Author Topic: K2 4000 (1998) with Aluminum swingarm? (Read 3737 times)

Matno · « **on:** January 18, 2004, 12:54:57 pm »

Never seen this before. I wonder if he had to make mods to make this work. The 4000 only came with a carbon swingarm. Certainly K2 never made a color combination this bad!

The yellow swingarm might go nicely with my yellow 5000. But I kind of like the carbon...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3654840220&category=22679

Scott · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2004, 02:36:41 am »

I recall a few of the 4000/5000 with the aluminum arm and usually a Rockshox rather than Crosslink. They weren't at dealers but were instead wholesaled out by a few of the 1-800 and internet shops called RS4000. It looked like K2 was mixing and matching to sell excess inventory as cheaply as possible.

debaucherous · « **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2004, 08:03:11 am »

Scott had it right as far as I know. I bought the bike used in Seattle, WA. There was no way it was modified - it was too clean. It must have come w/ the aluminum swingarm. When I bought it there was a Rockshocks Judy, Hayes Hydros and a mix of LX/XT level components. It has been a great bike, but I bought a Bumpy Monkey from Supergo in a large so that I'd have a frame that fit me right.

jimbo · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2004, 11:34:07 am »

"Medium"

?? Looks like a large to me.

RoentgenRanger · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2004, 01:37:02 am »

I had a '98 4000 w/carbon and converted to Al using the same bushings w/o any problems...except for the %$# quad rings.

debaucherous · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2004, 03:57:17 am »

Quote

"Medium"?? Looks like a large to me.

The sticker on the frame says medium. And the large Bumpy Monkey I've bought certainly feels larger.

jimbo · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2004, 04:36:22 am »

Quote

The sticker on the frame says medium. And the large Bumpy Monkey I've bought certainly feels larger.

Not doubting what the sticker said. I always thought that the small and medium Evo frames had solid supports under the seat tower and the Big and Way Big had cutouts under the seat tower. Maybe the older Evo frames were built different from the new ones??

Matno · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2004, 10:51:38 am »

Nope. My medium and large are identical in every way except for the length of the top tube (okay, the length of the whole frame). Even the standover height is identical. And the seatpost supports are both cut out. Don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't.

jimbo · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2004, 01:49:41 pm »

Quote

Nope. My medium and large are identical in every way except for the length of the top tube (okay, the length of the whole frame). Even the standover height is identical. And the seatpost supports are both cut out. Don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't.

Must have changed after 1998 or 1999. My small 2000 and my friends medium 2002 look the same except he has a longer top tube. We both don't have the cutout in the seat tower. Here's a picture of Peter Stuart's medium Disco:

http://idriders.com/proflex/gallery/images/psEVO.jpg

Hmmm, now that's got me wondering. I always thought you couldn't fit a Vanilla RC with the resevoir facing up on the small and medium frame because it wouldn't fit the towers without the cutout. If the 1998 medium and large have the identical towers, then it would make sense that an Vanilla RC would then fit on the older mediums.

Matno · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2004, 02:19:28 pm »

Quote

Must have changed after 1998 or 1999. My small 2000 and my friends medium 2002 look the same except he has a longer top tube. We both don't have the cutout in the seat tower.

Oh, THAT seat tower. Yes, those are the newer models (2000 and later). I believe all of the older EVOs (i.e. the 4000 and 5000 series) had the cutouts.

Quote

Hmmm, now that's got me wondering. I always thought you couldn't fit a Vanilla RC with the resevoir facing up on the small and medium frame because it wouldn't fit the towers without the cutout. If the 1998 medium and large have the identical towers, then it would make sense that an Vanilla RC would then fit on the older mediums.

The reason the Vanilla RC won't fit on the small and medium frames is because of tire clearance, not frame clearance. The rear tire will supposedly contact the reservoir - not a good thing. (Granted, I've never owned a Fox shock, but that's the word on the street).
Then again, it doesn't make sense that that part of the frame would be any differerent if the only difference really is the top tube length. The distance from the bottom shock bolt to the tire seems to be the same on both my bikes. Maybe it was just a rumor that the RC won't fit small/medium frames! Can anybody verify this before I go and perpetuate a myth???

Jimbo · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2004, 11:00:02 pm »

Quote

Oh, THAT seat tower. Yes, those are the newer models (2000 and later). I believe all of the older EVOs (i.e. the 4000 and 5000 series) had the cutouts.

The reason the Vanilla RC won't fit on the small and medium frames is because of tire clearance, not frame clearance. The rear tire will supposedly contact the reservoir - not a good thing. (Granted, I've never owned a Fox shock, but that's the word on the street).

Then again, it doesn't make sense that that part of the frame would be any differerent if the only difference really is the top tube length. The distance from the bottom shock bolt to the tire seems to be the same on both my bikes. Maybe it was just a rumor that the RC won't fit small/medium frames! Can anybody verify this before I go and perpetuate a myth???

I never attempted to mount a Fox Vanilla RC also. I was under the impression that the RC could be mounted with the resevoir at the top of the shock on the large and way big hence no tire clearance issue. I know from correspondences with Peter Stuart that the medium and small frames did not have any clearance in the seat tower for the resevoir which is why it had to be mounted with the resevoir at the bottom of the shock causing the tire clearance problem. The RC shock is actually moot for me as I've decided not to put any more money into my Evo.

Phillip · « **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2004, 01:57:31 am »

I have a 7.875" Vanilla RC mounted on my medium 4000 with the reservoir on top. No clearance problems.

jimbo · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2004, 05:33:22 am »

Quote

I have a 7 7/8" Vanilla RC mounted on my medium 4000 with the reservoir on top. No clearance problems.

So it appears that any bike with the cutout in the seat tower will fit the Vanilla RC mounted with the reservoir on the top.

My small and my friends medium with no cutouts won't work

Based on the latest threads, it appears that the type of seat tower (cutout or no cutout) is the determining factor for the use of the Vanilla RC with 26 inch wheels

debaucherous · « **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2004, 07:32:32 am »

All this talk of Vanilla RC's. I've upgraded from a Noleen to a vanilla R and it is pretty good. Is the RC that much better?

Matno · « **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2004, 08:01:40 am »

Depends on how the compression damping is set on your "R". If it's just right, and your not the kind of rider who likes to adjust his damping, you're fine. There's no other difference that I know about. You can even adjust your compression damping by changing to a different weight oil, if that's what you want.

Personally, I'm a set it and leave it kind of guy. Never had much use for damping adjustment once I got it set up the way I like it.

News:

Menu

Picture Bit

Author Topic: K2 4000 (1998) with Aluminum swingarm? (Read 3737 times)

debaucherous

jimbo

debaucherous

jimbo

jimbo

Jimbo

jimbo

debaucherous