How do I get YZ suspension travel on my WR ?


61 replies to this topic
  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 16, 2013 - 07:14 PM

#1

I have a 2012 WR450F.

I'd like a bit more suspension travel, especially in the back. The 2012 YZ250F has more suspension travel than the WR. What parts make this so ?

Is the shock longer ? Different linkage ?

What parts are different in the forks ?

Thanks

  • JDLowrance

Posted September 16, 2013 - 07:42 PM

#2

I have a 2012 WR450F.

I'd like a bit more suspension travel, especially in the back. The 2012 YZ250F has more suspension travel than the WR. What parts make this so ?

Is the shock longer ? Different linkage ?

What parts are different in the forks ?

Thanks

There is very little difference in travel between WRs and YZs. Getting that extra .25 to .5 inch of travel is a wast of time. What you need are proper spring rates for your weight and you'll be able to go just as quick (if not quicker) on the WR.

 

How much do you weigh?



  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 16, 2013 - 08:22 PM

#3

There is very little difference in travel between WRs and YZs. Getting that extra .25 to .5 inch of travel is a wast of time. What you need are proper spring rates for your weight and you'll be able to go just as quick (if not quicker) on the WR.
 
How much do you weigh?


220. Bike weighs 241 dry. Rear static bike only sag is 20mm. Rear rider (me) sag is 100mm, both without riding gear.

The fork seems especially soft. I haven't measured its sag.

I'm looking for a really plush setup.

  • JDLowrance

Posted September 16, 2013 - 08:39 PM

#4

If you weigh 220 the stock springs are way to soft for you.

 

I'd recommend minimum 0.48kg/mm up front with stock tank and no excessive gear (tool bag, camel back, etc.) or 0.50kg/mm with aformentioned extras and 5.8 / 6.0 kg/mm for the rear with same provisions.

 

Contrary to popular belief, stiffer springs do not make for stiffer suspension. You are riding too far down in the stroke (which is harsher than upper 1/3 of stroke). The stiffer springs will get you up in the stroke and provide a plusher ride and more suspension travel for bigger hits.

 

I weigh 255 without gear, run OS tank, tool belt, etc and run 0.54kg/mm up front and 6.7kg/mm in the rear. Bike is plush and soaks up the big hits and jump landings. Err on the heavier side.


Edited by JDLowrance, September 16, 2013 - 08:40 PM.


  • Krannie McKranface

Posted September 17, 2013 - 05:48 AM

#5

6.7 ??? really??



  • JDLowrance

Posted September 17, 2013 - 05:52 AM

#6

6.7 ??? really??

 

Really


Edited by JDLowrance, September 17, 2013 - 05:53 AM.


  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 17, 2013 - 11:40 AM

#7

If you weigh 220 the stock springs are way to soft for you.


My bike is probably 25 pounds lighter than yours. If you go by the sag numbers, the stock rear spring rate (5.5 kg/mm) isn't too far out.

I agree that heavier springs are probably better than lighter springs.

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted September 17, 2013 - 12:11 PM

#8

My bike is probably 25 pounds lighter than yours. If you go by the sag numbers, the stock rear spring rate (5.5 kg/mm) isn't too far out.

I agree that heavier springs are probably better than lighter springs.

 

The bike weight has almost nothing to do with it. Almost nothing. 25lbs on the bike is like 5 more body pounds.

It's all about your moving mass between the wheels.

You want to keep your mass up in the highest part of the stroke as possible, without wasting any suspension travel.

For really slow riding you alter the standard 25/100mm rear 28% front to 30/110 and 35%, so you have more 'drop' travel over rocks and roots.

That's the way KTM's, for example, are designed to run (PDS) stock. If you try and run them 25/100 they over-steer horrendously.


Edited by Krannie, September 17, 2013 - 12:12 PM.


  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 17, 2013 - 12:28 PM

#9

The bike weight has almost nothing to do with it. Almost nothing. 25lbs on the bike is like 5 more body pounds.

I disagree. The spring rate is probably based on unsprung mass of the bike and the rider.The spring doesn't know or care if the weight comes from the bike or the rider. But I keep my ears open for the rest of your post.

It's all about your moving mass between the wheels.
You want to keep your mass up in the highest part of the stroke as possible, without wasting any suspension travel.
For really slow riding you alter the standard 25/100mm rear 28% front to 30/110 and 35%, so you have more 'drop' travel over rocks and roots.
That's the way KTM's, for example, are designed to run (PDS) stock. If you try and run them 25/100 they over-steer horrendously.


So you are telling me to run a softer spring or even less preload ? I must point out that the rear of most KTM bikes has 13.5" of travel. Compare that to the 11.8" on my WR...

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted September 17, 2013 - 01:31 PM

#10

You can take the bumpers out of the fork and shock if you like, but it will just be worse, until you re-spring and re-valve.

I don't know where you are getting these suspension numbers.

If you measure from the top of the tire to the bottom inside of the fender on my '12 SXF, it's under 12" to the fender.  

My XC-W had even less.

That's one of the main reasons I don't like KTM's: limited suspension possibilities.

Maybe KTM measures the suspension arc, instead of suspension travel... 


I disagree. The spring rate is probably based on unsprung mass of the bike and the rider.The spring doesn't know or care if the weight comes from the bike or the rider. But I keep my ears open for the rest of your post.


So you are telling me to run a softer spring or even less preload ? I must point out that the rear of most KTM bikes has 13.5" of travel. Compare that to the 11.8" on my WR...

 

No, you are right, but 25lbs over the front wheel is always over the front wheel, and 25 over the back is always over the back. Spread out sprung and un-sprung makes less ' meaningful'.



Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • JDLowrance

Posted September 17, 2013 - 03:36 PM

#11

My bike is probably 25 pounds lighter than yours. If you go by the sag numbers, the stock rear spring rate (5.5 kg/mm) isn't too far out.

I agree that heavier springs are probably better than lighter springs.

 

I took your 25lb weight loss into account. Try the springs I recommended...i think you'll be impressed.



  • KennyMc

Posted September 17, 2013 - 04:07 PM

#12

Ok, question for you.  As Bill knows, I have an '07 WR450 and just got '06 YZ forks for it.  How do I calculate the proper spring rate for these forks.  Would it be as simple as adding the difference in bike weight between the YZ and the WR to my overall weight to get the "spring generator" to calculate the proper fork spring?

 

My weight without gear = 210lbs

Bike is '07 WR450 with 3.2 tank, Baja Designs dual sport kit on it.

Gear weighs in at 35 lbs


Edited by kenshaw720, September 17, 2013 - 04:09 PM.


  • Krannie McKranface

Posted September 17, 2013 - 04:25 PM

#13

245lbs = .52 or .54

 

I would go .54

 

I'm 270 fully loaded and I went .56

 

racetech and other suspension co's have calculators on their websites, and they are usually a low ballpark number.



  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 17, 2013 - 06:07 PM

#14

You can take the bumpers out of the fork and shock if you like

Is that the difference between YZ and WR travel ?

but it will just be worse, until you re-spring and re-valve.

Agreed. Tell me more about revalving, please.

I don't know where you are getting these suspension numbers.

My bad. Actually, its the TE300 that has the long travel. 335mm = 13.2 inches by my calcs.
http://www.husaberg..../te-300-eu.html

  • JTucker

Posted September 17, 2013 - 06:19 PM

#15

I'm over 250 and use a .54 and 6.7. It works pretty good, I think the racetech calc in general is little heavy on the fork and a little soft on the shock.



  • Krannie McKranface

Posted September 17, 2013 - 06:50 PM

#16


Agreed. Tell me more about revalving, please.

 

 

 

Valving on suspension is just like fitting shoes. 

Until the fit is correct, it's way off.

You don't know it's off until you get the right fit.

 

Stock, the valving what is provided by KYB, to meet a price point for Yamaha.

It is essentially an ok valving for a 165lb sit down rider who uses soft throttle.

If you ride beyond that, the valving is just plain way off.



  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 17, 2013 - 07:09 PM

#17

Good information.

I get the spring rates you guys are suggesting. What are you doing for damping ? Stock ? I don't have it in my budget to send my suspension off to a custom shop. I'm looking for DIY alternatives.

How does one tell when the suspension is working properly ? Are there some tests one could run ?

When I watch vids of Graham Jarvis on Youtube, his suspension pretty much fully compresses when he lands from a 4 foot drop. Seems pretty soft ?

Edited by MidlifeCrisisGuy, September 17, 2013 - 07:53 PM.


  • JDLowrance

Posted September 17, 2013 - 08:22 PM

#18

Good information.

I get the spring rates you guys are suggesting. What are you doing for damping ? Stock ? I don't have it in my budget to send my suspension off to a custom shop. I'm looking for DIY alternatives.

How does one tell when the suspension is working properly ? Are there some tests one could run ?

When I watch vids of Graham Jarvis on Youtube, his suspension pretty much fully compresses when he lands from a 4 foot drop. Seems pretty soft ?

 

The stock KYB SSS valving on the new WR (2012+) is pretty damn good. You'll only need the springs. Due to more energy being stored in the stiffer springs you'll need to increase the rebound damping slightly. If you choose the softer of the spring rates I suggested to I would recommend 2 clicks of additional rebound damping. if you go with the stiffer springs add 3 clicks. Leave the LS compression damping alone as a baseline as it's pretty close. If the rear feels a little harsh at these settings you can take HS compression out by an additional turn. This is what I'm currently running and it works realy good on chop and big hits.


I'm over 250 and use a .54 and 6.7. It works pretty good, I think the racetech calc in general is little heavy on the fork and a little soft on the shock.

 

This has been my experience as well.



  • MidlifeCrisisGuy

Posted September 22, 2013 - 11:50 AM

#19

Thanks for all the info guys.

I did a long technical ride yesterday and my fork springs are way too soft.

Question. If I change the fork springs, do I need to disassemble the entire damper assembly or can I just change the springs and leave the rest alone ?

I still think I'd like more travel. What parts are different between YZ and WR forks and shocks ?

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted September 22, 2013 - 01:32 PM

#20

Thanks for all the info guys.

I did a long technical ride yesterday and my fork springs are way too soft.

Question. If I change the fork springs, do I need to disassemble the entire damper assembly or can I just change the springs and leave the rest alone ?

I still think I'd like more travel. What parts are different between YZ and WR forks and shocks ?

 You have to dismantle the fork to remove the springs.






 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.