Andreani cartridges

ahastings

New Member
So I took my forks apart tonight, not happy with the handling. Had them installed by a shop. Haven't been using anywhere close to all travel. Found cartridges loose in fork bottoms. So took them out. Noticed that these cartridges don't use top out springs and wondering why as all modern forks I have seen do. Also I feel the recommended 130mm oil height is too much oil as I am not using anywhere near all the travel and i am a pretty aggressive expert level racer and weigh 175lbs so I am lowering the height to 150mm has anyone else experienced this.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Not sure with Andreani cartridges, but with standard forks I couldnt get full travel with recommended oil volume of 460ml.
Dropping to 400ml per leg fixed that
 

streetfighter

New Member
I am using andreani cartridge, also found myself not using all the travel, thought the spring rate wasn't right or I wasn't aggressive enough... now you made me wonder ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I tested with a cable tie and a few aggressive front stoppies down the driveway.
With 460ml oil volume i was only getting 105mm travel.
Sucked out some oil with syringe and plastic tube
Dropping the oil level 15mm gave me an extra 15mm travel (120mm total) leaving 5mm still under hydraulic lock which Im happy with.
 

streetfighter

New Member
I tested with a cable tie and a few aggressive front stoppies down the driveway.
With 460ml oil volume i was only getting 105mm travel.
Sucked out some oil with syringe and plastic tube
Dropping the oil level 15mm gave me an extra 15mm travel (120mm total) leaving 5mm still under hydraulic lock which Im happy with.

Thanks for the detail info Fangfactor. I will give it a try and ask my mechanic to remove about 60ml to of fork oil to see i can achieve the same result. Generally, what is the benefit of more travel?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

CDN Duke

Member
Country flag
HardRacing had a comment somewhere - travel increases from stock with Andreani. It's same kit for Duke and RC390. Duke has 150mm travel out of the box (spec). Once you install Andreani, the RC390 also expected to get the 150mm or thereabouts.
 
Thanks for the detail info Fangfactor. I will give it a try and ask my mechanic to remove about 60ml to of fork oil to see i can achieve the same result. Generally, what is the benefit of more travel?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Under heavy braking once the front bottoms extra forces are suddenly loaded onto the front tyre which can cause the front to push or tuck and also the rear tyre will be unloaded as the rear of the bike wants to lift. So as long as your springs and damping are correct for your weight and riding style not having the front bottom out before it should is a good thing. :)

Check with andreani on the travel with their kit as I think CDN Duke is right.
 

streetfighter

New Member
Under heavy braking once the front bottoms extra forces are suddenly loaded onto the front tyre which can cause the front to push or tuck and also the rear tyre will be unloaded as the rear of the bike wants to lift. So as long as your springs and damping are correct for your weight and riding style not having the front bottom out before it should is a good thing. :)

Check with andreani on the travel with their kit as I think CDN Duke is right.

150mm vs 120mm. That's a pretty big difference In terms of handling, will the extra travel cause the bike to run a bit wide when exiting a corner since the fork has more room to extend




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

simpletty

Member
Country flag
You should be filling these forks with a measurement t from the top down to the fluid level. Not by amount of oil. I'm running 345mm from the top and they do not bottom under hard braking. The handling improvement over racetech springs is night and day. Was almost 3 seconds faster after installing these
 
150mm vs 120mm. That's a pretty big difference In terms of handling, will the extra travel cause the bike to run a bit wide when exiting a corner since the fork has more room to extend




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They wont extend further but they may compress further to gain the extra travel
Bottom out on the standard forks has 41mm of the chrome tube still exposed
So if its correct that andreani has 150mm of travel then only 16mm will be exposed at bottom out.
Can anyone confirm this?
Upgraded cartridges are next on my wish list
 
You should be filling these forks with a measurement t from the top down to the fluid level. Not by amount of oil. I'm running 345mm from the top and they do not bottom under hard braking. The handling improvement over racetech springs is night and day. Was almost 3 seconds faster after installing these

Is 345mm oil level from the top the recommended Height from Andreani?
If so its no wonder AHastings cant get full travel with 130mm oil level in his
Great to hear they a a big improvement over stock.
What in particular was it that felt better and gave you more confidence?
 

simpletty

Member
Country flag
my bad, just looked at the email from Dave Behrand @ fast bike industries. I an using a 8.8nm spring (220lbs in gear) and [FONT=Book Antiqua, serif, EmojiFont] Oil level is 130mm and I have run it down to 140mm for racing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, serif, EmojiFont]We went with 135mm. The feel front end is much better than it was on the progressive race tech springs. It holds the line much better and does not tend to drift out like the race tech springs. The fact that it was not holding the line as well was the spacers on the racetech setup were set too high and the forks were much stiffer with no real damping. I had more than one front end loss, saved a couple, but there was really no warning once it tipped in the front would washout. Now with the andreani kits installed I was dragging the akra pipe in the fast corners. More planted feel and great feedback, no longer riding a dead horse. Al Hastings may have too heavy of a spring setup for his weight. I am not bottoming out with the 8.8nm springs on the hardest braking sections. I have yet to do any adjustments from the standard posistion[/FONT]
 

Maddog Reynolds

New Member
This might sound obvious, but how are you measuring oil height?

Down from the very top of the stanchion above the top yoke, I assume, but is that on a stand, with the suspension fully extended?
 

ahastings

New Member
Oil level is measured with forks fully compressed and springs removed. with Andreanni cartridges the the forks should be able to use all but about 15mm of the travel. I'm running 8.3n/m springs whuch is .85 kg/mm and weigh 180lbs. In my 600 i run .95 springs and oil level at 160mm. I'll get a chance to try out the lower oil level this wknd. I also added Top out springs to the cartridges.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

ahastings

New Member
Forks still not working well. Getting a lot of chatter mid corner and still not using all the travel. Finished on podium in 2 out of 3 races but I feel if I can get the forks to work right should be able to win consistently. What spring rates are u guys using . Mine are 8.3 N/M and I weigh about 175 lbs.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

HardRacing

Supporting Vendor
Country flag
Forks still not working well. Getting a lot of chatter mid corner and still not using all the travel. Finished on podium in 2 out of 3 races but I feel if I can get the forks to work right should be able to win consistently. What spring rates are u guys using . Mine are 8.3 N/M and I weigh about 175 lbs.
.

What sag measurement are you getting on the Front ?


.
 

HardRacing

Supporting Vendor
Country flag
Around 34 mm and about 20mm free sag just the bike

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
.

If you have the pre-load backed all the way out ,and still can only get 34mm of Sag, then Sounds like you may want switch to slightly softer springs.

175 lbs is at the very bottom limit of the 8.3 spring rate.

So you could go with 7.8 N/mm if you want to soften the front end and get more travel.


.
 
Top