#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Well, at least we can agree on that!
Frankly, I don't understand the logic that you are applying. And, given that there is nothing wrong with the fork, "fixing something that ain't broke" will do more harm than good. jeff |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
My take on this:
I understand the logic, just not sure it exists. I beleive that KTMLew's reasoning is that the fork outer tube will always be slightly compresed, regardless of T clamp torque, and there must be some bushing play to account for it. Well, theoretically this could be done in two ways: static clearance, with the bushing fixed to the inner tube, or dynamic clearance between the bushing ID and land OD, where the bushing is allowed to compress slightly, like a piston ring. Valid point, but whos to say the static clearance is inadequate? Any data? Bore mic the fork outer along its length and lets see the effect of T clamp bolt torque. It would be interesting. Also, I think most people overtorque their T clamps, and some listed specs are too high. I clean the fork tubes and clamp bores and go no more than 15 -16 Nm. When I had the Husky Zokes apart, The first thing I noticed is how "loose" they felt compared to my sticky WPs. Not in a bad way, but a good stiction free way. This, and excellent performance, would seem to point to adequate clearance. You would think if this was a widespread problem, all the big tuners here would be on the bandwagon machining fork tubes for additional $$, especially now, since Husky sales have exploded. Besides some anticipated valving changes(like I always need for rocks) I'm looking forward to riding the '07 Zoke fork. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
GMP
Not to beat a dead horse but...I have only had the 02-03 fork apart and inspected the bushings fit on the tube. The bushing snap fits and you can NOT turn it on the tube. Zero end-clearance. Only forks I've ever seen with this build. Fixed position = binding when the upper tube flexes. Don't see any reason you couldn't just narrow the bushing slightly to allow it to float some but that still doesn't address the bushings need to be able to "rock" slightly when needed. It's not something you can feel when cycling the forks without a sufficient load to flex the outer tube. I look at things strictly from an engineering viewpoint. Couldn't care less who built the product. Didn't come here to bash, just trying to relay the info I have SEEN with my own eyes not what someone else told me. NOT opinion, facts. Bushing fits too tight on tube... As I said before, it's my understanding they tried to address some issues around 04 but I don't know if this is one of them? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Lew,
As a sidenote, GMP and I are both very well qualified engineers as well... You have stated as fact that the bushing being tight on the land will cause binding in this fork. This is not fact; It is your opinion and is not supported by reported experiences with this fork. (e.g. it is very plush when revalved and not spikey in any way, shape or form). By the way, I spoke to Les at LTR and he said nearly all the marzocchi forks he sees have this bushing fitting tight, but that's it not an issue on this fork due to this fork having more than sufficient overlap. (He services and revalves 5-10 sets of marzocchis every week and has been doing so for the last several years...) I have personal experience with 5 sets of the marzocchi shiver fork - three of them are cannondale surplus stock. The ones on my XR have tight fitting bushings and I am amazed at how good they are, even with very little break in time on them. I am an A rider with 35 years of riding experience and I ride very aggressively through roots, rocks and whoops; I can confidently say that if they had any issue - I would feel it... This is kind of like a guy going into a doctor's office for their annual checkup and having the physician tell him that his knee has an issue that is causing severe pain; Performing a knee-ectomy will resolve the issue. Given that we are all human - some folks would immediately feel this pain and request to have their knee hacked off. Hopefully, a large percentage would say "my knee doesn't hurt" and spend the rest of their day looking for a new doctor... jeff Last edited by jeffd; 03-15-2007 at 03:56 PM. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
I disagree. Period. It's NOT "my opinion" if Les also says the bushing is "fixed" that would make it a fact, right?
We will just have to disagree on this one! |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Wrong. You have stated that it is a fact that having low clearance on this bushing causes the fork to bind. This is not "fact"; This is your opinion. The marzocchi shiver fork's excellent behavior in the field would not lead a reasonable person to believe that this opinion is valid. I do agree with this statement. jeff Last edited by jeffd; 03-15-2007 at 11:02 PM. Reason: To correct my incorrect correction :) |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the bushing lands of other forks made with more freeplay? Maybe there is a need for it?
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Hi pobit, thanks for this very interesting post and pictures.
I did post your pictures at a forum at thumpertalk.com, hope you don’t mind? A guy claims the suspension of his ’07 Husky WR250 is very different from his ’04 WR250, so maybe the ’07 husky has this new valving. I did mention where I got the pictures from of course. I have a question. Am I pointing at the “mid-valve” in the picture? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
#36 is the rebound/mid-valve piston. The upper side is the "mid-valve" but in this picture it would just be a check-plate set-up. #33 is the check-spring and #34 is the check-plate. If it had mutiple shims of different dia's it would then be consdiered a mid-valve. #37 is the rebound stack.
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
05 De 300 Specs | VORMAN | Enduro Electrical & Wiring | 9 | 11-14-2010 06:36 PM |
Top End Clearances/Specs | SpeedyManiac | Enduro Engine - 2 stroke | 4 | 09-24-2009 09:53 PM |
Torque Specs | steve | Enduro Engine - 2 stroke | 8 | 02-26-2008 09:30 PM |