| Author | Message | ||
     Rsm688 |
Well I am in the process of a full build on my M2, anyways I was planning on swapping the front forks, but I read on another forum that the factory M2 forks (not inverted) can be tuned to perform better than the inverted X1/S3 forks. Before I swap mine, for you guys who have dealt with both, is there any truth to this? What kinda difference does the inverted forks have over the standard ones? Thanks, Spencer | ||
| Cyclonecharlie |
The difference would be sprung and unsprung weight.The tuning should be the same. Maintenance should be easier on the standard forks. | ||
| Foximus |
inverted forks are much stiffer and usually just overall perform better. | ||
| Davegess |
they often are made from better quality components and are more tunable because they are considered high performance items | ||
| Buellistic |
Ever think about a METRIC FRONT END with DUAl ROTORS ??? | ||
| Lakes |
I was once shown how, M2 forks did not walk, we're as X1 f irks that we're inverted could be force to walk. What you do to test is, turn the front wheel to full lock. Grip the front wheel at front & rear then push on the front side of the wheel, pull on the rear side of wheel. & watch the fork legs walk. The M2 has a fork brace that the mudguard mounts too.. But I still like invited for the fact the lighter side is at the top the heavy side is at the bottom. But I would not go to trouble of changing over. | ||
| Alfau |
I might teach my X1 to walk up to the pub and grab a slab. | ||
| Serialk |
Walk? do you mean flex? | ||
| Onespeedpaul |
Any reputable race suspension shop can make the 'traditional' M2 forks perform equally as good as they can be able to make the 'inverted' X1/S3/S1 forks perform. as far as real world differences, there is alot of myth and hyperbole being stated here and on the whole. it's true 30 years ago when inverted forks started popping up on OE MX bikes and later street bikes, they were stiffer back then because they used a larger diameter stanchion tube and larger axles than any previous effort, which of course is going to make them well, stiffer. **BUT** in the case of all the forks supplied as OE on tube framed buells ,they share the same (small by any modern comparison) axle size (17mm) BUT different sized stanchions, with the inverted (X1/S1/S3) having smaller 41mm stanchions vs the 'traditional having larger (43mm) diameter. so, the fact of the traditional forks having BOTH larger stanchions and the capability of the fork brace means they (M2) are going to be slightly stiffer both torsionally and laterally. real world, will you notice? probably not, except when you look at them. if you just want the look, swap them, if you want the best performance send the ones you have to racetech or similar and have them resprung and revalved to your weight and riding style (do this for your shock too) | ||
| Dannybuell |
^^Onespeedpaul Yup^^ | ||
| Rick_a |
The strength comes in for the inverted forks with the large stanchions providing support for those tubes. Thats 54mm of support vs 43mm. There's also less friction due to how loads bear on the bushings. It's been fairly well proven that the M2 forks with their brace have more torsional rigidity, but they loose out everywhere else. I would imagine there's a reason why mostly only vintage bikes and dirt trackers are still using conventional forks in race applications. I don't think one is easier to service than the other. | ||
| Onespeedpaul |
hate to bust your balls Rick_a, but a stanchion is the part of the fork that slides in and out of the bushing inside the fork body, and by that measure the inverted forks used on tube frame buells have smaller diameter stanchions than the traditional counterparts found on M2 models. now it's true there is a bigger clamping area at the triple clamps provided by clamping the body (inverted) vs. the actual stanchion(trad.), but where the fork slides in and out of the body is where the bigger diameter counts the most and i'll take the bigger diameter there in a pure performance machine regardless whether the fork looks traditional or inverted. i'll say again, the decision to use a puny 17mm solid axle is a more substantial reason why any of the tube frame forks could be perceived as flimsy. the banke 20mm hollow axle seems like a very good bang for the buck in that dept no matter which fork you're using. finally my **suspicion** on the reason you don't see 'traditional' forks on so-called "sportbikes" anymore is purely perception of the end user and what the market will bear, i base this reasoning on the fact that suzuki developed a 'traditional' fork in the early 00's that was stiffer and lighter and better damping on its RM250 MX bike that was unfortunately dropped a few years later because everybody and their brother (myself included at the time, as well as all the big time MX magazines) thought it didn't look right and was therefore inferior, which was the exact opposite of the truth. | ||
| Rick_a |
So it's a looks thing, huh? Somehow I have a hard time accepting that as fact. It is a fact that, despite my incorrect terminology, inverted forks have more strength where the bending loads are greatest. Make of that what you will. (Message edited by Rick_A on November 20, 2012) | ||
| Onespeedpaul |
There is bending load at various points all over the fork and in different planes. example: where the steer stem interfaces with the frame and triple clamps, where the the clamps clamp the fork body or stanchions (41 vs 43 with the largergoing to the "traditional ones") the point where the stanchion slides in and out of the body, and finally where the axle is clamped (as well as what size axle and type). also, I never said the looks thing was fact, but the bit about the suzuki was/is true **at the time**. Again rick_a, i resect your opinion and think you have one really great setup old buell. |
