requirements, and the Multistrada is generally less well suited to this role. The list of shortcomings could be endless, and would inevitably ignore some of the strengths of the machine that can still be exploited on track (like its steady handling, quick steering and good braking) without much need for change. However, two things really stand out as being in need of alteration:

Handlebars – these are too high and wide. This is not an issue for cornering, but causes a lot of drag once speeds are up in the 150+ km/h region, and also at this speed, they have so much leverage on the steering that very small alterations in force on the grips (e.g. while changing gear or shifting mass) can have a very pronounced effect on the steering, resulting in considerable twitchiness. On the plus side, this leverage allows effortless countersteering, e.g. round the Bybrook bus-stop chicane at my home circuit, Castle Combe.
Footrests – These are too low, too far forward and too wide for track use. One can ground them with alacrity, although it is good that they are the first thing to touch on each side. That said, the bike is very stable when they do touch and its line can be altered without upset. They are also too far forward. Having forward footrests also exacerbates the leverage effect on the steering, as shifting mass for corners can only be achieved by pulling on the bars.

As a foretaste of the modifications described in the rest of this article, here's the resultant track ready bike (though I remove the mirrors and number plate when I'm at the track). Additional pictures can be found at the bottom of the page.

Track-ready RHS

1.Foundation

In order precisely to describe the modifications, it is necessary to establish a co-ordinate system for the bike. I use the standard aircraft system, which uses the Centre of Mass (CoM) of the bike as the origin. (Empirically, the CoM is located in the centre of the upright cylinder's camshaft.) The +X direction is forward of the CoM, +Y is to the right and +Z is through the bottom. Correspondingly, Roll is rotation about the X-axis, pitch is rotation about the Y-axis and yaw is rotation about the Z-axis. When viewed from the saddle, all three angles increase clockwise.

The following picture illustrates this.

MTS Co-ordinate System

[Top]

2.Handlebars

Requirement	Reduce the rise and width of the standard bars, retaining the standard bodywork and controls (inc. hydraulic fluid reservoirs) and mirrors. The solution must be easily (max. one evening's garage work) interchangeable with the standard set-up.
Observations	The fairing comprises a top section that is fixed to the top yolk, i.e. it rotates with the handlebars. Thus, as long as the controls and mirrors fit within this, they are not affected by turning the bars. The position of the bars is critical, however, as they may come into contact with the fairing at the extremes of travel. The travel can be reduced by adjusting the lock stops on each side of the bottom yolk. Each lock stop comprises a flanged Allen-head grub screw and a lock nut. These can be reached (it's a bit cramped) once the lower yolk's mud deflector is removed. The standard (S) handlebar has a 22-29-22mm taper section. (The actual diameter of the 29mm part is 28.3mm.)
Attempt 1	Flat bars. I couldn't locate any flat tapered bars, so I tried a single diameter bar from Renthal (#658-02), and teamed this with the bar clamps from the non-S variant (which are 22mm and a lot shorter than those of the S). The bars themselves fit into the available space without problem. What did prove to be a problem was the location of the controls. The bars, being narrow, forced the brake and clutch master cylinders close to the clock mount. There was also a space problem with the pull-through of the fork legs. This solution may have worked, but would have required a large amount of fitting time (thus falling foul of my interchangeability requirement). Attempt abandoned.
Attempt 2	Clip-ons CycleCat DBR-6 Adjustable Bar-Mount System. These are clip-ons that locate quickly and easily onto the fork-leg pull-throughs. The clip-on bracket is actually a couple of millimetres deeper than the pull-through, but I decided this was acceptable. The installation procedure is straightforward, with the following additional notes: I have two sets of rubber grips, a normal pair, which I fitted to the clip-ons, and a heated pair, which I left on the original bar. Use hair spray to slide the left grip onto the bar. This has the quality that it stays slippy just long enough to mount the grip, then dries to a sticky state. (I haven't yet tried to remove such a grip!) The banjos on both the brake and clutch master cylinders must be turned down so that they clear the headlight nacelle. Although best practice would suggest the systems should be drained and new hydraulic washers used to remount them in their new position, I did it the lazy way and simply slackened, moved and re-tightened. I've had no problems with this. The OEM handlebar has embedded locator pins for the brake and clutch levers. CycleCat do not provide these. I left the pins in the OEM handlebar, and mounted the levers onto the clip-ons without locators. I set the CycleCat angle adjuster at the steepest angle. I set the fork-clamps to line up their pinch slots with one-another. I set the base of the switchgear on each bar to be parallel with the bodywork at its closest point. I set the turn stops ~1/2 full turn out from fully in. (N.B. the grub screw has a shank, which prevents it from being screwed through the yolk boss.) My particular installation is peculiar, in that I bent the RHS lock stop plate (the part of the frame against which the lock stop strikes), during a workshop accident in 2006 (the bike fell of my hydraulic workbench). This means that the RHS bar does not hit a lock stop, so the switchgear would hit the bodywork if I didn't take care! The CycleCat solution is well made, and makes full use of the available space.
Result	The changes that result from this modification are as follows: DRAG – Greatly reduced air drag. Acceleration (particularly at speeds above 130 km/h) is greatly increased. Coupled with the rearset footrests (which lower the height of the knees), this facilitates a chin-on-the-tank crouch. STABILITY – as a result of the reduction of force on the bars, the bike is a very much less twitchy, and its straight-line stability is improved immensely. MANOEUVRABILITY – The narrowness of the new bars (70cm vs. 83cm) has reduced the leverage on the steering. This makes manoeuvres such as countersteering (as I use at the Bybrook chicane at Castle Combe) a bit more effort, but still achievable. COMFORT – Force on the wrists, shoulders and neck make for greatly reduced comfort.

[Top]

3.Footrests

Requirement

Move the position of the footpegs up and towards the back. Precise amounts can't be predicted, so some degree of adjustability is desired. Guesstimate position would be Vertical: same level as swinging arm pivot, Horizontal: back to 50mm behind the swinging arm pivot.

The solution must be easily (max. one evening's garage work) interchangeable with the standard set-up.

There is no requirement to provide pillion footrests.

Observations

For this project, the following suppliers of rearsets were investigated:

Manufacturer	Website	MTS	Monster (engine fix)	Monster (frame fix)	Adjustable	Cost	OK
Arrow	http://www.arrow.it/	NO	NO	NO	N/A	N/A	NO
CycleCat	http://www.cyclecat.com/	NO	DRS53 (S4R)	YES	YES	$595 ≈£430	OK
DesmoRacerz	http://desmoracerz.free.fr/	YES	N/A	N/A	NO	€659	NO
Ducati Performance	http://www.ducati.com	YES	N/A	N/A	YES	$1200 (?)	NO
Gilles	http://www.gillestooling.com/	NO	NO	NO	N/A	N/A	NO
Harris	http://www.harris-performance.com/	NO	NO	NO	N/A	N/A	NO
Lucas	http://www.lucas-bikersworld.com/	NO	NO	MCF112D	YES	€318	NO
MR	http://www.mr-motorradtechnik.de/	NO	NO	NO	N/A	N/A	NO
Rizoma	http://www.rizoma.com/	NO	PE202B (S2R/S4R)	YES	YES	€429 ≈£315	NO
Sato Racing	http://www.satoracing.com/	NO	YES (S2R/S4R)	NO	NO	$550	NO

The two companies making products specifically for the MTS (Ducati Performance and DesmoRacerz) appear to offer nothing more than a cosmetic change. On each, the footpeg position is only variable to a small degree (within the triangle of the standard footplate mounting bolts - which are retained).

Monster (frame fix) was judged an unsuitable donor, as this bike has additional frame lugs not present on the MTS.

Monster S2R/S4R (engine fix) was known to be a suitable candidate for adaptation, as they have very similar engine mounts. Martin Fernlund (http://www.multistrada.net/ - topic/search=”Rear sets”) had successfully attempted this adaptation (though it was not simply a matter of assembly). I am indebted to Martin for his trail-blazing, but the standard S4R/S2R footrests did not meet my requirements for position and adjustability.

Three candidates remained: CycleCat, Rizoma and Sato Racing. Of these the Rizoma product was rejected on the grounds that it provided a questionably small amount of metal around the critical main mount (given the modifications that might be required) and the Sato Racing product was rejected on the basis that it provided only two mount points - subjectively, I felt that this was unsuitable.

The CycleCat product was selected (DRS53).

Design procedure

These are the main stages of the design procedure:

The first stage was to draw up a table of component similarity between the MTS and the Monster. This was done on the basis of part number, and all three SxR variants (S4R, S2R-1000 and S2R (800)) were examined. I judged that the S4R has sufficient similarities with the other Monster variants to serve as the reference.
Next was to obtain a minimum of parts to assess the viability of an S4R adaptation. I decided that buying one S4R footplate and bush should be enough to convince me of the X-Z plane similarity of the mounts. I bought an measured these. Other measurements were taken from my own MTS parts and forecast from pixel-level measurement of photographs of the CycleCat parts.
Once I'd decided the project was viable, I bought the CycleCat rearsets.
I then had to design the adaptation of the main mounts and the spacers for the lower mounts
Next I ordered the MTS, S4R and OTS parts I needed.
I commissioned an engineering firm to remove the CycleCat bushes, modify the main mounts and manufacture main mount sleeves lower mount spacers and lower mount collars.
Finally came assembly and adjustment. In retrospect this was the easy bit, as it all slotted together first time, satisfyingly vindicating the many hours work I'd put into drawing up the plans!

Needless to say, this procedure is a bit 'idealised'. I wanted to do the adaptation for a specific track day, and lead times on the CycleCat parts and some of the Ducati parts meant that some steps were done out of sequence. In the end, i missed the deadline, and had to settle for a track day a month later.

Solution

The main problem is the adaptation of the main (swinging arm pivot) mount. The basic difference between the MTS and the monster in this area is that the MTS has an external frame brace to the pivot. This uses a fixing nut, which makes the assembly a greater diameter than that of the Monster (25mm vs. 16mm). In addition, the frame brace makes the MTS pivot wider than that of the Monster, so any Monster footplates need extra spacers when used on the MTS.I concluded from this that the lower mounts can be adapted by the use of special spacers and different length mounting bolts.

For the main mount, I've chosen to re-use the MTS mounting rubbers. As the CycleCat footplate does not have enough metal to host these, I've chosen to bore the footplate (to the maximum of its three internal diameters) and insert a sleeve of the appropriate width and inside diameter. To fix this in the axis of the swinging arm pivot, I've chosen to cross-bore it and fix it with a cotter screw. I will concede that this is not the most elegant of solutions, but is simple, functional and cost effective. The PDF file near the bottom of this article provides the engineering drawings for the parts that need to be made up or modified. It's worth trying to get the CycleCat rearsets with the main mount bushes not installed (I asked for this, but they were delivered fitted). They-re not easy to get out!

The CycleCat solution makes use of several Monster S4R parts that are not present on the MTS. These need to be obtained separately.

The standard union to gear pedal fixing screw is too short for the CycleCat gear pedal - the nylock nut would not engage its locking ring. A longer version (M6*25) must be sourced (see OTS parts below).

The extra spacers necessary on the bottom mounting points mean that three longer bolts are needed - one 46mm (Ducati) and two 60mm (OTS). The MTS parts manual quotes one of these as longer (left front), but gives the wrong part number. Use the Monster S4R part number instead (same part, different numbers) - see tables below.

In the main, I have obtained duplicate parts to enable an easy swap between the standard and rearset footplates. In contradiction of this statement, I have elected to re-use the MTS rear brake adjuster rod and pivot pin (and the MTS brake master cylinder).

In the following parts lists, part numbers are taken from the following publications:

Spare parts catalogue MULTISTRADA 1000 S DS, DUCATIMOTORHOLDING, MULTISTRADA 1000 S DS, M.Y. '05, Spare Parts Department, P.N. 91512221A, Dicembre - December '04, Edizione - Edition 00.
Spare parts catalogue MONSTER S4R, DUCATIMOTORHOLDING, M S4R, M.Y. '06, Spare Parts Department, P.N. 91511831D, Giugno - June '05, Edizione - Edition 00.

3.1 CycleCat parts

DRS53 Rearsets (to fit Monster S4R).

3.2 Ducati parts

The following four parts diagrams show:: GREEN - Multistrada parts to be retained and reused.; YELLOW - Monster S4R parts required; RED - Special requirements - see the corresponding notes below the diagrams.

The part numbers are given in the subsequent tables.

Notes

MTS main bush flanges - Cut to 38mm dia. This was done to fit inside the main mount housing and allow some room for squash. The main mount housing was bored as minimally as possible.
MTS lower mount washers - Two extra washers are required for the extended LHS lower mounting bolts.
MTS lower-front bolt - One extra 46mm bolt required.(Note that the stated MTS part number for this (779.1.205.1AB) is incorrect. The correct part number is S4R:779.1.206.1AB - check that you get the 46mm bolt - not the 38.5mm one!)
S4R gearchange pedal to union screw - The stated S4R part number is for a M6x20 screw. This does not allow the nylock threads of the nut to engage when used with the Cyclecat gear lever. Source an M6x25 cap head screw from elsewhere.

Multistrada 1000 S DS - OEM parts

Section	Index	Part No.	Description	Qty
31 31a	12 3	764.1.066.1A	Rubber pad (Note 1)	2
31a	1	852.1.065.1B	Washer (Note 2)	2

Monster S4R - OEM parts

Section	Index	Part No.	Description	Qty
26	12	779.1.206.1AB	Special screw (Note 3)	1
26	20	749.4.004.1A	Nut	2
26	21	848.5.001.1A	Ball joint	1
26	22	771.5.667.8B	Screw (Note 4)	2
26	23	747.5.001.1AB	L.H. nut	1
26	25	724506001	Nut	1
26	26	848.5.002.1A	Ball joint	1
26	27	0370.69.020	Gearchange control lever	1

3.3 OTS parts

Description	Qty
M6x20 countersunk screws (hex drive) - cut to 9.4mm	2
M6x25 cap head screw (hex drive)	1
M10*60 button head screw (hex drive)	2

3.4 Engineering

Made-up parts to pattern

Drawing ref	Description	Qty
KT-DRS53-003.1	Main mount	2
KT-DRS53-006.1 KT-DRS53-007.2	Adapter, main mount, I(nitial) Adapter, main mount, F(inal)	2
KT-DRS53-008.1	Spacer, left front	1
KT-DRS53-009.1	Spacer, left back	1
KT-DRS53-010.1	Spacer, right	2
KT-DRS53-011.1	Collar, LHS lower mount	2

Alterations

Drawing ref	Description	Qty
KT-DRS53-002.2	Main mount and bush	2
KT-DRS53-005.1	Rubber pad	2

3.5 Drawings

This file contains my development drawings:
This file contains my workshop instructions:

4. Pictures

New position

The handlebars have been set to their lowest position. The footrests have been set so that they are as far back as possible and the base of the footpeg is 10mm below the centre of the swinging-arm pivot (the base of the standard pegs is 61mm below the pivot centre). The width of the rearsets is 568mm (617mm standard).

In action...

The tuck is greatly improved. The rearsets mean that my knees are lower, which in turn lets me get my elbows in. I found that I could get my chin on the tank - which I couldn't do before. Better tuck means better acceleration (and it's really noticeable!), top speed, and better stability - no twitchiness, either during gearchanges or during weight shifting. High speed countersteering is improved, but low-speed countersteering is more laboured. The position allows a much more comfortable (and more natural) position in the corners.

Standard vs. new

The following lean angle photos compare without and with rearsets. Although the photo with rearsets doesn't show things on the limit (not my best track day, and I was working up to full lean when my rear tyre packed up), these photos show an actual increase in Bike Lean Angle of 2.9 deg. You can see from the photo that there's an extra 7.5+ deg. to go, which will make a total bike lean angle of 53 deg., i.e. over 10 deg. gain over standard. Reassuringly (?) Avon's technical department tell me that "The tyres are designed to cope with 53' effective lean, we have seen this in testing."

[Top]