125-200cc Consensus on the stock CR 125 forks?

[MotoMarc36]

Lots of people trying to help but some misinformation IMO. Stock springrate is .43 and should be correct for your weight. It is a KYB48. It is an MX bike and the valving is setup for MX. And for the intended purpose they are quite good, but to expect good performance over roots and rocks is a stretch. I can charge hard MX and they offer excellent control and bottoming resistance. Word is that removing some oil will lessen the midstroke spike, but I'm happy with the stock level (vet expert MX). Yours will break in more, but chances are you won't be happy until you have it revalved for what you will be using it for.

 

[Watky]

Lots of people trying to help but some misinformation IMO. Stock springrate is .43 and should be correct for your weight. It is a KYB48. It is an MX bike and the valving is setup for MX. And for the intended purpose they are quite good, but to expect good performance over roots and rocks is a stretch. I can charge hard MX and they offer excellent control and bottoming resistance. Word is that removing some oil will lessen the midstroke spike, but I'm happy with the stock level (vet expert MX). Yours will break in more, but chances are you won't be happy until you have it revalved for what you will be using it for.

Exacty my thoughts and what I was trying to say. You can't use forks that have been valved for mx in the bush and expect them to be plush. Just won't happen.
Send them away and get them valved for the woods.. simple..

Until you do send them away, find some tree roots or track thats causing you grief and try winding the Fork rebound out 7 - 10 clicks Then hit the same track and see what the difference is.

 

[Zomby woof]

Always interested in good resources.

BTW--any chance you have the info on recommended oil levels and stock viscocity--my thumb drive only reads that page in French and Italian.

Sorry, I don't know the viscosity, or level for the stock forks, but being a KYB, it will likely be in the 15-17 cst range.

http://www.peterverdone.com/archive/lowspeed.htm

What you're concerned with is the low speed damping, and what most people don't realize, is that you can control this to a great degree with oil viscosity. If you're not happy with your suspension, you should be looking at the oil you're using long before you even think about revalving. Revalving should always be a last resort, NEVER the first thing you do.

This is probably the most important thing you will read about the suspension on your bike. Once you get a handle on this, you'll see how easy it is in most cases to tune and fine tune your suspension the way you like it.

The oil in a bike's fork or shock not only cools and lubricates the system, but is the heart of all the damping control available for the springs. All phases of the damping involve the viscosity of the oil used in the system. Oil is such a critical suspension tuning decision that is the first priority to get worked out after spring/sag choice. No matter what all of your friends say about what the greatest high speed valves are or wild shim stacks, you should agonize over oil choice. In general, Use the least viscous oil possible that produces good slow speed damping performance with the damping adjustment screws at stock or near stock settings. This ensures that a fair amount of fine tuning will be available for track and weather conditions.

First of all, forget about W numbers, they are completely meaningless. Some 5W oils are heavier than some other 10W oils, so never, ever use a SAE W number to choose an oil.

When you find out what the stock recommended oil is, use the chart to find that oil and see what it's viscosity is.

For forks, you are concerned with cst (centistokes) at 40C. Your forks will never see 100C. If you're looking at oil for your shock, the cst at 100c is relevant, as the shock gets much hotter.
Once you know what the stock is, look at going lighter. A good example, the last bike I did called for a fork oil in the 17 cst range, at 40C, and were very harsh. I had to back the damping screws all the way off to make them useable. I went with a shock oil (for the fork) in the 13 range, and that bought me back some adjustment, and took the harshness away. Next oil change, I will even lighter to 10. In the rear, I went from a 4 at 100C to a 2.3 cst at 100C.

Most important points:

Oil is such a critical suspension tuning decision that is the first priority to get worked out after spring/sag choice. (sadly, nobody even thinks twice about the oil, even a lot of tuners)

You should agonize over oil choice. In general, Use the least viscous oil possible that produces good slow speed damping performance

If you have any questions, just ask.

 

[venturini]

OK, so I used a manual from my '11 TE 310 and then cross-referenced it with the CR manual (only foreign languages display the forks page).

The fork oil is Kayaba KHL 15-11.

In reference to the lowering of the oil level, this is what I've found.

What I get for the CR is "oil level" 556 cm cubed. It breaks it down further with "cartuccia" (cartridge) needing 196 cm cubed and "federo" (sheath---what the .....) needing 360 cm cubed.

I then coverted that to 18.80 fl oz total (6.63 fl oz and 12.17 fl oz.)

So what exactly am I doing here to lower the fork oil level? Is it simply opening the top of the fork, draining the oil, leaving it inverted for an hour, then pouring in 5 cc's less for adjustement sake and 5 cc's less to account for the amount of resisual oil still in the forks OR can I simply use a syringe tool to take out 5 cc's?

I'm a bit confused though after digging around for a while as everything I've read states that changing the fork level oil only effects the final 3 or 4 inches of travel and that isn't the issue here.

From the info regarding changing viscousity, it seems that my better option for now would be a lighter oil but my searches so far are yielding tons of garbage links and not answering anything for the KHL-15-11. I did, however, find this handy link that includes KLH15-10---lists it as 15.3 cst at 40 C. http://www.transmoto.com.au/publish/products/7799233/Comparative-Oil-Weights-Table

Lots of options for less than 15.3 (if that's even close to the KHL15-11)

 

[old3]

The oil level and viscosity are super cheap to try. Nothing beats a good valving job just for you, but you can make what you have better if you really want that carb!

I've dumped an amount out of my legs into a measuring cup. 5cc isn't much. To really get a feel for what you did I always do a big jump, even if just to get a grip on what it actually did, if anything. Like I said, you can always put it back. I'd either dump 25cc or measure where it is now and set it to the minimum height, max air chamber. If you are bottoming then, add 5cc at a time till you are happy. You may find the bigger air chamber didn't help you at all. At least you tried it and get the feel for what it does.

Have you ridden on a MX track at all?

 

[Vinduro]

Try calling Jay on Tuesday afternoon. He is usually in meetings Tuesday morning.

 

[endurokids]

Try calling Jay on Tuesday afternoon. He is usually in meetings Tuesday morning.

Do this, listen to Vinduro as he has done a lot of work on the 125's.

 

[venturini]

I'll definitely give Jay a call. I tried on Friday but he was gone helping organize a HS.

Thanks guys!!!

 

[Zomby woof]

OK, so I used a manual from my '11 TE 310 and then cross-referenced it with the CR manual (only foreign languages display the forks page).

The fork oil is Kayaba KHL 15-11.


Lots of options for less than 15.3 (if that's even close to the KHL15-11)

I looked and found the same info as you. I doubt there's much, if any functional difference between the 10 and 11 oil. would try something in the range of a 10cst at 40c if I were you.

I try to explain to people that a revalve is a LAST resort option, and should never be the first thing you do to try and correct a problem. There's an awful lot of work being done on suspension that's totally unnecessary, and not a lot of people realize it, because they either don't understand suspension, or don't know better.

Have you ever had a transmission that either doesn't quite shift right, or you just don't like the feel of? What do you do, rebuild and modify it, or change to a different oil first? Same thing.

 

[street2dirt]

Yes the 1st step is to get the sag #s front AND back correct. And Husky does seem to underspring the rear by a bunch. I'm doing the same thing with my '12 TXC(same forks I think) gonna play with oil levels first & let the forks break in real good b4 spending $$s on revalve.

 

[fire1998]

Have the same fork on my 13TXC 310 and its horrible for my weight. To me it's worth sending the suspension out for a revalve and new springs. It's hard to push bike when you have zero confidence in suspension. Usually my guy sends it back to me and I end up never touching a clicker. Not crashing is worth $5-600 to me. If you can buy a new bike you can afford a revalve.

 

[Zomby woof]

Have the same fork on my 13TXC 310 and its horrible for my weight. To me it's worth sending the suspension out for a revalve and new springs. It's hard to push bike when you have zero confidence in suspension. Usually my guy sends it back to me and I end up never touching a clicker. Not crashing is worth $5-600 to me. If you can buy a new bike you can afford a revalve.

If you can spend time riding, you can spend a little and actually learn about your suspension.
It will make you a better rider.

Before you spend the money on a revalve you owe it to yourself to make sure you have the correct spring rates, and oil height will definitely effect valving. Do these first and re-evaluate so you can at least tell the tuner whats wrong with it at that point.

The oil's viscosity is far more important (in regards to valving) than the height.

 

[Kyle Tarry]

I have the same forks (perhaps with different valving, as my bike is a WR), and I have them apart right now too, so I can probably make some comments.

-The valving in my '12 WR300 forks is too stiff for woods work, in my opinion. The quantity and thickness of the face shims seems too high to me (6x 24x0.15). I don't know what the midvalve looks like. I think that a revalve is a necessity for woods riding.

-There is no way that changes to clickers and oil viscosity are the right way to solve this problem. Both of these have the largest effect on the low speed damping, while woods harshness on sharp-edged hits is more mid and high speed. Backing the adjusters way out or going to lighter weight oil (is there an oil lighter than 5W anyway? Doubt it...) is going to potentially make the low speed wallowy, without fully resolving the high speed harshness.

-I strongly disagree about valving being a "last resort option." Valving, more than anything else, effects the feel and performance of a fork, and most forks are factory valved for some particular compromise. For whatever reason, Huskies seem to be valved on the stiff side, especially for woods work. I think that a correct valving setup should be the first thing, not the last, to be done to a set of these forks.

 

[Micfasto]

I have the same forks (perhaps with different valving, as my bike is a WR), and I have them apart right now too, so I can probably make some comments.

-.

WR and CR are not the same forks. The CR has closed cartage forks (same as the TC and TXC lines as well as 2006 and newer YZ250s)

Here is a link to my post on service of the KYB fork that is on your bike. http://www.cafehusky.com/threads/txc-310-fork-oil.27840/ The merge racing springs were the key for me (I went with the soft "woods" version.)


Same as you, my forks were great in a straight line but I wanted more traction when leaned over and cornering. And like you I could tell a difference with 2 clicks softer on compression.

The next time I am in there I will do the "free piston mod" and lower the spring rate on the fork springs (to get Vinduros recommendations). These forks have 2 springs in each leg. The traditional fork spring and the free piston spring. The merger racing RRS is the free piston spring and it controls the first 3"-4" of travel.

 

[venturini]

Got some help today to measure the race and static sag. Turns out that with 100mm of race sag I am at 20-21mm of static sag. I ordered a 5.4 shock spring so I'll see what that does when it arrives. I'm 160-165 but wear a 2 liter camelback so that adds a little extra.

Talked to Jay Hall as well. His son races the same bike. He recommended 2 sizes up on the shock spring and that was supported by the Race Tech spring rate calculator. He stated that the harshness I was feeling is something he's dealt with a lot----the forks also need more rebound. Unfortunately I can't afford that expense right now (I only got the bike because of the major rebate/discount and even with that it set me back a bit)

Suspension first---then the Lectron----by the time I can afford the Lectron is should be ready to go with all of the Motosportz mods so that's worth the wait (or so I'm trying to convince myself)

 

[Motosportz]

What you're concerned with is the low speed damping, and what most people don't realize, is that you can control this to a great degree with oil viscosity. If you're not happy with your suspension, you should be looking at the oil you're using long before you even think about revalving. Revalving should always be a last resort, NEVER the first thing you do.

Respectfully disagree. I have been very into suspension for decades. Revalved and resprung many forks and shocks myself as well as building fork sub chambers and other things. I feel suspension is the number one performance upgrade you can make to a bike and have done a lot. IMHO you get very little out of oil viscosity. It still have to go through the valve stack and no matter how light or thick it is your still dealing with valving. First thing is to get the right spring rates for you and your mission. Then the next thing to do is get them revalved for the same. Actually this should just be done all together. The mid valves in the huskys are not right for off road and the piston stack are in a lot of need for changes too. No oil is going to fix this.

I have the same forks (perhaps with different valving, as my bike is a WR), and I have them apart right now too, so I can probably make some comments.

-The valving in my '12 WR300 forks is too stiff for woods work, in my opinion. The quantity and thickness of the face shims seems too high to me (6x 24x0.15). I don't know what the midvalve looks like. I think that a revalve is a necessity for woods riding.

-There is no way that changes to clickers and oil viscosity are the right way to solve this problem. Both of these have the largest effect on the low speed damping, while woods harshness on sharp-edged hits is more mid and high speed. Backing the adjusters way out or going to lighter weight oil (is there an oil lighter than 5W anyway? Doubt it...) is going to potentially make the low speed wallowy, without fully resolving the high speed harshness.

-I strongly disagree about valving being a "last resort option." Valving, more than anything else, effects the feel and performance of a fork, and most forks are factory valved for some particular compromise. For whatever reason, Huskies seem to be valved on the stiff side, especially for woods work. I think that a correct valving setup should be the first thing, not the last, to be done to a set of these forks.

Exactly my thoughts too.

Got some help today to measure the race and static sag. Turns out that with 100mm of race sag I am at 20-21mm of static sag. I ordered a 5.4 shock spring so I'll see what that does when it arrives. I'm 160-165 but wear a 2 liter camelback so that adds a little extra.

Talked to Jay Hall as well. His son races the same bike. He recommended 2 sizes up on the shock spring and that was supported by the Race Tech spring rate calculator. He stated that the harshness I was feeling is something he's dealt with a lot----the forks also need more rebound. Unfortunately I can't afford that expense right now (I only got the bike because of the major rebate/discount and even with that it set me back a bit)

Suspension first---then the Lectron----by the time I can afford the Lectron is should be ready to go with all of the Motosportz mods so that's worth the wait (or so I'm trying to convince myself)

good call. IMHO there is no bigger reward than new springs and a revalve for performance, comfort and safety. Getting the Lectron and having more power and performance on a poor suspension bike makes no sense. The MS-3 rod and short PJ tube are well sorted and tested now and IMHO works fantastic. ready to ship this configuration when you are ready to buy.

My suggestion is save your money and when you have enough send your shock and fork to ZipTy. Those guys know more than anyone about the huskys. I just had my 511 done there and the difference is shocking.

 

[steadydirt]

If you can spend time riding, you can spend a little and actually learn about your suspension.
It will make you a better rider.



The oil's viscosity is far more important (in regards to valving) than the height.

This is an amazing statement. I have never in all these years been informed of this.

 

[Zomby woof]

It blows me away that people are doing complicated work on their suspension, yet clearly don't understand the basics.

 

[MotoMarc36]

It blows me away that people are doing complicated work on their suspension, yet clearly don't understand the basics.

And you base this comment on WHAT????

 

[Zomby woof]

A couple of the statements that people have made.

-The valving in my '12 WR300 forks is too stiff for woods work, in my opinion. The quantity and thickness of the face shims seems too high to me (6x 24x0.15). I don't know what the midvalve looks like. I think that a revalve is a necessity for woods riding.


-There is no way that changes to clickers and oil viscosity are the right way to solve this problem. Both of these have the largest effect on the low speed damping, while woods harshness on sharp-edged hits is more mid and high speed. Backing the adjusters way out or going to lighter weight oil (is there an oil lighter than 5W anyway? Doubt it...) is going to potentially make the low speed wallowy, without fully resolving the high speed harshness.

-I strongly disagree about valving being a "last resort option." Valving, more than anything else, effects the feel and performance of a fork, and most forks are factory valved for some particular compromise. For whatever reason, Huskies seem to be valved on the stiff side, especially for woods work. I think that a correct valving setup should be the first thing, not the last, to be done to a set of these forks.

It's not my intention to start a fight, or single anybody out, but how can you go through a set of forks, which he's obviously done before, have it all figured out down to the shim stack, and not know (not only) that there are oils lighter than 5W, but are still using the SAE W numbers to choose an oil? How is that possible?

I have been very into suspension for decades. Revalved and resprung many forks and shocks myself as well as building fork sub chambers and other things. I feel suspension is the number one performance upgrade you can make to a bike and have done a lot. IMHO you get very little out of oil viscosity. It still have to go through the valve stack and no matter how light or thick it is your still dealing with valving. First thing is to get the right spring rates for you and your mission. Then the next thing to do is get them revalved for the same. Actually this should just be done all together. The mid valves in the huskys are not right for off road and the piston stack are in a lot of need for changes too. No oil is going to fix this.

Same thing, but in his opinion, you get very little out of oil. You are welcome to your opinion, but that tells me how little attention you've paid to it.



I'm not making this stuff up. After spring rate, the viscosity of the oil is THE most important decision you should make about your suspension. It affects ALL aspects of the damping, ALL the time. This is not my opinion. This is fact.
Why would you start to modify something without going through the basics first?

The more I think about it, the more I think the transmission analogy is a good one.
When I got my Husky, it had Belray gear saver in it. The dealer strongly recommended it, but for me, it didn't shift right, felt stiff, and I had a hard time finding neutral. We've all been there, right?
Did I modify or rebuild the transmission to work with the gear saver oil? Of course I didn't. That would be stupid. Why would you do that with your suspension?

Seriously guys, this is very important stuff. You should have a look at the site I posted and read up on damping.You're doing yourself a disservice by ignoring it.

http://www.peterverdone.com/archive/damping.htm