Undersize Fork Stanchions

Status
Not open for further replies.
john robert bould said:
Center-less grinding as its problems ,in so much the lower bush dia can be out of concentric with the main tube, this cause's the stanchion to wedge and bind when the lower and upper bush's come together , Regarding chrome , "Hard" chrome ,this is expensive re-chrome is over £100 , the platter grinds off approx 4 thou [2 per side] then applies 5-6 thou this is then ground back to size,and polished. Producing a hard wearing "deep" surface,
All cheap Ebay stanchions are only flash coated...Microns ,just enough to stop the rust. Gaiters are a must ,grit and grime will soon scratch through the thin coating. The basic rule applies "You get what you pay for"

If this is true then the manufactures are cost cutting because chrome that is microns is basically chrome plating- the difference between this and hard chroming is the difference between chalk and cheese.

Re; The basic rule applies "You get what you pay for"
In regard to the above you would be better of obtaining a second-hand pair of Stanchions and send them out to someone whom you know will not cheat you on the work, to be re-chromed you could specify the outside diameter that you want it ground down to.
 
comnoz said:
lcrken said:
Thanks, Jim. Looks like Delrin (acetal) doesn't come out any near as well as the oil impregnated bronze. Interesting stuff. I'd like to see what the friction coefficient is of Turcite A against steel. What I've read tells me that the added silicone makes it very slippery, and I assume that's a large part of why Jim Schmidt picked it, but I haven't seen any numbers yet. I'll try to get some time to do some more research, but eventually I have to call it done and build something.

Ken

I believe Turcite A was pretty close to PTFE for friction but with more deflection than a metal backed PTFE bushing. Jim

With the top brush not impregnated in oil like the bottom one is, I just had a thought that no matter which kind of top brush you use, while you have the forks apart, you could drill and tap the top of the bottom fork slider and fit one of those oil nipples like and pump silicon grease or something that acts as a lubricant for the top brush :?:
 
Don't be silly Bernard the fork need oil seals above the top bush or leaks so just fork motion wets them enough and don't need fluid much for lube in bronze or plastic agains polished chrome, so mostly acts for dampening and preventing springs and inside stancions rust where by far most out fork friction occurs. I've watched my modern fork end to see they barely vibe back&forth like my Roadholders but darn it I like my Roadholders better so reasonable slack don't bother me thankgoodness but restriction of travel sure as hell has on a few events not all of em Norton related.
 
I am talking about fitting the grease nipple BELOW the seals.
With the oil nipple having a spring loaded one way ball valve, does this set your mind at rest :?:
 
You can add PTFE 10% to the oil...but again i like the PEEK material , This is the TOP engineering "plastic" .I personally dont like the term plastic ..as this suggests Cheap . but believe my that's not the case :!: It's not cheap or plastic . it's very strong and resists wear, 10 times that of p/Bronze ,with excellent C/O friction . The draw back is getting it turned to the correct size...try to bore out a few thou :evil: Because it greatly resists wear it also greatly resists having a light cut ..tools need to be super sharp, and supported well.
 
Again, thanks all for the good input. I've managed to collect comparative info now on the most likely materials (coefficients of static and dynamic friction, tensile strength, compressive strength, hardness, etc.), and I can play those off against the cost of materials, and make a choice. Its not like I have to have the perfect material. If what I try doesn't work, I'll just make another set from the next material in line. It's not a life and death issue, just a hobby. I'm not making a product for sale, just playing around in my shop.

Hobot, I know Jim Schmidt did his homework before settling on Turcite A. It's a great choice, and I have nothing against it. I'm just curious what other possibilities there are, and I like experimenting and making my own stuff. I also take John's point about PEEK very seriously. It is one of the Cadillacs of engineering plastics, but quite expensive. I'm also quite aware that I could live with the stock arrangement. After all, I have for several decades. But I like trying to find improvements, even if it is "gilding the lily" or "making a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Your claim that a little slop in the fit makes no difference might be true for the sort of riding you do. I rarely take my Commando in romps through the cow pasture, or sliding around gravel roads, and for all I know the longer travel and loose fit you describe is great for that. I do have plenty of experience with the difference a well set up front end makes when riding close to the limit on pavement, particularly a bit bumpy pavement. I may not push it that hard any more, but I still like the idea that I've at least set the front end up to work as well as it can, given the small size of the stanchions compared to modern practice. If I really wanted to improve the handling as much as possible, I'd just fit a good set of modern forks, like comnoz and others have done. But for this bike, I'd rather see what I can do while still keeping the original appearance.

FWIW, Jim Schmidt was doing stuff like this back in the '80s. For the front end of his monoshock racer, he replaced the stanchions with slightly larger OD 4130 tubes, made his own fork yokes to fit, made his own cartridge dampers using rear shock internals (Fox, I think), along with slider extensions that screwed in the top. I think he made his own top bushings, but I no longer remember what material. He also did a conversion on the lower bushing to fit PTFE/bronze inserts that could be adjusted by adding shims behind them. The forks worked quite well, but I eventually replaced them with Forcelle Italia 40 mm forks, just to get the larger tube size, and wider spacing for the wheels and rotors I wanted to use.

Ken
 
Ok Bernard you are giving it some thought but would be tricky to fit in such thin materials and I don't see need of any more lubrication or much stabilization either so question the undersize concern though seeking perfection is reward in itself. I'm from the bakelite age so plastic is my slang for non metallic or non composite materials. Anywho alls I know is I no longer ride un-tammed Cdo nor over tiwitchy moderns to point of appreciating nil slack in fork bushes. Has anyone ever heard a report of road going fork issues traced to bush wear?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top