TE630 fork stroke only 240mm -9,45in-??

[motranqui]

Hi, mates.

After a jump I noticed that my front suspension doesn’t go further than 24cm -9,45in- (I have a flange in the suspension so I could measure it). Later at home I removed the spring and checked that fork stops at 24cm, as you can see in the pic. So I made bottoming at 240mm!!



I took the front suspension some months ago to a suspension mechanic (long story, you could watch it here: http://www.cafehusky.com/threads/te630-shock-absorber-inner-stroke.82600/ )

What do you think that the mechanic has made wrong? Unless Marzochi has sold to Husqvarna, forks with failures…


BTW the mechanist installed a compression adjustment in the fork (originally the bike only has rebound adjustment)

 

[motranqui]

I've got news

I think I’ve found out what’s going on. My mind is that the plug is not the one for TE630 but for SM630. Besides I think that the slider should be 1cm shorter so that the total stroke is 270mm.

This is the plug:


And this is the plug once I've cut it as much as I've could:


After I cut it my fork reaches 260mm:


And I show you the second reason why it can not get the whole stroke (270mm):


I think that, some way Marzochi has cheated to Husqvarna and cheated us. I’m claiming this because in the suspension garage we opened another TE630 Marzochi fork and had exactly the same problem… and the same long plug. So I'm not the only one...


You could take a look to it and check if you have the same issue. It's very easy: you only have to remove the spring and check (with the plug screwed in the fork) the stroke

 

[bushwa]

I must say I was questioning your logic, then I checked the parts fiche. There are indeed two different fork caps listed, one for the TE and one for the SM. The pictured (no way to know which it is) looks like your cut down version. You should also do some searching here. I recall reading another member has successfully modified or replaced an internal travel limiting spacer in the TE630 forks, to get the full 300mm. Some info in this thread, but not all the answers:
http://www.cafehusky.com/threads/te630-front-forks-modification-conversion.21899/
This "mod" allows the forks to extend out further, so overall ground clearance and front ride height is increased.

With what you've done, allowing more up travel, I'd install the forks on the bike, with no springs, and install the tire. Compress the forks fully to ensure the tire doesn't hit the fender. Possibly not an issue, but you've now moved the wheel 2cm closer and without knowing the original tire/fender gap, it might be worth a look. It would suck to bottom the front and have the wheel hit the fender. I had the front end of an RM250 lock up in some whoops once (some old wire/trail debris wound up in the front hub) and it threw me over the bars with the results being a broken collar bone.

 

[bushwa]

Here's another discussion on it.
http://www.cafehusky.com/threads/marzocchi-45mm-shiver-forks-discussion.42119/page-1
Since you have your forks off and partially apart, any chance you'd be willing to disassemble one of the damper assemblies and see if you can find the elusive 30mm spacer :-) ?
If all the speculation is right, and some have had it done, the you should find a part that's about 30mm in length, and NOT shown on the parts fiche.

 

[motranqui]

Thank you, Bushwa
What the suspension mecanist did was to get the full 300mm length by removing some washers (dons't ask where). Then the same mecanist made the work back (leave it to 270mm).
It's seems that the fork is ready to move from 270 to 300mm. What is not sure is the real stroke in compresion. As you can see, the pulg and the bars are so long that prevent for going futher than 240mm. At least in my bike and in another one.
Anyway I'm going to read all the threads that you suggest me

 

[R_Little]

The SM fork stroke is shorter (and much stiffer also).

I had mine lengthened (and softened) about 20mm. The mechanic said the damper rods were shorter on the SM.
He used TE damper rods.

My bike is a 06 SM610.

 

[motranqui]

Thank you, R-Little. It's true that there are different pieces for TE than for SM. Make sense. But my bike is TE and shoud have 270mm stroke, not 240mm... so something is wrong.

Today I’ve found out that the plug doesn't touches the bar… because it touches the “screwed piece” before (sorry, I don’t know its name in English... rod's edge??). So this piece is a bit longer than necesary and so, it’s really dangerous. I have to make more research… I don’t know whether I'll be able to fix it or not.


Nevertheless, if you feel curious about whether Husqvarna has cheated you like has cheated me, you can check it easily…

I'd appreciate to know if you all have the same issue...

 

[R_Little]

Are you saying the fork cap does not screw all the way on?

You would see that and it would leak oil past the seal.

I'm not convinced that all 45mm forks actually deliver the 270mm travel claimed in the manual.

 

[Spice Weasel]

Are you saying the fork cap does not screw all the way on?

You would see that and it would leak oil past the seal.

I'm not convinced that all 45mm forks actually deliver the 270mm travel claimed in the manual.

I think what motranqui is trying to explain is the damping rod (the part with "and also here") is bottoming out before the fork has reached the bottom of its travel, limiting the length the fork can compress.

My SM610 forks have short caps, like the one motranqui cut.

 

[motranqui]

I think what motranqui is trying to explain is the damping rod (the part with "and also here") is bottoming out before the fork has reached the bottom of its travel, limiting the length the fork can compress.

My SM610 forks have short caps, like the one motranqui cut.

Exactly. And that is dangerous.

Before I cut the cap, it limited the fork compression up to 240mm (as you can see in the first pic) because the Stanchion tube was bottoming with the cap when I compressed the fork totally (which is crazy and it was the reason why I heard a big “knock" when I jumped a rock.). When I cut it the way I show you (because I thought that all the problems had to do with an "incorrect" cap), then I got 20mm more travel but at this point the damping rod is what bottom first (what is even worst). So, my mind is, at least in my fork and in another one of a mate that has also a TE630, the stanchion tube, the damping rod and the cap are not the proper ones if we want the fork to have 270mm travel...
And that’s why I’m suspicious that there are more bikes with the same problem

Hope you understand what I’m trying to say. Sorry but my English is not the best in the world…

 

[motranqui]

I managed to take out the inner parts

This weekend I'll try to find out what's wrong

 

[bushwa]

Today I’ve found out that the plug doesn't touches the bar… because it touches the “screwed piece” before (sorry, I don’t know its name in English... rod's edge??). So this piece is a bit longer than necesary and so, it’s really dangerous. I have to make more research… I don’t know whether I'll be able to fix it or not.

View attachment 67891

I'm pretty sure the rod is supposed to thread into the cap. Find a manual for the forks, or watch some u-tube video, or bring your forks to a pro. I'm very familiar with regular right side up damper rod forks, not so much with these up side down units, but it would appear that you may be trying to fix something that's not broken and making things worse. But i'm not a suspension expert.

 

[motranqui]

I'm pretty sure the rod is supposed to thread into the cap. .

Yeah, that's for sure. The problem is that the damping rod never has to make a "bottoming role". If you bottoming the damping rod in a jump it will break. And that's why the OEM cap is big, to prevent that it happens. But if cap is OEM you only get 240mm travel...

 

[motranqui]

Hi

Too complicated for me to try to explain in English, sorry (if you want to read the full “report” you can do it here …but in Spanish

http://www.2y4t.com/foro/t/95919-¡horquilla-con-menos-recorrido-del-que-dice-el-fabricante/
Or here:
http://www.motostrail.com/vb2011/th...on-menos-recorrido-del-que-dice-el-fabricante! (although in this one I'm afraid that you need to be registered to wach the thread)



As a resume:
If you want to “upgrade” from 270mm long to 300mm you'll have to remove the spring “L” and make 3cm bigger the shell “F”
But if you also wants to have all the compression travel (270mm in TE630 or 300mm like in TE610) you also would have to make 15mm shorter the left part of “H” + to cut as I did the cap “D” +to change the spring "L" for one 15mm shorter+ to cut 8 mm the stanchion tube.


I’d appreciate your feedback or brainstorming

 

[motranqui]

 

[Spice Weasel]

Dont forget the rod that adjusts compression thats inside the damping rod, the adjustment screw in the cap labeled "D" acts upon.
Youre a smart guy, youre English is alright and the way you are working out the fork problems is very clever.

 

[motranqui]

Dont forget the rod that adjusts compression thats inside the damping rod, the adjustment screw in the cap labeled "D" acts upon.
Youre a smart guy, youre English is alright and the way you are working out the fork problems is very clever.

Thank you, Spice Weasel. Yes, You're right: I would also have to cut the rod as much as I would cut the "left part" of the damping rod (15mm). BTW, this rod adjusts the "rebound" not compresion. Compresion is in the "C" Valve (that is not incuded in the OEM fork; mine have compresion adjustment because is a special one valve)

 

[Spice Weasel]

Yep, i got a little mixed up
http://www.cafehusky.com/threads/sm610-fork-fix.78495/

 

[motranqui]

OK, I’ve got news

I was decided to go to a turner to ask him to make the next mods:

*to make 15mm shorter left part of “H” and also the rebound rod
*to extend the thread of the left part of “H” also 15mm (as I cut 15mm from the left part)
*to make 15mm shorter the “L” spring

This way I would get 262mm fork travel instead of 240mm. (22mm is quite a good amount )


But thanks to Bushwa advice, before to make all these things, I checked what he said:

With what you've done, allowing more up travel, I'd install the forks on the bike, with no springs, and install the tire. Compress the forks fully to ensure the tire doesn't hit the fender. Possibly not an issue, but you've now moved the wheel 2cm closer and without knowing the original tire/fender gap, it might be worth a look. It would suck to bottom the front and have the wheel hit the fender. I had the front end of an RM250 lock up in some whoops once (some old wire/trail debris wound up in the front hub) and it threw me over the bars with the results being a broken collar bone.

Bushwa, thanks to you, maybe I have avoided to have an accident. I'm forever in debt to you

Look:

Approximately 258mm travel and the wheel cannot go further






The wheel is touching the fender and even forcing it to rub / drag with the radiator


So my conclusion is that TE630’s fork has only 240mm compression travel because bike’s design doesn’t allow to go further (till 270mm). And so Marzocchi has make a “trick” in the fork under Husqvarna’s request. Theses Italians made some sort of fiddle / scam.

So, now I have to buy new caps (165 €) and forget about jumping with the bike… and resign to have only 240mm fork travel.

It is what it is…

 

[EricV]

Wow man. I've got to hand it to you - you really chased that rabbit down the rabbit hole thoroughly. Not wasted time- you guys went the extra mile to investigate it and think it through, with all of the best intentions.