Author Topic: Project Frankenstein'd 3000 officially underway! (Read 5241 times)

Frankd3000 · « **on:** April 23, 2005, 07:30:41 am »

I have finally taken posession of the first Cane Creek Cloud Nine shock. It's the 190/50 shock, which i'll be mounting to the front. Use the link in my sig below to see my gallery for pics.

Front - i'll be machining an adaptor to fit the shock. A new lower bushing will need to be made to accomodate the difference in shock eyelet sizes. The Noleen uses a 12 mm eyelet (0.472"), whereas the Cane Creek uses a full 0.500" (12.7 mm). I'm undecided if I should make a thin wall adaptor, or a whole new bushing to fit.
The "design problem" I have is that i'm adamant on not having to modify any existing pieces - no frame cutting, drilling etc. So the problem exists with the two bolts that attach the upper link to the ULM. I have a few ideas, so i'll just have to make them and see which works best.
The opportunity to gain travel is also present and i'll be looking into it further. I feel I can gain another 19 mm (3/4"), for a total of 3". Still need to verify this with measurements. Right now, i'll probably just keep things "simple" - when I feel more comfortable (and more importantly, feel it's necessary) I might make two new links for more travel..... maybe.

Rear- nothing new, really. If I were to comment on a problem, then it would be Cane Creek's design (not a complaint!) and the fact that they have two different dimensions for the Cloud Nine's bodysize. If you take a look at Autoduel's gallery you can see where he had to notch the frame for clearance - notice how it's not a necessity on mine? The shorter shocks require this modification because the eyelet resides close to the shock body. Bummer, but again, not a complaint. I need to look into this further, before I order my shock from Cane Creek (gotta love the Exchage Program!). I really don't want to have to take a file to it. A few ideas exist and i'll see what works best.
Just by changing the shock alone will result in more rear travel. I calculate the Noleen maxing out at about 4.5" RWT (114 mm?), and with the Cloud Nine I should be able to get pretty close to, if not, five full inches. Honestly, I couldn't care less about this. The geometry I so very much love with this bike would be altered negatively, IMHO. The greater BB clearance would be nice though.

The front will be tackeled first, primarily because I have the shock for it. If I can get the extra travel out of the front then I might be tempted to gain more BB clearance by matching the rear ride height to keep the frame geometry correct.

Two great points about this project for me and possibly others;

1) the springs on the Noleens are too stiff for me. A 350 pound spring on the rear and whatever on the front (250?) are not overly tuneable (I weigh 155 pounds - toothpick at 6'4"). Same goes for the adjustment capabilities. A sub-bonus, they're lighter. I still need to weigh the difference, but I suspect the difference in ONLY the shocks should be pretty close to one pound (ONLY = making/installing adaptors adds weight).

2) I got this shock from E-Bay..... for $127 U.S. It's supposedly got one ride on it, so it's farily fresh, with no leaks. Boys and girls, can you say "major score"? THIS is what intrigues me - options! Imagine being able to run a pair of PUSHed Fox's, or Manitou Swinger's, or.... you get the idea, i'm sure.

Anyone out there with a Noleen CrossLink like these benefits? This might only be the beginning.

I'm hoping to have the front adaptor complete in two weeks. It'll be so nice to have a bike that turns from "great" to "stellar" with these changes.

Oh, disc brakes are definetly taking a back-burner to this project. Went for a few RIDES through the week - nothing wrong with my brakes, but I will try to upgrade from the Shimano pads. Scott Mathauser and Kool Stop - here I come (left-overs from years gone by). [smiley=laughing.gif]

Let me know what you think, guys. Input of any kind is always appreciated!

will · « **Reply #1 on:** April 23, 2005, 08:49:48 am »

Sounds like a great project. Nice score on the shock!

Having run out of steam to do this myself (but you oughta see my "new" shotgun!) you can have my already disc adapted forks. If you want, I'll take the brake caliper & rotor outta the deal and ship it to ya for $120.

The EXP already has 3" travel and it's a sweet lookin' fork.

Good luck either way.

Frankd3000 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 23, 2005, 09:26:41 am »

EXP's have 3" travel?

I wonder what makes the Elite an "elite"?

Anyways, i'll send you an e-mail. We "need to talk".

kiwi · « **Reply #3 on:** April 23, 2005, 11:08:01 pm »

frank bear in mind that you have a long crosslink(it sure looks like it)The standard nr2 has not got the long exposed shaft between the adjustor and the bottom eye.So you may have more room to play with than the rest of us.Does the top shock mount present any problems?Dont forget you will need to keep the diameter of the bottom outer shafts the same to accomodate the seals.

shovelon · « **Reply #4 on:** April 24, 2005, 03:48:58 am »

Andrew,

Make the bushing! I have considered the C9 for my carbons. Good idea!

As far as SPV, my experience with putting it on the front has been disapointing. But works great on the back. So the C9 on your front will be nice.

Good score,

Terry

Frankd3000 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 24, 2005, 05:43:27 am »

Quote

frank bear in mind that you have a long crosslink(it sure looks like it)The standard nr2 has not got the long exposed shaft between the adjustor and the bottom eye.So you may have more room to play with than the rest of us.Does the top shock mount present any problems?Dont forget you will need to keep the diameter of the bottom outer shafts the same to accomodate the seals.

Good eye, Kiwi and you're exaclty right. The key to my success here is exactly that clearance. I put my mind to it last night and have the design finished, paperwork is complete, short of a true blueprint.
The problem I had was with securing the two lower ULM bolts (where they mount the upper link). I'm simply going to use longer bolts and thread into the adaptor.
As for the lower link mount/seals - i'll either have to create a whole new lower linkage (not ready for that yet) or make the bushing. So, bushing it is. However, I might be dropping those two seals. At this point, I need to fabricate the upper adaptor and take it from there. Turning a 0.014" wall-thickness aluminum spacer isn't easy. Most of the lathe operators would laugh in my face at work. If I can drop those seals (they mostly just keep the shock from side-loading and cocking on the bushing) then it's easier.

To address the difference in shock heights - admittedly, when I first started I though this would work for everyone, but as you pointed out, I found out quickly it won't. Call it an advantage or disadvantage, but my Way Big frame size and tall Noleen configuration is the ONLY thing to allow this whole project to be successful.

"This might only be the beginning" - remember those words. I don't like leaving others out of my fun.

You may very well see some interesting things from "my camp" yet. I'm trying to make something that everyone can benefit from.

Frankd3000 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 24, 2005, 05:59:45 am »

Quote

Andrew,

Make the bushing! I have considered the C9 for my carbons. Good idea!

As far as SPV, my experience with putting it on the front has been disapointing. But works great on the back. So the C9 on your front will be nice.

Good score,

Terry

Yeah, it was a good score, wasn't it?

I really like the idea of having a matched shock arrangement front and rear. It seems like more of a natural thing to do. Not to say if it's not then it's not good, I just think it might better. Like I said, Fox Floats, PUSHed variants, SPV's - front and rear would be a great asset, I believe (believe - i've never experienced the new shocks, only the old Noleens, and ALPS, etc). Versatility is what i'm after.

Can you describe more about your SPV-front mount attempt? Post here, P.M., e-mail, whatever you wish. I'm interested in hearing (and learning) from what you might have done.

Funny, the seller I bought the C9 from also had a Swinger 3-way(?) with SPV. Small world.

It's a real bummer that my "limitation" with frame size is actually the real advantage I have over other's without a Way Big. Having the 5000 frame on it's way and the possibility of buying Will's CrossLink will help to make something happen..... I hope.

shovelon · « **Reply #7 on:** April 24, 2005, 08:55:44 am »

My SPV(inertia valve) front mount attempt is reality. But it was'nt on my crosslink. I pulled the damper out of my Rockshok Psylo SL and put a Stratos ID inertia valve cartridge in.

The Psylo in stock form really worked good and the lockout worked great, until it blew. Faced with the choice of a rebuild and the ID upgrade, I went with the upgrade. Bad Idea. The valve has a momentary lock on any impact and I feel it jackhammer through my shoulders. When I first put it in it was almost unrideable. I pulled out the 7 weight fork oil and replaced with 5 weight. With improvement, I eventualy settled with 2 weight. Then I sent the cartridge back to stratos for evaluation. They said it was fine so I told them to revalve smoother. Then I drained the 7 weight from that and went with the 2 weight again.

So now I have a compramise somewhat. Not fully active, but not fully bobbing. I have come to the conclusing that SPV or Inertia valving is best on the rear, my blubber butt don't care. Set properly, I do notice the valve popping loose when I am climbing and hop a rut, but otherwise no bobbing and seamless compressing on descent. In any case my Swinger is lots better than the stock "NOSPLEEN".

You have a lockout on that C9, now that's the cat's meow. And don't get me wrong, SPV(manitou,curnutt,5th element) can fit the crossllink. I would just limit the platform pressure to you comfort.

But in retrospect, I think you are on the right track with the C9s because it has a lockout for the front and you have the "Climb it" pedal induced pivot lockout on the rear.

What do you think?

Terry

Frankd3000 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 24, 2005, 10:22:35 am »

WOW! Someone likes to play around with stuff, huh? Very interesting, indeed. I didn't realize fork manufacturers were doing this nowadays. Sounds neat. Confession time - I thought you had a CrossLink, too.... then I looked at your gallery.

The "lock-out" on the C9's isn't really a lock-out. Think of it more in terms of stiffening the compression a lot. I've read a number of people comment that it's useless - guess i'll have to see. Worst case scenario - buy different shocks if I don't like these.

Having the tuneable platform - that's the ticket, baby! I can respect using a coil-over in the right circumstances, but they're not for me or my riding style. I need the adjustability. That, and this is fun, too. [smiley=laughing.gif]

Nospleen - HAHAHAHA! Imagine me with my spring rates on my bike. Spleen? Wuzzat? (boing boing boing)

kiwi · « **Reply #9 on:** April 24, 2005, 08:28:30 pm »

wouldnt it be easier to fabricate a whole new lower axle rather than a thin thin thin bush.....maybe a two peice one to accomodate the different diameters

Frankd3000 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 25, 2005, 11:59:47 am »

I'm toying with that idea. I want as little fabrication as possible so that if someone is interested in doing this themselves they can do it somewhat easily. Unfortunately, it's not as easy for someone without a machine shop at their disposal.

I'm doing this at work, and the less lathe time I need the better. If I only need to have three bushings made (current design) then that's less time I need my lathe operator to stay on his own time. I ran a lathe like no tomorrow .... in high school. That was over 11 years ago. I have no right trying that now. I'm a mill/EDM guy now.

Now, that being said, my operator said "Yeah, sure, let's do it now". I need the material first.

jazclrint · « **Reply #11 on:** April 25, 2005, 02:44:55 pm »

I think it is way better to have a whole new bushing made than a much thinner insert for safety, reliability, and ease reasons. If you can't get any of your buds to make one then what hope does anyone else have? And how reliable would something that thin be? Just a thought.
Later

shovelon · « **Reply #12 on:** April 26, 2005, 11:09:49 am »

Yeah, I do have a crosslink on my 4000. I am not great with the camera so I don't have it in the gallery yet. I use the 4000 as a test bike against my Oz. And I can still ride if the Oz is in pieces. Just spoted what looks like a large 957 up for grabs on Ebay. Jinder just looks too good on his.

Terry

Frankd3000 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 26, 2005, 02:43:14 pm »

MULA is reality. Check the link to my Gallery to see.

So, the lower bushing thing - the issue I have is that while I could simply bore the 12mm opening larger, I am adamant on making my mods permanent.
The problem is that while I can create a new lower bushing with an O.D. of 0.500", I only have a 0.472" opening. The sleeve will be a design necessity. I can't see anyway around it. The thin-wall bushing is the one-piece solution I have, and barring machining something complex in design, i'm going to try it.

As noted in my gallery, I have another design i'm going to try out after i'm happy with this one. Probably within the next month, if all goes well. Remember how "we" (those that have upgraded the rear with an adaptor) have taken the shocks eyelets and turned them 90 degrees from each other? I believe it's also a viable solution for the front.

Terry - Yeah, I had to do a double-take on the location on that bike! [smiley=laughing.gif] I also spotted a Way Big Attack 2.0 ...... sooooooooo tempting, just because it's a WB. [smiley=disbelief.gif] I gotta get a grip on my wallet.

First test ride of the MULA will be through the week, weather permitting. I'm planning a ride at a local "resort" to give it a good test. I hope it doesn't break. [smiley=blankstare.gif]

I actually have 2+" of useable travel in the front now!!!!!!!!!!

Frankd3000 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2005, 01:34:07 pm »

Well, it's amazing what you can see with proper lighting, huh? I have an issue with my plans.

With either MULA version (oh, MULA 2 is now in my gallery) the shock is situated such that the ride height is not affected. The stock geometry is retained. The problem I have is that the Cloud Nine's air valve is in a lousy location..... at least for this application. With the shock in any configuration (valve at top or bottom, and facing in either direction) the valve itself is shrouded. The shock would NEED to be removed to make any air pressure adjustments.

The only way I can think to get around this is to remove the existing valve and re-direct it.... somehow. [smiley=blankstare.gif]

Keep in mind that this is specific to my frame/fork/shock combination and that it may or may not be an obstacle for any other's that are interested in doing this. I'm just posting this as a "warning, watch out for this stuff" post.

So, as it turns out, MULA 2 already has a few advantages of the original.
1) it's easier to fabricate, can even be done with hand tools (looks nicer, too, eh?)
2) it requires less hardware alterations/substitutions
3) it's lighter
4) it's easier to install/remove the shock
5) it's easier to make as a multi-ride height adjuster (if you wanted that sort of thing, not that I do)

So, right now i'm going to stick with MULA 2. I feel it's better that I test this out and see how it performs and give feedback for anyone interested.

I'll shut up now and ride it this weekend, with a little luck (if the lower bushing is made in time [smiley=disbelief.gif] ) and i'll report with news.

Hey, Simon, this version stuff is neat, huh? [smiley=laughing.gif]

News:

Menu

Picture Bit

Author Topic: Project Frankenstein'd 3000 officially underway! (Read 5241 times)

will