Heads up on new KX forks

bclapham · Jan 22, 2003

your just showing off now arn't you!:)

marcusgunby · Jan 22, 2003

marcusgunby · Feb 22, 2003

Heres a update-the forks that were just std with less LSC were not that good in the end.Went practicing today and compared to my setting with 0.5mm of lift-track was dry in places and had some hard edge holes.The fork with std lift was not very impressive-to the point where i had a headache from the jarring.Rode daves KX with the other setting as it was better in every way, small bumps were better as was slap down landings.Moral of story 2 stage midvlave with lots of lift(std) doesnt work nearly a well as much softer stacks with less lift.

bclapham · Feb 23, 2003

are we comparing like with like? eg, was the stack with less lift also a 2 stage midvalve?

marcusgunby · Feb 23, 2003

Nope the low lift stack was single stage.Its weird as a 2 stage stack would work better if kwaks KYB had small lifts-a 2 stage stack with a lot of lift is defeating the purpose.

russ17 · Feb 23, 2003

the single stage setup with the low lift seems to handle better in braking bumps and cornering compared to the one with out the mid change according to the call i got last night He finially got to race both bikes back to back

bclapham · Feb 23, 2003

if we are not compring like with like, then how can we come to this conclusion? ie that less lift works better rather than a single vs a two stage shim stack working better.

russ17 · Feb 24, 2003

Bruce ! point taken I was just trying to find out the difference between the new 2-stage mid, thinking in my mind that it would be softer even though it had a larger float ! now have to try same float single vers 2 stage. the only conclusion I can come to is on rider feed back. but in suspension one might like! while the other might not!

marcusgunby · Feb 24, 2003

Ive built a few forks with a 2 stage mid and a single stage mid of the same lift and the results were inconclusive-they both felt so similar it was not possible to tell which was better overall.In theory the 2 stage would be slight more repsonsive and the single stage better on hard impacts.However its also very hard to build a single stage and a dual stage with the same overall damping stiffness so direct comparisons are hard to draw-as always in suspension.

marcusgunby · Mar 6, 2003

russ bringing this back up-has your rider measured the rear sag with his springs??and whats his weight/springs? i ask because even with my silly soft rear spring(4.3kg/mm i think)i still get 30mm free sag for 95mm rider sag-i wonder what spring i would have to get to get 25mm/95mm??? 4.0kg/mm???

russ17 · Mar 6, 2003

Marcus I will have to get back with you on the race sage He's 135 lbs and I think he running 40mm static he's a short guy he likes the stock spring I will see him this week end. I keep telling him that we need to go lighter on the spring but he likes what he got. Just goes to show yah how many differences can be in this. Question is it that critical to get that 25mm 95mm combo

Eddy V · Mar 7, 2003

Marcus,you know we have the same problem.We have with our Kayaba 4.4 spring, a rider sag/free sag combination of 96/33 and 98/38.The man from "Technoflex "suspension also says to me that the 4.1 spring is the solution for tke kx125 for lightweights like us.Why is your rider sag ,you have in mind 95 despite you are also a short rider? Isn't 100 or 102 no better goal for us?And Russ,when you starts to doubt about the golden rule every suspension expert is talking about ,what are we doing then?I'm a novice in suspension tuning and curious to learn but that's confusing me.

marcusgunby · Mar 7, 2003

Eddy i think they maybe correct a 4.1 will give better numbers.I like 95 mm to keep the steering sharp, what i have done is to lower the subframe by elongating the lower holes, this means i can run 95mm and still just touch the floor.The static sag isnt really critical its just a guide-i know plenty of riders who have 40mm of sag because they use std springs-they dont appear to dislike it.I however dont like the way the bike sags so much under its own weight-it just feels wrong.

russ17 · Mar 7, 2003

Marcus! I heard that the CV cylinder valves are weak on the 03 KXs forks. that they get mushy. some are going to the bottoming cones. keep an eye out for this and let me know I will do the same

marcusgunby · Mar 7, 2003

Yes i have heard the same on the KXs-i dont like these cv's, they seem to inconsistant-i would like a way of disabling them without the stiction problems of the race tech mod.I will come up with something but i doubt it will be a viable mod for every fork service.I hate anything that keeps me out-japs seem to be alot worse for this type of thing.

 

BTW has anyone got a pic of a CV dismatled??i would love to see the gubbins.

bclapham · Mar 7, 2003

ok, i am a bit lost on the terminology here. what is the "CV"? the problem with following this forum is that the names keep changing, LOL!

i thought CV was the cartrigde valve, this is the long alum. tube that the base valve screws into and it also contains the midvalve stack, piston and rebound stack.

please explain!:)

marcusgunby · Mar 7, 2003

Bruce the CV (cylinder valve)is a strange little set up that lives in the top of the cartridge(in the same part as the DU bush and seal)-its another set of shims(i read) it isnt really servicable, its job is to bleed off air and oil from the top of the catridge at the same time as the midvalve pushes through the oil, and the oil is displaced through the base valve-it all happens at the same time.As it isnt really servicable or able to be modified i try to ignore it and hope it doesnt play up(causing a very soft fork action)

bclapham · Mar 7, 2003

ahhh, its clear now. you mean the bit that the damper rod goes through, the same bit that unscrews from the top of the ?cylinder? after you crack the peens open, the same bit that the spring sits on top of!

marcusgunby · Mar 7, 2003

Yep thats it-you cannot really see anything as its all internal.Maybe if you removed the rebound tap and removed the damper rod, you could get a better look?

bclapham · Mar 7, 2003

no thanks!:)

Jeff Howe · Mar 7, 2003

The cones rule in my opinion. Best money I ever put into my forks and all the customers I've done them for feel the same way. However, it does add substantially to the bottom line when it comes time to write the check and most guys shy away from them because of that.

russ17 · Mar 7, 2003

shocknut have you done any off road setups with the cones

russ17 · Mar 7, 2003

Oh yeh shocknut I went to your web site I ask a few questions on the fox's shocks after I read your column I don't no if it went through I put it in your comments section at the bottom of the contact page

Jeff Howe · Mar 7, 2003

yes I have, and I didn't get it, will have to check that out. email me at jhowe@pclink.com with the Fox q's in the meantime it's my personal.

I have even put them in YZf's that I've dropped 2" that are used for off road racing.

bclapham · Mar 8, 2003

OK, can we get a picture and/or description of these cones please? once again i am lost:) how much $ do they cost?

cheers

BC

Heads up on new KX forks

Similar Topics

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency