DirtRider . Net MX, SX, Arena Cross, Off-Road Community

This is the text version of DirtRider.Net
Click Here for the Full Version

Pages: 1

KYB bottoming system choices????
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Rcannon---------------------

Which bottoming system would be best on these forks? I have a set of 97 forks that use a hydralic bottoming system. I also have a set of 99 forks that use the bumper system. Both sets are in good shape.

Is there much of an advantage to either system? Which woudl you use and why??

Thanks in advance!

Posted by: KTM-Lew---------------------

I'm curious to see what the concensus is on this one. I have a set of 03 WR450 forks of a buddy that we started to convert to bottoming cone style. I really need to finish those......need a couple of shims to finish them. Maybe get them later this week?

I prefer the cones myself. No good reason just do. The old 4054 WP used a combo deal that had a rubber bumper in the bottom of the cone! Don't know why that wouldn't still work?

Posted by: Jeff Howe---------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTM-Lew

I prefer the cones myself. No good reason just do.

Ride both systems back to back and you will have your good reason. I've said it before and at the risk of coming under fire from Jer again (we've had a number of tech discussions on this in the past and I think we both just love to disagree with each other just for something to do) I'll say it again....the cones are the better of the 2 in my opinion. But, that involves a complete revalve to work with the differences between bumper/CV and cone/no CV and the cone system needs to be toleranced properly. They can feel bad if not toleranced properly and yes I've tested that out and can indeed say if you set them up wrong it will hurt your wrists every bit as much as the bumpers do.

I'm sure he will recall that at one time we sat and discussed the fact that we thought it would be cool to have a Cone/CV system (man, that was a long time ago) . Yamaha brought it out in 04 which made for an interesting fork. I felt the 04 YZ fork was a good fork once setup properly.

Finish off the cone project Lew, I'm sure you will like them.

The hydrualic bottomout system on the 97 fork is not long enough. The aftermarket cones you buy as replacement are MUCH better. So considering this it's a wash between those two you asked about. Longer cone and you have a better deal.

Posted by: Rcannon---------------------

Thanks so much for answering this. I will put the bumpers in for now. No reason other than that specific cartrige has almost no run time on it.

I remember Pro Circuit and Devol selling longer cones. Is there anyone else????

Posted by: WWR---------------------

Wow, great write-up. I have been struggling with the setup on my 97 YZ250 forks for 5 years now. The metal-to-metal clunk can be soooo painful to the palms.

I would be greatly interested in the bottoming cones, and also some shimstack info. My forks currently have the MX Tech newer/silver valves in them.

Posted by: Jeff Howe---------------------

Paul,

Cones....Racing Suspension Products are the ones I prefer. Also, you should consider their internal bleed kit for the 97 forks. If you want really trick forks add Enzo Subtanks. Alot of copies out there and I have no experience with those other then Enzo but I do love them even though they are expensive. They weigh nothing compared to other brands. "Buff" your chrome legs with a scotch brite pad, it will help reduce stiction by putting microscopic scratches in the leg which fill with oil, or use Forslyk I guess. I just buff mine.

I can tell you this....the combination of cones and tanks is awesome but it's also really important to minimize stiction...in whatever you way you choose. The old 46mm KYB forks have really tight seals and lots of stiction, get rid of as much as you can in whatever way you choose and the world becomes a better place.

Posted by: WWR---------------------

Jeff,
as I understand it, my 97 forks are not like the 98-newer kind that have CV's. Dont know how much difference that makes. Mine have hydraulic bottoming cones stock, but they really suck. I could remove them and notice no difference.

I have been using Mobil 1 atf for fluid to reduce stiction. From my experience, the stiction is not an issue (the harshness is related to shimstack setup). I just cant seem to find any kind of bottoming resistance without making the forks real harsh on the high-speed choppy stuff. I have been toying with the midvalve and basevalve shimstacks, but would like to see what others are using that is effective. My current midvalve stack is definately not stock, I have what Jer recommended for use with his base valve.

RCannon, what do you have going on with yours that is so great?? I have blown alot of money on mine only to net small improvements.

Posted by: Rcannon---------------------

RCannon, what do you have going on with yours that is so great?? I have blown alot of money on mine only to net small improvements.[/QUOTE] I relate..springs, oil, subtanks, etc....

I bought a bottle of Forslyk. This reduced stiction enough to finally let the fork work. Then I had Chad Harris at Forslyk http://www.miedosoracing.com/ revalve them for me. Last weekend was the first time I rode the bike. This was also the first time that I did not bottom metal to metal. It made a massive difference in the forks. I

I know how bad they were. I seriously had thoughts of selling the bike before Chad fixed them.

I added a Too Tech subtank a few months ago. This allowed a higher oil level andmore controll over bottoming.

Posted by: WWR---------------------

Are you running a stock base valve, or aftermarket one? Mine is the latest design MX Tech low-flow piston.

How many stages are your base-valve and mid-valve stacks? Heavily tapered or straight? Float?

I am also running .43 springs, no sub-tanks, weight is 185lbs.

Posted by: Rcannon---------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWR

Are you running a stock base valve, or aftermarket one? Mine is the latest design MX Tech low-flow piston.

How many stages are your base-valve and mid-valve stacks? Heavily tapered or straight? Float?

I am also running .43 springs, no sub-tanks, weight is 185lbs.

I now weigh a bit over 200. I ended up with .44 springs, subtanks, midvalves that look like something returned from the Afgan Army, and Mobil 1 ATF fluid. Previously I had tried .42 springs, .43, .44 and .46. None made the fork feel even halfway decent.

The stack is one Chad made up for me. It is two stage, but different from the way most others do things. The basevalve and piston are stock. I had wanted to dig into the midvalve, but at this point I cannot bring myself to do anything with it. I am afraid of messing the fork up. This is the first time since I have owned the bike that I have felt this way.

Posted by: WWR---------------------

C'mon man, spill the beans! Show us a stack or pic of the valves! There is absolutely no chance I am going to pay to let someone else touch my forks again, I dont care how good their reputation.

Oh, checked my springs also. I correct myself, one is a .43 and one is a .44.

Posted by: Rcannon---------------------

The picture will not show much. There is no way I would post Chads work without permission!

A search of his name will reveal something very similar. Chad never tried to hide it from anyone!

Text Version Home

This is the text version of DirtRider.Net Click Here for the Full Version

KYB bottoming system choices????

This is the text version of DirtRider.Net
Click Here for the Full Version