1993 FAT CHANCE Shock-a-Billy

[kingroon]

Re: 1994 FAT CHANCE Shock-a-Billy

Thanks Amigos

Next step is to have a sleeve machine for the Noleen Shock [not the one pictured] I want to use, so it fits in the Donor AMP Seatstay shock clamp; a 19mm > 24.4mm shim.

Quite interesting the differences in the designs of the AMP setup across the years; the main difference between the FAT front end and the Donor AMP one, is the position under the TT of the shock mount. There is approx. 1" difference; the FAT one being closer to the HT.. This being the case, the shock I have for the FAT is approx. 1" longer in the body than the one fitted in the photos above.

 

[unit3]

Re:

Enjoying this build, I really should pay more attention to my builds and document them better!

Out of interest, whats your plans for the amp front end? I have one with a possible crack.

 

[kingroon]

Re: Re:

Out of interest, whats your plans for the amp front end? I have one with a possible crack.

It's all yours Dude I'll get a box sorted and PM you then..

 

[unit3]

Re:

Cheers buddy :-D

 

[B3]

Re:

The difference is that the AMP is a B3, the FAT is based on the older B2. On B3's the stays clamps around the shock body on B2's the stays clamp on the end cap.

You'll end up with a really slack head tube angle if you run what you've got.

Just for reference, the pivot shafts were originally solid alloy with a chrome coating or (later) hollow stainless. the alloy ones have the wear resistance of cheese and last about a month.

 

[kingroon]

Re: Re:

The difference is that the AMP is a B3, the FAT is based on the older B2. On B3's the stays clamps around the shock body on B2's the stays clamp on the end cap.

You'll end up with a really slack head tube angle if you run what you've got.

Yeah hence the need to shim my longer-in-the-body shock [See attached image below]. The Seatstay assemblies are actually the same length/dimensions etc.

Was the shift in shock mount [under the TT] the main difference between the B2 & B3? Doesn't look like the chainstay/BB Pivot Point changed.. Also, I'm guessing AMP moved to a more CNC'd design at the chainstay/Pivot Arms juncture..?

 

[B3]

Re:

Yep, they tried to reduce flex by making the axle to shock pivot shorter. It still suffered from flex when braking which they tried to cure with a brake bridge.

Later B4 models cured this. The swith to CNC'D parts came with increased volumes, it made production simpler.

 

[kingroon]

Re: Re:

..It still suffered from flex when braking which they tried to cure with a brake bridge..

Yeah this'll be my Nth AMP'd Billy and I remember the ride always being a case of "Something's not right.. Is the Rear Tyre low on air; have I got a Puncture out back; has the Rear End linkage totally given way or is it just the AMP Suspension System..?"

I have a TWP Brace for the stays for what it's worth.. More about Form than Function

 

[B3]

Re:

Yeah, they are a bit flex, but then they are thin tubes and even smaller pivots built in an era when lightweight was king.

 

[kingroon]

Re: Re:

Yeah, they are a bit flex, but then they are thin tubes and even smaller pivots built in an era when lightweight was king.

Hey don't get me wrong, if I didn't like 'em I'd stop buying 'em!

This is going to be a fairly lightweight Build, although no Whippet, it should sit under the 25lbs mark..