View Single Post
Old 01-17-2006, 04:45 AM   #15
sherpa OP
...Robert
 
sherpa's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Oddometer: 3,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by warewolf
G'day sherpa,

There is no free-play in the fork travel/clearance. My bike in its present form can and does bottom the front guard into the triple clamps. The mudguard has some big scratches and lots of paint flaked away from hitting the bolt heads under the triple clamp.

According to my measurements, in standard trim, there is something like 18mm more travel than clearance! I've exacerbated that issue by 25mm (pulled the forks through the clamps to balance the Emig lowering links in the rear)...so there is around 40-odd mm too little clearance!! I've also backed off the compression and rebound damping (all the way) in order to get some compliance from the front end. This will also let the fork travel further through its stroke and increase the tendancy to bottom out.

Remember this front end setup was not designed for the 640; it was ported from the 950. When brand new, I had the guard rubbing on the tyre, possibly because the wider 2.15" rim was fitted after the guard was designed (for a 1.60" or 1.85" rim).

The '05 640 Adventure has stronger fork springs than previous years.

btw a simple fork travel measuring device consists of a cable tie around the stanchion (like the o-ring but you can retrofit it).
Thanks for the confirmation on several bits of info. warewolf.......my low guard has been rubbing the front tire too...I'll be going to the high guard soon.
__________________
Trebor Home Inspections


05 640 Adventure
08 KTM 250 XCFW

I'd trade all my motorcycles for one Flying Dragon.
sherpa is offline   Reply With Quote