Results 1 to 45 of 45
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    I spoke to soon.... the creak is back.

    So, I was having problems w/ my horst-link pivots creaking. I pulled them apart, regreased, and snugged them down and this seemed to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the noise started coming back after 50 or so miles. I completely pulled apart the suspension to regrease everything on the off chance it was some other pivot, but after reassembling and riding the creaking was still there. Sigh.....

    I spoke to folks at Turner and they're sending me new horst-link pivots and bushings which should hopefully clear up the problem.

    As an aside, when I pulled the suspension apart, the rocker arm pivots looked absolutely brand new. Not a BIT of discoloration or wear. The main pivot behind the BB didn't fare nearly as well. Visible wear on the shaft and it was pretty nasty down there. I rotated one of the pristine shafts down to the BB; hopefully this will allow me to get a bit more use out of them.

    Dave

  2. #2
    .
    Reputation: frank n. beans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    So, I was having problems w/ my horst-link pivots creaking. I pulled them apart, regreased, and snugged them down and this seemed to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the noise started coming back after 50 or so miles. I completely pulled apart the suspension to regrease everything on the off chance it was some other pivot, but after reassembling and riding the creaking was still there. Sigh.....

    I spoke to folks at Turner and they're sending me new horst-link pivots and bushings which should hopefully clear up the problem.

    As an aside, when I pulled the suspension apart, the rocker arm pivots looked absolutely brand new. Not a BIT of discoloration or wear. The main pivot behind the BB didn't fare nearly as well. Visible wear on the shaft and it was pretty nasty down there. I rotated one of the pristine shafts down to the BB; hopefully this will allow me to get a bit more use out of them.

    Dave
    Nothing worse than a mystery creak.

    Shot in the dark here - did you try removing, cleaning, put a little grease on it and reattaching the rear derailleur hanger? I spend a good part of my saturday chasing down a creak on my Titus before I figured out that it wasn't actually the pivots, but the removable derailleur hanger. Anyways just thought I'd mention that - I had completely overlooked the hanger (while doing a time consuming teardown-clean-reassemble-testride on each of the pivots). Apparently the interface between the hanger and the frame was dry and gritty enough (2+ years w/o being removed) that it would creak on hard climbs.

    Initially, I was quite confident that it was my horst link pivots making the noise - different bike, but you get the idea. Good luck.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    Thanks for the advice... I'll try anything!

    Nope, didn't try that, but I will now!

    Thanks,
    Dave

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,443
    If there's one disadvantage to full suspension it's all the moving parts and the additional maintenance associated with it, and nothing drives me battier than an unidentified sound. I've had to eliminate sounds emanating from the following parts on my Spot: (1) between the housing ferrules (sp?) and the cable guides on the frame, particularly when I ran metal ferrules, (2) between the spring and collar at the Romic, (3) out of the Romic itself, (4) the bottom bracket, (5) the seat post, both at the frame and the saddle (6) rotor rub & squeals. Granted some of these aren't full suspension related, but still.... Good luck and let us know what you eventually find.

  5. #5
    Start slow and taper off
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    790

    as stupid as it sounds

    I know cable ferrules were mentioned, but also try the actual housing for creeks.
    It took me a couple of weeks to diagnose a creak on my frame, and finally discovered it was the actual HOUSING creaking as the suspension moved! What took so long was as the housing shifted slightly, it wouldn't always creak. Once I replaced the housing no more creaks.

    Good luck.

  6. #6
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by neveride
    I know cable ferrules were mentioned, but also try the actual housing for creeks.
    It took me a couple of weeks to diagnose a creak on my frame, and finally discovered it was the actual HOUSING creaking as the suspension moved! What took so long was as the housing shifted slightly, it wouldn't always creak. Once I replaced the housing no more creaks.
    .
    Good tip.

    I've even had housings rub against each other cause creak-like sound. I spotted them moving at the precise moment of the noise. This may not apply to MSC's problem but it's a good thing to keep in the mental toolbox.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    159

    My Burner was creaking before I did my first trail ride...

    I isolated the noise to the top shock bolt. It looks like the shock was bolted to the rockers while the paint was still slightly tacky, as some of the paint is stuck to the chrome spacers on the shock. I lightly sanded both the spacers and the corresponding area on the rockers, lightly greased and reassembled and no more creak.FWIW

  8. #8
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by mtber36
    ...It looks like the shock was bolted to the rockers while the paint was still slightly tacky, as some of the paint is stuck to the chrome spacers on the shock. ...
    I think all the rockers are anodised. That may be where the creak came from, and there may have been something on the alu eyelet reducers, but it seems unlikely it was paint from the rockers.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    159

    Thanks for the clarification

    Regardless, the interface between the rockers and eyelets was dry as a bone out of the box. Could it be that whatever grease they use dried up? Hmmmm

  10. #10
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by mtber36
    Regardless, the interface between the rockers and eyelets was dry as a bone out of the box. Could it be that whatever grease they use dried up? Hmmmm
    I'm just thinking out loud. I don't wish to appear to be argumentative.

    I'm not entirely sure there was grease on that interface on my bike either. I was under the impression that particular part did not require it. That is because the Romic manual says "Note: Never apply grease to Reducer or Eye Bearing." Perhaps the reducer wear is it's own lubrication?

    That said I have put a thin coat on the face of the reducer in the past, but last time I had them out I put them back in dry. My guess is it's more critical the inner eye/reducer interface is dry to keep it from rotating and creating wear on the inner eye bearing surfaces...but I really don't have the slightest idea.

    In any event you found the creak an eliminated it so you must have done the right thing...right?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  11. #11
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132

    We the people ...

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    I don't think he's referring to that. I think the lateral faces of the rockers and the reducers was what he was talking about, if I'm not mistaken.
    So was I.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    But I think it wouldn't be to anyone's advantage for it to be greased because you want those surfaces to move together, not slide against one another.

    I'm a little confused about this bit. The inside vertical face of the rocker should slide over the outside vertical face of the recucer eyelet. It would be a bad thing for the reducer eyelet to rotate within the shock eye because the inner shock eye bearing would wear and it is not easily replaced. Plus if either the inner eye bearing or inner reducer shaft wore, that would introduce play and allow the shock/rocker to click slightly when cycling. It would only get worse over time, as more movement would create more wear.

    So in short, you want the rocker to move (rotate) over the face of the reducer b/c you can replace those quite easily and can eliminate any lateral play by keeping the bolts tight. The reducers shouldn't move once pressed into the shock eyelet b/c any movement will create destructive wear, vertical play, and noise. None of which can be controlled by bolt torque.

    Well that's how I see it anyway, I could be wrong.
    You may want to download the Romic PDF if I wasn't too clear: http://www.romicmfg.com/iexplore/index.php[/color]]Romic Manual
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    159

    No worries, you were not argumentative

    You did give me clarification. I did not realize the rockers were anodized!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    159

    I think we are all on the same page

    Steve3 is correct. I lubricated the outer surfaces of the eyelet reducer. The inner surface of the rockers where they contact the eyelets have a good amount of wear considering that the bike has less than 50 miles on it. Not serious, just cosmetic marks from where the reducers have been rubbing on them. The reducers themselves have a black crust on the outside, probably the worn off coating from the rockers, which I first thought might be paint. In any case, I would think that interface would need some lube, which it did not have. Thanks for the feedback. I'm new with full suspension and didn't even know what the eyelet reducers were called Please let me know if you all see anything wrong with what I have done!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    161

    Trouble ahead...

    I really think you guys are headed for trouble by setting up your shock mounting pivots this way. If you think about it, what are the parts in this system that are designed to take the wear? If the reducers are fixed in the shock eye, then the interface of the reducers and the rockers/frame flanges is the spot that will wear out. If you put grease on that interface, you are hastening the wear by attracting dirt. Eventually, that interface starts to wallow out, so you tighten it down more, leading to distortion of the frame flanges and rockers. It's only a matter of time/miles at that point.

    Rather, the cheap and easily replaced parts in this linkage are the reducers and the DU insert in the shock eye. Why else would there be a replaceable bushing coated with an self-lubricating anti-friction material in the shock eye? When setup properly, the reducers, frame flanges (or rockers) and the fixing bolt are the fixed axle about which the shock rotates on the DU bushing. Compare this to the other pivots in the suspension linkage; all have a replaceable axle and bushings, the frame is never in contact with the moving parts.

    I have seen a couple of frames that were setup the way you are describing; the result was wallowed out holes in a swing link where the reducers had been rotating against it. Replacement costs for a set of reducers and a eyelet bushing is what, $8. Replacement costs of wallowed out rockers and/or frame flanges; the sky's the limit.

    steve3 has it right. I would be curious to hear what Turner has to say about it.

  15. #15
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    Wow, I was trying to understand, but this is getting complicated. i think we're talking about the same thing, Bikezilla.

    I'm under the assumption that the surfaces he lubricated are the inner face of the rocker to outer face of the shock reducer. At I understand it, you want as much friction as possible between the rocker and the reducer because the reducer is supposed to move within the bushing in the shock eyelet, not at the rocker. If it moved at the rocker, that would cause wear on both mating faces, while not allowing the reducer to rotate within the bushing. In effect, the bushing to reducer surfaces are supposed to be the thrust surfaces, not the rocker to reducer faces.

    Meanwhile, we're probably talking about the same thing
    Yes, It sounds like he lubricated the inner vertical face of the rocker and outer vertical face of the reducer...that's okay from my perspective...

    But as for what you're saying (if I understand it correctly) I think we are talking 180 degrees out of phase... This is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

    The reducer and should NOT rotate or move in any way within the eyelet. This is because:
    a) the inner eyelet surface would wear and it is difficult to replace.
    b) the wear will create room for play which will create vertical movement as the shock moves. This will also accelerate the wear and create creaking and clicking.

    What I'm trying to say is we WANT the rocker to rotate over the face of the reducer. The reducer should remain motionless, fixed, static, welded with static friction, fitted tightly within the eyelet of the shock. The only thing that should be rotating is the rocker.

    Unless I'm totally wrong here.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    Hmmm... I think you're wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    What I'm trying to say is we WANT the rocker to rotate over the face of the reducer. The reducer should remain motionless, fixed, static, welded with static friction, fitted tightly within the eyelet of the shock. The only thing that should be rotating is the rocker.

    Unless I'm totally wrong here.
    The shock reducers fit into a replacable sleeve which is pressed into the shock both of which are replaced on a regular basis. I think that this is designed to rotate slightly in the reducer, wear out and be replaced every once in a while.

    I also think I might have fixed my creak. I think it was:

    1) The horst links were too tight.
    2) The main pivot needed to be cleaned and regreased (first time I've pulled my pivots apart in over a year, so I guess that's OK )
    3) My crank was making noise. I swapped the crank from my spare bike onto it and it seems to be quiet. I've been totally hit-and-miss w/ Shimano cranks. Some make noise, some don't.

    I haven't had a chance to ride on the trail yet, but riding it up and down the street and honking on the pedals does not generate any creaking. I hope this has fixed the problem!

    I told the guy @ Turner that I thought my HL pivots were roached and he sent me a new set gratis 3 day mail. I feel a little bit guilty since it might not be the HL pivots afterall. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't feel too bad since I've bought two frames from them in the last year and a half.

    Take it easy.

    Dave

  17. #17
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132

    Woahboy now this gets tricky...

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    ...If you think about it, what are the parts in this system that are designed to take the wear? If the reducers are fixed in the shock eye, then the interface of the reducers and the rockers/frame flanges is the spot that will wear out. If you put grease on that interface, you are hastening the wear by attracting dirt. Eventually, that interface starts to wallow out, so you tighten it down more, leading to distortion of the frame flanges and rockers. It's only a matter of time/miles at that point.
    I understand the point about grease attracting dirt. I agree and think that is part of why Romic recommends against greasing it.

    But I see the reducers as the expendable and softer material here, I would think the hardened and hard anodised rockers would have no problem with wear against the face of the very soft recucers. Mine don't show any real wear. OTOH the recucers and eyelet bushings would wear each other out quickly and any wear would immediately create vertical movement that could not be compensated for and accelerate the wearing as well as create micro-shock impacts on the eyelet surfaces as it slammed up and down in the gap created by the wear.

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    Rather, the cheap and easily replaced parts in this linkage are the reducers and the DU insert in the shock eye. Why else would there be a replaceable bushing coated with an self-lubricating anti-friction material in the shock eye? When setup properly, the reducers, frame flanges (or rockers) and the fixing bolt are the fixed axle about which the shock rotates on the DU bushing. Compare this to the other pivots in the suspension linkage; all have a replaceable axle and bushings, the frame is never in contact with the moving parts.
    I understand your point, but I would figure if they wanted to discourage the rocker from rotating on the outer face of the reducer they would have somehow keyed or scored the interface. I recall when I took my shock off to send in for servicing, the reducers felt like they were pressed in...darned tight. If they were designed to rotate I would think they'd be looser.

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    I have seen a couple of frames that were setup the way you are describing; the result was wallowed out holes in a swing link where the reducers had been rotating against it.
    Scary thought...but consider that the lower shock mount moves very little throughout the whole stroke, and that some pivoting probably takes place on the bolt shaft, and that hardened 6061-T6 can kick the tar out of whatever scrap metal they use for the reducers.

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    Replacement costs for a set of reducers and a eyelet bushing is what, $8. Replacement costs of wallowed out rockers and/or frame flanges; the sky's the limit.
    $8 I wish. My shock came back with some loose fitting old reducers (not the sparkly tight fitted ones I sent them in with.) I requested and received some new ones and then promptly lost them before installing them. I owned up to my blunder and ordered some new ones today. Brian at Romic quoted me $15 bucks. Seems kinda steep but then a new set of C-bros cleats is $19 at Nashbar and they only last a season, so I guess It's all relative.

    Now what do they charge for the eyelet bushing inserts? and are they easily replaceable like the reducers are?

    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    steve3 has it right. I would be curious to hear what Turner has to say about it.
    Yeah one call should settle this. Romic would be the better source but they can be difficult to get on the phone at times, and I'd rather they spend their time gettign people's shocks back to them.

    Boy this started out so simple too.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  18. #18
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    "I think you're wrong..." The shock reducers fit into a replacable sleeve which is pressed into the shock both of which are replaced on a regular basis. I think that this is designed to rotate slightly in the reducer, wear out and be replaced every once in a while.
    I might be. You Alibi and Steve3 make some valid points. I'll have to pull it apart again and look at the wear patterns on all the bits. And maybe call Turner and/or Romic.


    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    I also think I might have fixed my creak. I think it was:
    Cool! chasing creaks sucks! they hide in the most unusual places and sometimes seems unrelated to where they sound like they are coming from. But thanks to this discussionI bought a torque wrench that cost 2X more than the pair of Diadoras I just got.

    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    I haven't had a chance to ride on the trail yet, but riding it up and down the street and honking on the pedals does not generate any creaking.
    Don't forget the midnight basement test...there, I can hear which knobs on my tires are worn . Creaks drive me crazy!

    Meanwhile I'll be sprinkling some salt on my new shoes...just in case I have to put one of them in my mouth.

    Cheers gears and beers!
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jennasdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502

    Another voice in the wilderness

    Let's see if this adds to the confusion. BETD sells a really nice shock bushing. It has a solid shaft, or pivot, for the shock to rotate on. You slip a small collar on the one end to complete the assembly. The shaft has a shoulder on it that the small collar will rest against. The distance "A" is where the shaft will ride in the bushing of the shock. This distance is a hair wider than the bushing that is in the shock eye, so, when you slip on the collar, no matter how hard you squeeze the two ends of the shaft assembly together, the shock still pivots smoothly on the shaft. (I have my two stock shock inserts and a shock eye bushing. The inserts actually bottom against each other before hitting the ends of the bushing. Like the BETD, I can squeeze the two inserts together as tight as possible and the bushing stills spins freely on the inserts. The bushing is afterall a bearing.) This is not unlike the Turner pivots where, when you torque the bolts, say on the swingarm/bb, the pivot/swingarm become one assembly that pivots in the frame bushing. Likewise, when you tighten the shock mounting bolts the pivot arms and shock inserts (or pivot shaft in the BETD case) become one unit and pivot on the shock bushing. So, it would seem you do not want the rockers pivoting on the shock inserts but rather the rockers/shock inserts become a unit that pivots on the shock bushing, just like the Turner pivots. My $.02.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  20. #20
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    I'm seeing the point here.

    What y'all are telling me is that like the bushing pivots elsewhere on the frame, the eyelet reducers act as a axel shaft turned by the rocker arm and rotate within the shock eyelet. The bolt torque buts the two reducers against each other and the rocker faces and they act as a single part.

    I understand it. The warning against grease is imaterial in determining what the intent is as the Turner instructions recommend greasing the pivot shaft face as well as the bushing outer vertical face, even though the pivot shaft should be locked against whatever is turning it. We'll have to get Tscheezy's perspective on why the instructions say grease the shaft face...probably to control creaking.

    Still, I think it would be easier to control play and slop by allowing the rocker to rotate on the reducer face rather than let the reducer core and inner eyelet bushing dry-wear each other out. In any event I'll follow the instructions and leave it all dry.

    Tnx!
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    161

    more fuel....

    Here's a post from a few days ago, in which the poster states that someone at Fox told him that the reducers are supposed to be fixed in the eyelet:

    which pivots DU or bolt?

    I don't buy it.

    And, Bikezilla, FYI; replacement of the DU bushings in a shock eyelet is a 2 minute job with the correct tool, 5 minutes with a homemade setup.

    Please let us know what conclusions you come to; I know from your posting history that you will get to the bottom of this.

  22. #22
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    ...Bikezilla, ...Please let us know what conclusions you come to; I know from your posting history that you will get to the bottom of this.
    Well the good news is I have to call Romic anyway...

    The bad news is it's because I found my long-lost new reducers... just a few hours after I placed the order for replacements. Isn't that always the way? It's not like I wasn't turning the place upside down for the last week.

    The arguement you all present gets more convincing as I reread the discussion. But I'll let you know what I find out, and what I see when I replace my current reducers.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  23. #23
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132

    Idea! And the answer is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Well the good news is I have to call Romic anyway...
    Y'all owe me a beer!

    I just spoke with Brian at Romic, he was quite specific, and certain that the intent is as I described: The recucer is not designed to rotate within the shock eyelet. While the eyelet does have a bushing insert, and it does create a powdery coating, the shock assembly is to remained fixed. He further confirmed that the rocker is intended to rotate on the face of the reducer.

    He mentioned that if the reducer rotated it would wear out the internal assembly, and if they wanted rotational movement they would have used bearings. He said it is similar to the arrangement in a car shock in that the bushing is not intended to rotate there either.

    The arguement to the contrary is nevertheless convincing, and I don't find it hard to believe either side, so I do not regard any of you who may remain unpersuaded as stubborn. In fact, I encourage you to get evidence to the contrary.

    But for the moment, I'll be taking my betting tips from Mr. Ed.

    And of course, my spare order shipped already, so to cut my losses...I'll be expecting a six of Stout from y'all

    Cheers Gears and Beers!
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452

    Spare Order?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Y'all owe me a beer!

    I just spoke with Brian at Romic, he was quite specific, and certain that the intent is as I described: The recucer is not designed to rotate within the shock eyelet. While the eyelet does have a bushing insert, and it does create a powdery coating, the shock assembly is to remained fixed. He further confirmed that the rocker is intended to rotate on the face of the reducer.

    He mentioned that if the reducer rotated it would wear out the internal assembly, and if they wanted rotational movement they would have used bearings. He said it is similar to the arrangement in a car shock in that the bushing is not intended to rotate there either.

    The arguement to the contrary is nevertheless convincing, and I don't find it hard to believe either side, so I do not regard any of you who may remain unpersuaded as stubborn. In fact, I encourage you to get evidence to the contrary.

    But for the moment, I'll be taking my betting tips from Mr. Ed.

    And of course, my spare order shipped already, so to cut my losses...I'll be expecting a six of Stout from y'all

    Cheers Gears and Beers!
    Did you order a second Romic as a spare?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jennasdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502

    ... and if we just ... My head hurts

    Well this discussion certainly deserves a few beers! So, should the shock mounting bolt just be snugged up to allow the rockers to rotate against the surface of the inserts rather than really tighened up? (I'll need a couple of beers to believe that one!). And, if you had found your bushings before ordering them do you think you would have gotten the same answer from Romic? One of Murphy's Laws should be: The quickest way to find a part you've misplaced is to order a new one.

  26. #26
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by jennasdad
    Well this discussion certainly deserves a few beers! So, should the shock mounting bolt just be snugged up to allow the rockers to rotate against the surface of the inserts rather than really tighened up? (I'll need a couple of beers to believe that one!). And, if you had found your bushings before ordering them do you think you would have gotten the same answer from Romic? One of Murphy's Laws should be: The quickest way to find a part you've misplaced is to order a new one.
    $*&#$^%#&!!!!

    I don't think a $15 set of reducers would have any influence on the answer. Afterall wear is wear, weather it's on the face or the inner shaft. He did say it's probably a good thing to have spares. I figured that out all by myself though.

    As far as bolt torque, Actually I would think a well torqued bolt would help bind the reducers against the edge of the shock eyelet, if they reach so far in that they touch each other.(I don't think they do) When I replace them, I'll look at how it all goes together. Maybe if I have the time to d&ck around, I'll even take the spring off, reinstall the shock only, and see what the reducers do through the stroke, That'll be a good time to try to measure the travel.

    Warrguru:
    No I did not order a second Romic...although history suggests that's not a bad idea. Long boring story short, I sent the shock in for repair/maintenence, it went to them with shiny snug fitting reducers. It came back fixed tweaked and fresh, with marked-up loose fitting reducers. I was concerned their loosness could create play in the eyelet and cause the bushing sleeve to wear and create a problem. I requested they send me replacements, which they did at no cost. The cost was included in the servicing anyway which was also under warranty. I promptly put them away so carefully that I couldn't find them. So I ordered a new set and paid for them since it was my mistake. Right after I ordered them...I found the ones I lost. (Sorry you asked?)
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jennasdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502
    Hey Bikezilla: I should have had a smiley face after my comment about buying the reducers influencing Romics answer! Be interested to see what you find when you put stuff back together. Thanks for your research into this.

  28. #28
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    No sweat...I was swearing at Murphy...he better stay the hell outta my house! But for a minute that reply sounded like the start of an Ellsworth thread. ;^)
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    161

    Wow...

    That is surprising! That makes two for two among the Big Gun shock makers recommending that setup. I remain unpersuaded.

    His mention of using bearings has me a little confused too. The logical option there would be a cartridge needle bearing, a type that is not applicable to impact loading such as would be seen at that pivot. And for what it's worth, many manfacturers of that sleeve type bushing refer to it as a bearing.

    His car shock analogy is a little weak as well. Every car shock I've replaced has a rubber "bushing" fixed in the mounting eye, and easily rotates about the mounting bolt that is fixed to the vehicle. That seems to support the opposite of what he is saying.

    Oh well...good discussion guys. Food for thought indeed.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    As far as bolt torque, Actually I would think a well torqued bolt would help bind the reducers against the edge of the shock eyelet, if they reach so far in that they touch each other.(I don't think they do)
    .....................when I received mine a couple months ago (reducers) the were actually both a little too long, so that they actually DID touch each other before seating against the shock/ DU area. I had to file them just slightly to allow them to fully press in & allow for a snug system. Come to think og it, that may be why the first set seemed loose to begin with.............hmmmmmmmm. C'mon Fox DHX!

  31. #31
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by alibi
    ...

    His mention of using bearings has me a little confused too. The logical option there would be a cartridge needle bearing, a type that is not applicable to impact loading such as would be seen at that pivot. And for what it's worth, many manfacturers of that sleeve type bushing refer to it as a bearing.

    His car shock analogy is a little weak as well. Every car shock I've replaced has a rubber "bushing" fixed in the mounting eye, and easily rotates about the mounting bolt that is fixed to the vehicle. That seems to support the opposite of what he is saying.
    I concur, bushings are a type of bearing...just look at the rest of the bike.
    Thinking about the powdery substance I saw on the surface of the DU bushing,(eyelet liner) It seemed to me a self lubricant created by wear...this is why I started swinging towards your side of the arguement.

    The car shock analogy well I don't fully see that either. BUT he sure seemed rather certain the reducers shouldn't move.

    Aaaah WHATEVER!!! It can't be worth all this analysis...I'll be looking it over just the same though. Just assemble it to spec!

    Beer...reserve...depleted...growing...weaker...nee d...brew...
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  32. #32
    LGB
    LGB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7

    New Qs on creaks

    Thanks to all for the information on the eyelet reducers; in chasing a mystery creak I had greased mine just the night before reading this thread and promptly de-greased (I saw the warning in the Romic manual, but brushed it off until I understood the possible consequences).

    I'm still chasing that creak and have a few new questions to add to the discussion:

    Break-in: are Turner's creakier when new? (ie; is there some seating that needs to occur at the pivots?)

    Water: should I expect creaking after "creeking"?

    Zerks & Lube: how do I interpret lube flowing backward out of the zerk?

    Eyelet reducers: the reducers are looser in the top eyelet than the bottom, is this normal(5 weeks/10 rides on 5-spot)?

    With my thankful regards, LGB

  33. #33
    Flyin Canine
    Reputation: shanedawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,286
    Don't know what it implies to the overall question but have you guys noticed that Fox has gone from a two piece aluminum reducer and one bushing setup to a steel shaft/two aluminum sleeve/o-ring/bushing setup in the past couple of years? I was wearing out du bushings on my 2001 titus quasi-moto and titus recommended I try to get Fox to send me some of the straight thru steel shafts with the alloy sleeves. They said this would help alleviate the problem. The du's I was wearing out where the ones at the lower shock mount on the rocker plates. The ones at the top of the shock wear very little, I think because they rotate less, but could be impact related. I was able to push out the du's using two different size sockets and a vice and replace tem easily but the added cost of new reducers and du bushings was beginning to add up. At that time Fox said they were not producing the correct length yet for my bike as they were ramping up for all major brands like santa cruz. As a matter of fact the only bikes I have really seen the new setup on is santa cruz. My wife's juliana has that setup on it. I think her new bullit's 5th element has a similar setup. The question is did they redesign with steel to better compensate for rotational wear inside the shock eyelet or to reduce movement? Here are some pics for better reference. The one of the 5th is of the solid one piece shaft I think although it's hard to tell from that pic.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  34. #34
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132

    Idea! Teardown Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I concur, bushings are a type of bearing...just look at the rest of the bike.
    Thinking about the powdery substance I saw on the surface of the DU bushing,(eyelet liner) It seemed to me a self lubricant created by wear...this is why I started swinging towards your side of the arguement...
    Update: Forget the beer.

    I finally took time to change my reducers and document what I encountered.
    Long story short, the reducers rotate inside the shock eyelet.

    Now for the details (since it took so friggin long to document)
    It's late so I'll brain-dump first and put the 10 pictures at the bottom.

    First I cycled the shock while keeping a close eye on the reducers, and actually keeping a finger on the reducer and shock and then on the reducer and rocker to try to feel which interface moved. It was very slight but it seemed like the reducers were rotating inside the shock eye and remained fixed on the face of the rocker. I could have removed the spring and put the shock back on to get more travel but that would have been a PITA and turned out to be unnecessary as the next steps would reveal.

    After removing the top shock mount bolt, I found there was significant lateral play in the shock. That is standing on the side of the bike the lower shock would easily rock parallel to the bb shaft. (Ugly) Note: that I just recently turned the shock over, so what was on the top (blue knob) is now on the bottom. It seems to me that the upper shock pivot would get the most wear as it moves the most. This is consistant with the fact that this eyelet had the most play. Now that it is on the bottom, at least it's effect on the bike's lateral stiffness can be reduced until the eyelet next to the red knob, which is now on the top begins to wear as well.

    Before removing the bottom bolt I checked it for tightness, and torqued it quite firmly. It did
    not reduce the lateral play, and it did not change the fact that the reducers remained fixed
    against the frame mount and the lower eyelet rotated around the reducers.(same as the reducers rotating in the shock eyelet.)

    I replaced the top bolt and torqued it quite firmly. I then removed the lower shock bolt and
    found the upper mount had less play but again that is more likely due to my recent flipping of the shock. What is important is The reducers remained fixed on the face of the rockers. The shock moved freely about the reducer shafts. (Same as the shafts turning in the eyelet)

    I removed the shock, cleaned the eyelets with a dry cloth. Installed the new reducers. They fit much more snugly on the eyelet with less wear but felt looser in the more worn eyelet. In no case, neither with the old or new reducers could I detect vertical play in the shock with either only the top or bottom bolt installed, and of course, with both bolts installed.

    Interestingly enough I could see some very slight wear marks on the face of the reducers rockers and shock mounts. The reducers absolutely did not bind together in the eyelet...they did not become a single shaft from bolt pressure. I think they binded to the face of the rocker or lower shock mount due to the lateral pressure of the eyelet bushing which apparently has a lower friction than the mounting faces.

    The eyelet bushings seem to have some kind of powdery-brown coating on them. It does not wipe off. There was some wear marks on the eyelet that got the most wear. (formerly upper eyelet, now lower eyelet)

    Recommendation: Don't grease a dammed thing. Flip your shock to get some more wear time out of the eyelet bushings, and possibly stiffen up the assembly.
    Pictures below.

    Lower Eyelet (now mounted on top) Notice powder-brown coat in eyelet and minimal wear. The droplet is water...not oil.



    Upper Eyelet with reducers.(now mounted on bottom) Notice significant wear.


    Frame Mount. Notice slight wear on each face. Perhaps its only due to physical connection rather than rotational wear.



    Reducers. New on top, used on bottom.



    Reducer Faces. New on left, used on right. Notice slight wear(?)


    Rocker Faces. Notice slight wear marks.(?)



    Cheers Gears and ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Interestingly enough I could see some very slight wear marks on the face of the reducers rockers and shock mounts. The reducers absolutely did not bind together in the eyelet...they did not become a single shaft from bolt pressure. I think they binded to the face of the rocker or lower shock mount due to the lateral pressure of the eyelet bushing which apparently has a lower friction than the mounting faces.
    I'd have to agree. Tuesday night I removed my brand new Romic, probably has less than 100 miles on it, from my 5 Spot to send it in for repairs and found very similar conditions to those you posted.

    Upon removing the shock the upper reducers (red knob), also new with the shock, simply feel out of the eyelets as I tipped it to either side. Upon further inspection I noticed significant wear to the eyelets with the majority of the coating gone, similar to the 3rd picture down. I then removed and inspected the reducers from the lower pivot (blue knob) and these were tight and snug with minimal wear to eyelets. If Romic truly intends to have the face of the reducer rotate on the rocker, and not within the shock eyelet they’ve got some work to do. But I’m not so sure that the latter isn’t the better option as it wears on parts that are easily replaced, that is if the shock eyelets are easily replaced, and then there'd still be the issue of what appears to be premature wear. I’d be interested to hear the reasoning behind Fox’s and Progressive’s use of “a steel shaft/two aluminum sleeve/o-ring/bushing setup”.

    More and more I'm becoming anxious to find a viable option to the Romic. Tscheezy's review of the 3-way is interesting and very tempting, but the idea of an air shock on this bike just doesn't seem right (coming from a guy who runs a Z1 SL up front ).

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452

    Thanks...Do you have

    instructions for removing and replacing the sleeves and reducers? My LBS said that I would need a special tool. Is that true?

  37. #37
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    BZ's comment that the two reducers butt up against each other inside the eyelet and thus act as a single unit once the bolt is tightened is correct. The ONLY movement occurs, and is supposed to occur, at the pressed-in DU bushing/reducer interface.

    Romic apparently has two different DU bushings, or at least two compounds of anti-friction stuff. Some white, and some red. I can't remember which is supposed to be better. Frankly, I am shocked at how nice BZ's eyelets and reducers look because mine look like absolute hell. I probably have put more mileage on mine, but it is a real QC issue for Romic and one of the weakest links in the system's chain. My Fox eyelets last a year plus while I can only get 6 weeks to 3 months from the Romic's. The eyelets are seeing similar loads and degrees of rotation between the two shocks, so I don't think it is a matter of application. The upper eyelet sees many degrees of rotation, the lower hardly moves at all, so it is not surprising that the upper sees much faster wear than the lower.

    Turner has it's bushings sorted. Why, oh why, can't we have a hardened reducer shaft and a nice Igus bushing which would be easy to press in and out to replace. This current system is nothing short of pathetic, and Romic's version is particularly egregious. Like I said, I have some fox hardware on order to press in.

    </rant>
    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  38. #38
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrGuru
    instructions for removing and replacing the sleeves and reducers? My LBS said that I would need a special tool. Is that true?
    Find a socket which is the same diameter as the DU bushing which is pressed into the shock eyelet, but just a hair smaller. Also find a socket which the bushing will fit inside. It helps to file the face of the smaller socket very flat so it mates against the DU bushing solidly.

    Place the small socket against an end of the bushing to act as the push rod, and place the large socket against the other side of the eyelet around the opening with the bushing to act as a support that the bushing can be pushed into. Put this whole sandwitch into a vice and carefully begin pushing the bushing into the larger socket using the smaller one. Once you have it shoved about halfway out, replace the small socket with the new DU bushing and use the new one to push the old one the rest of the way out.

    It is probably easier with some dedicated tools which are self-centering, but I have done it the hack way a few times with no problems. You will get lots of practice owning a Romic.

    tscheezy
    Last edited by tscheezy; 04-08-2004 at 09:52 AM.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  39. #39
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    BZ's comment that the two reducers butt up against each other inside the eyelet and thus act as a single unit once the bolt is tightened is correct. The ONLY movement occurs, and is supposed to occur, at the pressed-in DU bushing/reducer interface.
    In my case, it seemed to me that the two reducers didn't quite butt against each other or at least, not tightly. The did move in unison though but it seemed like they were very close to touching but may not quite. That may have more to do with QC than anything else. The result is the same...they rotate inside the eyelet on the DU bushing as you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    ...Romic apparently has two different DU bushings, or at least two compounds of anti-friction stuff. Some white, and some red. I can't remember which is supposed to be better...
    I wonder which color I got? Mine were coco-brown.

    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Frankly, I am shocked at how nice BZ's eyelets and reducers look because mine look like absolute hell.
    Really now T, you probably ride more in a week than I do in a month(*cough* maybe two *cough) You see more mud than I as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Turner has it's bushings sorted. Why, oh why, can't we have [the same thing]?... I have some fox hardware on order to press in.
    I was thinking the same thing. A Turner-esque bushing setup would solve the problem in a heartbeat and reduce lateral play to boot. Maybe we could all put our heads together and could spec an aftermarket/upgrde kit from the company that supplies the turner bushings?

    Please let us know how the Fox kit works out...tnx!

    I have to say I'm particularly miffed about this as I just recieved my extra replacements (to replace the ones I lost and just found) ...The Romic rep quoted me $15, charged me $20 +$5 shipping...for (4) reducers. FEH! I could see if they included bolts and DU bushings but c'mon now. how much do those little alum buttons cost, like fifteen cents each?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,443
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Like I said, I have some fox hardware on order to press in.
    …any modifications required?

  41. #41
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Please let us know how the Fox kit works out...tnx!

    I have to say I'm particularly miffed about this as I just recieved my extra replacements (to replace the ones I lost and just found) ...The Romic rep quoted me $15, charged me $20 +$5 shipping...for (4) reducers. FEH! I could see if they included bolts and DU bushings but c'mon now. how much do those little alum buttons cost, like fifteen cents each?
    Steve-O sent me a pair of Igus bushings (the same type Turner uses) which fit inside the eyelet in place of the standard DU and I ran them in the eyelets for a few weeks. Then my Romic started having troubles and I pressed them back out before sending it in. I have not tried the Igus since, but I will pop them back in when I get home. I will use the Fox reducers with them. Larry at mtnhighcyclery.com sold me a full set of Fox DU bushings and reducers for less than $10 a year ago, if I remember correctly. If the Igus prove to work well, they are pretty cheap and we can get bags of them. BETD and the makers of Enduro fork seals both have bearing based reducers on the market or on the way.

    If you whine loudly about the quality of the stock Romic bushings, they will send you new ones free. They did that for me, but you just end up with the same lousy quality you started with...
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  42. #42
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Quote Originally Posted by CrashTheDOG
    …any modifications required?
    I think the systems are identicle. I have used Fox reducers with the Romic before and they fit fine. Manitou and Progressive are both different and different from each other.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jennasdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502
    You might want to check out these folks: http://www.betd.co.uk/website/betdframeset.htm
    They make a better bushing; better reducer; cool tool to install/remove bushings.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452

    Thanks!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Find a socket which is the same diameter as the DU bushing which is pressed into the shock eyelet, but just a hair smaller. Also find a socket which the bushing will fit inside. It helps to file the face of the smaller socket very flat so it mates against the DU bushing solidly.

    Place the small socket against an end of the bushing to act as the push rod, and place the large socket against the other side of the eyelet around the opening with the bushing to act as a support that the bushing can be pushed into. Put this whole sandwitch into a vice and carefully begin pushing the bushing into the larger socket using the smaller one. Once you have it shoved about halfway out, replace the small socket with the new DU bushing and use the new one to push the old one the rest of the way out.

    It is probably easier with some dedicated tools which are self-centering, but I have done it the hack way a few times with no problems. You will get lots of practice owning a Romic.

    tscheezy
    I noticed a little play today. I still have to make sure that it's the shock bushings. I grabbed the rear wheel and the seat tube...yanked up and down...and there is a tiny bit of vertical play on the rear wheel. No play side to side.

    I'll try to narrow it down tomorrow by taking the rear wheel out of the equation.

  45. #45
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrGuru
    I grabbed the rear wheel and the seat tube...yanked up and down...and there is a tiny bit of vertical play on the rear wheel. No play side to side.
    You are describing CLASSIC shock eyelet wear. Put your fingers on the upper eyelet reducers, straddle the rear wheel with your legs and use your feet to hold the tire to the ground, and lift and settle the seatpost with your free hand. I think you will be able to feel a tapping under your fingers on the eyelet. With that same hand you can place your fingers over other pivots to compare the feeling and to detect movement.

    Eliminating wheel bearing play as a possibility is easy by holding the seat stays in one hand and gently pushing and pulling the rear wheel from side to side with the other.

    Good luck,
    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

Similar Threads

  1. how not to hurt your back this season
    By rpl3000 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2004, 06:13 PM
  2. Back Problems!!
    By Mooty in forum Passion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-07-2004, 07:11 AM
  3. Disc wheel build : lacing question
    By Nick. in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-03-2004, 06:03 PM
  4. Oy, my aching back & ******
    By Addy in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-25-2004, 05:05 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-20-2004, 06:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •