Front fork, lower pipe "piston ring?"

[gltriker]

I pulled both fork tube assemblies apart to inspect and clean the internals of both before reassembling and subsequently installing new oil seals. Here's my dilemma..

In Honda's Parts breakdown nomenclature, the short "lower pipe", item#6, captured within in the large fork tube by the allen head capscrew coming upwards from the bottom of the lower slider, is illustrated as having a "piston ring." item #8 That detail is found in the Fork section of the GL1000 breakdown pages, on-line.
From Western Honda's on-line OEM parts look-up, it states, "Call For Pricing."
More or less.... the piston ring is no longer available? Both piston rings are still in place on both of my "lower pipes", but there seems to be no contact between the piston ring OD and the ID of the large tube.
To further complicate the matter I'm investigating, there is no dimensional information for qualifying whether that specific piston ring is still within a usable range, to be found in the Factory Honda GL service Manual.
What will I do? What will I do?

Has anybody been able to locate either an original OEM "piston ring", or an equivalent from another source?

Thanks!!

[robin1731]

I'd put them back together. I've never replaced that ring. And I've never had any problems. I do replace bushings on forks that have the removable ones. The 1000 doesn't though.

[gregforesi]

Yeah, it isn't available. Just put them back in.
It appears to be similar to a Welker Rulon bearing (they are a composite bearing), but with the slit in it. I suppose they could be fabricated, but it doesn't seem worth the effort.

[gltriker]

Thank you for easing my worried mind, Robin and Greg !

I knew the sound advice and practical wisdom within this group would be invaluable, as always....

[gltriker]

Do you follow the Honda GL1000 factory service manual's detail to employ ATF for the fork fluid, as well?

[robin1731]

Do you follow the Honda GL1000 factory service manual's detail to employ ATF for the fork fluid, as well?

I do.

[Placerville]

As do I.

Use ATF Type F. Type F contains no friction modifies (which can hasten the wear of your new seals.

AutoZone Coastal (store brand) /1 qt. Type F automatic transmission fluid
Part Number: 12484
Alternate Part Number: 19601

[gregforesi]

When I lightened up the bike and moved my body forward (with the clubman bars) the front end was mushy. The bike had 60k miles on it so the front end was a bit worn. 15 wt fork oil really helped. ATF is 7.5 wt.

[gltriker]

Got back to the front forks today and have a couple questions, again.

DSCN0833.JPG (63.64 KiB) Viewed 144 times

I didn't measure the depth of wear, but it's limited to just that same area on both tubes. No wear anywhere else on both tubes. The upper bushing in both lower legs have a very small witness mark of contact. Not anticipating the scuffing on both lower tubes, I hadn't marked a clock position to identify the tubes' installed orientations before loosening the clamp bolts and withdrawing the fork tube assemblies.

DSCN0838.JPG (112.68 KiB) Viewed 144 times

DSCN0839.JPG (120.73 KiB) Viewed 144 times

DSCN0846.JPG (118.75 KiB) Viewed 144 times

The preceding photos present the piston rings I had questioned. No significant wear on the seals, and absolutely no wear on the entire length of either "lower pipe."

Both springs' measured free length was 20 1/4", ground end surface to other ground end surface. Very close to original service manual specification. 20.4"

The question I pose to you fellows is--Where should I clock the fork tubes' worn surfaces to minimize
further wear. Forward or backward, for both?

I did buy a quart of ATF, type F, today. At AutoZone. (It's closer, and not as busy as NAPA.)
as always, thanks for your help!

[gregforesi]

I spun my upper tubes around 180°. That put the exposed stone chip marks facing rearward, and internally they should be wearing on the opposite side instead of in the same old place.

[gltriker]

Thanks Greg, I'll have to take a real close look at the exposed- to- elements surface on both tubes for stone chip marks you'd referenced . I hadn't noticed any during the inspections in bright light. The almost identical scuffing on the bottom of the tubes was puzzling, and I didn't know where the thrust loads, contaminants, whatever, might be most commonly focused in this system.

This bike must have been a fair weather, smooth roads only ride.

As lousy as this engine ran, after I first started it, maybe a lot of the 7800 miles on the odometer were pushed along side of the road?

[Old Fogey]

Since the tubes have worn at one side at the bottom of them, logic says that the tubes must have worn towards the top end 180 degrees round, due to the motion of the sliders. It may not be visible. But why not turn them 90 degrees like I do so that you have 'new' wear surfaces in both places.

[gregforesi]

Cuz either way I could see the stone chips.
I'm a slave to fashion.

[gltriker]

Since the tubes have worn at one side at the bottom of them, logic says that the tubes must have worn towards the top end 180 degrees round, due to the motion of the sliders. It may not be visible. But why not turn them 90 degrees like I do so that you have 'new' wear surfaces in both places.

yeah.... there was no "visible" wear on the upper end of both tubes' swept contact surface to reference. Nor, stone chips on the exposed tubes gregforesi had mentioned. The almost inperceptable visible wear on both upper slider bushings, weren't in a similar front to rear orientation, as I recall. The lack of that information threw me a curve!
90 degrees rotation from the "logical" front to rear thrust planes, it is. Thanks!!

My dilemma has been rendered; solved to my satisfaction!