• Hi everyone,

    As you all know, Coffee (Dean) passed away a couple of years ago. I am Dean's ex-wife's husband and happen to have spent my career in tech. Over the years, I occasionally helped Dean with various tech issues.

    When he passed, I worked with his kids to gather the necessary credentials to keep this site running. Since then (and for however long they worked with Coffee), Woodschick and Dirtdame have been maintaining the site and covering the costs. Without their hard work and financial support, CafeHusky would have been lost.

    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working to migrate the site to a free cloud compute instance so that Woodschick and Dirtdame no longer have to fund it. At the same time, I’ve updated the site to a current version of XenForo (the discussion software it runs on). The previous version was outdated and no longer supported.

    Unfortunately, the new software version doesn’t support importing the old site’s styles, so for now, you’ll see the XenForo default style. This may change over time.

    Coffee didn’t document the work he did on the site, so I’ve been digging through the old setup to understand how everything was running. There may still be things I’ve missed. One known issue is that email functionality is not yet working on the new site, but I hope to resolve this over time.

    Thanks for your patience and support!

Lets talk about modern conventional forks...

Motosportz

Motosportz

CH Sponsor
Staff member
So I have always liked the looks and function of modern conventional forks like the KTM 50mm and the sweet looking gold ones that used to come on RM250's. Also remember the CRe off road race bikes having swapped out the Showas for them for racing off road. And remember someone using them on a husky 125 after they had inverted. The thing is the conventional are actually supposed to be able to work better for off road for two main reasons as far as i understand it. One, is that the lower sliding part of the fork on a conventional fork is the aluminum and smaller part making far less unsprung weight and the front wheel to move quicker on hits like roots and rocks. Two, the upper steel stanchions on the conventionals allow more flex, even when at 50mm as they are longer and steel is very flexible and some amount of deflection is taken up by them. Basically the conventionals are supposed to react quicker and be more forgiving. This was stated in some old articles on the subject i read back int he day.

maybe Drew or other suspension dudes could chime in on this? Would be cool to get a professional opinion on this subject.

My questions here are not completely without motivation as i just scored a front end off a 99 KTM 380 which had the WP Extreme conventionals and i am really tempted to throw them on my 04 CR165 project. I am worried about the offest on those forks and a few other issues in doing so.

thoughts?

Here are the KTM forks / front end I have...

2011%5C02%5C18%5Cbikepics-2154262-full.jpg


For reference here are the last generation of RM conventionals (which i hear are awesome for off road)...

101786_03_xl.jpg


and lastly the CRE off road race bikes. I was sure I remeber them having paioli forks but can't find a pic.

anyway thoughts?
 
Joe Chod said:
yeah CRE is Paioli's but my understanding is they were mereley Showa copys inside
Click to expand...

Is it Showa that owns Paioli? And even if the internals are showa it is still a conventional over a inverted... why the change? I thin these came on the first generation aluminum frames which were harsh. Maybe it was an effort to get some flex / forgiveness back into the bike?

- anyway picked up those WP Extremes today at lunch, should be fun to play with. Look substantial.
 
The first gen Honda alloy frame was a 97 CR250 unfortunaitly they were inverted forks.
I had a 97 RM 250 which had convensional showa twin chamber forks. they were and still are a great fork. some of the current rides could learn something from these forks.
 
It has always been my understanding that the reason upside down's are used now over conventional is that the steel stanction tubes are lighter than the aluminum part of the fork. Basically agreeing with your first part except that I have been told that the aluminum top part on an upside down fork is the heavier of the two. Maybe not the tube by itself, but it houses the seals, steel retainers... etc. Also fork seals are supposed to last longer on upside down since the dirt can fall off the seals instead of resting on top.

I run a conventional on the left fork leg, and upside down on the right leg just to be safe. :D
 
I have had quite a few customers that relly cling to the conventonal F.F. mostly the 49 mm Showa (RM), the condition of the rubber seals that keep the oil in the inner chamber are of concern to me because of the age of these F.F. we had some replacement seals made by a small volume (made in U.S.A.) seal maker they are good but I'm concerned that they add some friction at the cartrage rod. All of this leaves me feeling like my coustomer might be spending for not so good value.
I like the 49mm conventional Showas that come on the DRZ-400 we have some very good settings for them and I belive the root of this discusion centers around the aditonal flex provided by the conventional design.
The 50 mm WP is a good F.F. but very heavy, all steel cartrage and cartrage rod. The steel tube in the conventional design has to be much thicker than the steel tube of the inverted design. I very much like the 48mm KYB's that come on the current Huskys good combination of flex and can be made to be verry suppel without going to a point where stability suffers.
My position in this discusion is that if I'm not able to get the coustomer very happy with the STD. OEM suspension components I'v got to figure out how to do my job better. Set Up is the key, good set up beats newer technology.
 
Thanks Drew. Much appreciated. Are the WR 50's cartridge? Also I forgot these had rebound in one side and comp in the other.

I guess I will know tomorrow because they bolted right up to my ATK 406 like they were made for it. :D Offset looks to be less on the conventionals.
 
I certainly agree with the unsprung weight or probably more like lowereing the centre of gravity with the conventional forks. Not sure about seal and wiper duration in the old position c/w the new.
 
I remember my 95-96 Husky 125 and 250 I think had the right side up zokes. I really liked them. I would think in off road conditions for sure the added flex would be of benifit in both shock to the rider (by square edged rocks,roots etc..) and you could ride harder longer. That is why I think the current 125-150 WR at least should come with 45's. I spoke with Jay Hall about putting 2001 125 FBF forks on my current bike and it sounded like a pain, because of the offset or something. Ran into a guy with a TC 450 this week and he had YZ yamaha forks on his bike! While a guy may loose some of the precise steering feel, I would not mind trying a right side up fork at all! Anything to make a guy ride harder longer!
 
The bikes I have that have old style forks all run those "accordion" style fork boots and they almost never blow a seal. That's at least one thing that I miss about conventional forks. All my inverted fork models blow at least one seal a year. I could run seal savers I suppose....
 
Dirtdame said:
The bikes I have that have old style forks all run those "accordion" style fork boots and they almost never blow a seal. That's at least one thing that I miss about conventional forks. All my inverted fork models blow at least one seal a year. I could run seal savers I suppose....
Click to expand...

I put some seal savers on once, then took them back off because it felt like they caused too much sticktion.
YRMV
 
So the ride report. These dropped right on my ATK406 as it has inverted WP KTM like forks form the time. So they got test duty on the ATK. The left leg has a seal leak and the bushing feels like it need replaced. Will get these rebuilt. That said it was interesting. As these are totally different forks, triples and stuff I knew there would be some sort of geometry change to deal with as well as the suspension performance. I rode the ATK about 50-60 miles in deep technical woods called Diamond Mill area. LOTS or rock and roots and lots of tight and very technical trail. This area is not for the weak and tends to remove squids right away. It is not super nasty but not EZ ether. Lots of ROCKS everywhere and steep up and down hills are the norm. Some very changing up hills. Anyway, a great place to test forks. I did have a new Motoz IT front which is probably my favorite rocks tire too. First impression was how nice the bike turned int he tight stuff. For sure quicker handling and more responsive. I like it. Also instantly noticed the plushness of the forks. The more we rode the more i loved how they go through rocks and soak up trail trash, very forgiving, just liked i remembered about these forks. by mid day i was railing rocky sections and the front end is one of the best i have sampled for rocky trails. Love it. The front end is way more planted, spends a lot more time tracking the ground that dancing around and is real calm up front.

So over all i love it. Just as i remembered in all aspects. Very supple and forgiving.

the Cons? Steering accuracy and pinpoint steering suffer a little. Some of this is due to the fact that i simply am not feeling anything on the trail. the isolation makes you feel as if you don't have 100 percent control. This is a nit pic. The bike tracked very nice, probably better than most as it never gets deflected. The lack of deflection is amazing. The steering "issue" I talk about is not really an issue just a feeling like you have 98% percent control over the direction of the front wheel. Even with 50mm forks there seems to be a slight amount of wandering. this IMHO is the good and bad of an conventional fork. The forgiveness of the fork also causes a slight amount of flex and inaccuracy int he steering. the biggest down side for me on this bike is these triple clamps hard mount the bars where the ATK triples were rubber mounted. The ATK is a paint shaker and the vibs through the bars now is irritating. Oh, i also found the bike a little squirly in the top gear loose gravel roads. The steering is quicker with these forks / triple so it seems I traded for some twitchy-ness at speed. Oh, the front brake was also a huge upgrade and the brembo brakes stop hard compared tot he nissin crap on the ATK originally. Bonus.

Other than the vibs through the bars and slight inaccuracy in steering direction these forks are a winner for my needs. For tight woods work through rocks and roots they work great. These will find there way onto my 04 CR165 project bike soon (after a total rebuild) and I think they will rule there. Fun stuff. I think the conventional fork still has some life left in it for off road.
 
The conventional F.F. will have less of set at the tripple clamp as they have more of set at the axel because of the larger diamiter of the lower fork at the axel clamp.
The WP 50 mm are a conventional cartrage design, open bath type recurclating design.
The seals always last longer on a conventional design because there not down in the mud as often.
 
Interesting Kelly,

I had 2 KTM's with WP conventionals and I thought those forks worked very well in our NW rocks and roots. I agree that they felt nice and plush and soaked up the trail slop really well.

How do you think the conventionals stack up to your Ohins on the Gasser?

Do Seal Savers really help preserve the fork seals or do they trap in dirt and muck and make things worse?
 
firffighter said:
Interesting Kelly,

I had 2 KTM's with WP conventionals and I thought those forks worked very well in our NW rocks and roots. I agree that they felt nice and plush and soaked up the trail slop really well.

How do you think the conventionals stack up to your Ohins on the Gasser?

Do Seal Savers really help preserve the fork seals or do they trap in dirt and muck and make things worse?
Click to expand...

I really like them in the roots and rocks and were fine on the big hits as well. Was pretty please and glad they were not crap I had unrealistic fond memories of. The ohlins on my GG are very good in much the same respects. That bike is so different than the ATK it is hard to make comparisons but i'd say the Ohlins are slightly better. Maybe not quite as plus and forgiving but more accurate steering and feel a little more connected. For faster stuff and huge whoops etc the ohlins hands down. For pounding through rocks and roots the WP50's are near the top in performance. After I have them rebuilt and setup for me there is a good chance I'll try them on the 04 CR165 I am building as I have always found getting supple forks on the 125 is not EZ as it is light and easily knocked off course.
 
I think that the 50 WP's would be a great idea on the CR165. On my KTM200's I always found deflection to be a problem because they were so darn light. I had the 50 WP's on a KTM300 and loved them, should work great on a singletrack weapon like the 165!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top