250-500cc FWW on WR250

Wondering how many of you are running FWW on your WR250's, or 300's for that matter?

I've got one that I haven't rode with yet and was wondering if it's worth messing with?

I took mine off as soon as I got the rekluse pro. I just wanted to eliminate stalling in the boulder fields and down fall and that isn't an issue with the auto clutch. Smooths out an already smooth bike

Walt

I've got a Steahly 10oz fww on my 08 WR250. For me the fww was absolutly necessary when I first got the bike. Now that I've been riding it for over a year I might be able to take it off, but I really like the power delivery with it on. I was coming off of a 250 4stk onto the WR and the power difference was so huge that the power the WR makes was too much for me to handle at first. I ride super rocky, technical high elevation trails here in CO where you can't make big mistakes or you'll pay dearly in some situations. Brad.

Interesting as on my '07 I was always wanting to either shave the stock flywheel down or get a CR ignition. The bike in stock form will find traction where others can't.

I agree with raisrx251.

I'm not seeking a CR flywheel but I don't feel the stock WR flywheel is too light. I find the motor to be the best part of the bike with great low end grunt.

That's interesting, are you guys running "tall" gearing ( ie 14/48 'ish ) or "short" gears ( ie 13/50 'ish ) ?

I tend to see ( two strokes in general ) that guys that run "short" gears like FWW more than guys with "tall" gears.

Good point. I'm running 13/48 w/ a fww. I mostly ride super technical stuff and between the fww, power now, and reed petals adjusted the bike works awesome. Brad.

I run 13/50, base gasket at zero. The cool thing about the WR 250 is you can make the power pretty much any way you want it to be. Ugh...I really should not sell this bike...I am going to stop looking at this thread people.

I actually like the powerband without the FWW. Just about perfect. I ran it only to eliminate stalling.

Walt

FWW, 13/52 , trials tires.
One hell of a billy goat

This seems to be following my theory, with exception of raisrx251 and he's thinking about less weight. Must be a really fast and just screams it like a 125.

I think wallybean's running tall stuff, as I remember from another thread.

I run stock gearing. I have on my past 3 bikes. After dicking around with different sprockets I always seem to come back to stock.

On my 360 (which is in the '07 Chassis) I find stock 15/48 gearing to be perfect!

If I was going to ride the 250 motor in more wide open terrain I would switch up to a 14t countershaft but the tight gnarly stuff that I like the 250 for the 13/48 combo serves me well.

I am actually thinking about the handling of the bike. I ride a lot of nasty stuff too so that is why I never followed through with shaving it down. I am just a senior rider, not that fast. A friend of mine and I were talking about this the other day. Our theory is there is a point when you put too much weight on the flywheel it will affect handling in turns. You make most turns with the rear wheel breaking traction slightly and when you add weight this affects how you go through turns. I like a lot of WR owners love it when it gets really nasty and you see that bottle neck on the hill and you know your bike has the traction to make it through it.

For the last 4-5 years I have agreed with your posts almost without exception. And I agree here. But please explain what you mean here. Sorry, I just don't follow what your saying (and I want to). I am super impressed with my '06 wr250 and it's ability to handle nasssssty stuff.

I am no expert on this and having a hard time explaining it but when you add flywheel weight you are adding forward inertia. When you do this it can have a negative effect in turns keeping your balance and how you control it in a turn. I am not saying that adding weight to a MX bike does not improve it in the woods. I am just saying be careful how much you add to a WR 250 as the bike already has quite a bit of flywheel weight to it. Anybody else help explain this?

I'm no expert either but it's often said that this is to do with the gyroscopic effect of the rotating mass. The flywheel acts like a gyroscope and opposes any attempt to turn the bike, making it physically harder to turn. The heavier the rotating mass is the more gyroscopic effect there is, so the harder it is to turn the bike. That's one reason why bikes with bigger engines don't turn as easily, because they generally have more rotating mass in the bigger engine (though being heavier overall doesn't help either!).

I gather Husaberg's engine design moves the rotating mass closer to the CofG of the bike where it has less effect, making the bike handle as if it was lighter than it actually is.

Hope some of this makes sense...

Good job petem.

That's why my TE510 feels so much heavier than a TE250 when it's actually just a few pounds more.

The debate comes from just adding 10oz. of FWW. Does it really effect a 250 that much?

I went one tooth smaller on the rear and it seems to have took some of the edge off the transition from that sweet low end enduro motor grunt to that awesome MX bike top end.

I think what I really need is a PROVINI exhaust valve adjuster instead of a FWW.

Oh, ok. I didn't understand that was what you were trying to say. And again, I completely agree. And that's why I didn't like my TE450 so much. I just couldn't get it to turn well for me.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to add a FWW to a WR. These bikes lug better than any other bike I've had. You know, I did the "OFG clutch mod" and it gave me sooo much more clutch feel. Maybe that would help someone vs. adding a FWW.

What's the OFG clutch mod?

Kinda waitin' on some response to that here too.
Did a search,...didn't turn up much but the mention of it here and there,...no explanation.