| Author | Message | ||
     Concor |
I know some of you have had your forks powdercoated. I had the rest of the bike blacked out last year but know two different buell dealers (both great with buells) are afraid the extra thickness wont allow the tubes to fit back in the triples. Did anyone have any issues with fit? | ||
| Olinxb12r |
I have mine done, and it wasn't a problem. The shop that took my forks apart and then put them back together did a little powdercoat trimming here and there. The fit was tight going back in to the triple tree, but it didn't make a huge difference. If you want it done go for it. | ||
| Damnut |
no problem with putting mine together. | ||
| Lonexb |
when putting them back together, use a lot of wd40 to help out. it did the trick for me. brian | ||
| Hogs |
Just wonder did you guys both Trees done as well, And If so did they power coat the inside of the trees? | ||
| Slaughter |
I would advise against powdercoating where the triple trees attach to the forks. You can lightly pry/lever open the triples to clear the powdercoat but WHY would you want a thick layer of heavy plastic in between the metal of the triple and the metal of the fork? Just doesn't sound like a good idea to me! Leave the clamping area uncoated, go for the rest. It'd be easy to mask it off. | ||
| Slaughter |
Heck - I know one of our sponsors here - Grandstand Designs does powdercoating AND they race an XB. Give them a holler: http://grandstanddesigns.com/old/Home.html | ||
| Jos51700 |
Anodizing won't affect the diameter of the fork tubes to an appreciable extent, and, IMO, would look sharp, too. | ||
| Damnut |
I had the trees coated as well. I told my coater to not do the inside of the tree where it connects to the forks. Like LoneXb said I sprayed my forks with WD40 to help slide them in.  Anodizing will look slicker but there's a LOT more work that needs to be done to the forks compared to powdercoating. If you want more info on this just ask. | ||
| Xbcrazy |
Thanks for the plug Slaughter... I don not recommend powder coating forks for two reasons; First, it will change the diameter of the tube by at least 3mm. Second, powder coating acts as an insulator and will retain heat. Not good for a performance application. The tubes are already anodized. the right thing to do, IMO, is strip and reanodize in the color of choice. We do this as well. As far as the triple trees are concerned, they are easily powder coated after masking/plugging the surfaces that come in contact with the forks. Damnut... I am curious about your experience with powder coating vs anodizing. What happened? Pete | ||
| Lamo |
If your powder coater is increasing the diameter of your forks by 3mm he is putting way too much powder on | ||
| Xbcrazy |
I am the powder coater. The average powder is applied at 1 to 2mm in thickness. Since forks are round, the thickness is doubled. Therefore total diameter is increased by 2 to 4mm. Even at the minimum thickness, 2mm is too thick to put in the fork tubes. Ever try to put a 43mm fork in a lower triple tree designed for the 41mm fork? It just not going to fit right. | ||
| Concor |
Thanks for all the responses. I have heard about anodizing but i dont know anything about that process. Approximately how much more would anodizing cost compared to powder coating? If anything else i have friends of friends who own custom shops so ill look into having them work on it. | ||
| Tailspining |
Xbcrazy, Will re-anodizing the forks with the Type II anodizing method remove/hide/cover-up any blemishes/scratches on the fork tubes? Gary | ||
| Olinxb12r |
I didn't have my triples powdercoated. I painted them black, and I taped off the holes. If you get the triple done don't powdercoat inside them. It really isn't a big deal, and anodizing won't give you the same look plus it is a much bigger pain. | ||
| Damnut |
It just not going to fit right. Once again, I had NO problems putting my forks back on after having them PC'd. If you have a problem putting your forks into the trees after having them powdercoated then you shouldn't be putting them in. When talking to the anodizer that does all the work for my company, we discussed what I wanted to do. The one thing that I was asking for was I didn't want the Type II but Type III. The biggest PITA was after I took the forks apart, the anodizer needed the slider to be removed from the bottom of the tube. This is something that the PC'r didn't need done. Powder coating is just easier to have done. I found that with anodizing everything has to be stripped off of the piece to be done, where that is not the case with PC. My cam cover for example, didn't need to remove the bearings to PC but did to anodize. 17K miles since having it done with NO problems. Tailspinning.......... anodizing will only cover the lightest of scratches. XBcrazy, I'd be interested in seeing some data that proves that powdercoating forks will reduce the performance of the forks. I might agree with that statement in a racing application but I would beg to differ in a street riding application. I would think that only the most skillful of motorcycle racer would notice a difference, if any. I have some stuff on my bike that is anodized but most of it is powdercoated. In my case powdercoating is just an easier process than anodizing. | ||
| Lamo |
powder coating is what I do for a living, if you put more than 70 microns on then its more than you need | ||
| Lonexb |
i have to back Jim up on this one. i have not had a problem with my forks at all. fork tubes and both triple trees have been powder coated.    brian | ||
| Xbcrazy |
Tailspinning... If the scratches/blems are in the anodized layer currently then yes they would be removed in the stripping process. If they are in the aluminum under the aluminum oxide then they would need to be removed prior to anodizing by sanding and buffing. Any imperfections in the aluminum will show through the anodized finish especially if you choose a gloss finish. Damnut... You are correct about Type III anodizing being a more difficult process. It creates an anodized layer than is approx 2.5 times thicker than a Type II finish and is much more durable. However, the color selections are limited and are normally reserved for military and architectural projects. What we typically see in the motorcycle and automotive industry is Type II. You are also correct about non-aluminum parts. They cannot enter the anodizing tank, as they will be eroded by the acid and electrical draw. With that said, we do fork tubes all the time. It is not a big deal. There is no data to prove or disprove my statement about heat that I know of. On the street, it probably won't make a difference. We regularly powder tubes for cruisers and touring bikes. Metric and European sport bikes routinely anodize. I am not trying to strike a nerve with anyone who has powdered their forks. Plenty of people have done it and have had no problems. I simply offered my recommendation, followed by the statement that it was my opinion, and that it was based on performance and that it is the OEM coating. Lamo... I apologize for my lack of familiarity with the Imperial Units of Measurement. Embarrassing as it is, I assumed that the term "mils" referred to millimeter. I now know that "mils" is actually its own unit of measurement at 1/1000 of an inch. 70 microns is equal to 0.0028 mils. In actuality we are applying powder at the same thickness, however I assumed that it was much thicker. So going back to what I said earlier, the average powder is applied at 1 to 2mm in thickness. Since forks are round, the thickness is doubled. Therefore total diameter is increased by 2 to 4mm. This is revised to, The average powder is applied at 1 to 2 mils in thickness. Since forks are round, the thickness is doubled. Therefore total diameter is increased by 2 to 4 mils. (0.002 - 0.004") That is thick enough to make it a snug fit, but not thick enough to make it unreasonable. |
