G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Knowledge Vault (tech, parts, apparel, & accessories topics) » Chassis » Suspension - Forks, Isolators, Shocks, and Swingarm » Archive through October 31, 2009 » Another M2 /M2low quandry « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rotzaruck
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 03:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Trying to get my ol' Cyclone back together and either found a mystery or I'm just missing something. Most likely the latter.

Pulled my bowlegged fork tubes out and the new ones in. The manual said put the tubes flush with the top of the top clamp. Ok so far. THEN it went on to note that the minimum distance from the top of the lower clamp to the top of the tube was 8.13??? inches. Got that okay. It went on to say that for an M2low, the minimum distance is 4.something inches(don't have the book in front of me).
That makes no sense the way I'm reading it.
You would, of course have that 4" minimum, and 4"+ to spare, but wouldn't the standard and low have to be the same? The tube part of the frame that the clamps both butt up against is same length on both frames.
This is not an issue slowing down my project, I'm just curious.
Is it just my old brain at 2 o'clock in the morning?
What am I not understanding?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Buell_bert
Posted on Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 12:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

It says the same in my book also (2002 M2 M2L). 8.1218 for the M2 and 4.53 for the M2L. It even shows it in the picture. Since the triple trees are the same (next page, first sentence) for the M2 and M2L it seems impossible. My 2001 M2 is approx 8-1/8. At the present time I'm as confused as you. In the parts book it is the tubes and guts that are shorter.

(Message edited by Buell_Bert on March 08, 2009)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rotzaruck
Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 02:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Buell-b
Thanks, confusion is much better with company. I'm glad I wasn't just reading that crosseyed or something. I suppose it's just a foul up in the book.}
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Buell_bert
Posted on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 03:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Yea ROTZARUCK I think the measurement should be the same it is only the tubes and internals that would be shorter.
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and custodians may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration