MXA KTM 450FE interesting but true quote

newmann
Profile picture for user newmann
Posts
24438
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
newmann
Edited Date/Time 7/1/2014 9:11am
Testing the 450 Factory Edition

http://www.motocrossactionmag.com/Main/News/2012-KTM-450SXF-FACTORY-EDI…

"Is this a better bike than the model that came before? Yes, not because its fuel-injected, but because it has less reciprocating mass in the engine, stiffer suspension, snappier power and a gas cap that you don't need to be a safe cracker to break into. All of this could have been achieved with the Keihin FCR carb (and been lighter to boot)—but then you wouldn't have bought it."

Remember the badass 50mm conventional forks Suzuki had in the late 90's? Great forks but resulted in less sales because everyone thought they needed inverted forks rather than excellent suspension.
|
yota
Profile picture for user yota
Posts
1421
Joined
6/23/2008
Location
Crystal River, FL US
yota 4/6/2012 9:53am
4/6/2012 9:53am
I think they were 49mm but they were great forks. so were the 50mm WP extremes, they suffured they same fate for not being USD.
reded
Profile picture for user reded
Posts
3682
Joined
3/26/2011
Location
KS US
reded 4/6/2012 10:02am
4/6/2012 10:02am
For some reason I feel as though I missed out on something great by never having owned one of the Suzukis with the conventional 49mm fork. I was too busy trying to get my '97 CR250 through a corner to ever get time to even ride one.
peelout
Profile picture for user peelout
Posts
18339
Joined
1/6/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
peelout 4/6/2012 10:07am
4/6/2012 10:07am
reded wrote:
For some reason I feel as though I missed out on something great by never having owned one of the Suzukis with the conventional 49mm fork...
For some reason I feel as though I missed out on something great by never having owned one of the Suzukis with the conventional 49mm fork. I was too busy trying to get my '97 CR250 through a corner to ever get time to even ride one.
a buddy of mine had a suzuki with the conventional fork and he swore by them.

we were all on Yamahas and would give him shit because he had "old" forks.

i guess i was just another follower of sheeple
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
WhKnuckle 4/6/2012 10:18am
4/6/2012 10:18am
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you could have more overlap between the top and bottom tube and a larger bearing surface which should have led to smoother action. But sometimes fashion is more important than function.

The Shop

See All »
DrSweden
Profile picture for user DrSweden
Posts
6761
Joined
8/30/2008
Location
Stockholm SE
DrSweden 4/6/2012 11:28am
4/6/2012 11:28am Edited Date/Time 4/6/2012 2:33pm
In general, we don't make decisions based on reason and sense, not even when we choose our brain surgeon. Imagine the lack of though when choosing the "right" bike... Smile
tyler durden 4/6/2012 11:42am
4/6/2012 11:42am
WhKnuckle wrote:
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you...
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you could have more overlap between the top and bottom tube and a larger bearing surface which should have led to smoother action. But sometimes fashion is more important than function.
Not to split hairs but you're saying there's more overlap because of the extended fork legs; not merely by virtue of being female sliders alone right?
burn1986
Profile picture for user burn1986
Posts
12246
Joined
4/16/2010
Location
bossier city, LA US
burn1986 4/6/2012 11:58am
4/6/2012 11:58am
I lked the ?mm Zook forks, but Larocco and McGrath didn't like them for some reason:



Ing
Profile picture for user Ing
Posts
3654
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Spring Hill, FL US
Ing 4/6/2012 12:01pm
4/6/2012 12:01pm
I had a Husaberg that had humongous fork tubes. Don't remember the size. 50mm?
kawboy388
Profile picture for user kawboy388
Posts
986
Joined
4/2/2008
Location
Covington, TX US
kawboy388 4/6/2012 12:06pm
4/6/2012 12:06pm
burn1986 wrote:
I lked the ?mm Zook forks, but Larocco and McGrath didn't like them for some reason: [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/96RM250forks.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/96RM250.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/98RM250.jpg[/IMG]
I lked the ?mm Zook forks, but Larocco and McGrath didn't like them for some reason:



Too much flex on SX style obstacles,for riders of their speed.
TriRacer27 4/6/2012 12:06pm
4/6/2012 12:06pm
I raced a '96 250 in the enduro series and it was fantastic. Super crisp handling and the suspension was so plush and forgiving I could bomb it down any trail without being bucked off like my friends riding Hondas were.
newmann
Profile picture for user newmann
Posts
24438
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
newmann 4/6/2012 12:39pm
4/6/2012 12:39pm
burn1986 wrote:
I lked the ?mm Zook forks, but Larocco and McGrath didn't like them for some reason: [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/96RM250forks.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/96RM250.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/98RM250.jpg[/IMG]
I lked the ?mm Zook forks, but Larocco and McGrath didn't like them for some reason:



kawboy388 wrote:
Too much flex on SX style obstacles,for riders of their speed.
Yep, McGrath even had some works ones out of magnesium with a fork brace. But for us mere mortals, consider when a fork tube does flex in the rough stuff, where does it flex? Right under the bottom triple clamp. With a conventional fork the action isn't affected. On the inverted fork when the outer tube flexes right in the middle, that will cause some stiction issues. Maybe that is where a lot of that "mid stroke harshness" came from throughout the 90's. That's why they are so huge these days I'm guessing.
Spartacus
Profile picture for user Spartacus
Posts
2269
Joined
5/20/2011
Location
PW US
Spartacus 4/6/2012 12:42pm
4/6/2012 12:42pm
DrSweden wrote:
In general, we don't make decisions based on reason and sense, not even when we choose our brain surgeon. Imagine the lack of though when choosing...
In general, we don't make decisions based on reason and sense, not even when we choose our brain surgeon. Imagine the lack of though when choosing the "right" bike... Smile
Yup.

You are not so smart
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
WhKnuckle 4/6/2012 12:53pm
4/6/2012 12:53pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you...
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you could have more overlap between the top and bottom tube and a larger bearing surface which should have led to smoother action. But sometimes fashion is more important than function.
tyler durden wrote:
Not to split hairs but you're saying there's more overlap because of the extended fork legs; not merely by virtue of being female sliders alone right?
Right, since conventional forks allow you to extend the lower part of the fork leg below the axle line (impossible on USD forks), then you can have a longer overlap between the fork legs - i.e. the upper leg can be longer since it can compress below axle line when it bottoms out. That longer overlap allows a slightly looser tolerance between the legs but it's still stable because it has a longer bearing surface.
burn1986
Profile picture for user burn1986
Posts
12246
Joined
4/16/2010
Location
bossier city, LA US
burn1986 4/6/2012 1:22pm
4/6/2012 1:22pm
newmann wrote:
Yep, McGrath even had some works ones out of magnesium with a fork brace. But for us mere mortals, consider when a fork tube does flex...
Yep, McGrath even had some works ones out of magnesium with a fork brace. But for us mere mortals, consider when a fork tube does flex in the rough stuff, where does it flex? Right under the bottom triple clamp. With a conventional fork the action isn't affected. On the inverted fork when the outer tube flexes right in the middle, that will cause some stiction issues. Maybe that is where a lot of that "mid stroke harshness" came from throughout the 90's. That's why they are so huge these days I'm guessing.
Yep, you're right.




I think Larocco switched to the inverted in '98




I would rather have had those forks than what was offered on any Honda at the time.
CR500Rider
Profile picture for user CR500Rider
Posts
1272
Joined
4/4/2008
Location
San Antonio, TX US
CR500Rider 4/6/2012 1:24pm
4/6/2012 1:24pm Edited Date/Time 4/6/2012 1:26pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you...
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you could have more overlap between the top and bottom tube and a larger bearing surface which should have led to smoother action. But sometimes fashion is more important than function.
Bad idea. Imagine in 93' when all the bikes had gone to USD forks. I'm on my 87' CR500, pegged in 4th gear going through a rut at Gatorback when all of a sudden I find myself being thrown over the bars. Why you ask? Because the underhang (?) below the axle dug in and stopped the bike. You need less underhang, not more. The 97/98 RM forks have the least underhang below the axle than any conventional fork I've used. The 96' RM fork is 10mm longer below the axle. All 3 years of the RM' 49mm conventional fork are twin chamber!
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
WhKnuckle 4/6/2012 1:32pm
4/6/2012 1:32pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you...
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you could have more overlap between the top and bottom tube and a larger bearing surface which should have led to smoother action. But sometimes fashion is more important than function.
CR500Rider wrote:
Bad idea. Imagine in 93' when all the bikes had gone to USD forks. I'm on my 87' CR500, pegged in 4th gear going through a...
Bad idea. Imagine in 93' when all the bikes had gone to USD forks. I'm on my 87' CR500, pegged in 4th gear going through a rut at Gatorback when all of a sudden I find myself being thrown over the bars. Why you ask? Because the underhang (?) below the axle dug in and stopped the bike. You need less underhang, not more. The 97/98 RM forks have the least underhang below the axle than any conventional fork I've used. The 96' RM fork is 10mm longer below the axle. All 3 years of the RM' 49mm conventional fork are twin chamber!
That's the disadvantage to underhang, but you're talking about maybe 2 inches. You'd have to pick a rut real carefully to snag a conventional underhang but not snag a USD. I do remember some forks that had real long underhangs, some of them were even finned for heat dissipation - that's probably a bit much. But I still say that a longer bearing surface is going to make a smoother action, and you can't make the bearing surface longer in a USD fork.

But it's all academic. Nobody is going to sell a motocross bike without USD forks these days anyway.
Tiki
Profile picture for user Tiki
Posts
10575
Joined
8/1/2006
Location
Corona, CA US
Fantasy
1065th
Tiki 4/6/2012 2:13pm
4/6/2012 2:13pm
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet in the air. Beyond that they have really made the front ends of bikes worse then they need to be. Conversely conventional forks suck if you need to drop from 60 feet. But for us normal Joes, its overkill. In fact, I feel everything that is sold today is built for the 1% that can actually use it. Have you seen Honda's frames? WAAAAY overkill for normal people. For the 1% its great, but they need to ask, who are they selling to? the 1% or the 99%?

I will keep on buying them though.
reded
Profile picture for user reded
Posts
3682
Joined
3/26/2011
Location
KS US
reded 4/6/2012 2:32pm
4/6/2012 2:32pm
Tiki wrote:
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet...
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet in the air. Beyond that they have really made the front ends of bikes worse then they need to be. Conversely conventional forks suck if you need to drop from 60 feet. But for us normal Joes, its overkill. In fact, I feel everything that is sold today is built for the 1% that can actually use it. Have you seen Honda's frames? WAAAAY overkill for normal people. For the 1% its great, but they need to ask, who are they selling to? the 1% or the 99%?

I will keep on buying them though.
That was the beauty of the works bike. The weekend warriors got the trickle down stuff that worked well for them while the pros got what they asked and tested for. We got to drool while they raced on equipment that honestly made THEM faster.

Pit Row

See All »
DrSweden
Profile picture for user DrSweden
Posts
6761
Joined
8/30/2008
Location
Stockholm SE
DrSweden 4/6/2012 2:34pm
4/6/2012 2:34pm
Spartacus wrote:
Yup.

You are not so smart
Good one!

"The Misconception: You make rational decisions based on the future value of objects, investments and experiences.

The Truth: Your decisions are tainted by the emotional investments you accumulate, and the more you invest in something the harder it becomes to abandon it."
SPYGUY
Profile picture for user SPYGUY
Posts
2158
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
US
SPYGUY 4/6/2012 3:00pm
4/6/2012 3:00pm
Tiki wrote:
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet...
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet in the air. Beyond that they have really made the front ends of bikes worse then they need to be. Conversely conventional forks suck if you need to drop from 60 feet. But for us normal Joes, its overkill. In fact, I feel everything that is sold today is built for the 1% that can actually use it. Have you seen Honda's frames? WAAAAY overkill for normal people. For the 1% its great, but they need to ask, who are they selling to? the 1% or the 99%?

I will keep on buying them though.
We should Occupy Honda.
Tiki
Profile picture for user Tiki
Posts
10575
Joined
8/1/2006
Location
Corona, CA US
Fantasy
1065th
Tiki 4/6/2012 3:04pm
4/6/2012 3:04pm
Tiki wrote:
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet...
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet in the air. Beyond that they have really made the front ends of bikes worse then they need to be. Conversely conventional forks suck if you need to drop from 60 feet. But for us normal Joes, its overkill. In fact, I feel everything that is sold today is built for the 1% that can actually use it. Have you seen Honda's frames? WAAAAY overkill for normal people. For the 1% its great, but they need to ask, who are they selling to? the 1% or the 99%?

I will keep on buying them though.
SPYGUY wrote:
We should Occupy Honda.
Works Bikes for Everyone!
SouthwestMfg
Profile picture for user SouthwestMfg
Posts
281
Joined
2/9/2007
Location
Diamond Springs, CA US
SouthwestMfg 4/6/2012 3:36pm
4/6/2012 3:36pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you...
I always thought conventional forks had a huge advantage - you could extend the bottom fork leg way below the axle line, and that meant you could have more overlap between the top and bottom tube and a larger bearing surface which should have led to smoother action. But sometimes fashion is more important than function.
tyler durden wrote:
Not to split hairs but you're saying there's more overlap because of the extended fork legs; not merely by virtue of being female sliders alone right?
WhKnuckle wrote:
Right, since conventional forks allow you to extend the lower part of the fork leg below the axle line (impossible on USD forks), then you can...
Right, since conventional forks allow you to extend the lower part of the fork leg below the axle line (impossible on USD forks), then you can have a longer overlap between the fork legs - i.e. the upper leg can be longer since it can compress below axle line when it bottoms out. That longer overlap allows a slightly looser tolerance between the legs but it's still stable because it has a longer bearing surface.
USD forks will have signifacantly longer overlap, thats one of the reasons they where built. Draw yourselft a little sketch it will be clearer. Take a fork leg off you bike and place it upsidedown next to the existing assembly, should be clearer then. USD forks have longer overlap than older (conventional?) forks, thats the second reason there stiffer. The same 50mm (or 42, 49 whatever) fork was held by the small tube, which is not as stiff as the outer/female tube for a given fork diameter. When Simons etc. built these they increased the stiffness just by that change alone (without increasing small tube diameter). They also increased the overlap to get less "stiction". Just like the perimeter frames, stiffer was better for most.
Faceaz
Profile picture for user Faceaz
Posts
1364
Joined
7/28/2008
Location
Glendale, AZ US
Faceaz 4/6/2012 4:51pm
4/6/2012 4:51pm
Tiki wrote:
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet...
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet in the air. Beyond that they have really made the front ends of bikes worse then they need to be. Conversely conventional forks suck if you need to drop from 60 feet. But for us normal Joes, its overkill. In fact, I feel everything that is sold today is built for the 1% that can actually use it. Have you seen Honda's frames? WAAAAY overkill for normal people. For the 1% its great, but they need to ask, who are they selling to? the 1% or the 99%?

I will keep on buying them though.
Yes & no to the frames. I blelieve they are very strong , stronger than most people need. But, IMO there will be a rash of Aluminum frames breaking in the future. The Aluminum is so soft, any items that rub on it can leave wear marks & weeken the frame. If you have a Honda, go feel the frame where the bottom of the radiator shroud rubs on it. I've felt 1/8th to 1/4" grooves there, don't know how thick the frame is at that location. Cables @ the neck is another big wear point. They wear out more quickly than the chromoly & kind of a ticking time bomb IMO. I'm glad they're built as strong as they are.
Digger29
Profile picture for user Digger29
Posts
1885
Joined
11/2/2011
Location
Oxford, MA US
Digger29 4/6/2012 7:35pm
4/6/2012 7:35pm
[/img]

I put these 1998 RM125 forks on my 2007 RM250 in 2010-11 & I absolutely loved them but I kept blowing forks seals so I took them off & put the kit forks back on. Nothing was as plush & these forks were unbelievable on any & all rough outdoor tracks & nothing could compare to them.
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
WhKnuckle 4/6/2012 7:42pm
4/6/2012 7:42pm
Tiki wrote:
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet...
I HATE and I mean HATE inverted forks. Fine for SX and for everyone out there that is capable of dropping a bike from 60 feet in the air. Beyond that they have really made the front ends of bikes worse then they need to be. Conversely conventional forks suck if you need to drop from 60 feet. But for us normal Joes, its overkill. In fact, I feel everything that is sold today is built for the 1% that can actually use it. Have you seen Honda's frames? WAAAAY overkill for normal people. For the 1% its great, but they need to ask, who are they selling to? the 1% or the 99%?

I will keep on buying them though.
Faceaz wrote:
Yes & no to the frames. I blelieve they are very strong , stronger than most people need. But, IMO there will be a rash of...
Yes & no to the frames. I blelieve they are very strong , stronger than most people need. But, IMO there will be a rash of Aluminum frames breaking in the future. The Aluminum is so soft, any items that rub on it can leave wear marks & weeken the frame. If you have a Honda, go feel the frame where the bottom of the radiator shroud rubs on it. I've felt 1/8th to 1/4" grooves there, don't know how thick the frame is at that location. Cables @ the neck is another big wear point. They wear out more quickly than the chromoly & kind of a ticking time bomb IMO. I'm glad they're built as strong as they are.
I like the feel of steel frames, but they do wear out. I know factory mechanics with steel frames put the bikes in jigs after races and measure the head angles and wheelbases to see if they still meet spec. I seem to remember Chad Watts throwing Kawi frames away ever 6 races or so because RC would stretch them out landing from jumps. Of course, that's RC.
jeffro503
Profile picture for user jeffro503
Posts
27629
Joined
7/22/2007
Location
St Helens, OR US
jeffro503 4/6/2012 10:05pm
4/6/2012 10:05pm
Digger29 wrote:
[img][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/Diggermx29/73.jpg[/IMG][/img] I put these 1998 RM125 forks on my 2007 RM250 in 2010-11 & I absolutely loved them but I kept blowing forks seals so I...
[/img]

I put these 1998 RM125 forks on my 2007 RM250 in 2010-11 & I absolutely loved them but I kept blowing forks seals so I took them off & put the kit forks back on. Nothing was as plush & these forks were unbelievable on any & all rough outdoor tracks & nothing could compare to them.
Damn sweet looking bike you had there Digger!!!
OldMechanik
Profile picture for user OldMechanik
Posts
82
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Charleston, SC US
OldMechanik 6/29/2014 7:40pm
6/29/2014 7:40pm
Digger29 wrote:
[img][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/Diggermx29/73.jpg[/IMG][/img] I put these 1998 RM125 forks on my 2007 RM250 in 2010-11 & I absolutely loved them but I kept blowing forks seals so I...
[/img]

I put these 1998 RM125 forks on my 2007 RM250 in 2010-11 & I absolutely loved them but I kept blowing forks seals so I took them off & put the kit forks back on. Nothing was as plush & these forks were unbelievable on any & all rough outdoor tracks & nothing could compare to them.
I see this is an old thread, but am very interested in the conventional forks.

I am curious to what is takes to adapt a set to my 03 RM250.


And that's a sweet lookin' RM.
Tiki
Profile picture for user Tiki
Posts
10575
Joined
8/1/2006
Location
Corona, CA US
Fantasy
1065th
Tiki 6/29/2014 9:01pm
6/29/2014 9:01pm Edited Date/Time 6/29/2014 9:03pm
burn1986 wrote:
I lked the ?mm Zook forks, but Larocco and McGrath didn't like them for some reason: [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/96RM250forks.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/96RM250.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af358/burn1986/98RM250.jpg[/IMG]
I lked the ?mm Zook forks, but Larocco and McGrath didn't like them for some reason:



Good looking bike.
Aceofspades 6/30/2014 5:54pm
6/30/2014 5:54pm
I recently rebuilt my 97 forks and theyre fucking awesome. Plush as hell. Id still like a set of usd for stiffness though. Im selling the bike so its a moot point lol. Torn rotator cup. No more riding for me.

Aceofspades 6/30/2014 6:01pm
6/30/2014 6:01pm
OldMechanik wrote:
I see this is an old thread, but am very interested in the conventional forks. I am curious to what is takes to adapt a set...
I see this is an old thread, but am very interested in the conventional forks.

I am curious to what is takes to adapt a set to my 03 RM250.


And that's a sweet lookin' RM.
If I dont sell my bike ill sell u forks(gold valves installed) and clamps for $165 plus shipping. if u need some. if I dont sell my rm im putting usd on it and making a mcgrath outdoor replica, even if I cant ride anymore.

Post a reply to: MXA KTM 450FE interesting but true quote