Modify message

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 180 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 6 per post (6 remaining), maximum total size 64.00 MB, maximum individual size 29.30 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by drifter-paul
 - July 16, 2012, 03:39:57 AM

Thanks Troll, both forks are short by the same amount , more than a mm , less than 1.5.

The cone shaped covers(narrower at the top, than the bottom) between the upper and lower triple trees are secured by the black screws and tabs as you have mentioned.

However, I'm interested in the cylindrical ones under the lower triple tree  ?

Posted by Troll
 - July 15, 2012, 08:29:00 AM

There should be 2 black phillips screws one on each upper cover, that keeps them from turning. Look down at the bottom of the cover for a tab, and a hole that corresponds to it in the lower clamp cover...The fork tubes MUST be equal heights in the upper clamp.

Posted by drifter-paul
 - July 15, 2012, 05:41:44 AM

Have put the front forks back in the triple trees  as part of a major overhaul.

Do the soup can covers immediately under the lower triple tree normally rotate freely - part 44033-1241 ?

I pushed the forks up as hard as i could but could only get them 1 - 1.5mm from being level with the top triple tree, instead of 0 - .5mm as per manual.  How critical is it to have the fork ends level with the top ?

This could explain the looseness, but they resist being pushed further up. I did not notice during dis-assembly, if they had movement.

If the cans usually move, then I'll leave the forks as they are. If anyone can give their's a twist to confirm - I'd much appreciate it. Thanks

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk