RST high five help

Hi,

Jimbo, sorry, yes, that should have been 70 rather than 700. My lousy typing. can't imagine what my head angle would have been with 700.

Re the snapping - I may actually have circumvented this by having cut them down soon after I got the bike. I was doing mainly XC, with some downhill, but nothing ridiculous, and I figured I could loose a bit of weight off the bike by converting them to single crown.

I'n not sure if RST ever did a single crown version of the High Five, but I ordered a crown off one, if they did, or another, if they didn't, through the local bike shop (back in the days before getting everything off ebay), and cut the stanchions down. I lost some of the travel, obvioulsy, but swapped the elstomers round and carved some out, and took one of the two bumpers out of the springs, and they worked okay. I didn't mind losing the travel, as this seemed a good trade off for the weight, especially considering the riding I was doing.

I'll have a look, but I'm pretty sure the single crown is not hard edged. Might have a good look for marks on the stanchion, but am pretty sure they're clean.

Like I said, I cleaned them up and cut down some of the elastomers - greased them up, cleaned the air vents on the adjusters, and they are a lot better. I get decent travel (compared with before), with usable damping. I've riden modern bikes with worse forks.

Still in the market for a new set, though. Just choosing now...

Thanks for the input.
 
The re-call only applied to the twin crown sets.

Mozo's 4.5 were the single crown version, different crown, as you now have by the sounds of it.

Go abuse them :LOL:
 
I just did. Old spoil tip/quarry near me. set the seat low, had a blast - down some pretty steep drop offs - 10 - 15 foot in places. Long time since I've done that, but great, great fun.

Here's a pic, BTW, of my GT:

i-Dqk948c-M.jpg


Edit: forgot to add, I did a bit more searching, and found on the MTBR review section talk of the Hi 5s being recalled not because of the stanchion but the thickness inside the leg. The danger, apparently, concerned using a disk brake (guessing it wasn't strong enough for the extra force).
Don't know if this is the true reason, but you can read about it here:

http://www.mtbr.com/cat/older-categorie ... px#reviews

Talk of it on page 2 and 3
 
Back
Top