wfo9 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) I have a Sherco, I purchased it used, but the guy who had it before me put a fork on it from a Beta. I think it was from a 2012 EVO 80 Sr. He said it was a better fork than what was on it originally. It looks exactly like what is shown here http://www.paioli.com/paiolini/detail_en.php?id=36 It has adjustments for preload on the left and what I think is rebound on the right top caps. It works OK in general, but I noticed that the travel/stroke is only about 140mm and I seem to bottom it out easily when taking drops to flat. The link states it should have 170mm stroke. The stanchions are 38mm and the total length does seem to be close to what the link states at about ~760mm (not sure exactly where they measure that from though). The link also states Regulations: in compression, extension and spring pre-load. By extention, are they talking about rebound dampening or extension distance. Anyway, does anyone know anything about this fork and if there is a way to adjust the travel or stops internally that would be limiting the travel to 140mm. Thanks in advance for any insight, Edited June 13, 2014 by wfo9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cascao Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 Sherco comes with 38mm Paioli/Ceriani like your description... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfo9 Posted June 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 I talked to the guy I purchased the bike from and the fork is from a 2013 Beta EVO 80 sr. He said it is suppose to be ~170mm travel. I seem to be only getting 140ish out of it. I put a zip tie on there and bottom it out real hard while riding. Still only 140mm between zip tie and wiper seal. Maybe they just exaggerate the ratings on the travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lineaway Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 Chances are that being a kids bike the tubes and springs are shorter. What happened to the original forks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 If the forks are correct full sized units, one thing that you may look for is there being too much oil in the right damper leg. This commonly happens if the fluid is changed and the damper is not fully drained. There is a certain air space required in there. Full the front wheel, loosten the top cap and see if the fork will compress the rest of the way. Should go till just below the lower clamp. Left side has the spring, and oil as well, but less critical and airspace is set differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfo9 Posted June 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) He parted out the original fork on the bike to someone who crushed their lower tube on a rock. He felt he was upgrading this one with the beta fork as he had ridden it on his 80 and really liked it. Yes, he rides an 80 just to prove he can beat people with that tiny motor, but I think it is very tricked out with more power than stock Anyway, the guy is not stupid... He is a very skilled fabricator and does some amazing custom stuff and is also a skilled rider. The strange part is if you look at the manual for the 80 SR in 2013... it says it has 165mm travel for that year. I think he may have gotten that bike used, so someone could have modified it before him. . I'm pretty sure this is the same basic fork for all bikes, but that something is tweaked on it to act as a travel spacer on the spring side. I'm not that familiar with these forks, but I have seen this technique used on many mountian bikes forks. I took the wheel and fender off and the attached shows what happened. The right side extended out to allow about 190mm of potential stroke. The ones I have seen have a rod that bolts to the lowers from the bottom. The spring pushes the rod down from within a cartridge tube, but if you put a spacer into the bottom of the cartridge it will limit downstroke and therefore travel. I have no idea what the insides of this fork look like on the spring side. So, if someone has any links or diagrams please provide. I want to keep riding. so I'm not going to tear into without more knowledge. Edited June 14, 2014 by wfo9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted June 14, 2014 Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Urgh, yep, the left side is not fully extending. I figure they prolly did something to limit travel on the 80. There is nothing much in that leg, looks like a conventional fork with a spring and damper rod, although the damper holes are drilled large and effect sharp compression damping only. My guess, they either installed a spacer on top of damper rod, or shortened the rod, hopefully the first! May have a lighter spring as well? Soo, procedure would be remove cap and spring, tap up outer seal for access to seal retaining clip and remove clip. Remove bottom bolt center of lower slider and drain fork. Then slide hammer lower slider off top tube and seal. What you should have left is a top tube with a damper rod hanging out! Pull it out of the yoke and invert to drop the rod and top out spring. Look for a spacer! Sherco parts book from '07 - '10 show the Paioli diagram for that model as I recall. Edited June 14, 2014 by copemech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lineaway Posted June 14, 2014 Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 The left fork looks bent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfo9 Posted June 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 The left fork looks bent. That is just something with the image. shadows.... It is not bent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lineaway Posted June 15, 2014 Report Share Posted June 15, 2014 Well the part numbers all match. Take it apart and see what is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfo9 Posted June 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 I took the fork apart tonight. The stanchion is plenty long enough to support the travel... but something is limiting the extension. My guess it is the the spring shown in http://www.shercousa.com/pdfs/2009sparebook_trial-2T.pdf On diagram 2 labeled #34. Here is a picture of the parts from my fork. https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share?s=cllN1XEOR7QtCGt-e1mLLM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfo9 Posted June 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 If anyone has any idea of what is non standard in the picture above that would be limiting travel please let me know. I think I know someone who has the full travel version of the fork and I'm hoping he will let me borrow it for a day to compare parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony27 Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Couple of questions come up from the photo. Where did the spacer sitting between the damper rod & bottoming cone come from, if it was from under the bottoming cone then that would restrict travel I'm not sure if the damper rod is the normal length, the parts book appears to show the machined step in the bottom section just below holes. First thought was that the damper rod may have been shortened but I'm not so sure If you are able to borrow another fork for parts comparison then measuring the damper rod length may give you an answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lineaway Posted June 22, 2014 Report Share Posted June 22, 2014 You cannot compare the Sherco parts book to the beta 80. The forks may look similar, but they are not. Never buy a bike from a crazy person. I would say look into the Beta parts, but they were never accurate on what was in the youth bikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfo9 Posted June 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think I found the issue. I think it is/was a combination of the spacer that sat below the bottoming cone and a shorter than normal main spring. I have not removed the spacer below the cone yet, but putting in the longer main spring that a friend had gave it another 10mm of extension.. I think it will yield about 165mm of travel once I drain the oil and remove the spacer below the cone. I initially wanted to keep the spacer below the code because I felt it was allowing more overall extension, but I now think it is also limiting about 10mm of down travel (that I have room for up at the cowrn) that would be very progressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.