# Cannondale Moto Fork



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Well folks I've looked a bit (Checked C'Dale and a couple shops) and can't pin down what I am after.

I'm trying to find a Brown spring for this model fork. This is the tandem / Heavy rated spring.

Actually if anyone has a moto fork or any spare parts I may be interested in those also, that is of course if you are willing to part with them.

Thanks
PK


----------



## Superburner (Apr 24, 2008)

Are you still interested in a Cannondale Moto fork? I've got a buddy who has a completely unused one with yellow lowers that he'd be interested in selling/trading? I don't know what spring is in it.
Let me know.


----------



## befoot (Mar 11, 2006)

PMK said:


> I'm trying to find a Brown spring for this model fork. This is the tandem / Heavy rated spring.


PMK, For what it's worth we are using red springs and I think C-dale still has them in stock. our team wight is something like 325 LBS and they work fine. I think brown might be better but good luck finding them. Have you tried the Double Forte site?

good luck in your Quest


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Send a PM with his asking price. Obviously this has a bit to do with it, also a couple of photos so I might be able to see what year it was made.

Befoot, ours has a red spring and we tip the scales a bit more than you folks. On advice from Alex, I added some additional spring via an added elastomer.

I measured and ran the spring rate numbers to get an idea of rate. I'm exploring a few options but if the fork stays I'll likely just have a spring wound to my spec.

In contrast, being an older style (98) steep head angle frame, I'm checking out some other forks, to hopefully add some clearance, get properly sprung and gain some travel to float(?) over palmetto roots since we haven't been successful in wheelying this machine over stuff.

BTW I did post on DF. Ideally I could find a take off fork that is the moto tandem version, this would allow a disc brake, have the beefy lowers and hopefully a truck spring.

PK


----------



## Sam Jones (Feb 25, 2005)

PMK said:


> , I added some additional spring via an added elastomer.


Obviously I don't know what your "added elastomer" set up is, BUT IF you added the elastomer on "top" of the spring (as an extension to the spring) this actually REDUCES the spring RATE (although it reduces the loaded sag due to the extra effective spring length).

Thus you would be better off with a solid spacer on top of the spring which maintains the original spring rate (and reduces the loaded sag). However, if you add too much of a spacer it might be possible that the spring would coil bind before you get to the full compressed travel of the fork.

IF you added the elastomer(s) inside the original spring (and they are full length of the spring) that will indeed increase the spring rate (and reduce the loaded sag). This could work as good or possibly even better than a heavier spring.


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Sam, Thanks for the reply.

FWIW, I did not increase the coil spring preload via a spacer. Nor did I soften the rate by placing an MCU on either end of the spring.

You are correct, in that I machined a new but laying around Manitou MCU, to fit the springs ID. The bike with added spring rate is better than before but not how I would prefer it.

I have checked my used springs kicking around, all my Showa, KYB and WP springs are to large of diameter, so cutting one is not practical.

I pulled my spring supplier catalogs, and while I can find springs to fit, but requiring a lower spring seat to be fabricated, most die springs are not capable of enough travel.

I drew the spring in Auto cad and noted the dimensions and details, I plan to forward this to Cannonracecraft and get a quote. They said in conversation they can wind this size so if the price is good I may do that.

One main problem of a Headshok spring is the lower end, to make the spring progressive they don't vary the pitch of the coils, but rather taper the diameter. OEM also stuffs the spring ID with an elastomer. Both of these add progression to offset the lack of a sealed air chamber as on a normal fork. 

I'm pretty sure in the end, it will be a different fork.

PK


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Stuffing the elastomer inside the spring has made a huge difference. This is a simple mod but does require the special tools to work on the fork, mainly the long castle tool to remove the spring.

I know from experience the oem headshok elastomer deteriorate in very short calender time, so my thoughts are to find some Manitou MCU's to work with until I upgrade the fork.

PK


----------



## winbert (Sep 22, 2005)

It's been a few years, but I got my brown spring from www.dexterbikeandsport.com. I'm pretty sure he had to order it from Cannondale, but he was planning to order more than one. Never know, he might still have one on the shelf.

Trivia: the owner, Jeffrey Turck used to work for Cannondale and was actually the guy in the Moto FR fork service video they recorded for shops...

winbert


----------



## PMK (Oct 12, 2004)

Bringing this up again with a new twist.

Can anyone provide details of the difference between a non tandem vs the tandem version of these forks?

I have read they "beefed it up", but is this a measurable change that can be verified from the exterior? Does anyone have the difference in dimensions. Is it identified via serial number?

I have a 98 moto, the lower legs have a 1 1/4" outside diameter. 

I had a great person here send me a fork they no longer used, so I could have some spare parts. This is huge by the way, knowing I can bring a spare damper cartridge on trips and the tools to change it if needed (about 5 minutes).

This spare fork has a disc tab, and in looking at photos on the internet, this forks flame paint job could possibly have or may not have the "beefed up" version.

Can anyone help?

PK


----------



## TandemNut (Mar 12, 2004)

PMK said:


> Bringing this up again with a new twist.
> 
> Can anyone provide details of the difference between a non tandem vs the tandem version of these forks?
> 
> ...


I had a couple of conversations with Cannondale about this very subject several years ago. Seems Cannondale was VERY adamant that the non-tandem version of the fork not be used for tandems with disc brakes. Now this is the disc brake boss/dropout portion of the fork, I believe. In fact, my local dealer at the time had mentioned that C'dale was so serious about the issue they were considering screwing in non-reversible caps of some sort so disc brakes couldn't be used on the fork with a tandem. 
Now keep in mind that this is from 6-7 years ago, and my memory ain't what it used to be (which never was that great), but I do remember these particular conversations because of how serious Cannondale thought the issue was. 
They came out with the beefed-up version of the fork with a T designation of some sort to identify it as tandem and disc/brake compatible. I don't know if the T was actually in the serial #, or if it was stamped on the dropouts near the disc tabs. This would have been around 2000 or 2001, if I recall correctly. Your fork seems to predate that; I don't think the tandem versions had the flame decals.
Along this timeframe the tandem frames with the "S" shaped opening in the rear disc mount also MAY have had some failures. As I recall, the frames with the oval-shaped opending in the disc droppout was fine for disc/tandem use.
You might try calling Cannondale; they were always very helpful in identifying the different forks for me. They didn't then and very probably won't now admit to any failures, but they can tell you if the fork is tandem-rated or not.


----------

