Making Andreani's Work

[yowsaboss]

I’m not a suspension expert by any means, nor do I have a degree in fluid dynamics. But I’ve been involved in motorcycles for a while, I’ve done forks swaps, had forks revalved, etc. I’m not writing this to provoke responses, but trying to pay it forward. I wished I’d had access to this information before I made my purchase.


My thought process is based on what I know, and research I’ve done. Maybe I have mistaken premises here, or I’ve been misinformed. I’m open to correction, if someone more knowledgable than me sees an error. I’m very interested in your thoughts if you have some relevant experience or knowledge you can share.

---------------------
2018 RC, intended to be a street/ track bike, maybe a dozen track days per season. Willing to give up some street compliance/ comfort for better track capability.


Andreani seemed to be a popular choice, I researched extensively on the internet, didn’t see much in the way of complaints. Had the cartridges installed by a very competent dealer, who’d had experience installing them. Ohlins #5 and air gap 130mm, as per Andreani.


175lb in street clothes. JRi rear shock, 10mm over stock length (313mm v 303mm)


First task was to get the sag/ spring rate right. Initially I had 8.8 springs, but I was only getting 32mm of rider sag with no preload. I also wasn’t using all the travel, the fork was too high in the stroke. Doing multiple hard stops in the driveway, not quite a stoppie, would move the zip tie down so there was 52mm of tube showing from the axle casting to the dust seal (photo #1). I got conflicting information about how much travel is available with Andreanis. I was told available travel should leave about 1” (24mm) of tube showing. Meaning I had something like 28mm of available unused travel. Even with rear ride height increased, turn-in was sluggish, slower than the stock suspension, which of course is under sprung in the front. So I switched over to 8.3 springs, and increased the air gap to 140mm


Resulting static/ rider sag numbers with 8.3 springs.


5 turns preload- 19/35
4 turns- 20/36
3 turns- 22/37
zero- 24/40


So the spring rate seemed to be OK. While maybe the 7.8 N/mm may have worked, it’s always been my understanding that a stiffer spring with less preload (given you can achieve the correct sag numbers) will give a more compliant ride in the first part of the stroke, initial compression, than a softer spring with more preload.


However, I still wasn’t using all the travel. In fact, using softer springs and increasing the air gap had ZERO effect on the amount of travel used. Backing the compression and rebound adjusters out all the way, doing those hard stops, I had almost identical numbers, despite softer springs and larger air gap. You’d think this would have had some effect on the amount of travel being used, but it didn’t.


So then I started to look around on the internet. Some time back there was a guy who was doing revalve work on Andreanis for the Yamaha FZ09. He was mostly focusing mostly on the Compression leg, installing a different valve/ shim stack, and putting a different contour on the adjustment needle, making it more blunt to give a greater range of adjustment.


You can read about the FZ09 process here-


https://www.fz09.org/threads/andreani-cartridge-kit-with-compression-fix.47825/


Or search for “Forks by Matt Andreani”


The suggested air gap for the FZ09 is 120mm. He suggests increasing that to at least 150mm, as much as 165mm. Now of course you have to be very cautious in increasing air gap too much. The Andreanis don’t have top out springs, but this guy added them. He also suggests using 8-10cSt@40 (2.5w-3w) oil in the Comp leg, keeping the Ohlins #5 in the Reb leg.


So based on what I know, I’m hoping that it’s possible that increasing the air gap will allow the use of closer to full travel, and decreasing the viscosity of the fluid in the Comp leg will take care of the harshness.


One thing I did become aware of is that manufacturer’s claimed viscosity isn’t necessarily accurate. One manufacturer’s 5w might have a viscosity of 15cSt@40C, another’s might be 22cSt. There’s chart here with many popular oils and their ACTUAL viscosity numbers-


https://transmoto.com.au/comparative-oil-weights-table/


But the first thing I have to determine is the actual maximum mechanical travel available with these cartridges installed. So I got online, ordered myself a spring compressor and an oil level tool, and bought some 11cST oil.


Forks off. Oil drained, springs removed. Cap snugged, forks collapsed. As you can see in photo #2, the fork is mechanically bottomed with 16mm of tube showing. So you figure add an additional 8-10mm for a margin of safety to prevent bottoming, that’s 24-26mm. With the front wheel off the ground, I had about 152mm of tube showing, meaning 126mm of total travel. Right now I’m using slightly more than 100.


So I’m thinking this has to be an oil level problem, any compression damping issues aside. What I don’t know is how to determine what the absolute minimum safe oil level is. And I’m not going to remove the cartridges and disassemble them to find out. To experiment trial and error is going to be a pretty laborious process, removing and installing the forks 15 times, if I really want accurate oil level measurements. Then again, I don’t want to crash or damage the fork internals by going too low. But I am thinking 160 should be OK.


I know Dave Moss says you should be able to push on the top of the fork leg (off the bike) vigorously, and just feel it bottom lightly, a gentle tap. So hopefully I can get a good idea if the air gap is too big by testing the fork off the bike. Here's a video of him discussing oil level/ air gap. Moss is a savant- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k_JvZ4Idfc


As an aside, Forks by Matt talks about the profile of the adjustment needle. He’s right- the taper is very shallow. (see photo #3) With an adjustment range of only 4 turns, you’d think you’d want a much steeper taper, similar to what he shows in photo #4. Don’t know whether Andreani parts are available, but changing the profile of that needle might be an option. I’m certainly going to take his advice and set the needle position so it can be backed out another full turn, allowing more oil flow, hopefully some additional reduction of compression damping.


Now I’m waiting on my 3.5 fluid and oil level tool to arrive. I’ll update as soon as I I’ve learned something. In the mean time, I’d be very much interested in anyone’s thought or experiences.

 

[ReidMcT]

Very interesting reading here. Thanks! One question: What/why are the risks of too much air gap?

Oh, and the Centistoke chart linked above is one I've referred to many times and have shared widely. It's a shame the manufacturers persist in using their widely varying 'weight' specifications, when cSt is what matters so much in forks/shocks. I took a printout with me to a dealership once while looking for fork oil locally. The dealer thought he had a full range of viscosities, but the chart showed he didn't come close. He had never heard of cSt. I left the printout with him to study and maybe guide his future stocking decisions.

 

[yowsaboss]

Very interesting reading here. Thanks! One question: What/why are the risks of too much air gap?.

Thanks.
Again, I'm doing this because it's what I was hoping to find when I started to tackle these issues.

Too much air gap, the forks are going to bottom. In these forks, the only thing that's preventing them from bottoming is the progressive spring effect of that compressed air. The larger the air gap (the lower the oil level) the less progression you have in that air spring. Not only can you have mechanical damage because precision machined metal parts are crashing into each other, there's also a safety issue. If you're into the last few mm of travel, maybe under hard braking, and hit a bump, you no longer have any suspension available. The only thing that can absorb the impact is the tire. So the tire is going to "squish", you're likely to lose the front. Or bend a wheel. It's a good way to crash. At least that's my understanding.

Most of the information out there is about "normal" USD forks that have Reb and Comp (two valves) in each leg. The Andreani's obviously have Reb valving in one leg, and Comp in the other. The good thing about that is you can run different viscosity oil in each leg. The Andreani's don't have top out springs, which I THINK somehow figures into the equation. I know top out springs prevent the forks from "clanking" when fully extended, like pulling a wheelie. But I've read things I believe suggest they somehow have something to do with bottoming as well. I'm not sure.


Hopefully even for non-Andreani users reading this, I'll have accomplished something by turning them on to Dave Moss. I've had Dave set up my bikes at track days in SoCal. He's a genius. Here's him discussing oil level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k_JvZ4Idfc

Another excellent suspension resource is this guy's Wiki. Very informative-

https://www.peterverdone.com/archive/oilheight.htm

 

[yowsaboss]

While waiting for the 3.5w oil to arrive so I can experiment with the Comp leg, I decided to go to work on the Reb leg. A much simpler process, or so I thought. No compression damping, the only limitations to travel are the spring and the air gap (air spring). So I dropped the oil level to 155mm. Then as per Dave Moss, I tried to compress the fork by vigorously pushing on the cap to see if I could make it bottom, or at least was using more travel. Much to my dismay, I got EXACTLY to same amount of travel as before, about 50mm or so of unused travel. And I’m putting some serious force on the top of the fork, giving it a good grunt. This is with the preload and Reb adjustments backed all the way out.


Hmmmm, not what I expected. So I reassembled the fork without the spring, so it’s out of the equation altogether. I’m thinking now I’m working against the air gap only. Doing this, I am able to bottom the fork, or nearly so. Within a few mm. I wasn’t going to force metal parts together just to prove a point.


So it obviously isn’t air gap alone that’s limiting travel. Or I'm too weak to overcome the spring resistance so I can see the effect of the air gap.


As an experiment, I reassembled the fork with spring, but no spacer. The spacer itself is 60mm long. Photo #6 shows the result. The fork in this photo is fully extended, there’s about 150mm of tube showing. (It sucked down a little while I was taking the photo, just from internal vacuum )The orange zip shows how far I was able to compress the fork. Down to about 24mm above the casting, just about exactly where I want to be. When I stand the fork vertical, and allow it to settle of its own weight, that’s where the black zip is. Basically it’s collapsing about 45mm, until the spring touches the cap.


So if the spacer is 60mm, that means with zero preload on the adjuster the spring already has 15mm of preload (60 - 45 = 15). I’m dialing in another 3-4 turns to get the correct sag.


Now I’m starting to get lost. I’m wondering if I shouldn’t try making shorter spacers, 50 mm or less. This is something I’ve never understood, how they decide what length to make those spacers. There must be some logic or formula there, but I have no idea what it is. You obviously want the fork to be able to extend fully, it needs some spring assist to do that. But how much???


I’m just thinking out loud here. If I shorten the spacers, logic tells me I’m going to have to dial in the preload adjusters more to arrive at the correct sag numbers. I’m going to end up with the spring preloaded the same amount, to make up for the 10mm or whatever I shorten the spacer. I’m lengthening the adjuster because I shortened the spacer. So that surely would be a waste of time.


I also removed the adjuster rod that goes from the Reb adjuster screw to the needle. So now I know there is no hydraulic restriction at all to fork travel. That had no effect, still have that unused travel, had 50mm of tube showing.


Finally out of desperation I increased the air gap to 180mm. With one huge push I was able to get to 41mm of unused travel. But I’m not taking much from that. There’s no way to quantify how much force I’m delivering, but it’s an explosive heave, not a gentle push. Maybe I’m just a weakling, unable to exert enough force. Maybe out of frustration I used a super heave to get the fork that far into its stroke. But my hopes of experimenting with the forks off the bike and see the results aren’t going to happen. The only way I’m going to find out if increasing air gap yields more travel is by reassembling everything and riding the bike.


But first I have to wait for that 3.5w to arrive.


Suspension experts, fell free to chime in at any time.

 

[Banned]

Have you contacted Andreani to find out how much travel the fork is supposed to have?

 

[yowsaboss]

Have you contacted Andreani to find out how much travel the fork is supposed to have?

Thanks for your interest. No, I haven't. They're in Italy. There is no literature (and I've looked extensively) that gives any specs, other than generic information for the whole cartridge line. I guess I could contact these guys, they appear to be the US distributor. -

Motorcycle Suspension - Fast Bike industries, Llc

But I've already answered that question when I collapsed the forks with the springs removed. Mechanically they're able to collapse so that 16mm of tube is showing. So that's a possible 136mm. If we assume 10-12mm added to that for safety sake, that would be 28mm max unused travel, out of 152mm possible, 124mm (4.9 inches) of travel. The stock fork is supposed to have 130mm, so maybe I'm being too cautious on the 10-12mm margin of safety,, or maybe the KTM spec is for the forks to actually be bottoming. I don't know.

An R6 has 120mm of travel
A ZX6R has 119mm
A CBR 600RR has 120mm

So that 120mm seems to be pretty standard. If I could get 120mm of useable stroke, that's an additional 3/4", I'd be happy. It doesn't sound like much, but it is, and since the bike is riding high in its stroke, affecting handling, it won't turn in as it should.

But for all intents and purposes I have less than 100mm, because short of running over a railroad tie, I can't make this fork go any more than 100mm into the stroke. I'm hoping I am just too much of a weakling to compress the fork off the bike as much as it's able to be compressed. But I put the Reb leg back together with an air gap of 160mm, 30mm more than Andreani recommends, but I'm reasonably confident that's not dangerously low. That leg is on the bike. Once I receive my 3.5w oil I'll install the Comp leg with a 160mm air gap, and ride the bike, hit the brakes hard, etc. That increase in air gap should have SOME effect. If it doesn't, then I'm getting close to exceeding my pay grade on this one, I'll be sending these forks off to someone who can figure this out.

 

[Banned]

Perhaps the 2018 is different but on my 2016 I get 115 mm of travel when street riding. That is with a 5 mm larger air gap than Andreani recommends. It's been a while since I've had it on the track so cant say how much travel I get there.
I sent Andreani a message to see what they say the full travel should be.

 

[yowsaboss]

Perhaps the 2018 is different but on my 2016 I get 115 mm of travel when street riding.

And this is where the zip tie is after just normal riding, or are you doing what I'm doing, trying to force the fork deep into the stroke with extremely hard braking?

How much do you weigh, and what springs are you using?

If what you're saying holds true for me, then perhaps there's hope. You increased the air gap 5mm, I've increased it 30mm! Perhaps when I ride the bike, I will find that I'm getting more travel, and possibly will even need to reduce the air gap. I wish! But I am skeptical. My 3w/ 11cSt@40C for the Comp leg is arriving tomorrow. I already have the Reb leg installed, with the adjuster set so I can back it out 5 turns rather than the standard 4.

 

[yowsaboss]

I spoke with Peter at Computrack Boston

https://www.computrackboston.com

Peter is a great guy, he's always been very helpful and responsive when I've needed help. He confirmed that I'm using the correct spring rate, and gave me a couple things to investigate. I also heard back from the Importer, Fast Bike Industries. Also very impressed with these guys. Evidently the owner, David, once owned an RC and had the cartridges installed. He's on his way to Misano for the GP, but invited me to call him when he returned. By that time I'll have had a chance to ride with the reduced air gap and 3W in the Comp leg.

BTW, one important piece of information I got from Peter: I asked him if there was any risk in having the oil level set so low (160mm). He said there was none, zero, other than the chance of the fork bottoming, which he said is very very unlikely. He said 160mm was no big deal, nothing to worry about. I didn't ask him to elaborate, because I had so many questions for him. I can only infer that because of the design of the forks (separate Reb and Comp legs) that it's more or less impossible to do any mechanical damage because the oil level is too low.

 

[Banned]

Normal canyon riding, not super agressive.
8.8 springs.
195 lbs. without gear.

 

[yowsaboss]

Normal canyon riding, not super agressive.
8.8 springs.
195 lbs. without gear.

So there ya go. I'm 20 lb lighter. With 8.8, I was just barely making good sag numbers with zero preload. So we both for sure have the correct springs. But you're getting 15mm more travel than me, with only an additional 5mm air gap, and I'm doing crazy abrupt stops trying to force the fork deep into the travel. So trust me, I'm just praying that I'm getting some results with what I've done. Oil arrives Thurs, I'll be test riding Friday. Stay tuned.

Just got an email from David, the owner of Fast Bike Industries, the US Andreani distributor, who's making his way to Misano to do some Moto2 work. So that kind of support tells you something about the company. Once I've test ridden the bike, he's given me his cell # so he can speak to me from Italy. You can't ask for more than that!

 

[yowsaboss]

Because I knew my 3W oil wouldn't arrive until too late in the day to do anything, I decided to reassemble everything so I could test ride. Always optimal to test only one variable at a time, otherwise you don't know what is contributing to the results, or how much. So I filled the Comp leg with the recommended Ohlins fluid, air gap 160mm, Comp backed all the way out. Rode a few miles to get some warmth in the fluid. Quick stop in the driveway, this time the rear did come off the ground. 38mm of tube showing. This is the lowest in the stroke I've ever seen this fork, even jumping on the cap with the fork bottom on the floor. And I must say it felt more compliant running over reflective markers in the road, and any other road irregularities I saw.

Dialed in 1.5 turns of Comp, tried again. 50mm showing, the same as I'd been getting previously.
So maybe this isn't an air gap problem after all, the valving is just hinky. I should point out that I set the adjusters on both sides so I had 5 turns of adjustment: In other words, I can back the adjuster out an additional turn from standard, getting it further clear of the orifice. So I actually tested the first time with the adjuster one turn in, putting it in the same position it would be if there were 4 turns of adjustment and it was backed all the way out. (confusing, I know) Now I sort of regret not trying it with it backed out the full 5 turns.

And I'm considering seeing what happens if I set it so it has like 8 turns of adjustment.

I think what I'm experiencing here is hydraulic lock. Low speed damping seemed to be better, but with any compression dialed in at all, the fork isn't reacting to that violent compression. The oil can't flow through the valve/ shim stack fast enough. If reducing the viscosity of the fork fluid from 15cSt to 11cSt (25%) doesn't give the desired result, then these forks are going in a box, off to someone who knows what they're doing.

 

[yowsaboss]

Today was the big day, the Moment of Truth

3W Oil 11cSt in the Comp leg, Ohlins #5 in the Reb leg . 160mm air gap. 3 turns of preload, sag is 22/37. Comp and Reb both at two turns.

I couldn't get the Comp leg to go more than 100mm into the stroke by pushing on the cap, with the bottom of the leg on the floor. So I was pretty discouraged. Went for a test ride. The fork feels more compliant hitting small bumps and road irregularities. It's actually not bad at all, without any tuning from the recommended baseline settings. I really can't complain about the behavior of the forks in normal street riding.

Abrupt stop in the driveway, the rear is coming off the ground an inch or so. 42mm of tube showing, the best result I have achieved (maybe my stoppie skills are just improving with so much practice)

So I got no improvement lowering the oil level.
But I did get an improvement lowering the viscosity in the Comp leg..

Here's what I think I know:
The low speed damping is regulated by the needle, the adjuster. The high speed damping is regulated by the shim stack. The shims operate like a blowoff valve. I guess sort of like a pressure relief, or the waste gate on a turbo. The pressure gets to a certain point, the shims bend and allow oil to flow. So if there's a oil pressure/velocity spike, the shim stack reacts. Normal riding, the needle circuit is just allowing the fork to follow undulations in the road, low speed damping. If you hit an abrupt bump, the shims stack handles that.

I'm assuming that when I do these abrupt stops, the fork movement is violent enough to require that shim stack to handle it. But something is off. There are guys who study this stuff, actual archives of shim stacks that people have discovered work for a given motorcycle. If you have a Panagale, you can look and find a number of tried and true shim stacks that will work. If you have your forks revalved, often the OEM valve and needle are replaced, but the most important thing that's done is the new shim stack. It's a lot less complicated to manage low speed compression. To build a shim stack, you have to know what you're doing.

So the fork bottoms mechanically with about 136mm of travel. Figure an added safety margin of 8mm, that's 128mm of travel. But nothing I have done gets me any more than 110mm.

Maybe Banned, with his 195lb, is putting more hydraulic force through the forks than I am with my 175lb, so he's getting more travel. Remember that the low speed circuit is adjustable, so it can be made to work for a 140lb rider or a 180lb rider. The shim stack isn't adjustable. It's going to be a compromise, unless you get a custom revalve, tailored to you. You'd think the design of the valving on this fork, for a little 390, they'd have in mind an ideal rider lighter than me, maybe 150-160lb. So they'd be using even LESS travel.

So I am all through for now. Until proven otherwise, my present theory is that it's the shim stack. But messing with that is way above my pay grade. The bike is certainly rideable, but something isn't right. I'll wait until I speak to David from Fast Bike Industries when he returns from Europe. I'm hoping he can offer a solution. He seemed more than willing to help, and if he's working in a Moto 2 garage, then he knows what he's doing.

Stay tuned

 

[Banned]

Do post up what David has to say.

 

[yowsaboss]

Oh, indeed. Although I think you're the only one reading this. )))

But that was the intention from the outset, to lay this out so that if someone in the future has the same issues,, maybe I save them going through all this nonsense. Otherwise why bother to document it, I have an audience of one!

 

[sobiloff]

Really appreciate your thread, @yowsaboss! I have a '17 that I bought on clearance at the end of '18--right before I got sent overseas for most of this year. Now I'm back and want to get it built-up for the track, so of course I'm interested in the Andreani forks. Your work will be a huge leg-up on my learning curve.

 

[yowsaboss]

Quite welcome. As I said, I would be figuring this out, arriving at a solution regardless, whether it meant having these revalved, or selling them off and buying GP Suspension cartridges, whatever. After the initial search for information here, I decided to document this so that others in the future had the information available that I was unable to find. David, the owner of Fast Bike Industries, has been in Europe at Misano and Aragon MotoGP to work with the American Racing KTM Moto2 team. He's supposed to be back in the US on Tuesday, so I'll likely be talking to him Tuesday or Wednesday. That's what these forums should be about, is collective knowledge, people sharing information.

 

[yowsaboss]

It took a while for me to eventually speak to the folks at Fast Bike Industries. Not their fault. First, the owner David was overseas working with thew American Racing Moto2 team. Then I had some personal distractions. Finally called today, and David wasn’t in.


First I talked to Burch, who’s in the retail end, he eventually passed me on to Tige, the tech. We talked on the phone for at least 45 minutes, maybe closer to an hour. He was sincerely interested in getting to the bottom of this. We were kicking ideas around, he was asking a lot of questions, and he agreed I’d tried just about everything there was to try.


While we were speaking he was consulting the Andreani spec sheet (which I’d love to see) and pulled a couple cartridge kits from stock to have a look at those, in light of what I was telling him.


Pertinent things I remember from our discussion:


At one point he he told me the spec sheet said 110mm of travel, which I am very reluctant to believe. I asked him to clarify this was absolute (mechanical) travel, not useable travel. That would mean the 100mm I’m using is all I am going to get. When I told him I measured the actual mechanical travel at 136mm with the forks completely collapsed without springs, he was willing to accept that.


Tige said that internal preload should be 10mm or less, as little as 3mm. This is contrary to what I’ve read. I measured it at 15mm, measuring the depth of the top of the spring to the lip of the tube at full extension, the length of the spacer, and the distance from the edge of the cap to the bottom of the adjuster where it contacts the spacer with the preload adjuster backed all the way out. I’ll measure all that again, but what I have seen says 15mm internal preload is pretty typical.


He told me he thought (at 175lb) that 7.8 springs were more appropriate for me, I should try those before making any bold moves with the internals.


He said that one possibility is that the fork is binding. The tubes binding in the bushings. He told me how to determine if that’s the case. I think that’s unlikely. I’ve always installed everything by the book: proper sequence, proper torque, etc. New bike, I installed this stuff with 600 miles on the odometer. But I’m not going to ignore his suggestions, then turn around and ask for his help down the line.


I think I’ve already proven this isn’t the issue because I can’t get past 100mm when pushing on the cap with the bottom of the fork resting on the ground. The only reason they’d bind off the bike would be if something was bent.


He also mentioned the possibility of the springs binding.


He said that what I am experiencing isn’t hydraulic lock. I don’t know enough about the intricacies of how a cartridge fork works to dispute that, but he insisted it’s so.


He told me to assemble the forks on the bike, without springs, and let the bike rest under its own weight, and measure how far the forks collapse. I don’t see how I’ll end up with a different number that the 136mm I got with the tube off the bike, no spring, pushing gently on the cap. But again, I’m going to do everything he suggests to assure him it isn’t one of these problems. I appreciate the importance of systematically eliminating possibilities.


I had a set of springs already on order through Gray Area. When I was done with Tigue, he put me back on the line with Burch. I asked him when he expected to receive those springs from Italy. He went and looked, found a kit with 7.8 springs, and said he’d pull those springs out and ship them.


So that’s all I know at this point. It would be a surprise if a brand new bike had a severe binding problem in the forks. I doubt that lighter springs are going to result in any more travel worth talking about. He told me once I’d checked out the things we discussed, to call him back and report my findings. He offered to send me a discounted return shipping label, and to disassemble the forks to check if anything was amiss, no charge.


So even though I don’t have a solution or any significant new insight into what’s going on, I have to praise their customer service. He was very generous with his time, and more or less promised me he’ll do whatever is necessary to get things functioning properly. And they were willing to pull a set of springs out of stock. Can’t ask for much more than that.


I’ll report back what I find out from the tests he suggested, and the subsequent phone call.

 

[yowsaboss]

After much delay, I finally hooked up with Tige at Fast Bike Industries yesterday. As always, he was willing to stay on the phone to discuss and speculate. I pointed out to him that going from 8.8 to 8.3 to 7.8 didn't really affect the amount of travel, that it's my belief this is a hydraulic problem. Because spring resistance is linear, while air gap spring effect is progressive (a graph like a hockey stick) that it seems this is some sort of hydraulic issue. Especially with the 7.8, where I'm slightly under sprung, the fork is compliant, supple, until I get 100mm into the stroke, at which point it hits a wall.

So he said he wants to have a look inside, to make sure there isn't some sort of mechanical problem, A manufacturing defect, an installation problem, some sort of contamination, etc. He doesn't have any way to test dynamically, a shock dyno, etc. So all he can do is look inside there, and do what I've done- manually compress the forks by pressing on the cap. So I am not very optimistic he's going to find a solution, return these forks to me with an actual 120mm of travel.

It's a hard decision. Do I throw good money after bad, or just cut my losses, see these things off and buy GP cartridges, or some used WP Cup Bike Forks? But I guess in the interest of curiosity I'll remove the forks (for like the 15th time) and send them to him. Once I have them boxed up, they're going to send me a discounted UPS label, saving me a little money. But it's still likely to cost me $100 for shipping both ways, I'd guess.

If I do decide to bail out on the Andreanis, I'd be looking at labor to remove them, $800 plus labor for the GPs. Real money.

I'll keep you posted.

 

[Banned]

Did you do the tests in your previous post?