Page 1 of 2
standard rear shock differences
Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 7:58 pm
by Damien420
Hi,
im new to the forum so apologies if this has already been asked (i have looked but can't seem to find anything )
Iv got a 89 import nc30. When i bought it i was told it had the uprated suspension? Its got the rear shock with the resovior and
adjusting nuts on the top of the front forks. Im doing a bit of restoration work and want it to look fairly standard so I'll stop babbling and get to the point.
what is the differene between the rear shock with the remote resovior and the earlier one without, which i think should be on mine, am i mad for wanting to possibly down grade and what does it do?
Similar question for front forks.
Cheers
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Tue May 05, 2015 7:40 am
by CRM
your 89 model should have the shock without remote res.
as your bike has one from a 91 onwards with remote res they are considered slightly better than the 89 item.
when i say better - i mean when they were new and before 10k miles, by now all will be pretty whipped.
that said even a whipped late NC30 shock is better than a new standard RVF shock - they really are shite.
Forks - same really, both work well, the early items are soft yet work ok, later slightly better and with a refresh and spring upgrade are very very good forks.
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 1:22 pm
by Neosophist
yes as above,
dont put the original stuff back on, the late nc30 shock can be rebuilt and is a decent shock, especially if your road riding and not racing, same with the front forks. adjustable dampening so can be setup nicer than the 89 forks (they dont have the brass adjusters)
probably both need a referesh by now to get the optinimum out of them, new springs in the fornt forks (contact Rick O)
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 9:30 pm
by autech91
This Rick O chap, does he do kits for the NC30? I'm building up a race NC30 at the moment and would like to give the suspension a tickle if possible before getting it out on track
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 11:19 pm
by hunter
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 11:33 pm
by Damien420
Im going to keep the front forks but paint them silver so they are the right colour for an 89.
To be fair im hardly going to use it once its finnished, if only i was allowed it would live in my living room :) so the extra performance Isn't that crucial to me.
I spoke to a guy who said he can rebuild an 89 rear shock, re plate all the bits and pices and powder coat the spring etc for £164
Is the 89 rear subframe dfferent from the rest as thers a metal hook to support the remote resovior hose.... is this not on an 89 or is t there but just not used or used for something els?
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 12:00 am
by autech91
hunter wrote:Check out his list here.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26174
Yeah I had a look at that before after posting. I can see some money being spent soon! Will get a thread up soon about the project.
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 12:54 pm
by Neosophist
Damien420 wrote:Im going to keep the front forks but paint them silver so they are the right colour for an 89.
To be fair im hardly going to use it once its finnished, if only i was allowed it would live in my living room :) so the extra performance Isn't that crucial to me.
I spoke to a guy who said he can rebuild an 89 rear shock, re plate all the bits and pices and powder coat the spring etc for £164
Is the 89 rear subframe dfferent from the rest as thers a metal hook to support the remote resovior hose.... is this not on an 89 or is t there but just not used or used for something els?
I have a set of rebuilt 89 forks and a matching 89 shock knocking around somewhere most probably.
I did have a bent subframe too but i cut it up and recycled it.
As for your question, yes the subframes are slightly different owing to the brakcets for the shock, aprart from that there is no differece.
If you really want something perfect why not get an 89 bike you dont need to play about wiht, plenty of good examples, if you put up some pictures of oyur bike and the frame numebr / engine number (change the last digit if you want to porject the identity) we can look up if it really is 89.
sounds a bit odd it has forks / shock and subframe if its an 89?
guy on another post here thinking about selling his uk nc30 thats in good condition and correct specs.
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 1:20 pm
by Damien420
Went to see a few and this one was by far the best. It is a nice bike. I think the problem is i'm getting a bit obsessed. Just been trying to upload some pics but not sure how to do it?
Re: standard rear shock differences
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 6:39 pm
by hunter
Use photobucket to upload pics.