Well, after a long letter written, and a couple of phone calls back and forth between me and Mike at Traxxion Dynamics, with him making phone calls back and forth between Penske and them, I was able to ship my shock back to Penske direct overnight, have it repaired in a day, as well as upgraded to the 8983, all on Penskeīs dime, and then sent back overnight, and it arrived here at my shop yesterday.
All in all Traxxion did right by upgrading the shock, but I did sorta have to work for it. They were not able to cover the cost of the labor for the extra on and off of the rear shock, so I basically told them I was out a couple hundo, and without some form of recourse, I would be a thoroughly dissatisfied customer, at which point I suggested the idea of them upgrading the shock, which basically covered the extra labor.
Initially I was about to bite the bullet and ask for a full refund plus labor, and then was going to go with an Ohlins, but since I would have lost $, I stuck with a Penske.
the 8983 is double adjustable,
Ride height and preload adjustable
16 - 20 clicks of compression adjustment
36 clicks of rebound adjustment
It should be interesting to see how much of an improvement the shock is over my bouncy stock. Will let everyone know how much an improvement it was.
I've been away and just saw all this today.
As soon as I saw the pic showing the spring adjuster collar topside, bells started ringing.
You are not "stuck" with a Penske.
You have one and it's good bit of kit.
It will transform the rear of your bike, in a goodly way.
You have the huge advantage of shock length adjustment, which the lower end Ohlins does not. (this advantage pays off in spades on the track)
I got my Penske new in early 2007.
I bought it as a 8986 (remote reservoir with hi speed comp adjuster, low speed rebound on body).
Simple bolt on, aside from having to open up the tray hole for the larger diameter reservoir.
I later had it converted to a 8987 triple clicker.
I had heard of people having to trim the upper mount on the frame, but mine had no such issue. I think Penske has used different heads for any given body over time, so that might be the explanation. All I know is that mine fit easily and perfectly - the way it is supposed to be.
Your shock has hi speed comp adjusting, correct ?
(Like my 8986 did before being reconfigured.)
This is significant, as what 919s respond primarily to is low speed compression adjustment, not hi speed compression.
Maybe things had changed, and you actually have a low speed comp adjuster.
You should have got damping force curves for the shock.
I'd love to see them.
My unit was further developed.
I ended up going to a digressive/linear piston, a # DL 005 2 degree dish to be exact. This was to gain additional initial travel low speed comp damping force as a track anti-squat means. It worked quite well. (We tried an intermediate piston but it was not effective re the low speed comp damping force I was after). The original piston was a design with damping force characteristics in between a classic linear/linear and hi flow linear/linear.
You should have got a build sheet, and in there you can determine the piston you have.
What spring rate did you get ?
Suppliers to me seem notorious for doing two things wrong spring wise on 919s.
Calling up too soft at the rear and too stiff at the front.
Nothing less than 1000 # / inch at the back is my rather strong opinion.
0.875 to 0.925 kg/mm at the front will bracket most needs, with 0.95 being an upper limit for the remaining. There will be circumstances for extremely few that will benefit from over 0.95, but I've yet to hear of one here. For sure, anything over 0.95 needs to be looked at real hard, and I don't remember ever seeing a "happy post" involving the use of over 0.95.
Hopefully this helps you some.