USD forks vs. conventional
- Thread starter Jimbokdx
- Start date
The 93-94 USD forks on the 200s were a 41mm unit. pretty odd and small for USDs. The USD fork resist flex better than the conventional ones, plus increased ground clearance. Those the the benefits.
The 95+ uses the 43mm conventional units. (sorry, my bad. Was looking up other parts)
I could not tell you back to back which is better. I do hear that the newer ones are better valves. Either way stock, if you weigh more than 140lbs, you are going to want to at least swap to stiffer springs and may require a revalve job if you are really serious about them.
The 95+ uses the 43mm conventional units. (sorry, my bad. Was looking up other parts)
I could not tell you back to back which is better. I do hear that the newer ones are better valves. Either way stock, if you weigh more than 140lbs, you are going to want to at least swap to stiffer springs and may require a revalve job if you are really serious about them.
Last edited:
BadgerMan
Mi. Trail Riders
- Jan 1, 2001
- 2,479
- 10
In my experience, the USD fork steered better (less flex) but the newer conventional units have better action. The increased clearance of the USD unit is really a benefit if you are riding a lot of ruts. I buried my old 1990 KDX many times during enduros and hare scrambles because of the underhang in front.
A good alternative would be an SRC brace on the newer conventional fork. I will probably put one on my son's 2000 KDX when he gets a little faster.
BTW, I think the newer conventionals are 43mm.
A good alternative would be an SRC brace on the newer conventional fork. I will probably put one on my son's 2000 KDX when he gets a little faster.
BTW, I think the newer conventionals are 43mm.
Having owned both a USD '94 and a conventional 2001, I can say that the '01 is better for my combination of riding style and technique. The underhang definately sucks, though. I've nearly gone over the bars several times after wedging a 1" sapling between the fork and brake rotor :scream:
toalco-kdx
Member
- May 16, 2002
- 282
- 0
i dont get what the overhang is your talking about?
I read an article on this issue recently. Upside down forks were introduced to cope with the massive forces generated in supercross. They quickly became a marketing success that all manufacturers had to follow. However, people worked out that the upper alloy portion still (inevitably) flexed somewhat, and this was partially jamming the steel slider as it slid past, causing a harsher ride under normal conditions.
So Suzuki re-introduced a good conventional cartridge fork on their motocrossers, which was a revelation for ride quality. Problem was that the public didn't buy them because they were perceived as outdated, so Suzuki was forced to go back to USD forks again for the sake of sales.
This is where we're still at. People think USD forks are better, but the only thing that's better about them outside of full-on supercross (and beside underhang clearance) is that they use modern cartridge technology. A cartridge conventional fork has the best of both worlds. Even the underhang issue is arguable, because one good scrape of the chrome surface on a rock can ruin the seal, and you can't keep dust and mud off with rubber fork boots either.
Now, if I could just afford a cartridge emulator for my old girl...
So Suzuki re-introduced a good conventional cartridge fork on their motocrossers, which was a revelation for ride quality. Problem was that the public didn't buy them because they were perceived as outdated, so Suzuki was forced to go back to USD forks again for the sake of sales.
This is where we're still at. People think USD forks are better, but the only thing that's better about them outside of full-on supercross (and beside underhang clearance) is that they use modern cartridge technology. A cartridge conventional fork has the best of both worlds. Even the underhang issue is arguable, because one good scrape of the chrome surface on a rock can ruin the seal, and you can't keep dust and mud off with rubber fork boots either.
Now, if I could just afford a cartridge emulator for my old girl...
BadgerMan
Mi. Trail Riders
- Jan 1, 2001
- 2,479
- 10
I have to disagree. There's no comparison between the two designs. You have to ride both back to back to understand the difference that the lack of flex makes in steering precision. I can barely stand to ride my son's 2000 KDX after stepping off my YZ250F. Although the fork action is decent, the Kawie's steering is terribly vague feeling.
The lack of underhang also makes a tremendous difference. I never get stuck in ruts anymore.
Most people don't understand until they spend time on a bike with a good USD fork. I'll never own another bike with conventional forks.
BTW, I am not a SX racer, just a 41 year old trail rider who's getting slower all the time!
The lack of underhang also makes a tremendous difference. I never get stuck in ruts anymore.
Most people don't understand until they spend time on a bike with a good USD fork. I'll never own another bike with conventional forks.
BTW, I am not a SX racer, just a 41 year old trail rider who's getting slower all the time!
The reason Suzuki went to the conventional forks is cause Showa could not get the dampining correct. Honda ended up with a different solution to the problem by sourcing Kayaba for their suspension for a few years. Mid 90s Showa suspension was known for being valved super wrong.