DR650 - Front Fork Help Needed

[paulj]

I sent my 1997 DR650SE forks to the local Otago agent for refurbishing - seals, oil ... and asked that they be set to the lowered position when being reassembled. They had considerable difficulty in locating seals as the VIN/Part etc did not match the fork so someone has been here before.

On their return I now have several grinder marks on each fork barrel where some bozo rammed them into the other end of the doubled ended grinder (presumption) - so there is going to be a punch out over this.

However I am now not sure they are lowered as asked - is there a measurement I can take to clarify this? The forks are on the bike, but large chunks of the rest of the bike are disassembled meantime (not easy to ride!).

My assumption is that with the forks extended there will be a different length re stock setting? The workshop manual makes no mention of the length(s).

Thanks for any help or comment

Pics added as requested.

[Robert Taylor]

I sent my forks to the local Otago agent for refurbishing - seals, oil ... and asked that they be set to the lowered position when being reassembled.

On their return I now have several grinder marks on each fork barrel where some bozo rammed them into the other end of the doubled ended grinder (presumption) - so there is going to be a punch out over this.

However I am now not sure they are lowered as asked - is there a measurement I can take to clarify this? The forks are on the bike, but large chunks of the rest of the bike are disassembled meantime (not easy to ride!).

My assumption is that with the forks extended there will be a different length re stock setting? The workshop manual makes no mention of the length(s).

Thanks for any help or comment

Can you provide images?

[Robert Taylor]

I sent my 1997 DR650SE forks to the local Otago agent for refurbishing - seals, oil ... and asked that they be set to the lowered position when being reassembled. They had considerable difficulty in locating seals as the VIN/Part etc did not match the fork so someone has been here before.

On their return I now have several grinder marks on each fork barrel where some bozo rammed them into the other end of the doubled ended grinder (presumption) - so there is going to be a punch out over this.

However I am now not sure they are lowered as asked - is there a measurement I can take to clarify this? The forks are on the bike, but large chunks of the rest of the bike are disassembled meantime (not easy to ride!).

My assumption is that with the forks extended there will be a different length re stock setting? The workshop manual makes no mention of the length(s).

Thanks for any help or comment

Pics added as requested.

If as I assume you want the ride height lowered ( ??? ) it is really more about lowering the forks in the clamps. Any internal shortening of the forks themselves is quite detailed work and there is no Suzuki specification to do so. I cannot readily recall with your model, but if it is the same as the more recent DRZ250s the rear can be lowered if it has a second set of processed mounting holes in the lower shock end eye.

If indeed that is so then you also change the fork position in the clamps to keep it all in balance.

Someone more familiar with this model may be able to provide a better answer than my ramblings....

[paulj]

If as I assume you want the ride height lowered ( ??? ) it is really more about lowering the forks in the clamps. Any internal shortening of the forks themselves is quite detailed work and there is no Suzuki specification to do so. I cannot readily recall with your model, but if it is the same as the more recent DRZ250s the rear can be lowered if it has a second set of processed mounting holes in the lower shock end eye.

If indeed that is so then you also change the fork position in the clamps to keep it all in balance.

Someone more familiar with this model may be able to provide a better answer than my ramblings....

Thanks for replying Robert - the manual does make mention of adjusting both front and rear shocks/springs to drop the bike about 1.4" or so - I understand dropping it in the clamps results in the fork rake altering and the possibility of tank slapping etc - I guess I will just have to wait until it's all back together a go for a blast.

[merv]

Without looking for our lowering kit info I can't tell you exactly but the change to the DR fork internals required a spacer to be reversed inside the forks and the net result would be a shorter overall length.

To be honest with you when we lowered Mrs merv's I couldn't be buggered taking the forks off so did just lower them in the triple clamps instead. Don't believe anyone that tells you that alters the rake any differently than lowering it the other way because if the length is the same between triple clamp and axle then the basic geometry is exactly the same. We've had no hassles with it and it handles beautifully.

Likewise I was too lazy to reverse the spacer on the back shock too when we lowered it on the mounting bolt, but all that mod does is reposition the bump stop to prevent too much travel. Neither of us are as portly as Mr poos and even two up we've never had any bumps stop hassles because of not doing this.

So if you lower the back 40mm and slip the forks up in the triple clamps 40mm the rake of the forks will be exactly as you started with the whole bike sitting 40mm lower. Sweet as.

That's my 2c worth on DR650 suspension.

***** Update *****

OK I checked in the garage, couldn't find our lowering kit instructions, but I had a look in the workshop manual and they are in there section 5-47 Lowering the Seat Height. Pages 160 - 170 of the .pdf file. Go to this thread of Bartman10's http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=36786 right click and go save as on his link and you'll get the file - be warned it is about 80 megs if you want it.

[paulj]

Brilliant - thanks for your replies and advice - I am inclined to agree that for the style of riding (long distance road/gravel cruising) and my 'older' bones, it won't matter a dam about the rake angle - which as you rightly point out, corrects when the rear shock is lowered.

However I am still left with the question; having asked the agents to reset the spacers in the front forks to the lowered position - did they do this? I guess only a ride will tell me although I would have thought an overall measurement would give me some clue.

Cheers and thanks again.

[paturoa]

Can you post some photos of the grinder marks. I can't think why / what would need a grinder in the first place.

[laRIKin]

We mover the space as it shortens the travel and stop the fork gaiters getting squashed up to much, you have to shorten the side stand as well.

Here's some pic and info, if not for you for others to understand what is being talked about.

Pic 2 spacer part 5 is moved from the top to the bottom

Pic 3 bolt is moved from the bottom to the top hole and spring retainer is turned
around.

Pic 4 Close up of retainer

Pic 6 Spec's

[merv]

However I am still left with the question; having asked the agents to reset the spacers in the front forks to the lowered position - did they do this? I guess only a ride will tell me although I would have thought an overall measurement would give me some clue.


OK I've measured it for you. With our bike just sitting resting on its side stand the total length of the forks is about 960 mm from bottom of the bottom leg to top of the top fork tube. I haven't got a lot of room in my garage with so many toys in it and I didn't bother getting it out in our wet weather but if I rock the bike on its stand they probably extend another 10- 15mm. If your one under the same conditions measures way less than 960mm (like say 920 or 930mm), then the spacer has been repositioned and effectively that means the upper fork tubes have been repositioned lower inside the bottom fork legs.

Lemans mentions the fork gaiters; if its lowered they will be a bit more puckered than you remember them and sure if the spacer has been repositioned then it reduces the chance that if you bottom out the suspension you won't squash them good and proper. As we aren't portly as I said before we haven't worried about that and haven't had a problem. Looking at the photos you have posted your bike still looks to be at full extension i.e. not lowered so if they are post being in the shop I don't reckon they have done them right. Note also the top of the gaiters aren't postioned evenly - we have ours right up against the triple clamp.

Here's our bike in lowered condition http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=70037&d=1189223477 note the silver side stand and the diminished gap between front wheel and mudguard.

If you are only doing gravel and sealed roads and not hard out trail this shouldn't bother you either.

Also a shortened side stand is a must. Instead of butchering the original we got Jimmy WT when he was at WMCC to order us the official silver coloured low model. That's how you tell the difference, the black one is the standard length.

[Crisis management]

I had a quick look thru my manual and the only dimension given for the lowering of both the front forks and rear shock / spring assembly indicates that the seat should be 40mm lower. I assume from this that both front and rear suspension should end 40mm lower so the front forks must assemble 40mm shorter than when they started.....

Sounds like a crap job tho, it is only a disassemble and reassemble (in slightly different order), no grinding, cutting or modifying required!

[paulj]

Can you post some photos of the grinder marks. I can't think why / what would need a grinder in the first place.
These look suspiciously like a grinder wheel - my guess? Buffing off the dirt with a wire wheel'd double ended grinder - on the other end is the stone - hung over from the night before - the rest is obvious. I could've swallowed one 'accident' but not the four and on both forks.

Thanks for those measurements Merv - I'll be out in the shed tonight measuring up and yes I noted the gaiters being uneven - I had one off to see if the dust seals etc looked 'replaced'. It is on the final checklist for a fix-up.

However you might have noted the exhaust flange bolt in the bike pics!! I saw it hanging out like this yesterday - now I have bigger problems ... seized, and now sheared off - bugger.

[Robert Taylor]

These look suspiciously like a grinder wheel - my guess? Buffing off the dirt with a wire wheel'd double ended grinder - on the other end is the stone - hung over from the night before - the rest is obvious. I could've swallowed one 'accident' but not the four and on both forks.

Thanks for those measurements Merv - I'll be out in the shed tonight measuring up and yes I noted the gaiters being uneven - I had one off to see if the dust seals etc looked 'replaced'. It is on the final checklist for a fix-up.

However you might have noted the exhaust flange bolt in the bike pics!! I saw it hanging out like this yesterday - now I have bigger problems ... seized, and now sheared off - bugger.

There is at least one long term wear mark there from a speedo cable, nothing to do with the dealer.

[merv]

OK just read Roberts comment, do you really think the cable has done that and then would the other one be the brake hose? Seems a bit amazing if it was. You'd soon confirm because the cable and brake hose would fit right beside the marks when you put it all back together.

[Robert Taylor]

OK just read Roberts comment, do you really think the cable has done that and then would the other one be the brake hose? Seems a bit amazing if it was. You'd soon confirm because the cable and brake hose would fit right beside the marks when you put it all back together.

Long term yes it will do exactly that.

[NordieBoy]

These look suspiciously like a grinder wheel - my guess? Buffing off the dirt with a wire wheel'd double ended grinder - on the other end is the stone - hung over from the night before - the rest is obvious. I could've swallowed one 'accident' but not the four and on both forks.

The one on the brake side fork is from the brake line.
Mine has the same but not to that extent.

[ManDownUnder]

Re the wear done on hard objects (in this case a fork leg). Soft materials in constant rubbing contacts are well known to cause wear on even the hardest of material - it's a well known phenominon which I can attest to from my days as a fitter. You can't use teflon as a bush for a hardened steel sheft to revolve in for instance.

It will reliably wear the harder material away, often with surprisingly little wear on the softer one.

[Robert Taylor]

Re the wear done on hard objects (in this case a fork leg). Soft materials in constant rubbing contacts are well known to cause wear on even the hardest of material - it's a well known phenominon which I can attest to from my days as a fitter. You can't use teflon as a bush for a hardened steel sheft to revolve in for instance.

It will reliably wear the harder material away, often with surprisingly little wear on the softer one.

That is exactly right, another often seen example is the wear that occurs on the distance collar behind front sprockets, often assisted / accelerated by grit ingress. The seal lips of the counter sprocket seal will long term wear appreciable grooves in the hardened steel surface.

It is always easy to often think the worst of dealers, we are ordinary everyday human beings like everyone else!

[paulj]

Well I'd like to think that it was 'fair wear and tear' - but a) wasn't there when they were sent down, b) aluminum left wearing long term like that doesn't leave pristine clean metal, c) there are grind marks within the cut itself (see attachment) - I doubt that a rubber brake hose or plastic covered speedo cable could do that. Also there is still a ragged edge to the cut and bits of scarf left there. Surely a rub mark would be smoother and the metal contaminated to some extent by dirt/oil? If anyone can shoot a pic of their wear marks that may put paid to my whinging.

Furthermore if I had seen anything like this during my infrequent and rudimentary maintenance schedule (ahem) I would have sorted it or at best noted it when they were taken off.

I see what is being suggested - that the hose/cable rubs these into the metal - the brake cable is about right for position but the speedo cable is way lower and should not have left a single deep scour. There is not sign of rub or wear on the cable/hose (this could be possible from what you say).

Now - forks are 960mm unloaded - as best I could push the front up - top cap to bottom - but again, it probably won't be the repairer - I'll have explained it carefully in the wrong language or some such other.

[merv]

paulj you measured those forks yet? As I said earlier going by your pics I reckon they haven't been shortened.

As for the marks are they exactly where the cable and brake hose fit? That would tell the story.

[NordieBoy]

Mine was marked here by the brake line.
Before I changed to braided.

I don't like the grind marks in your 1st pic though :(

[merv]

OK so you've updated your post with the measurement and they are 960mm, that means they have not repositioned the spacers so if you paid for that sorry but you need to go have words with them.

Did you download the workshop manual?

[NordieBoy]

Just had a thought.
If the marks on the fork legs looked dodgy they may have cleaned them out with a rotary wire brush?
I know I did this on a set of KX125 forks.
Could explain how a mark like mine got to be a mark like yours.

But you would think they'd tell you this - and charge you.

[warewolf]

do you really think the cable has done that and then would the other one be the brake hose? Seems a bit amazing if it was. You'd soon confirm because the cable and brake hose would fit right beside the marks when you put it all back together.Those marks look exactly the same as the ones left in the similar-looking forks of my DR-Z250. Made by speedo cable etc. Due to rider sag, the cable may not sit where you observe it when the bike is unladen.


That is exactly right, another often seen example is the wear that occurs on the distance collar behind front sprockets, often assisted / accelerated by grit ingress. The seal lips of the counter sprocket seal will long term wear appreciable grooves in the hardened steel surface.Routinely seen in wheel spacers, grooved by the wheel bearing seals - something more people are likely to see than behind the front sprocket! That groove in the spacer where the seal lip sits? That's not there on a new spacer.


b) aluminum left wearing long term like that doesn't leave pristine clean metal, c) there are grind marks within the cut itself (see attachment) - I doubt that a rubber brake hose or plastic covered speedo cable could do that. Also there is still a ragged edge to the cut and bits of scarf left there. Surely a rub mark would be smoother and the metal contaminated to some extent by dirt/oil?
...
I see what is being suggested - that the hose/cable rubs these into the metal - the brake cable is about right for position but the speedo cable is way lower and should not have left a single deep scour. There is not sign of rub or wear on the cable/hose (this could be possible from what you say). Your stated b) is incorrect, it does look exactly like that in my experience. But I can't explain c) grind marks. If you clean them there is nary a mark on the plastic part, and no permanent detritus on the tidy groove in the forks.

Re: position, see my comment above about rider sag. Might be relevant, depending on attachment points, angle of attack, how the tube curves as the forks compress, etc.


As for the marks are they exactly where the cable and brake hose fit? That would tell the story.Indeed, put it all together and get back to us.

[warewolf]

Likewise I was too lazy to reverse the spacer on the back shock too when we lowered it on the mounting bolt, but all that mod does is reposition the bump stop to prevent too much travel.Possibly it also maintains the distance between the bottom anchor and the wider part of the base of the spring, to avoid it contacting parts of the linkage.

[NordieBoy]

Possibly it also maintains the distance between the bottom anchor and the wider part of the base of the spring, to avoid it contacting parts of the linkage.

Nah, just total travel.

[paulj]

Yeah - I think you're right guys ... and I apologise for the slanging off of the mechanic - the marks are too coincident with the position of the cables, although you might have noted, I routed the brake cable round the wrong side of the fork! LOL.

Must be age - I didn't note this when cleaning off the forks with soapy water - DUH! Perhaps they cleaned them in a proper bath which highlighted the marks?

I have been emailed the cost but they won't send the invoice until I've paid! Strange.

So thanks again - been a good experience and I'll drop the forks in the clamps meantime.

Back to sorting the broken stud and fitting the jet kit etc. (and spitting out crow feathers).

[merv]

However did they claim to have repositioned the fork spacers to do the lowering because that is the bit I'm saying looks like they never did?

[NordieBoy]

Looks like they may have cleaned up the marks with a dremel and wire brush.

Usually you pay on receipt of the invoice?