does anyboby know whats the max weight set up for the rider is the01 CR 250. I weight 210 LBS,i ride recretional tack rider at just below novice level. I was told that because of my size that i would be better off to send it to a suspension shop for revalve and stiffer springs. I spoke to another rider and was told that i could set up the bike to my weight with the stock stuff. please shed some on this.( the rider formerly known as raykx now I ride red sweeeet!;)
suspension question for 01CR250
- Thread starter raykx
- Start date
I ride C-Class, weigh about the same as you, and still have the stock suspension (have changed the fluid). I don't really have any major complaints. It could be made better for trails, but I primarily ride tracks and like it the way it is. Could it be better - maybe - worth spending the money for me at this time? No.
RogerB
01 CR250
RogerB
01 CR250
The owners manual says that they are set up for 150-160 lb rider stock. I vaguely remember weighing 160 but the bikes didn't have 13" of travel then either! So as far as that goes 90% of us weigh too much for stock suspension. However we use it with no problems. Unless you are dicing with McGrath, I'd say get your settings to the best you can and have fun. I have a couple friends that weigh 210 and they change to a stiffer rear spring for a cheaper fix. A trip to the suspension shop is "always" wonderful if you got the dough-ray-me!
slideways11
Sponsoring Member
- Apr 18, 2000
- 411
- 0
For play ridding you could probably get by with some stiffer springs. If you are serious about racing the stock cr suspension is the pits. Dont ride your friends 01yz250 or you will really hate yourself for buying the cr. I sent my shock and forks to SO. Cal Suspension Service in Lake Elsinore, ask for Steve he will sort you out. And even though I ordered 2 yzs for 02, the shocks and forks are going to Steve first.
01cr250 turning blue in 02
01cr250 turning blue in 02
- Thread starter
- #7
slideways 11
reading your tread what was the problem w/CR that you didn't like? I take that your not crazy about the CR frame. I got off a 96 kx 250 and the first time I took the bike out I said that dam the ride was way diff. AND I said what the hell did I get myself into. But I grown to like the bike alot. It took me awhile but I'm happy w/the CR. I don't plan to race the bike just some hard play riding at the track.;)
reading your tread what was the problem w/CR that you didn't like? I take that your not crazy about the CR frame. I got off a 96 kx 250 and the first time I took the bike out I said that dam the ride was way diff. AND I said what the hell did I get myself into. But I grown to like the bike alot. It took me awhile but I'm happy w/the CR. I don't plan to race the bike just some hard play riding at the track.;)
Raykx, check you static and race sag #s. This will give you a good indication of whether you need to go to stiffer springs or not. Revalves are usually a good thing, but work with springs first, then clickers, then, if you still can't get it to where you are satisfied, step up to the revalve...unless of course you can afford it, just go for it. If it is done by a reputable suspension shop, you will be happy with the results. JMO
At 210, you will likely benefit from heavier springs. I know my CR is much better with heavier springs (particularly rear) and I am 185-190.
At 210, you will likely benefit from heavier springs. I know my CR is much better with heavier springs (particularly rear) and I am 185-190.
slideways11
Sponsoring Member
- Apr 18, 2000
- 411
- 0
raykx For hard play riding I think you will be happy with your CR. All the tracks I race on are outdoor supercross tracks. I dont so much think the al. frame is a problem, it is more of a combination of bad suspension components and a ridiculous powerband. On a big mx track the bike works alot better, but on these short, tight jump filled tracks down here the bike just doesnt work well. I time all my practice sessions that way I can tell which mods help and which ones hurt. After the revalve I dropped 3 seconds off my lap times, which is a big improvement. I also have ordered another cylinder from E. Gore ported for low to mid power as soon as it gets here I will let you know how that works.
raykx,
I go about 185lbs. and ride my CR250 '01 in the C class. I was bottoming my front and rear more than three to four times a lap. The big jumps were not a problem if my timing was on and I was hitting the down-side, but if my timing was off - bad news.
I added 5.1 rear and .45 in the front the bike got better but danced around on the small stuff so I revalved it several times till I was happy.
I think you should try springs then oil height with clicker adjustments and then only as a last resort - revalve.
With the right springs and valving, you and anyone else will be faster
I go about 185lbs. and ride my CR250 '01 in the C class. I was bottoming my front and rear more than three to four times a lap. The big jumps were not a problem if my timing was on and I was hitting the down-side, but if my timing was off - bad news.
I added 5.1 rear and .45 in the front the bike got better but danced around on the small stuff so I revalved it several times till I was happy.
I think you should try springs then oil height with clicker adjustments and then only as a last resort - revalve.
With the right springs and valving, you and anyone else will be faster
'01 CR250 Suspension
I weight 210 and ride mostly motocross at the Novice level. My '94 stock suspension stunk compared to the '01 stock suspension. I went with heavier springs and revalving on my '94 and it made a world of difference. I haven't ridden my '01 more than 10 times yet but could tell right away that the rear was way too soft. The front is not that bad but I do blow through both the front and rear in the high speed compression. G-Outs, square-edged holes, and the whoops seem to bottom the rear too easy. The front doesn't seem to bottom as easy but I have done it over jumping. Adjusting the high speed dampening on the rear helped but it's still not enough. If you don't ride that aggressive, then the stock stuff could be okay with tuning.
I have .45kg/mm fork springs and 5.1kg/mm rear spring on order and will probably invest in revalving soon.
I weight 210 and ride mostly motocross at the Novice level. My '94 stock suspension stunk compared to the '01 stock suspension. I went with heavier springs and revalving on my '94 and it made a world of difference. I haven't ridden my '01 more than 10 times yet but could tell right away that the rear was way too soft. The front is not that bad but I do blow through both the front and rear in the high speed compression. G-Outs, square-edged holes, and the whoops seem to bottom the rear too easy. The front doesn't seem to bottom as easy but I have done it over jumping. Adjusting the high speed dampening on the rear helped but it's still not enough. If you don't ride that aggressive, then the stock stuff could be okay with tuning.
I have .45kg/mm fork springs and 5.1kg/mm rear spring on order and will probably invest in revalving soon.
Shaggy829
Yes I know most people simply look at the rider weight and not skill level. I also know that some people forget to take into account the rising rate of the linkage and the length of the singarm and the size of the rear wheel. A good example is my 2001 CR250 compared to a 2001 DRZ400, if one person owned both bikes and used the same skill level on both bike and used the CR for MX and the DRZ for two track, back roads and trail rides - the rear spring would still be heavier on the DRZ.
Spring rate is used to hold up the weight of rider and bike as we all know. However, your specific valving and oil flow philosophies (restrict flow with a low flow base valve or increase flow with a high flow base valve) also affect the spring rate to a minor degree. The valve stack can also be used to compensate to some degree for the wrong spring or to achieve a specifically design suspension feel based on rider preference. Mac would HATE Larocco's bike and visa versa.
Next, spring rates based on rider skill level is NO NEW SECRET to suspension tuners. You find a rider who is fast and does all the big jumps but has poor riding skills and never hits the downside of a double and you better give him a heavier spring till he learns to ride. Know find a very fluid rider who always lands on the front wheel or better yet, land equally on both wheel with the bike at the same angle as the down slope and has great timing - know he can run a lighter spring if he prefers. Some of the same concepts go for setting rider/race sag. You can't just do what the numbers say and set all bikes and riders to the same thing.
If it was that easy, then every degreed mechanical engineer who truly understood thermal dynamics, fluids, defection, modulus of elasticity, calculus and mechanics of materials and so on would all use the same base valve and shim combos. Think of it like a engine dyno, the bike with the most or widest horse power on the dyno isn't always the best on the track.
This is just my opinion and we know what opinions are like.
Yes I know most people simply look at the rider weight and not skill level. I also know that some people forget to take into account the rising rate of the linkage and the length of the singarm and the size of the rear wheel. A good example is my 2001 CR250 compared to a 2001 DRZ400, if one person owned both bikes and used the same skill level on both bike and used the CR for MX and the DRZ for two track, back roads and trail rides - the rear spring would still be heavier on the DRZ.
Spring rate is used to hold up the weight of rider and bike as we all know. However, your specific valving and oil flow philosophies (restrict flow with a low flow base valve or increase flow with a high flow base valve) also affect the spring rate to a minor degree. The valve stack can also be used to compensate to some degree for the wrong spring or to achieve a specifically design suspension feel based on rider preference. Mac would HATE Larocco's bike and visa versa.
Next, spring rates based on rider skill level is NO NEW SECRET to suspension tuners. You find a rider who is fast and does all the big jumps but has poor riding skills and never hits the downside of a double and you better give him a heavier spring till he learns to ride. Know find a very fluid rider who always lands on the front wheel or better yet, land equally on both wheel with the bike at the same angle as the down slope and has great timing - know he can run a lighter spring if he prefers. Some of the same concepts go for setting rider/race sag. You can't just do what the numbers say and set all bikes and riders to the same thing.
If it was that easy, then every degreed mechanical engineer who truly understood thermal dynamics, fluids, defection, modulus of elasticity, calculus and mechanics of materials and so on would all use the same base valve and shim combos. Think of it like a engine dyno, the bike with the most or widest horse power on the dyno isn't always the best on the track.
This is just my opinion and we know what opinions are like.
ATT i did take into acount the model of the bike when calculating springs for raykx. I am using aspring genarator that is set up in specific to the cr .Ther is litttle difference between the rising rates of late model japanese 125/250mx
bikes.
At 220 lbs with gear raykx's needs a5.1 . A 5.4 spring is on par for a 260lb
rider in a mx application . THat spring on the cr with raykx on it would
develope these negative handling problems . reluctancy to turn an inside
line. The rear of the bike would be very unstable and twithcy. Kicking would be ecssesive entering turns with braking bumps. also unbalanced bikes don't
jump or land well. The theory of adding spring rates for a faster rider is
limited to small balanced increments . then valving can be adjusted to
rider preferance and skill. :cool:
bikes.
At 220 lbs with gear raykx's needs a5.1 . A 5.4 spring is on par for a 260lb
rider in a mx application . THat spring on the cr with raykx on it would
develope these negative handling problems . reluctancy to turn an inside
line. The rear of the bike would be very unstable and twithcy. Kicking would be ecssesive entering turns with braking bumps. also unbalanced bikes don't
jump or land well. The theory of adding spring rates for a faster rider is
limited to small balanced increments . then valving can be adjusted to
rider preferance and skill. :cool:
- Thread starter
- #17
to all who replied
I've been away out of town sorry I could not reply quicker but I don't understand that I will need to get spings on both ends someone said on ealier post that I could just do rear and if need do front. My level I think that I'm aggresive when a bike that I have confidence in and I know how the suspension going to react. The problem I had today at the track is that I'm working way to hard on the bike. I do hit the jumps but I have to position myself to compensate for frt end diving or coming up. I rode my friend 01YZF426(the dark side as what others on this site call it) and the bike which I liked very much but the frt end felt too light. I called around for prices on suspension work and did not believe it be that much but I was wrong($450-$700) is what I was qouted (Too tech -Torrance, Ca and mx-tech of lake elsinore) so I'm not sure what I so do?:think
I've been away out of town sorry I could not reply quicker but I don't understand that I will need to get spings on both ends someone said on ealier post that I could just do rear and if need do front. My level I think that I'm aggresive when a bike that I have confidence in and I know how the suspension going to react. The problem I had today at the track is that I'm working way to hard on the bike. I do hit the jumps but I have to position myself to compensate for frt end diving or coming up. I rode my friend 01YZF426(the dark side as what others on this site call it) and the bike which I liked very much but the frt end felt too light. I called around for prices on suspension work and did not believe it be that much but I was wrong($450-$700) is what I was qouted (Too tech -Torrance, Ca and mx-tech of lake elsinore) so I'm not sure what I so do?:think
Last edited:
RAYKX...i am exactly your same weight as you..novice riding ability (except for huge gaps at Glamis..with the same bike...RG3 re-valved my suspension (excellent job) and they used .53 for the shock and .42 for the forks.. 5wt fork fluid and lightwieght shock oil....this will problobly help you out quite a bit but it will most likely be harsh unless you change the valves...hope this helps
