Author Topic: Difference in Proflex forks (Read 7334 times)

wrightcs77 · « **on:** July 18, 2011, 07:53:51 pm »

So I just bought a new to me 957. It came with 2 forks, an aluminum cross link and a carbon cross link. The aluminum one is on the bike, so I thought I would just swap legs. Well, wrong.....

It seems that the difference is the shock length and the the upper mount that is between the stem and the headtube. The one for the carbon fork seems to go further "down" or mount lower. Is this correct. Can I just swap out the upper mound and the shock?

Finally, where can I get some new washers and bushings for my forks? I have a bushing kit, but it seems to be for the frame bushings, not the fork.

Thanks,
Casey

w2zero · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2011, 08:20:32 pm »

They don't share much so don't try too hard. One may be the Vector 2 fork. The carbon one is a crosslink and has more travel. Check ebay for Girvin and it should display this http://cgi.ebay.com/K2-NOLEEN-Pro-Flex-RK004-Girvin-Cross-Link-Seal-Kit-/130541056956?pt=Cycling_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1e64da73bc

wrightcs77 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2011, 08:57:49 pm »

Here are some pics of the aluminum fork.

w2zero · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2011, 09:46:36 pm »

Okaaaayyy, I thought all the crosslink fork legs would interchange.

whisperdancer · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2011, 01:49:05 am »

Crosslinks come in different sizes to suit different sized bikes.
What I remember is that the large size was for the “Way Big” frames (which isn’t your case judging for the pictures), and the other one was for the other frames. Aren’t the shocks the same length? What should be different is the size of the legs and the attachment point of the lower link on them.

kiwi · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2011, 03:34:43 am »

"girvin" crosslinks are slightly different than "noleen" crosslinks,let me see......

DugB · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2011, 08:02:13 am »

The carbon legs you have are for a Girvin Pro-Carbon...that would have been the right fork for the 957 from what I understand...the linkage was similar to the Crosslink (which came a year later, with the '98 bikes) but not the same. There are actually a number of differences in the lengths between the top and bottom linkage mount holes on the fork legs across the years. For the '98 bikes there were even two different size forks, as the Way Big models had a fork specific to them due to the taller head tube.

Options are: either find a fork for the X57 bikes and use that linkage with the carbon legs you have, or forget your carbon legs and just run with the alloy-legged fork that's on the bike.

Bummer, though...I don't think I would have recognized the difference, either.

- Doug

wrightcs77 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2011, 08:20:21 am »

I have the complete assembly for the carbon fork, I was just thinking it would be a quick swap of the legs. I will get a bushing kit for each fork and rebuild both.

kiwi · « **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2011, 02:09:08 am »

i believe the kits are the same anyway!

Colin · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2011, 09:30:07 am »

Need a closer view of the carbon legs to see what they are............bottom line is, measure the distance between centres of top mount to lower mount to axle and compare to the Aly Crosslink (and let us know?)

The Aly set are definitely Crosslinks and they look "Standard" length to me as the shock is longer on "Long" legged versions.
http://idriders.com/proflex/coppermine/albums/userpics/10284/97_spc-crosslink.pdf

Some crosslinks, referred to as "AM" (After Market) had a different Upper Link Mount (ULM) to fit to other manufacturers bikes, as you say it reaches down "lower" than the "OE" (Original Equipment) ULM to allow taller steerer tubes.
The main thing to get right is the "critical measurment" - see below.

Who's watching the last Shuttle, Atlantis, landing tomorrow?
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
Just like the PRO~FLEX's as another technology leap becomes a museum piece!

Col.

Spokes · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2011, 01:09:41 am »

DugB and Colin have it right on the differences between the Girvin pro carbon and Noleen crosslinks fork legs and Kiwi is also correct that all the bushes and seals are the same between them ,ie the same service kit. Big up the Proflex massive!

wrightcs77 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:46:00 am »

Seems by looking at the info posted above that the Carbon fork I have is not OEM, but AM, judging by the ULM. I assume I can still use it, but will have to check and see. I am waiting to go out and ride it first.

Spokes · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2011, 12:05:01 am »

All 957s came with Girvin Pro Carbon as standard so you can deffinately use them. Just bolt them together with the correct ulm and fit them straight onto the bike. The 957 was the top of the range at the time and the pro carbon forks was the correct fork for that bike. IMO it needs the pro carbon forks to look right.

Chris

kiwi · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2011, 02:35:54 am »

Quote from: Spokes on July 22, 2011, 12:05:01 am

All 957s came with Girvin Pro Carbon as standard so you can deffinately use them. Just bolt them together with the correct ulm and fit them straight onto the bike. The 957 was the top of the range at the time and the pro carbon forks was the correct fork for that bike. IMO it needs the pro carbon forks to look right.

Chris

word

whisperdancer · « **Reply #14 on:** August 07, 2011, 11:57:51 am »

Quote from: Colin on July 20, 2011, 09:30:07 am

Need a closer view of the carbon legs to see what they are............bottom line is, measure the distance between centres of top mount to lower mount to axle and compare to the Aly Crosslink (and let us know?)

The Aly set are definitely Crosslinks and they look "Standard" length to me as the shock is longer on "Long" legged versions.
http://idriders.com/proflex/coppermine/albums/userpics/10284/97_spc-crosslink.pdf

Some crosslinks, referred to as "AM" (After Market) had a different Upper Link Mount (ULM) to fit to other manufacturers bikes, as you say it reaches down "lower" than the "OE" (Original Equipment) ULM to allow taller steerer tubes.
The main thing to get right is the "critical measurment" - see below.

Who's watching the last Shuttle, Atlantis, landing tomorrow?
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
Just like the PRO~FLEX's as another technology leap becomes a museum piece!

Col.

Now I'm confused...
I have two carbon crosslinks (noleen, not 1997 Girvins) and the uper link mount is 25mm thick (as in the OE gear, but instead of the 63mm, it has 53mm). This is a standard fork for 90-120mm headtubes.

It's on a 1997 Animal World Cup frame and I've assembled it "by eye" many years ago, so the critical measurement it has is around 160mm right now.
I have the 1998 NoleenCrosslink manual and it doesn't tell the size of the upper link mount, but it states there are two different upper link mounts: one for the EVO frames and one for the old World Cup style frames (K2 2000 and 3000), where the critical measurement was different: 163mm for the EVO frame and 153mm for the world cup frame.
As for Legs, there only is the carbon long and carbon standard.

In the 1997 reference (your link), it only makes reference to carbon legs, no different part numbers for standard and long. Same for the ULM: just a OE and a AM type.

I'm relying on the 1998 manual, because that's when the noleen forks were named Noleen in the legs, and these carbons were used on the EVO and Carbon frames, so the ULM is from a EVO frame.

If I move the ULM down, the pivot that links it to the fork legs is going to be more vertical.

So... what critical measurement should I use with this kind of upper link mount?!?!?!?
I'm kind of a heavy guy (90Kg), so I would like not to stress the fork with wrong measures.

News:

Menu

Picture Bit

Author Topic: Difference in Proflex forks (Read 7334 times)