Mac Dre

Member
Jul 30, 2007
7
0
I was considering getting a 98 rm 125 until i realized it has a non-inverted fork on it. What's the deal with that? i mean even like 91 rm's have inverted forks, why the hell would they go back to that old technology for those years(97-98)?
 

2-Strokes 4-ever

~SPONSOR~
Feb 9, 2005
1,842
4
Missouri
The conventional forks on those bikes worked really well I thought. Although very labor intensive to work on with the twin chamber design, they were very plush. With all the rage at the time being conventionals, maybe for huge landings or pro-level speeds in the ruts the conventionals were more stable. They don't work like today's forks, but they're still real smooth in the chop. If you can out-ride those forks, you need a newer bike.
 

_JOE_

~SPONSOR~
May 10, 2007
4,697
3
Not enough of a difference for most to notice. I think the funky front number plate would turn me off more than the conventional forks. If it's in good shape and the price is right, buy it.
 

showa1998rm

Member
Mar 16, 2019
1
0
I was considering getting a 98 rm 125 until i realized it has a non-inverted fork on it. What's the deal with that? i mean even like 91 rm's have inverted forks, why the hell would they go back to that old technology for those years(97-98)?




The 125 was a better handling bike and from memory did not have that stupid internal water pump like the 250.
The forks are second to none IMHO ,i run them on my 2015 wr250f and would never go back to the ssskayaba inverteds.they are not old technology and have a twin chamber cartridge.98's have a 10mm dampening rod and 96/97 have a 12mm dampening rod .but 98's have a quick change high speed valve.You will find it difficult to get a pair of lower legs that havent wore through the anodising and lower legs new are close to $900 each about the same $$$ as the dampening tube.if you were to rebuild using all new parts it would cost over $5000
one of the worst forks ever were the 1999 rm inverteds which replaced the conventionals.
 

Attachments

  • s1200_PIC_0205_2.jpg
    s1200_PIC_0205_2.jpg
    193.3 KB · Views: 452
  • s1200_GOPR0706.jpg
    s1200_GOPR0706.jpg
    411.4 KB · Views: 353
Top Bottom