Let it go. These guys are literally grabbing at anything in site to convince themselves that they do not like this fork.
Real Pics of the 2009/10 Boxxer
- Thread starter Santa Maria
- Start date
Don't worry you can make better graphics for the 09's theres more surface area to cover!
I'm not looking forward to the madness of trying to set up beg. and end stroke rebound.. though I guess once you figure it out it will be sweet.
I'll be a guinea pig for those who lack faith. Super stoked to get the new forks bolted to my bike. Graphics... are well they will grow on you just like a new fork!
haha
irate2:
I'll be a guinea pig for those who lack faith. Super stoked to get the new forks bolted to my bike. Graphics... are well they will grow on you just like a new fork!
haha
irate2:
Going back a few posts to what Big-Ted brought up and others such as DHkid and Udi have addressed is the failure issue at the c-clip area at the bottom of the rebound stanchion (rider's right).
This same thing happened to a rider at Diablo (will remain anonymous). I asked one of the mechanics to show me the actual stanchion and it looked EXACTLY like the pic that DHkid posted.
I asked what happened to the rider and the mechanic said that the fork held together but the rider experienced loss of rebound, a clunking sound/feeling in the fork and oil blowing up through the dust seal.
This definitely sounds like something that isn't just a freak occurrence, (I don't have access to statistical data for this issue with regard to production yield, but based on what has transpired here in this little corner of the universe at RM ...
in addtion - my 08 Team is running strong) and has me a bit concerned being on a Boxxer myself.
To me it seems that either: The designers properly calculated the depth of the c-clip recess with regard to stanchion wall thickness, but during machining, the proper depth of this recess was not followed OR the designers were REALLY cutting it close speccing the depth of the c-clip recess into the stanchion wall, and if the conditions are right - failure occurs.
Does anyone know definitively if this issue was fixed on the 09/10 Boxxer?
This same thing happened to a rider at Diablo (will remain anonymous). I asked one of the mechanics to show me the actual stanchion and it looked EXACTLY like the pic that DHkid posted.
I asked what happened to the rider and the mechanic said that the fork held together but the rider experienced loss of rebound, a clunking sound/feeling in the fork and oil blowing up through the dust seal.
This definitely sounds like something that isn't just a freak occurrence, (I don't have access to statistical data for this issue with regard to production yield, but based on what has transpired here in this little corner of the universe at RM ...
in addtion - my 08 Team is running strong) and has me a bit concerned being on a Boxxer myself. To me it seems that either: The designers properly calculated the depth of the c-clip recess with regard to stanchion wall thickness, but during machining, the proper depth of this recess was not followed OR the designers were REALLY cutting it close speccing the depth of the c-clip recess into the stanchion wall, and if the conditions are right - failure occurs.
Does anyone know definitively if this issue was fixed on the 09/10 Boxxer?
Last edited:
also... read the spec's 35 mm stantions....
http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=25410
$1602.. idk if it is like yet to be determind or if thats it
http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=25410
$1602.. idk if it is like yet to be determind or if thats it
...so here's what I don't understand:
If you look in SRAM's 2009 RS Parts catalog, there is no mention of Mission Control on any of the Boxxer models... at the same time, in the table of contents certain models are listed specifically as "09' ". For the Boxxer, they do list the new red lowers as a part option, but that's about it for the Team/Race. In addition, it seems to be implied that the WC will come with the Peaty Decal Kit - but it's basically the same fork as 08'. At the same time, none of these forks are specifically listed in the table of contents as "09' "....
I know that SRAM updates their catalog list with newer versions as new product comes down the line, but as it stands right now - it seems that the new red Team that everyone has seen and the other forks in the 09' parts catalog are what are on the horizon for now.
If you look in SRAM's 2009 RS Parts catalog, there is no mention of Mission Control on any of the Boxxer models... at the same time, in the table of contents certain models are listed specifically as "09' ". For the Boxxer, they do list the new red lowers as a part option, but that's about it for the Team/Race. In addition, it seems to be implied that the WC will come with the Peaty Decal Kit - but it's basically the same fork as 08'. At the same time, none of these forks are specifically listed in the table of contents as "09' "....
I know that SRAM updates their catalog list with newer versions as new product comes down the line, but as it stands right now - it seems that the new red Team that everyone has seen and the other forks in the 09' parts catalog are what are on the horizon for now.
Last edited:
Going back a few posts to what Big-Ted brought up and others such as DHkid and Udi have addressed is the failure issue at the c-clip area at the bottom of the rebound stanchion (rider's right).
This same thing happened to a rider at Diablo (will remain anonymous). I asked one of the mechanics to show me the actual stanchion and it looked EXACTLY like the pic that DHkid posted.
I asked what happened to the rider and the mechanic said that the fork held together but the rider experienced loss of rebound, a clunking sound/feeling in the fork and oil blowing up through the dust seal.
This definitely sounds like something that isn't just a freak occurrence, (I don't have access to statistical data for this issue with regard to production yield, but based on what has transpired here in this little corner of the universe at RM ...
To me it seems that either: The designers properly calculated the depth of the c-clip recess with regard to stanchion wall thickness, but during machining, the proper depth of this recess was not followed OR the designers were REALLY cutting it close speccing the depth of the c-clip recess into the stanchion wall, and if the conditions are right - failure occurs.
Does anyone know definitively if this issue was fixed on the 09/10 Boxxer?
The best solution I found was to run the damper leg a few mm lower in the crowns than the spring leg. That way, it's not topping out against the circlip as hard. Granted, you lose that mm or two in travel, but who cares? That said, this only seemed to prolong th life of the stanchion, and not cure the problem.
Dhkid is right, that's not going to achieve anything. All motion control forks top out on the spring side (whether coil or air) and therefore that side essentially deals with topout load independently
I'm looking forward to taking one of those babies for a spin. Only downside is that after using the same steerer & lower crown with about 5 Boxxers over 3-4 years I might actually have to stop being lazy and change the whole fork when I install them this time. Dammit.
I agree the decals aren't to my liking (neither are the decals on the 2009 saint crank I just ordered), but I'm not real pedantic over my bike's appearance anyway.
I agree the decals aren't to my liking (neither are the decals on the 2009 saint crank I just ordered), but I'm not real pedantic over my bike's appearance anyway.
I for one think that this is possibly the sickest looking fork ever (love the stanchion/lower graphics). I just bought an 08 wc ata 888, but the hi lo rebound sounds amazing.... I always thought that boxers looked to plain and spindly. not any more!
This is kind of my point. They are not a durable fork. In contrast, how many people do you know still charging hard on older 888s?
OK, I'll give up on my crusade now. As you were guys!
It's not my fault I can get a new fork every year, which doesn't prove your point at all. In fact, to the contrary having owned that many boxxers and raced pro/semi-pro with them for so long with no problems (and then selling them to my buddies, some of whom have 2 or 3 seasons on the old fork w/out problems) leads me to believe that on the whole they are in fact durable, reliable forks.
Sure, there have been a few isolated incidents of failure but given the sheer number of boxxers currently in use I'd guess the percentage with actual manufacturing problems is incredibly small.
I'll stand by the claim that 95% of Boxxer issues (in particular worn out seal and bushings) could be avoided by following an extremely basic maintenance routine for roughly 15 minutes, 2 times per month.
Last edited:
Bingo Bango Bengo!!!!!!^^^
what nailed it for me was when one of the TF guys told me that they have a box they fill with busted Motion Control carts and send back to Fishers (the UK importer) every week. So many infact that they just replaced my GFs mc cartridge on a second hand 2 year old fork without batting an eyelid.
And for the record - my ancient 888s are going strong
Anyone else think its odd that this problem is confined to the damper side when the legs are identical?? As said, the rebound piston should not touch the plug/baseplate/circlip, there should be no load on it. That failure to me sure looks like its due to some kind of impact loading. I can't see that happening from sliding in a bushing. Weird.
Maybe the rebound rod is hitting the base plate and seeing there is no top out spring on that side its getting an increased shock load, leading to failure? The RS quality seems to be in the +-mm, maybe you got a short leg and short rebound shaft on damper side, and a long leg and long spring plunger on the other side?? Maybe measure both legs next time its apart.
Also, remember some people had a problem with doing the air conversion where the air leg was slightly longer then the rebound side, and instead of the force taken by the spring side it was taking it on the rebound side, the rebound rod was not designed for this and you ended up with a true floating piston when it sheared off the rebound rod I remember the recommendation was to push the damper leg down if you do the air conversion from race/team to worldcup. Maybe RS increased the strength of the rebound setup leading to this problem??
Maybe the rebound rod is hitting the base plate and seeing there is no top out spring on that side its getting an increased shock load, leading to failure? The RS quality seems to be in the +-mm, maybe you got a short leg and short rebound shaft on damper side, and a long leg and long spring plunger on the other side?? Maybe measure both legs next time its apart.
Also, remember some people had a problem with doing the air conversion where the air leg was slightly longer then the rebound side, and instead of the force taken by the spring side it was taking it on the rebound side, the rebound rod was not designed for this and you ended up with a true floating piston when it sheared off the rebound rod
I remember the recommendation was to push the damper leg down if you do the air conversion from race/team to worldcup. Maybe RS increased the strength of the rebound setup leading to this problem??
Yeah, the newer ones actually have damping control.
You gotta let this go man, you're pulling stuff out of your ass now.
Toodles has had a heap of boxxers because he can, they all went onto new owners quite happily. Same story here, I've had 5-6 worldcups because I can. Looks like the General has the same story to tell. The fact is, everyone wants boxxers - so if you want a brand new one every season or even every half season, you've got it for minimum outlay (or sometimes - even profit haha).
If you don't like the fork, by all means don't ride it - there are plenty of people that do quite happily. I used to ride an 888 until I destroyed two cartridges (that did very little anyway)... everything fails, everyone has their story, I think some of us just keep it in our pants.
I have to wonder if big-ted's repeated issues can somehow be related to the aftermarket betd drop crown he was using? Possibly it was twisted or misaligned in some way? While I know other people that cracked the circlip on the stanchion (although I don't recall which side) I haven't heard of people with as many occurances over a relatively short duration as him.
For the record, I bough big-ted's troublesome Boxxer from him, had it converted to air and have been using it problem free for a couple of months (with a factory Boxxer crown). That being said, he's a very aggresive rider and I'm somewhat of a nancy. I actually like the Boxxer so much that after being a die-hard 888 fan since 2005, my 07 888 WC is up for sale.
For the record, I bough big-ted's troublesome Boxxer from him, had it converted to air and have been using it problem free for a couple of months (with a factory Boxxer crown). That being said, he's a very aggresive rider and I'm somewhat of a nancy. I actually like the Boxxer so much that after being a die-hard 888 fan since 2005, my 07 888 WC is up for sale.
maybe boxxers dont like the mud OR more likely, instead of sending all the crap ones to aus(like ih did previously with their frames), they sent them to the uk...
coz the amount of problems my friends have had with them is insane, think RS just didn't bother with QC. even 40's are looked as reliable forks amongst my friends. of course, its not all of them, they are ppl going around with slightly older models which have been problem free.
dont get my wrong, i am not dissing the boxxer, just saying its a fork like any other fork out there, it fails too. its ppl who worship it and go around dissing every other fork out there just annoy me.
in my experience boxxers do require more tlc then 40s, even with oil seals, that tiny amount of oil in it manages to vanish after a while.
that being said, i have blown up my 40 cart, and cracked the arch( on separate occasions), and i only weight 140lbs, but for a 3 year old fork, thats pretty good. still cant wait for the new boxxers to come out, any idea about pricing for the team?
coz the amount of problems my friends have had with them is insane, think RS just didn't bother with QC. even 40's are looked as reliable forks amongst my friends. of course, its not all of them, they are ppl going around with slightly older models which have been problem free.
dont get my wrong, i am not dissing the boxxer, just saying its a fork like any other fork out there, it fails too. its ppl who worship it and go around dissing every other fork out there just annoy me.
in my experience boxxers do require more tlc then 40s, even with oil seals, that tiny amount of oil in it manages to vanish after a while.
that being said, i have blown up my 40 cart, and cracked the arch( on separate occasions), and i only weight 140lbs, but for a 3 year old fork, thats pretty good. still cant wait for the new boxxers to come out, any idea about pricing for the team?
I'm sure I'll be ordering one as soon as they're available, as big-ted knows I like to be that guinea pig. Besides, I can hardly stick my battered old 06 boxxer on my new 09 frame when I get it can I 
(even though it still works perfectly well... I just wouldn't feel right!)
seb = sucker
(even though it still works perfectly well... I just wouldn't feel right!
)seb = sucker
The reason it happens is from pressure buildup against the seal head. Damping in either direction, rebound or compression, builds up oil pressure between either the rebound piston and the seal head, or the compression piston and the seal head. On top of that, you have the reduced air volume at the top of the fork when the thing is compressed generating yet more pressure on the seal head. That thing has a fairly big surface area, you don't need a whole lot of pressure on it to generate significant forces.Anyone else think its odd that this problem is confined to the damper side when the legs are identical?? As said, the rebound piston should not touch the plug/baseplate/circlip, there should be no load on it. That failure to me sure looks like its due to some kind of impact loading. I can't see that happening from sliding in a bushing. Weird.
Maybe the rebound rod is hitting the base plate and seeing there is no top out spring on that side its getting an increased shock load, leading to failure? The RS quality seems to be in the +-mm, maybe you got a short leg and short rebound shaft on damper side, and a long leg and long spring plunger on the other side?? Maybe measure both legs next time its apart.
Also, remember some people had a problem with doing the air conversion where the air leg was slightly longer then the rebound side, and instead of the force taken by the spring side it was taking it on the rebound side, the rebound rod was not designed for this and you ended up with a true floating piston when it sheared off the rebound rod
And back in the day I had tweaked crowns and twisted lowers as leftovers from boxxers of that era (which I used to make a boxxer-race into a boxxer-wc). Bottom line is that the 32mm chassi was insufficient a long time ago.
True.
It would be interesting to know what the remaining thickness of the leg is after c clip groove is machined. Lots of forks and rear shocks use c clip grooves like that and i have not heard of problems like this before. Must be waffer thin.
Maybe people are over filling the oil level as well?
If that is the problem i hope they go for a threaded seal head like the manitou dorado/xvert had, but those legs are thicker then the boxxer so its probably not workable. I gather they will probably make the legs thinner on the 35mm version, hope this isn't a long term issue.
I have another idea. Maybe people are installing the c clip in backwards and putting the sharp face against the groove? From memory the rebuild manual is fairly specific about putting this in the right way. Maybe the sharp face cuts into a small radius there, causes a stress riser and it cracks off.
Maybe they should go for a wire circlip like on the avy rear shock. Bit of a pain to get in and out (you need a very small jewelers screw driver) but no sharp edges.
Last edited:
i wouldn't go assuming its better than the bos because it has more adjustments.....olivier bossard is considered one of the best tuners the suspension world has ever seen....
neither product has really hit the market yet....i'd rather have a perfectly set up damper with a couple of basic adjustments than one with a bunch of chintzy plastic internals and zillions of adjustments.....too early to knock either....especially the BOS considering their history in comparison with RS's history
I heard that Vouilloz character knows a thing or two as well . . .
bonnie and clyde......Vouilloz and Bossard......ya know.....
diggin the graphics, def not the retard
The circlip needs to go in sharp side down so as to have a 'flat' surface to support the force against the clip. With the curved side down, the clip can be forced out of the groove....do that on both legs, and you can get an instant two piece fork. I have read a couple accounts of this happening (fork seperating), and it has always been an issue of home mechanic not following instructions.
I would agree, i like the threaded seal head idea better than a single circlip especially since they are quite easy to bend/deform when removing and then dont do their job.
Bla bla bla, have you ridden the BOS? I have. Thanks.
It's none of those issues. Pressure at bottom out is minimal, might contribute but definitely not a sole factor. The c-clip orientation has nothing to do with it, because the stanchion breaks away in the middle of the groove rather than on either top or bottom extremity. The issue is definitely that there's minimal thickness there, it's like 0.5mm at a rough guess.
Damping pressure would be the logical cause, but then guys running not much compression damping are doing it too, so I'm suspecting that sometimes you just get one that's a few microns thicker and therefore it lasts longer. Like I said it was 2 years before I did my first one, then the next one happened only a month or two later, and the replacement has been going strong again.
Threaded seal heads have their downsides too - they can be a nightmare to get undone and add weight. But yeah, anything that doesn't snap off would be better.
Pretty blunt there dude.
The BOS forks didn't feel anything special to me personally - very smooth action and a nice finish though. I think the rear shock stands out but the fork didn't make me wanna sell a kidney or anything.