CrazyHorse Posted July 21, 2007 #1 Posted July 21, 2007 First the superbrace would not fit on a 1990 model because the rubber fork boots I believe mount different than earlier models. I ended up machinning the brace to make it fit. Second if you look at the picture there is barely any thread engagement compared with the original brace. I cant believe people are riding around with such small thread engagement it cant be good. Im going to the store to get a longer set for safeties sake. Anybody else check how much the threads actually engage the forks?
kbert777 Posted July 21, 2007 #2 Posted July 21, 2007 It has been a while that I installed mine and I am reasonably sure that it came with a set of longer Allen bolts and black caps, the thread engagement is at least 1/2". As you can see in the attached picture it fits, the 83-89 forks without interference, I can see where a fit problem arises in the later models. If you already modified the brace, I would simply replace the bolts with some longer Allen bolts to achieve the proper engagement. On the other hand, I don't think the Superbrace will do much good if it doesn't have a tight fit to the lower fork legs with the outside machined portion. Sure looks like you will be loosing a lot of stability by machining the space for the rubber boot and just tying the lower legs together with the bolts. Klaus
CrazyHorse Posted July 21, 2007 Author #3 Posted July 21, 2007 Before I machined the brace I looked at it closely and found with the boots up and unlocked it fit in there easy and it did not touch the fork tube on either side. It appeared to me that the strength came from the thicker brace (less flex). I machined the brace so I do have a tight fit against the boots. I ended up getting M8x1.25x30mm chrome bolts to get the maximum thread engagement. I did have to slighty grind down the ends of the new bolts so as not to scrape on the fender. But I cant believe Superbrace would send you a product with such little thread engagement. Below a picture with the original thread that came with the brace and my new thread.
SilvrT Posted July 22, 2007 #4 Posted July 22, 2007 I don't have those on mine... when did they start using them and are they really necessary?
CrazyHorse Posted July 22, 2007 Author #5 Posted July 22, 2007 Dont really know when they started it. I have a digital ignition also which I belive began in 1990.
93 venture Posted July 22, 2007 #6 Posted July 22, 2007 My 93 Dont Have The Rubber Shock Covers,i Think Its A Add On. When I Got My Progressive Spring I Could Have Got The Shock Protectors As Well. I Dont Really Like The Look Of Them Rubber Covers.
CrazyHorse Posted July 22, 2007 Author #7 Posted July 22, 2007 They help protect the forks from rocks and bugs and such.
GigaWhiskey Posted July 22, 2007 #8 Posted July 22, 2007 I have the chrome covers to block rocks. Seem to be fine as i have not seen any rock damage. I am surprised someone would chose the rubber boots over the chrome covers if these were a choice unles the choice was not there that year. I didn't pay that much attention to the length of the both when I put them in. They must have looked adequate if I put them in/on. Get some longer bolts.
Denden Posted July 22, 2007 #9 Posted July 22, 2007 I am surprised someone would chose the rubber boots over the chrome covers if these were a choice unles the choice was not there that year. Just so ya know...the chrome covers that you have on your forks were an aftermarket product made by Rivco for many years. I have them on my '83. But Rivco quick making them about 5 years ago.
Cutty Posted July 22, 2007 #10 Posted July 22, 2007 Why not tailor the rubber boots to fit after the Super Brace was installed??
cowpuc Posted July 22, 2007 #11 Posted July 22, 2007 Why not tailor the rubber boots to fit after the Super Brace was installed?? ^^^ EXACTLY WHAT MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS^^^ If it were mine I would get at least 1/2 inch of thread into the fork.. Mine also came with longer stainless cap screws and finish plugs for the holes.. It also fits the forks VERY snugly and I am sure this is necessary for adding stabilty and makin the forks work as one unit.. If I had yours I would trim the base of the fork gator (thats the proper name for those rubber fork guards) so it trims perfect to the brace. I would then get some shim stock and work with the distance between the fork leg and the brace - you want it so its snug (not so you have to beat it in with a sledge hammer though,,
Guest rande Posted July 22, 2007 #12 Posted July 22, 2007 I put the superbrace on a month ago and had the same problem. Tired to tourgue to 14 lb and it stripped one of the threads. The other three were already tourqued so I just used one longer bolt and had no problem. Mine is an 84 so I think they are sending bolts that are too short.
CrazyHorse Posted July 22, 2007 Author #13 Posted July 22, 2007 ^^^ EXACTLY WHAT MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS^^^ If it were mine I would get at least 1/2 inch of thread into the fork.. Mine also came with longer stainless cap screws and finish plugs for the holes.. It also fits the forks VERY snugly and I am sure this is necessary for adding stabilty and makin the forks work as one unit.. If I had yours I would trim the base of the fork gator (thats the proper name for those rubber fork guards) so it trims perfect to the brace. I would then get some shim stock and work with the distance between the fork leg and the brace - you want it so its snug (not so you have to beat it in with a sledge hammer though,, "I put the superbrace on a month ago and had the same problem. Tired to tourgue to 14 lb and it stripped one of the threads. The other three were already tourqued so I just used one longer bolt and had no problem. Mine is an 84 so I think they are sending bolts that are too short." __________________ Rande I looked at trimming the boots but, when I pulled the boots up and put the brace in in was not snugged up to the forks. I probably would have done this is they fit tight up against the forks but they did not. Since the original brace was not snug and the superbrace were not snug (the superbrace was slighty bigger) I decided to trim the superbrace down so it did fit snug against the rubber of the boots. Now Randes answer. Rande thats how I found out the bolts were too short the very last bolt I torqued in stripped. Then I started looking at the bolts coming out the the superbrace and I noticed there was virtually no thread engagement not enough to safely hold the brace on. I looked at the original brace and bolts and found them to have around a 1/2" engagement compared to the superbrace approximately 1/4" or less. So I went to the local hardware store and found some chrome M8x1.25x30mm bolts and put those in ( I did have to grind a little off the ends but now I have max thread engagement. If I were you Rande I would change all the bolts for longer ones.
Guest rande Posted July 22, 2007 #14 Posted July 22, 2007 I have had the same thoughts and I should do it. Thanks for the 2nd opinion.
CrazyHorse Posted July 22, 2007 Author #15 Posted July 22, 2007 ^^^ EXACTLY WHAT MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS^^^ If it were mine I would get at least 1/2 inch of thread into the fork.. Mine also came with longer stainless cap screws and finish plugs for the holes.. It also fits the forks VERY snugly and I am sure this is necessary for adding stabilty and makin the forks work as one unit.. If I had yours I would trim the base of the fork gator (thats the proper name for those rubber fork guards) so it trims perfect to the brace. I would then get some shim stock and work with the distance between the fork leg and the brace - you want it so its snug (not so you have to beat it in with a sledge hammer though,, I'm thinking the stabilty comes from having a thicker brace being tied in with the bolts making it one unit since the original brace does not touch the fork sides (at least on my bike) I 'm thinking the real difference is in thickness of the brace itself is the true stablizing effect not the side touching.
Leadwolf56 Posted July 23, 2007 #16 Posted July 23, 2007 Why not tailor the rubber boots to fit after the Super Brace was installed?? I have a 90 VR with the rubber boots. I trimmed the inside of them to fit when I installed my Superbrace last year. I had no problem with the bolts, they were all plenty long to torque and came with finish caps. I don't know why you would think you'd have to machine the brace instead of trimming the boot. mine looks and functions very well, made a big difference in handling.
CrazyHorse Posted July 23, 2007 Author #17 Posted July 23, 2007 I have a 90 VR with the rubber boots. I trimmed the inside of them to fit when I installed my Superbrace last year. I had no problem with the bolts, they were all plenty long to torque and came with finish caps. I don't know why you would think you'd have to machine the brace instead of trimming the boot. mine looks and functions very well, made a big difference in handling. Well I looked at it this way. With the boots up the superbrace or the regular brace do not touch the sides of the forks anyway both slide in easy and do not contact the sides of the forks. ( If it locked in tight to the forks with the boots up by all means I would have trimmed the boots but it wasnt that way.) So I am not convinced the real strength comes from touching the side of the brace to the fork. I believe it comes from the thickness of the brace and with proper length bolts making the strength. From my pictures you can see the length of the provided bolt and the one I had to buy ( I also have the chrome caps that came in the package.) so if the superbrace does not touch the forks anyway with boots up I figured I'd machine off a slight amount on each side I dont have to damage the boots and I get a tight fit of the superbrace up to the forks with the boots in between. I don't know why the provided bolts were not long enough but I sure wasnt going to ride around with so little thread engagment. The only way I knew there was such little engagement was because the last one I torqued in stripped and then I checked it more closely and found how little thread engagement there was. I was just trying to let people know if they are driving around with minimal thread engagement maybe they should check theirs. Had all the bolts just torqued in I would have never realized the bolt lengths were inadequete. Rande also found his bolts short. I hope this explains it better.
kf_sk_mccall Posted July 23, 2007 #18 Posted July 23, 2007 As an owner of a 1990 and a 1993 Venture (both came with rubber fork boots), the Yamaha fork boots have a life expectancy of about 40,000 miles (2-3 years) before they start to crack at the folds in the bellows. I have since replaced mine with a homemade set made from black corduroy. Ken
Gearhead Posted July 24, 2007 #19 Posted July 24, 2007 Mine has homemade vinyl boots. I didn't even know they were a factory option! By protecting your fork tubes from rocks and bug splats, they greatly lengthen the service life of the fork seals. Jeremy
CrazyHorse Posted July 24, 2007 Author #20 Posted July 24, 2007 As an owner of a 1990 and a 1993 Venture (both came with rubber fork boots), the Yamaha fork boots have a life expectancy of about 40,000 miles (2-3 years) before they start to crack at the folds in the bellows. I have since replaced mine with a homemade set made from black corduroy. Ken I 'd like to see what they look like.
rhncue Posted July 26, 2007 #22 Posted July 26, 2007 Here's a recent photo Buckeye Performance sells a set of fork covers that have velcro on them so that they just wrap around the tubes and the ends stick together. Dick
CrazyHorse Posted July 26, 2007 Author #23 Posted July 26, 2007 People come up with some pretty good ideas on this site. I like that about this site.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now