Husqvarna WR125F--How is this bike?

Joined
Sep 30, 2000
Messages
46
Likes
0
#1
Hi, I was surfing Husky's sight and looked at the specs of their enduro WR125F---and according to them, their seat height is only 32"!! Is it really that low? Because if it is, I could be riding that bike right now. Now for some questions. When was it first made? Is this a new model? How are they for durability, reliability, etc? How is their powerband/chuggable torque? How does it compare to a KTM 125 EXC? How are the parts availability? How much would a top end go for on one of these? Thanks in advance,
marc :silly:
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2000
Messages
46
Likes
0
#2
30 people from the Euro forum have looked at this thread and not one of you have anything to say about it?!?
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
826
Likes
5
#3
OK, husky's quality is fantastic. You will find that the build quality of that bike is really great, with good components used all around. I have not ridden one so I have no operational comments. I actually have never seen one in action either. I would suspect that the engine is the very same as the motocross version of the 125. So I would not expect gobs of low end, or any at all for that matter.

Chris
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
Joined
May 3, 2000
Messages
5,349
Likes
3
#4
Never seen one & don't know anyone that has ridden one. Never heard of the "F" on the end, but Husky has been making WR125's for decades. They race them in the Euro enduros and ISDE, but they don't seem too common here in the new world.

The specs on this page show a 34" seat height, not 32"; still pretty low for a full size bike.

http://www.georgiaoffroad.com/dirtbike.phtml?model=01huswr125#rev
 

duke

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 1999
Messages
484
Likes
0
#5
A couple of years ago while trail riding in Hungry Valley, I ran across a guy who was riding one. In speaking with him breifly about the bike, I asked if it was peaky like a 125 MXer. He said no, that the bike was designed from day one for off road, not MX. By 125 standards, it more bottom end then an MX bike. Perhaps comperable to the late model YZ125's. The big difference is the tranny, which offers an extra low first gear for tight switch backs and a tall 6th for long stretchs. This rider raced the bike in a few D37 hare scrambles and did ok according to his account. He had just pulled off a trail that was comprised of of steep hills and switchbacks. He had no complaints and seemed to like it. There was another rider who raced one in D37 as well. He was in his late fifties, and according to my desert racing buddy, was quite competetive. That says alot considering the terrian in the So-California area is not really suited to 125's. Again the 6 speed tranny was the key.
 

HiG4s

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
1,308
Likes
0
#6
Which Husky web site did you see this at?
I have never heard of an F model. But a WR has softer suspension, lighting coil, lights, lower seat, heavier fly wheel, and other than that is about the same as the CR motocrosser. My 99 listed at 34.8 inch seat height, but in reality is about 38 inch. The bike has good low end for an MX bike, runs decent in the woods even without the softer suspension and fly wheel weight (must be awsome with it) and has plenty of power on top. The only complaint I have about my Husky is that the way it is put togeather doesn't leave as much clearance to get in and do maintaince as on KTMs, or most other bikes. I can't use a standard spark plug wrench because it is too close to the radiator hose and I have to compress the rear shock before I can adjust the rebound damping. Just little things that are annoying when you have to do them but once they are done the bike runs great.
I understand for 2002 Husqvarna will have 4-stroke 250s both in CR and WR models. I may go for the 250 and give my son the 125.
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2000
Messages
46
Likes
0
#7
Yes, it was my mistake,there is no such thing as the "F" model. If you go onto http://www.husqvarnausa.com, and go to the 2000 enduro bikes (wr125), the seat height is listed at 31.89"!!! So it must be a typo...if you go to the 2001 WR125, the seat height is listed at a more realistic 35.04"--Hig4S-which bike do you have, the CR125, or the WR125? I really, severely hope that it doesn't have a 38" seat height, that is WAYY too big for me.
 

robj

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2000
Messages
71
Likes
0
#8
I don't think you'll like the seat height. My 01 WR125 is over an inch taller than my prevoious YZ. It must be between 37.5 and 38".

The bikes have great engines for trail work and enduros. It pulls smoothly off the bottom into a wide and surprisingly strong midrange for a 125 (much more pull than the YZ) Top end is ok but not as wild as an MX'er. It'll ride well up gradients without bogging or having to clutch it. The bike has caught me out a few times climbs where I've been counting on the power running out and rolling up the last part but ended up doing a vertical exit.

The build quality is great and I find the bike easy to work on. One bolt (back of tank) and you have the seat, tank and shrouds off the bike - in about 30 seconds. The wheel spacers stay stuck to the wheel, so they don't fall into the dirt when its apart.

The ride is stable and reassuring on fast bends and it turns ok in the tight stuff. The suspension on mine is way too stiff even on open compression/rebound. I'm getting it revalved next week. While they're at it I'm going to get the bike lowered. Two birds with one stone.

I'm pretty sure the gear ratios on the WR are the same as the CR so you might find 6th too low on tarmac or fast off road.

There's plenty of FBF aftermarket bits for them.

Mine is European spec so the detail might be slightly different to the States. The bikes are rare in UK but pretty popular in France/Spain/Italy. Petteri Silvan just won the 125 class in the world enduro championship on one.

Hope this helps.
 

HiG4s

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
1,308
Likes
0
#9
Blinkme --- I have the 99 CR125

Robj --- how much do you weigh? My is sprung too soft for me, but at 195 without my gear I suspected it would be. I plan to have the suspension redone to my weight when I can afford it.
 

robj

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2000
Messages
71
Likes
0
#10
HiG4's - I weigh around 165lbs. The forks don't move much over the slow speed stuff and also deflect and jarr when you hit square edges and roots at speed. The back end kicks out on corners when you try to put the power down. The rebound on the Sachs shock is known for being way too slow even when only part closed. I'm keeping the same springs up front (4.0) and getting a revalve, and a softer straight rate spring on the shock with a revalve. Hope it all works ok. I love the rest of the bike so it should be worth tinkering .
 

robj

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2000
Messages
71
Likes
0
#11
HiG4's - forgot to mention that a Husky mechanic told me that the suspension units can come out of the factory with totally different oil levels and gas pressure etc and that all fluids and gas should be replaced after the bike is run in. Could explain variations in stiffness.
 

the Eel

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Messages
1,747
Likes
0
#12
RobJ - can you give me a quick tutorial on the Sachs shock and Marzocchi forks ? I just purchased a '99 WR125 and don't know how to setup the Sachs shock.

I see two circular adjusters on top - I'm assuming hi/lo speed compression ? Also see an adjuster way down by the frame at the base of the shock - rebound ? On the top - is the smaller adjuster hi or lo speed comp ? Does the minus sign mean softer, and the + sign stiffer ? Anything else ? Any recommendations on settings ? I weigh about 165 like you.

The fork seems pretty standard as far as adjustment ... + sign = stiffer, minus sign = softer ? Settings ?

Thanks.
 

HiG4s

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
1,308
Likes
0
#13
Originally posted by the Eel
RobJ
I see two circular adjusters on top - I'm assuming hi/lo speed compression ? Also see an adjuster way down by the frame at the base of the shock - rebound ? On the top - is the smaller adjuster hi or lo speed comp ? Does the minus sign mean softer, and the + sign stiffer ? Anything else ? Any recommendations on settings ? I weigh about 165 like you.

The fork seems pretty standard as far as adjustment ... + sign = stiffer, minus sign = softer ? Settings ?

Thanks.
The adjusters on top of the fork are rebound + is more damping, - less. The compression damping adjusters are on the bottom of the fork. Put the bike on a stand, lay on the floor and look at the bottom. You will see a little black rubber plugs. Gently pry that out and the adjuster is in there. + is stiffer and - is softer as you would expect. Make sure to replace the plug.
The small adjuster I believe is low speed on the shock, but I'm at work right now and always have to look in my manual to be sure. The rebound damping is on the bottom portion of the shock. On my bike you have to have someone sit or lean on the bike to compress the suspension a little before you can get a screwdriver on the adjuster.
 

the Eel

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Messages
1,747
Likes
0
#14
Thanks alot !

On the shock rebound - which way is less rebound, and which way is more ?

Also, on the hi/lo speed compression - what does hi affect ? And lo ?