Yuck...

[Jerbear]

I'm in the middle of pulling the forks out, following posted instructions somewhere here and using Clymer manual. Need to replace leaking fork seal and might just as well clean the whole shebang. This is what is coming out of the fork drain holes. Is this supposed to look like that?

 

[Larry Fine]

This is what is coming out of the fork drain holes. Is this supposed to look like that?

Negative, Ghost Rider. There's water mixed in with what's left of the oil.

 

[Jerbear]

And this is what the innards look like.
Am I missing a spring collar, or is this some kind of aftermarket spring? I hate when stuff doesn't look like pictures in the book.

 

[bdalameda]

I don't see water there as the oil would look milky. I do see a lot of dirt and possibly wear particles. Fork oil gets contaminated with dust as the dust that sticks to the fork tubes can work through the wipers and seals with time a slowly collect in the oil. You should maybe consider replacing the teflon fork bushings while you have everything taken apart. You should also consider replacing the for wipers. What model ST is this? Later models ABS II have different forks and the spacers are different. Also the springs may have been replaced at some time and this could why things look different. Spacers etc. may be different with aftermarket springs.

 

[Jerbear]

I don't see water there as the oil would look milky. I do see a lot of dirt and possibly wear particles. Fork oil gets contaminated with dust as the dust that sticks to the fork tubes can work through the wipers and seals with time a slowly collect in the oil. You should maybe consider replacing the teflon fork bushings while you have everything taken apart. You should also consider replacing the for wipers. What model ST is this? Later models ABS II have different forks and the spacers are different. Also the springs may have been replaced at some time and this could why things look different. Spacers etc. may be different with aftermarket springs.

It's a 1995 no ABS, I am replacing the split bushing guides, oil seals and dust covers. And replacing what I can on the anti-dive thingy. What worries me though is that the oil came out contaminated, something somewhere is rubbing excessively against something. I can't tell looking at the parts, there are no clearly visible signs. Unless I am not seeing it. I will take another look this morning, need coffee.

 

[SMSW]

You have a 27 year old bike and unless po's have religiously changed the fork oil every 16 to 20K miles, you can expect the oil to look dark and nasty. Based on how often guys post brake and/or clutch problems that could have been avoided with routine service, I'd guess many of us completely ignore fork oil until it is leaking past the seals onto the brakes. Fortunately, said seals usually do not last 27 years.

When you take the damper assembly apart, inspect the pieces and replace what looks worn. Good luck!

 

[dwalby]

I wouldn't worry at all about the condition of the oil, it really doesn't look that bad given that you have no idea how long its been in there. Fork oil always comes out looking pretty dirty, so I don't see anything there to be concerned about.

And, that right fork spring assembly doesn't look stock to me, as you mentioned.

replace the parts you mentioned, refill it with oil, and GO RIDE.

 

[Jerbear]

Still at it and another surprise; left hand fork had the spring installed up side down. Fine spring pitch is facing up. Is this normal? Why would anyone do this, any hidden benefits? Ideas? I'd rather do 5 alternator upgrades than this

 

[Larry Fine]

I believe the preference is with the narrow spaces upward, to minimize the un-sprung weight when under compression.

 

[Jerbear]

I believe the preference is with the narrow spaces upward, to minimize the un-sprung weight when under compression.

For both sides, left and right?

 

[TerryS]

The image is from Progressive Suspension's website. I'd have gone tight coils down, they are intended to collapse first under compression. The ST1100 manual also states to put the tightly wound coils to the bottom.

 

[Larry Fine]

The closer-wound end effectively becomes a solid steel cylinder once the coils touch.

Conventional wisdom is that the higher the sprung-to-unsprung weight ratio, the better.

Thus, it's better to have the top of the spring become solid first than it is the bottom.

 

[dwalby]

the only difference in spring orientation is how much fork oil the closer wound coils displace if they're at the bottom, vs. the wider spaced coils. The closer wound coils displace more oil, therefore change the airspace above the oil by a small amount. On a 750lb sport touring bike my guess is that amounts to either nothing, or close to nothing in the handling department.

FWIW, the Honda manual does state the tighter wound coils should be at the bottom, as Terry mentioned earlier.

The spring is compressed from both ends simultaneously, so the spring compresses the same in either orientation under load.

edited:

Since the unsprung weight is everything that sits below the spring (wheel, tire, rotors, brake calipers, etc.), I guess what Larry is saying with the upper part of the spring becoming a solid piece of metal first, is that becomes part of the "sprung weight" as opposed to part of the unsprung weight. If the bottom compresses first, and sits below the part of the spring that is still uncompressed, it could be considered to be part of the unsprung weight. I don't know enough about the details of sprung/unsprung weight distribution to know if the weight of the spring is even considered in the equation, since it weighs the same compressed or uncompressed. It is generally thought that lower unsprung weight is better for handling, but that doesn't get better by adding more sprung weight to change the ratio. And again, the tiny difference this might make is not going to amount to much on a 750lb bike.