# Is it possible to convert a Lyrik 160 to 170?



## seppe71 (Apr 18, 2006)

Has anyone tried to convert the Lyrik 160 (I have 160 u turn) to a Lyrik 170? I have know idea if it would be possible at all, but if I could do the conversion it would save me from buying the Fox 180 talas. If the cost was relatively inexpensive ($200-300) I would go the conversion. Otherwise I will wait until next season to buy the Fox


----------



## Slick&Slam (Jul 20, 2010)

*Don't think so...*



seppe71 said:


> Has anyone tried to convert the Lyrik 160 (I have 160 u turn) to a Lyrik 170? I have know idea if it would be possible at all, but if I could do the conversion it would save me from buying the Fox 180 talas. If the cost was relatively inexpensive ($200-300) I would go the conversion. Otherwise I will wait until next season to buy the Fox


You would need a new chassis as well as the internals. Probably a new cart as well.

You can lower the 170 to 160, though...


----------



## amrgb (May 7, 2007)

It's doable. I remember seeing someone doing it on a Solo Air on the suspension forum a few months ago. In that case, the guy had a new piece made to get the Air spring to do the 170mm. I don't recall if he had the original or '10 damper. But I think that everything was stock except for the part he made and I'm definitely sure he kept the lowers and uppers.

This means that you should be able to convert it to 170mm simply by buying the 170mm coil or air assembly, which would be less than $200 I think. In the worst case you would have to buy the new compression and rebound dampers, which would probably mean something in the $300 to $400 range, but you would be upgrading the damper as well.

Now that I wrote this, I remembered another thing. I was assuming you have a pre-2010 fork. If your fork is 2010, then you only need the spring assembly, as all the other parts are shared among the Lyrik range.


----------



## frorider (Apr 2, 2005)

easy and simple according to rockshox. i had a warranty issue w/ my 160 mm lyrik air spring; they sent one of the new air spring assemblies (which are 170 travel) and a 10 mm spacer to get my fork back down to 160. 

haven't had time to install it yet.

RS guy #2 said the uppers and lowers are identical. 

the first rockshox tech support guy said the uppers were different. guy #2 said guy #1 was plain wrong.


----------



## Slick&Slam (Jul 20, 2010)

frorider said:


> easy and simple according to rockshox. i had a warranty issue w/ my 160 mm lyrik air spring; they sent one of the new air spring assemblies (which are 170 travel) and a 10 mm spacer to get my fork back down to 160.
> 
> haven't had time to install it yet.
> 
> ...


*If* the chassis is identical ( I just don't see the logic in this from a manufacturers standpoint ), then getting parts should be less than $300 bucks. If you purchased the fork from a shop, then they may consider getting you the parts @ or VERY near their cost. You would be looking at:

New coil or air assembly--$60-$80 *note that you may be able to use the old spring with spacers (-$20)

Rebound Assembly--$100-$150

You'd need a newer damper for the higher volume Rebound--$$60-$80


----------



## juan pablo (Jan 17, 2007)

While back in the UK I was looking into getting a coil kit for my 160mm solo air/ Called TF Tuned and got into chatting about a few things like the new DH Lyrik and when I asked about the coil kit they asked me if I wanted 160 or 170mm. According to them its no problem at all. I picked up the 170mm kit but I just havent gotten around to changing out the internals. The chasis is no problem and there is sufficient length on the rebound shaft.


----------



## hafnz (Aug 22, 2007)

Slick&Slam said:


> *If* the chassis is identical ( I just don't see the logic in this from a manufacturers standpoint ), then getting parts should be less than $300 bucks. If you purchased the fork from a shop, then they may consider getting you the parts @ or VERY near their cost. You would be looking at:
> 
> New coil or air assembly--$60-$80 *note that you may be able to use the old spring with spacers (-$20)
> 
> ...


It's indeed just a matter of switching the spring or air spring assy and adding a bit more oil (there are values for that, depending on what year damper/rebound is being used) on the damper side.

Downsides (appart from geometry changes) to using 170, instead of 160 is that there's no U-turn option on the 170.

Also, there are already mods out there (thinking of a german forum that has an imense thread about it) to make a 160 into a 170 just by adding a 10mm hollow spacer on the bottom of the spring and using a longer bolt to be able to bolt it all up.

Edit, another thread on the subject that mentions the german forum I was talking about:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=6870416&postcount=6


----------



## Slick&Slam (Jul 20, 2010)

hafnz said:


> It's indeed just a matter of switching the spring or air spring assy and adding a bit more oil (there are values for that, depending on what year damper/rebound is being used) on the damper side.
> 
> Downsides (appart from geometry changes) to using 170, instead of 160 is that there's no U-turn option on the 170.
> 
> ...


Personally, other than geo (which can be altered any number of ways) there is no need to up the travel on this fork. You should not see any performance enhancements and 10mm of travel is negligible for the amount of money it would cost.

My experience with RS is that they are there to satisfy the customer and they are happy to sell you anything your little heart desires, regardless of any "advice" you may have been given. You REALLY need to do the research if you're like me and expect to spend your money "wisely"

Thanks for the link.


----------



## seppe71 (Apr 18, 2006)

Slick&Slam said:


> Personally, other than geo (which can be altered any number of ways) there is no need to up the travel on this fork. You should not see any performance enhancements and 10mm of travel is negligible for the amount of money it would cost.
> 
> My experience with RS is that they are there to satisfy the customer and they are happy to sell you anything your little heart desires, regardless of any "advice" you may have been given. You REALLY need to do the research if you're like me and expect to spend your money "wisely"
> 
> Thanks for the link.


Thanks for all the info and the links. I believe I have an '09 Lyrik. So to be clear, I could use my existing lowers but I would need to get the longer spring, new compression and rebound assemblies. 
Im riding an Intense Uzzi VP and I want to match the travel a bit more. I thought of buying a Totem to have for the bigger days and keep the Lyrik for trail days. I would be ok with 170mm of travel if it meant keeping the cost down some, but if the cost were to go over $300 I would just get the Fox.
Time to go and talk to the boys at Go Ride and make the decision

Thanks again for the info


----------



## hafnz (Aug 22, 2007)

seppe71, to clarify on the damper/rebound comment I made, you don't "need" them to run the Lyrik at 170, what you'll need is to know what are the correct oil volume values for the damper considering its year.

For one, the damper and rebound were revised in 2010 to allow more oil to flow between them, for that to be able to happen, on the rebound side of things, Sram took the tube, where the rebound used to sit inside the stanchion, out, completely, making a larger "head" for the rebound shaft that now runs directly on the stanchion. To be able to compensate that extra area that the tube no longer occupies there's the need of more oil than before.

For two, if you keep the damper and rebound you already have (which you can) you'll only have to make up for the space of 10mm more travel. I don't think I ever saw what are the oil volume values for it, so I can't give them, but I'm sure Sram or Go-Ride, if you're going to talk to them, will be able to help you on that.

Making the whole damper/rebound/spring switch, will probably be close to the $300 you mentioned, but according to all the latest reviews, on the Mission Control DH specially, it's worth it :thumbsup:


----------



## Slick&Slam (Jul 20, 2010)

hafnz said:


> seppe71, to clarify on the damper/rebound comment I made, you don't "need" them to run the Lyrik at 170, what you'll need is to know what are the correct oil volume values for the damper considering its year.
> 
> For one, the damper and rebound were revised in 2010 to allow more oil to flow between them, for that to be able to happen, on the rebound side of things, Sram took the tube, where the rebound used to sit inside the stanchion, out, completely, making a larger "head" for the rebound shaft that now runs directly on the stanchion. To be able to compensate that extra area that the tube no longer occupies there's the need of more oil than before.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how he would *not* have to purchase the longer/wider rebound circuit As far as I know there is not 10mm of added shaft on either the plunger (coil side), nor the rebound piston. I could see that the OP could possible 'engineer' something for the coil side, but the rebound shaft might get pretty complicated.

I wasn't sold on the 'revisions'.

What I noticed with my Totem was the added volume also meant more friction due to the larger contact surface of the rebound piston. Subsequently, the fork felt slower/sticky during it's cycle. I also found that it was not necessary for use with the updated damper. Matter of fact I am running an '08 rebound assembly coupled with a 2010 damper and lovin' it! In my mind, you would have no choice but to run the higher volume rebound circuit if you choose to extend the fork. I say keep it as is and just update the MC damper and enjoy your new fork .

I'm pretty sure that the dampers are not the same '09-2010. Although, he might be fine running the old damper and the new rebound circuit. Who knows...my buddies fork seemed to accept the "upgrades" better than mine, and he is currently running ALL 2010 inards with a 2009 chassis. His fork feels really plush compared to mine with the same updates--and I've gone through two forks (currently have a 2010 chassis), and more than a few replacement uppers due to creaking issues. That could be the leverages at play on the different bikes, too...there are so many variables:madman:

As far as the DH damper...ugh. I have tried to like it. The truth is (at least for the Totem) that is has a lot of low speed compression 'built in' with no way to adjust it externally. I'm pretty sure that you could play with different shims and loads to get it 'right', but I've been pretty happy with the updated stock damper...I like having those adjustments and they WORK:thumbsup: Also, I lost quite a bit of range in my rebound when I went with the DH damper for a spell...not sure what to contribute that to Anyway, I found that just removing floodgate from the stock damper was a better upgrade for HS compliance vs the --SRAM--Lets-cash-in-on-the-innovation-of-our-customers-approach-to-the-upgrade.

Good luck! Report back, 'cuz if I like the idea of extending my Totem for 190mm for sh1ts and gr1ns, but I just don't think it would be possible...


----------



## frorider (Apr 2, 2005)

FWIW, i've been pretty happy with the DH cartridge in my 2008 solo air totem (which is paired with an uzzi vpx w/ the avalanche/push mx fox shock) and the DH cartridge in my 2009 lyrik.

hafnz's description of the 160-170 travel upgrade is what rock shox tech support guy #2 told me. i.e. now that i have a 170 mm travel air spring assembly (free under warranty), which comes with a 10 mm reducer spacer, it is my choice whether to install it as a 170 mm configuration or a 160 mm configuration. "No other parts needed. Rebound damper rod is long enough for either configuration." according to sram/RS.


----------



## Slick&Slam (Jul 20, 2010)

frorider said:


> "No other parts needed. Rebound damper rod is long enough for either configuration." according to sram/RS.


I'd have to wonder if the rebound piston would "top out" if you liked an active fork.

Again, I would not necessarily trust the guys at SRAM (great bunch of guys/gals, actually)

They are pretty knowledgeable, but they HAVE to know a *little* about everything.

Just because you COULD ride a 29'er on a DH course, doesn't mean it's necessarily the right tool for the job...


----------



## hafnz (Aug 22, 2007)

Slick&Slam said:


> I'd have to wonder if the rebound piston would "top out" if you liked an active fork.
> 
> Again, I would not necessarily trust the guys at SRAM (great bunch of guys/gals, actually)
> 
> ...


A couple of weeks ago I've replaced the rebound shaft on a friend's Lyrik (it was mine prior to being his) with the new one (that doesn't need the damper tube) and apart from having a slightly thicker rod, I'm almost 100% sure the length was the same.

My guess is that if the rebound shaft was completely extended before (or after the mod) it would make the space between the piston and the bottom of the stanchion almost dry which would make for a very awkward beginning stroke. Which isn't the case from all the reports I've read, there was already enough space and with the added 10mm there still is. Those 10mm of added travel are probably the mechanical max. on adding more travel to it, though.


----------



## Slick&Slam (Jul 20, 2010)

hafnz said:


> A couple of weeks ago I've replaced the rebound shaft on a friend's Lyrik (it was mine prior to being his) with the new one (that doesn't need the damper tube) and apart from having a slightly thicker rod, I'm almost 100% sure the length was the same.
> 
> My guess is that if the rebound shaft was completely extended before (or after the mod) it would make the space between the piston and the bottom of the stanchion almost dry which would make for a very awkward beginning stroke. Which isn't the case from all the reports I've read, there was already enough space and with the added 10mm there still is. Those 10mm of added travel are probably the mechanical max. on adding more travel to it, though.


Thanks.

I got the first part; second part, not so much.


----------



## hafnz (Aug 22, 2007)

Slick&Slam said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I got the first part; second part, not so much.


Nevermind, my english isn't in it's best form today and I'm digressing.

Bottom line is, it will work :thumbsup:


----------



## Slick&Slam (Jul 20, 2010)

hafnz said:


> Nevermind, my english isn't in it's best form today and I'm digressing.
> 
> Bottom line is, it will work :thumbsup:


Don't be so quick to judge yourself, I'm not even half way through my first cup o' joe so my "English" isn't the best either

Give it another shot.

What I understand from your last paragraph in the previous post is that somehow they (SRAM) *probably* anticipated the "upgrade" and engineered the potential to up the travel on the latest models. Hmmmm...I sure hope they are ready for the next wave of DH *specific* 29'ers

I don't understand what you meant about the 'space being dry' and how that translates to the issue at hand. I mostly open up my forks before they see any dirt.

Thanks for info on the damper shaft. I wonder if they thinned out the rebound damper to make up for the lost space...I'll have to look into that.


----------



## hafnz (Aug 22, 2007)

Slick&Slam said:


> I don't understand what you meant about the 'space being dry' and how that translates to the issue at hand. I mostly open up my forks before they see any dirt.


What I meant was that hypothetically, that could be a reason for it not to work, in the first place, but that it was already "proven" by other people's comments that it worked without any problem.



Slick&Slam said:


> Thanks for info on the damper shaft. I wonder if they thinned out the rebound damper to make up for the lost space...I'll have to look into that.


It didn't look thinner to me, when I had both in my hand, the newer shaft looked thicker and the piston had a larger diameter, but that was about it. Everything looked quite similar on the outside, apart from those two details.

I sometimes get carried away in my thoughts/theories and while it could be intelligible in my main language, when it all gets translated in my head it usually doesn't sound that intelligible


----------



## 123ski (Jun 16, 2008)

has anyone converted their 2010 Lyrik U-Turn to 170mm successfully..i imagine the U-Turn feature doesn't work anymore after you do so, but just wondering if it works. Also, what did you buy exactly?


----------



## juan pablo (Jan 17, 2007)

I have done mine last week after having the parts for 8 months. I ride a Totem and the lyrik is a back up. I fitted the parts and installed the Lyrik while I was servicing my Totem. First ride and the next day there was dampener oil on the floor. Removed the compression adjust dials, cleaned up the fork and went for a play ride. Can clearly see the oil is comming from the top of the dampener. So I am not sure if the conversion caused the issue or if its because the fork has been sitting for so long. I baught the fork almost 2 years ago for a real bargain on CRC. I used it for about 6 rides but while light the air spring wasnt for me. I never had any oil leaking untill I did the mod so its anyones guess. I pulled the dampener out last night so I can start stripping it down to find the problem and do the fix. I only fitted the 170 spring kit. I want to do the Floodgate mod and I need to find out how much oil I need to add. I ran the standard volume in the dampener.


----------

