Anyone on a 2010 around 165 lbs


20 replies to this topic
  • whiskey wheelie

Posted September 04, 2010 - 05:48 PM

#1

Curious if you had to go to lighter springs or not? My buddy who rides pro and is 190 thought it was stiff compared to his 09 with mb1 suspension...especally in the choppy stuff. His felt way more plush in the first few inches thats for sure... i went 2 from softest and its still pretty stiff.

  • whiskey wheelie

Posted September 05, 2010 - 10:06 AM

#2

not a one person with 43 views? lol.

  • brentn

Posted September 05, 2010 - 10:34 AM

#3

I'm most likely one of the 43 people who is watching this thread waiting for a reply :bonk: Curious to know what people think of the suspension, especially when talking about their weights.
Sorry I can't help you.

  • whiskey wheelie

Posted September 05, 2010 - 12:11 PM

#4

lol. i see. I dont mind it too much but after feeling the plushness of his on the first few inches my rear feels really hard and really slow.

  • brentn

Posted September 05, 2010 - 05:23 PM

#5

The bike was designed for the 165-175 lbs rider, that includes your gear and your own weight, in other words your gross weight.

Have you adjusted your sag on the bike? There are good articles out there on how to do it.
How long have you had the bike? I always find new front forks are stiff as hell but then you use the bike a bit and things seem to loosen up.

  • whiskey wheelie

Posted September 05, 2010 - 11:22 PM

#6

The bike was designed for the 165-175 lbs rider, that includes your gear and your own weight, in other words your gross weight.

Have you adjusted your sag on the bike? There are good articles out there on how to do it.
How long have you had the bike? I always find new front forks are stiff as hell but then you use the bike a bit and things seem to loosen up.


Including gear? Ive thought the 450's were for around 175-180 dry weight without gear? racetechs spring calculater says i need a much lighter rear spring but the front is good. It's got about 37 hrs now i think on it so know its good there. Sag also has been set.

  • andy250

Posted September 06, 2010 - 07:24 AM

#7

I weigh 150lbs. I'm running a 5.4kg/mm (stock 09 crf450 spring) in the rear and .46 in the front. It works pretty good right now, but I may try going back to the stock .47's in the front next time I change fork oil.

For your weight, I'd guess stock front springs (.47kg/mm) with a 5.5kg/mm in the rear will be about right.

  • grayracer513

Posted September 06, 2010 - 08:46 AM

#8

Ive thought the 450's were for around 175-180 dry weight without gear?

You're right, but it's more like 175-190.

The rates generated by spring calculators vary quite a bit, and are reflective of a certain tuner's philosophy more than of hard science. Also, they occasionally get the OEM rates wrong. Pays to double check that and try more than one generator (MX-Tech has one). Or talk to a good tuner.

  • brentn

Posted September 06, 2010 - 01:30 PM

#9

I thought it was with gear, sorry.

Why would the spec it without gear??? every rider wears all kinds of gear that vary in weight all the time. Right? No? :bonk:

  • grayracer513

Posted September 06, 2010 - 01:46 PM

#10

Yes they do, but most people don't have any idea what they weigh with their gear on, so most manufacturers that mention rider weight specify it as the weight in street clothes. At least one of the spring generators specifies weight in riding gear, though, so you have to read the fine print.

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

Posted September 06, 2010 - 02:16 PM

#11

I see, thanks for the clarification.

  • whiskey wheelie

Posted September 08, 2010 - 11:01 AM

#12

You're right, but it's more like 175-190.

The rates generated by spring calculators vary quite a bit, and are reflective of a certain tuner's philosophy more than of hard science. Also, they occasionally get the OEM rates wrong. Pays to double check that and try more than one generator (MX-Tech has one). Or talk to a good tuner.


And since I'm running off-road, Id imagine that these spring rates stock for a 175-190 lb. guy would be pretty stiff for me being i ride mostly cross country and am 165 at most right now? I guess a lot has to do with valving too.

  • grayracer513

Posted September 08, 2010 - 11:30 AM

#13

It depends. In the first place, speaking in general terms because tuning philosophies vary a lot, springs for MX, which is what the bike was built for, tend to be stiffer than those for off-road. But another thing to think about is that when the factory shoots for a target weight range, they make an estimate of how heavy the rider will be wearing typical riding gear. As an off-roader, your gear load can be as much as 5-10 pounds up on that of an MX racer, who will usually carry no water, tools, or spares. That can make you the equivalent of a 175 pound rider and partially compensate for the difference.

In the end, it's how the bike works for you as you use it that matters. I'd try it as is, maybe open out the clickers most of the way to see how it acts near full soft on compression, then go from there. If you need lighter springs, you can add them. Then, if you want to really work it up, you can get hold of somebody like Dave Johnson at SMART Performance. :ride:

  • YamaLink

Posted September 08, 2010 - 11:36 AM

#14

I'm 165 before gear. Spring rate in the rear is good for my weight with the stock setup. Fork rate is a tad stiff for me with stock oil level and my riding style/ability. On the mx track I'm just in regular riding gear and in full disclosure I have a 1" YamaLink on the back running anywhere from 90 to 95mm sag, and have a few cc of fork oil taken out, but.....

As for off-road gear and whatnot, a gallon of gas is about 7 pounds, my toolpack is at least 4 even though I carry the minimum much to the dismay of my riding buddies and I carry at least a gallon of water and food. Adds up quick.

  • BRZ

Posted September 08, 2010 - 01:08 PM

#15

I'm at 166 without gear and for me, both front and rear spring rates seem fine.

I ride mx tracks only and race vet expert.

I'm currently running 105mm sag, but I want to try 110mm in the near future.

Until recently I had a 2010 CRF450 and the suspension on the 2010 YZF feels much better, even considering that the CRF had a Factory Connection link.

  • whiskey wheelie

Posted September 10, 2010 - 10:24 PM

#16

I'm at 166 without gear and for me, both front and rear spring rates seem fine.

I ride mx tracks only and race vet expert.

I'm currently running 105mm sag, but I want to try 110mm in the near future.

Until recently I had a 2010 CRF450 and the suspension on the 2010 YZF feels much better, even considering that the CRF had a Factory Connection link.


do you know what settings your running? I cant complain to much about it on the trail except on the first few inches of travel... doesnt handle rocks, roots too well obviously. otherwise it's pretty good despite the rear wants to kick up on square edges. MB1, Enzo, Norcal, and TBT all recommended a softer rear spring... the fronts seem plenty soft to me but they say its a tad unbalanced from a spring rate perspective. (rear stiffer than front.

  • Phil Hannah

Posted September 11, 2010 - 05:55 AM

#17

I am 215 w/o gear and with the link i am 17 out l/s comp,1.5 h/s, 11r. sag in 101-108 range. I came upon the soft l/s setting on a really rough practice track with no jumps. At 17 out the bike will follow the big whoop type bumps and not kick in the square edge. I use the sag to tune in turning and chassis balance. 17 sounds like a lot but this bike has stiff valving in the rear. I am using stock rear spring with sag and freesag numbers that are in range and .49s in the front. Try the softer l/s and see what you think. Again i have the link which stiffens the initial travel.

  • 95s10nj

Posted September 13, 2010 - 06:34 AM

#18

I'm a 160 and just got the bike revalved this past week. Switched the rear spring to a 5.5 and kept the stock front springs. With 100mm of race sag, my static is 35mm. The rear feels more plush throughout the stroke, less harsh on the small chop and is more settled in the corners.

  • fraser

Posted September 13, 2010 - 11:58 PM

#19

I'm 150 without gear. I went for softer springs front and rear, more like a 250f set up. Only race MX. Bike is much better suited for me now, in standard set up it was way too harsh on braking bumps etc

  • BRZ

Posted September 17, 2010 - 12:53 PM

#20

do you know what settings your running? I cant complain to much about it on the trail except on the first few inches of travel... doesnt handle rocks, roots too well obviously. otherwise it's pretty good despite the rear wants to kick up on square edges. MB1, Enzo, Norcal, and TBT all recommended a softer rear spring... the fronts seem plenty soft to me but they say its a tad unbalanced from a spring rate perspective. (rear stiffer than front.


Here are my settings (track only):

Fork:
Spring rate: stock
Oil quantity: stock
Compression: 11 clicks out
Rebound: 8 clicks out
Fork leg height: 5mm up

Shock:
Spring rate: stock
Race sag: 105mm
Hi-compression: 1-1/4 turns out
Lo-compression: 9 clicks out
Rebound: 10 clicks out





Related Content

Forums
Photo

YZ450F 03 Sparks driving me crazy by SirAttard


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   Yamaha   YZ 400/426/450
  • 5 replies
Forums
Photo

Michigan Motocross Tires by 288yz450


Dirt Bike   Dirt Bike Regional Discussion   North
  • 1 reply
Forums
Photo

Megabomb Fitment by 288yz450


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   Yamaha   YZ 400/426/450
  • 1 reply
Reviews

Yamaha YZ450F 2017 by Chris.GVS


Yamaha YZ450F 2017
  • - - - - -
  • 0 reviews
Forums
Photo

James Stewart back on a YZ450F by YamaLink


Dirt Bike   Special Interest Forums   Pro Racing
  • Hot  47 replies
 
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.