2018 Suzuki RMZ450

SLAPAHO wrote:

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up. i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers...

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up.

i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers a little, that's about it

SLAPAHO wrote:

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up. i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers...

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up.

i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers a little, that's about it

Spinazuki wrote:

You had me convinced, good one! Lol. Thought we had a famous suspension tuner testing me 🤠

Rotaholic wrote:

Im a believer in ditching the bfrc for a more traditional shock setup. There is a few options now which is awesome.

buzz06 wrote:

So I’ve had one of these since October, initially I absolutely hated it. Once the chassis broke in (about 6hours) it started to get better. I’ve...

So I’ve had one of these since October, initially I absolutely hated it. Once the chassis broke in (about 6hours) it started to get better. I’ve added the pro circuit link, suspension redone by KB5 and drilled the upper engine mounts and made new front engine mounts. The power delivery is fantastic and the clutch is solid after pulling the judder springs but I just can’t get this bike to handle. I bought a suzuki due to all the claims of superb handling and I’m just not feeling it.

My previous bike was a 2009 kx450, that thing was awesome. Turned in super easy, held a line like a champ and overall had a very comfortable and confidence inspiring feel. The RMZ is a complete 180, I feel I have to ride it in anger to get it to work for me, I have to really try to keep it in a rut and it takes some effort to get it to start turning. I’ve tried sag numbers from 100-108, different fork springs and many different clicker settings. Starting to think maybe this bike just doesn’t suit the way I ride.

So my question is has anyone else had similar experience with this bike? Was there a fix or was the bike just not for you?

SLAPAHO wrote:

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up. i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers...

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up.

i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers a little, that's about it

Spinazuki wrote:

You had me convinced, good one! Lol. Thought we had a famous suspension tuner testing me 🤠

colvin227 wrote:

Please keep this BFRC info coming. I’m very curious if you can get it sorted out because I’m not 100% sold that it’s just junk and...

Please keep this BFRC info coming. I’m very curious if you can get it sorted out because I’m not 100% sold that it’s just junk and needs to be swapped before you leave the dealership kinda thing.

Rotaholic wrote:

Im a believer in ditching the bfrc for a more traditional shock setup. There is a few options now which is awesome.

Spinazuki wrote:

I've followed your posts, your bike is beautiful. Heres the thing, the Japanese try lots of new stuff. It was conventional forks, then upside down,then Suzuki...

I've followed your posts, your bike is beautiful. Heres the thing, the Japanese try lots of new stuff. It was conventional forks, then upside down,then Suzuki toyed with conventional for a couple years, upside down won. Yamaha introduced the mono-shock, Kawasaki the Unitrak, water cooling, dusk brakes, perimeter frames, then air forks. And for the most part we are back to coil spring forks. The BFRC may be going the way of the dinosaur, or maybe theyll fix it. This shock can be made to work well for under $500. I like a challenge. No doubt conventional shocks work better. Look at shocks in the simplest way, they are filled with oil and move up and down. The science inside is what makes a shock suck or be great. Controlling that fluid inside is what's in play. Some people like to geek out and solve problems, some just want to ride. Jockey or mechanic, and everyone in between.

Rotaholic wrote:

Im a believer in ditching the bfrc for a more traditional shock setup. There is a few options now which is awesome.

Spinazuki wrote:

I've followed your posts, your bike is beautiful. Heres the thing, the Japanese try lots of new stuff. It was conventional forks, then upside down,then Suzuki...

I've followed your posts, your bike is beautiful. Heres the thing, the Japanese try lots of new stuff. It was conventional forks, then upside down,then Suzuki toyed with conventional for a couple years, upside down won. Yamaha introduced the mono-shock, Kawasaki the Unitrak, water cooling, dusk brakes, perimeter frames, then air forks. And for the most part we are back to coil spring forks. The BFRC may be going the way of the dinosaur, or maybe theyll fix it. This shock can be made to work well for under $500. I like a challenge. No doubt conventional shocks work better. Look at shocks in the simplest way, they are filled with oil and move up and down. The science inside is what makes a shock suck or be great. Controlling that fluid inside is what's in play. Some people like to geek out and solve problems, some just want to ride. Jockey or mechanic, and everyone in between.

colvin227 wrote:

Curious as to how different the kit BFRC shocks are because a lot of the Top euros use it and their tracks a brutal MX tracks...

Curious as to how different the kit BFRC shocks are because a lot of the Top euros use it and their tracks a brutal MX tracks. In fact Gasjer is about to win his 2nd world title on a BFRC shock. Just wonder how different those are that the top guys chose it over a conventional shock. Is it they have figured it out for their use, and we havnt? Granted, I know a works shock is very different than production. But that’s what I’m curious about how do those seem to “work” and production doesn’t.

Spinazuki wrote:

I've followed your posts, your bike is beautiful. Heres the thing, the Japanese try lots of new stuff. It was conventional forks, then upside down,then Suzuki...

I've followed your posts, your bike is beautiful. Heres the thing, the Japanese try lots of new stuff. It was conventional forks, then upside down,then Suzuki toyed with conventional for a couple years, upside down won. Yamaha introduced the mono-shock, Kawasaki the Unitrak, water cooling, dusk brakes, perimeter frames, then air forks. And for the most part we are back to coil spring forks. The BFRC may be going the way of the dinosaur, or maybe theyll fix it. This shock can be made to work well for under $500. I like a challenge. No doubt conventional shocks work better. Look at shocks in the simplest way, they are filled with oil and move up and down. The science inside is what makes a shock suck or be great. Controlling that fluid inside is what's in play. Some people like to geek out and solve problems, some just want to ride. Jockey or mechanic, and everyone in between.

colvin227 wrote:

Curious as to how different the kit BFRC shocks are because a lot of the Top euros use it and their tracks a brutal MX tracks...

Curious as to how different the kit BFRC shocks are because a lot of the Top euros use it and their tracks a brutal MX tracks. In fact Gasjer is about to win his 2nd world title on a BFRC shock. Just wonder how different those are that the top guys chose it over a conventional shock. Is it they have figured it out for their use, and we havnt? Granted, I know a works shock is very different than production. But that’s what I’m curious about how do those seem to “work” and production doesn’t.

Spinazuki wrote:

I don't think the BFRC is that far off from working, a couple millimeters here and there, a few shims shifted, and its probably awesome. Having...

I don't think the BFRC is that far off from working, a couple millimeters here and there, a few shims shifted, and its probably awesome. Having factory mechanics and engineers, shock dynos, etc helps quite a bit. I really dont think this shock is so bad. The moto media hasn't been kind to this bike especially the BFRC shock. Theyve always been like this. They have their biases so cutting through that to get the facts can be tough. For instance, the 2019 RMZ 450 was supposed to come with a 5.2 kg spring, lighter than the 5.4 on the 2018. Yet when you order the spring, Suzuki parts says the 2019 came with a 5.6. Heavier! And the paint dot for the 5.2 in the manual is supposed to be blue for the 5.2. I picked up my 5.2, red paint. Can anyone get it straight? Every single magazine and YouTube video on the 2019 says they went lighter. Anyone care to tell us what the 2019 450 came with?

colvin227 wrote:

Curious as to how different the kit BFRC shocks are because a lot of the Top euros use it and their tracks a brutal MX tracks...

Curious as to how different the kit BFRC shocks are because a lot of the Top euros use it and their tracks a brutal MX tracks. In fact Gasjer is about to win his 2nd world title on a BFRC shock. Just wonder how different those are that the top guys chose it over a conventional shock. Is it they have figured it out for their use, and we havnt? Granted, I know a works shock is very different than production. But that’s what I’m curious about how do those seem to “work” and production doesn’t.

Spinazuki wrote:

I don't think the BFRC is that far off from working, a couple millimeters here and there, a few shims shifted, and its probably awesome. Having...

I don't think the BFRC is that far off from working, a couple millimeters here and there, a few shims shifted, and its probably awesome. Having factory mechanics and engineers, shock dynos, etc helps quite a bit. I really dont think this shock is so bad. The moto media hasn't been kind to this bike especially the BFRC shock. Theyve always been like this. They have their biases so cutting through that to get the facts can be tough. For instance, the 2019 RMZ 450 was supposed to come with a 5.2 kg spring, lighter than the 5.4 on the 2018. Yet when you order the spring, Suzuki parts says the 2019 came with a 5.6. Heavier! And the paint dot for the 5.2 in the manual is supposed to be blue for the 5.2. I picked up my 5.2, red paint. Can anyone get it straight? Every single magazine and YouTube video on the 2019 says they went lighter. Anyone care to tell us what the 2019 450 came with?

colvin227 wrote:

Oh wow that is strange. I have a 2017 so I have what feels like an amazing shock. Having never rode an 18-up I don’t know...

Oh wow that is strange. I have a 2017 so I have what feels like an amazing shock. Having never rode an 18-up I don’t know the BFRC so I am admittedly ignorant to how good or bad it is. But it was something I was extremely curious about when it came out and seemed like a great design. What’s held me back from pulling the trigger on the new bike is the controversial shock I’ll be honest. However, I also think it got a lot of flak also cause it was on a Suzuki and the trendy thing to do is crap on suzuki. Shoot if Honda put it on it would prab get praised, but I digress. It just can’t be unusable and that bad! But again I have never rode one so my opinion is mute.

Spinazuki wrote:

I don't think the BFRC is that far off from working, a couple millimeters here and there, a few shims shifted, and its probably awesome. Having...

I don't think the BFRC is that far off from working, a couple millimeters here and there, a few shims shifted, and its probably awesome. Having factory mechanics and engineers, shock dynos, etc helps quite a bit. I really dont think this shock is so bad. The moto media hasn't been kind to this bike especially the BFRC shock. Theyve always been like this. They have their biases so cutting through that to get the facts can be tough. For instance, the 2019 RMZ 450 was supposed to come with a 5.2 kg spring, lighter than the 5.4 on the 2018. Yet when you order the spring, Suzuki parts says the 2019 came with a 5.6. Heavier! And the paint dot for the 5.2 in the manual is supposed to be blue for the 5.2. I picked up my 5.2, red paint. Can anyone get it straight? Every single magazine and YouTube video on the 2019 says they went lighter. Anyone care to tell us what the 2019 450 came with?

colvin227 wrote:

Oh wow that is strange. I have a 2017 so I have what feels like an amazing shock. Having never rode an 18-up I don’t know...

Oh wow that is strange. I have a 2017 so I have what feels like an amazing shock. Having never rode an 18-up I don’t know the BFRC so I am admittedly ignorant to how good or bad it is. But it was something I was extremely curious about when it came out and seemed like a great design. What’s held me back from pulling the trigger on the new bike is the controversial shock I’ll be honest. However, I also think it got a lot of flak also cause it was on a Suzuki and the trendy thing to do is crap on suzuki. Shoot if Honda put it on it would prab get praised, but I digress. It just can’t be unusable and that bad! But again I have never rode one so my opinion is mute.

Spinazuki wrote:

I've tuned for a few pros, a handful of fast experts and intermediates. Some pros give great feedback, some terrible. Is it kicking or is there...

I've tuned for a few pros, a handful of fast experts and intermediates. Some pros give great feedback, some terrible. Is it kicking or is there too much compression? A good test rider can tell of the rebound is too slow, too fast, if it's over sprung, too much compression etc. I have hears and read enough about feeling harsh, wallowy, like there was no rebound. So the common theme is stiff but under damped. The lack or rebound was a lack of oil to control the rebound. Watch this: Watch "OHLINS Controlled shock cavitation!" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/GBcRBOikb8c

colvin227 wrote:

Oh wow that is strange. I have a 2017 so I have what feels like an amazing shock. Having never rode an 18-up I don’t know...

Oh wow that is strange. I have a 2017 so I have what feels like an amazing shock. Having never rode an 18-up I don’t know the BFRC so I am admittedly ignorant to how good or bad it is. But it was something I was extremely curious about when it came out and seemed like a great design. What’s held me back from pulling the trigger on the new bike is the controversial shock I’ll be honest. However, I also think it got a lot of flak also cause it was on a Suzuki and the trendy thing to do is crap on suzuki. Shoot if Honda put it on it would prab get praised, but I digress. It just can’t be unusable and that bad! But again I have never rode one so my opinion is mute.

Spinazuki wrote:

I've tuned for a few pros, a handful of fast experts and intermediates. Some pros give great feedback, some terrible. Is it kicking or is there...

I've tuned for a few pros, a handful of fast experts and intermediates. Some pros give great feedback, some terrible. Is it kicking or is there too much compression? A good test rider can tell of the rebound is too slow, too fast, if it's over sprung, too much compression etc. I have hears and read enough about feeling harsh, wallowy, like there was no rebound. So the common theme is stiff but under damped. The lack or rebound was a lack of oil to control the rebound. Watch this: Watch "OHLINS Controlled shock cavitation!" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/GBcRBOikb8c

colvin227 wrote:

So in theory seems like an easy fix and a very intuitive way to approach your conclusion. If it were that easy to restore the rebound...

So in theory seems like an easy fix and a very intuitive way to approach your conclusion. If it were that easy to restore the rebound to bring the damping to a more favorable action. Why is this shock still a point of contention? You would think any tuner would have figured that out already and we wouldn’t hear so much about it. Please don’t take offense, as I am extremely interested in your testing and work and a curious bystander as I think the design concept shows promise. And maybe the big guys have figured this out and that’s why the “revalved” sets come back feeling good with little to no complaints. But then people still look to throw it in the trash ASAP.

Spinazuki wrote:

I've tuned for a few pros, a handful of fast experts and intermediates. Some pros give great feedback, some terrible. Is it kicking or is there...

I've tuned for a few pros, a handful of fast experts and intermediates. Some pros give great feedback, some terrible. Is it kicking or is there too much compression? A good test rider can tell of the rebound is too slow, too fast, if it's over sprung, too much compression etc. I have hears and read enough about feeling harsh, wallowy, like there was no rebound. So the common theme is stiff but under damped. The lack or rebound was a lack of oil to control the rebound. Watch this: Watch "OHLINS Controlled shock cavitation!" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/GBcRBOikb8c

colvin227 wrote:

So in theory seems like an easy fix and a very intuitive way to approach your conclusion. If it were that easy to restore the rebound...

So in theory seems like an easy fix and a very intuitive way to approach your conclusion. If it were that easy to restore the rebound to bring the damping to a more favorable action. Why is this shock still a point of contention? You would think any tuner would have figured that out already and we wouldn’t hear so much about it. Please don’t take offense, as I am extremely interested in your testing and work and a curious bystander as I think the design concept shows promise. And maybe the big guys have figured this out and that’s why the “revalved” sets come back feeling good with little to no complaints. But then people still look to throw it in the trash ASAP.

Spinazuki wrote:

Tuners all think they're right. I'd be curious to take shocks revalved by Pro Circuit, Factory Connection, RG3, using the stock components to see what they...

Tuners all think they're right. I'd be curious to take shocks revalved by Pro Circuit, Factory Connection, RG3, using the stock components to see what they come up with. Factory connection uses dynos, not sure about the others. I dont believe shim stack changes alone will do the job. There are so many tuners across the country it's hard to get a clear answer "We did this!" While I've always used the OEM shock and fork piston and base valves in the past, I dont think thatll be enough with the BFRC. There are too many spots which create excessive restriction. I'm starting with the Rebound check sleeve but no doubt there is more. Flipping the compression valve over will create better rebound flow. As long as the compression shims can cover the ports.

colvin227 wrote:

So in theory seems like an easy fix and a very intuitive way to approach your conclusion. If it were that easy to restore the rebound...

So in theory seems like an easy fix and a very intuitive way to approach your conclusion. If it were that easy to restore the rebound to bring the damping to a more favorable action. Why is this shock still a point of contention? You would think any tuner would have figured that out already and we wouldn’t hear so much about it. Please don’t take offense, as I am extremely interested in your testing and work and a curious bystander as I think the design concept shows promise. And maybe the big guys have figured this out and that’s why the “revalved” sets come back feeling good with little to no complaints. But then people still look to throw it in the trash ASAP.

Spinazuki wrote:

Tuners all think they're right. I'd be curious to take shocks revalved by Pro Circuit, Factory Connection, RG3, using the stock components to see what they...

Tuners all think they're right. I'd be curious to take shocks revalved by Pro Circuit, Factory Connection, RG3, using the stock components to see what they come up with. Factory connection uses dynos, not sure about the others. I dont believe shim stack changes alone will do the job. There are so many tuners across the country it's hard to get a clear answer "We did this!" While I've always used the OEM shock and fork piston and base valves in the past, I dont think thatll be enough with the BFRC. There are too many spots which create excessive restriction. I'm starting with the Rebound check sleeve but no doubt there is more. Flipping the compression valve over will create better rebound flow. As long as the compression shims can cover the ports.

colvin227 wrote:

So you intend to do this with the stock valve first? And then test with the Gold Valves?

Rotaholic wrote:

As good as you can get the bfrc it still has no high speed, for me that's the first thing I adjust, and sometimes the only...

As good as you can get the bfrc it still has no high speed, for me that's the first thing I adjust, and sometimes the only adjustment I will make on a shock all day. The older ohlins had the csc and the ttx had 3 HSC settings. The flow has no hsc adjustment and alot of people don't like that shock.

Rotaholic wrote:

As good as you can get the bfrc it still has no high speed, for me that's the first thing I adjust, and sometimes the only...

As good as you can get the bfrc it still has no high speed, for me that's the first thing I adjust, and sometimes the only adjustment I will make on a shock all day. The older ohlins had the csc and the ttx had 3 HSC settings. The flow has no hsc adjustment and alot of people don't like that shock.

Rotaholic wrote:

As good as you can get the bfrc it still has no high speed, for me that's the first thing I adjust, and sometimes the only...

As good as you can get the bfrc it still has no high speed, for me that's the first thing I adjust, and sometimes the only adjustment I will make on a shock all day. The older ohlins had the csc and the ttx had 3 HSC settings. The flow has no hsc adjustment and alot of people don't like that shock.

Spinazuki wrote:

One thing to consider. A conventional shocks adjuster is only adjusting the area of the rod, a 16mm shock rod is 201.06 mm in area. A...

One thing to consider. A conventional shocks adjuster is only adjusting the area of the rod, a 16mm shock rod is 201.06 mm in area. A 50mm shock piston has the area of 1,963.5 mm or area. So on a conventional shock 1,762mm of oil is pushed through the piston, the 201.06mm area is pushed through the adjuster into the bladder/resevior. So the adjuster is only able to do so much. The BFRC pushes 100% of the oil through the compression valve, So 1,385mm area is pushed through the valve. So the skys the limit on how much control you can have, with the right valve design much more high speed and low speed control possible. The beauty of the BFRC is that anything a smart engineer can come up with that would fit in the bore in the shock body is possible.

Rotaholic wrote:

As good as you can get the bfrc it still has no high speed, for me that's the first thing I adjust, and sometimes the only...

As good as you can get the bfrc it still has no high speed, for me that's the first thing I adjust, and sometimes the only adjustment I will make on a shock all day. The older ohlins had the csc and the ttx had 3 HSC settings. The flow has no hsc adjustment and alot of people don't like that shock.

Spinazuki wrote:

One thing to consider. A conventional shocks adjuster is only adjusting the area of the rod, a 16mm shock rod is 201.06 mm in area. A...

One thing to consider. A conventional shocks adjuster is only adjusting the area of the rod, a 16mm shock rod is 201.06 mm in area. A 50mm shock piston has the area of 1,963.5 mm or area. So on a conventional shock 1,762mm of oil is pushed through the piston, the 201.06mm area is pushed through the adjuster into the bladder/resevior. So the adjuster is only able to do so much. The BFRC pushes 100% of the oil through the compression valve, So 1,385mm area is pushed through the valve. So the skys the limit on how much control you can have, with the right valve design much more high speed and low speed control possible. The beauty of the BFRC is that anything a smart engineer can come up with that would fit in the bore in the shock body is possible.

colvin227 wrote:

I like your approach, and subscribing because I’m very curious how this turns out.

Spinazuki wrote:

One thing to consider. A conventional shocks adjuster is only adjusting the area of the rod, a 16mm shock rod is 201.06 mm in area. A...

One thing to consider. A conventional shocks adjuster is only adjusting the area of the rod, a 16mm shock rod is 201.06 mm in area. A 50mm shock piston has the area of 1,963.5 mm or area. So on a conventional shock 1,762mm of oil is pushed through the piston, the 201.06mm area is pushed through the adjuster into the bladder/resevior. So the adjuster is only able to do so much. The BFRC pushes 100% of the oil through the compression valve, So 1,385mm area is pushed through the valve. So the skys the limit on how much control you can have, with the right valve design much more high speed and low speed control possible. The beauty of the BFRC is that anything a smart engineer can come up with that would fit in the bore in the shock body is possible.

colvin227 wrote:

I like your approach, and subscribing because I’m very curious how this turns out.

Spinazuki wrote:

Measured this last night. The reservior/bladder diameter on the BFRC shock is 54mm, at least at the circlip. 54mm has an area of 2,290 mm. The...

Measured this last night. The reservior/bladder diameter on the BFRC shock is 54mm, at least at the circlip.
54mm has an area of 2,290 mm. The 16mm rod is only 201mm. This means that the percentage of the rod is just 8.7% of the bladder. So for every inch of stroke (1,000/1,000ths of an inch), the bladder is only compressed .087", or 2.2 mm. Think about that! So if there is enough restriction during high speed, the oil could take the path of least resistance to the bladder rather than continue to the rebound side of the shock.. = cavitation, what many have complained about. This shock was supposed to be cavitation free. OOPS!
So once anyone can eliminate undue restriction to the rebound side, the shock will work much more consistently, and the dampening changes on the valve stacks will matter. The big difference with the BFRC is there is restriction AFTER the compression valve that there ISN'T on a conventional shock the adjuster. Once oil can freely pass the rebound valve assembly, I'm sure the shock will behave MUCH BETTER.

SLAPAHO wrote:

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up. i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers...

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up.

i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers a little, that's about it

SLAPAHO wrote:

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up. i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers...

i was just kidding man, it's all chinese to me. i just made that shit up.

i set my sag and maybe play with the clickers a little, that's about it

langhammx wrote:

Fawk man... you are killing me !

colvin227 wrote:

I like your approach, and subscribing because I’m very curious how this turns out.

Spinazuki wrote:

Measured this last night. The reservior/bladder diameter on the BFRC shock is 54mm, at least at the circlip. 54mm has an area of 2,290 mm. The...

Measured this last night. The reservior/bladder diameter on the BFRC shock is 54mm, at least at the circlip.
54mm has an area of 2,290 mm. The 16mm rod is only 201mm. This means that the percentage of the rod is just 8.7% of the bladder. So for every inch of stroke (1,000/1,000ths of an inch), the bladder is only compressed .087", or 2.2 mm. Think about that! So if there is enough restriction during high speed, the oil could take the path of least resistance to the bladder rather than continue to the rebound side of the shock.. = cavitation, what many have complained about. This shock was supposed to be cavitation free. OOPS!
So once anyone can eliminate undue restriction to the rebound side, the shock will work much more consistently, and the dampening changes on the valve stacks will matter. The big difference with the BFRC is there is restriction AFTER the compression valve that there ISN'T on a conventional shock the adjuster. Once oil can freely pass the rebound valve assembly, I'm sure the shock will behave MUCH BETTER.

colvin227 wrote:

What do you think about the mod that Krooztune is doing for the BFRC. Basically swapping the stock shaft and plunger out for a standard shaft...

What do you think about the mod that Krooztune is doing for the BFRC. Basically swapping the stock shaft and plunger out for a standard shaft with your “traditional” valve and tunable stacks on the shaft. To my understanding it uses that as well as the stock valving up top, and that is their solution for BFRC. I believe that’s very similar to how the Ohlins flow shock is designed but I could be wrong. Viable option? And with your experience does it sound functional theoretically in your opinion?

Spinazuki wrote:

Measured this last night. The reservior/bladder diameter on the BFRC shock is 54mm, at least at the circlip. 54mm has an area of 2,290 mm. The...

Measured this last night. The reservior/bladder diameter on the BFRC shock is 54mm, at least at the circlip.
54mm has an area of 2,290 mm. The 16mm rod is only 201mm. This means that the percentage of the rod is just 8.7% of the bladder. So for every inch of stroke (1,000/1,000ths of an inch), the bladder is only compressed .087", or 2.2 mm. Think about that! So if there is enough restriction during high speed, the oil could take the path of least resistance to the bladder rather than continue to the rebound side of the shock.. = cavitation, what many have complained about. This shock was supposed to be cavitation free. OOPS!
So once anyone can eliminate undue restriction to the rebound side, the shock will work much more consistently, and the dampening changes on the valve stacks will matter. The big difference with the BFRC is there is restriction AFTER the compression valve that there ISN'T on a conventional shock the adjuster. Once oil can freely pass the rebound valve assembly, I'm sure the shock will behave MUCH BETTER.

colvin227 wrote:

What do you think about the mod that Krooztune is doing for the BFRC. Basically swapping the stock shaft and plunger out for a standard shaft...

What do you think about the mod that Krooztune is doing for the BFRC. Basically swapping the stock shaft and plunger out for a standard shaft with your “traditional” valve and tunable stacks on the shaft. To my understanding it uses that as well as the stock valving up top, and that is their solution for BFRC. I believe that’s very similar to how the Ohlins flow shock is designed but I could be wrong. Viable option? And with your experience does it sound functional theoretically in your opinion?

Spinazuki wrote:

I have looked into it and it's an interesting option, but it sort of defeats the purpose of the BFRC altogether. I'm sure it works better...

I have looked into it and it's an interesting option, but it sort of defeats the purpose of the BFRC altogether. I'm sure it works better than the stock shock. There are many ways to skin a cat. Since Factory Connection and RG3 have had some success revalving these shocks, I'd like to see what they do. Ideally with the BFRC the compression forces oil to the rebound side, on rebound the oil is forced back to the compression side. Key word forced, pushed. But if there is restriction sufficient to create suction, there goes the pushing. Suzuki designed this thing for a specific reason, I'd like to see it work as planned before Frankensteining anything. Krooztune does this every day and I'm sure they know what they are doing. Frankly I'd probably just buy a replacement shock that would fit at that point. Dealing with the plumbing in the BFRC and then the conventional shock guts would to me make it more difficult to tune. IMHO.

A BRAND NEW Compression/Rebound assembly would be the way I'd approach it. The BFRC is a twin tube shock and that's worked in cars and trucks for many years. It just needs to be perfected. To me, its just a matter of getting the rebound circuit completely out of the way on the compression stroke, that'll fix the shock. As I stated earlier, if the flow through the rebound valve during compression causes greater resistance than the reservior/bladder, the rebound circuit could be starved, and I'd say mostly all on high speed hits. As the reservior/bladder circuit sits BETWEEN the compression and rebound valves this is entirely possible and likely happening. I wonder why Suzuki/Showa didn't just have a single valve with rebound and compression shim stacks, then put the reservior/bladder AFTER the single valve. Would have been simpler and provided a shorter path to the rebound side. The area between the compression and rebound valves is the reservior/bladder area. Maybe this is the whole flaw?

I'm theorizing here but to me it makes sense.

motofool wrote:

[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2018/09/27/289937/s1200_20180728_184623.jpg[/img] Havent gotten to much time on mine this year as I have been working way more than I care to admit. I have around 20hrs...

Havent gotten to much time on mine this year as I have been working way more than I care to admit. I have around 20hrs on it now and by far the best things I've done to it are factory connection suspension and fmf exhaust. FC revalve made such a huge improvement I can say for a fact that with a revalve this thing is way better then my 15 (air forks are junk). Forks are amazing and I have no issues with the shock. Pipe wakes up the bottom end a decent amount, drops a few pounds and looks killer. You cant go wrong with the rmz there bulletproof, oh and they look so damn good!

turndownwhip wrote:

This sir is one of the better looking bikes I have seen! Looks heaps better than the current JGR or even RCH bikes from a few...

This sir is one of the better looking bikes I have seen! Looks heaps better than the current JGR or even RCH bikes from a few years back...

motofool wrote:

Thanks, I tried to go for a real simple clean look Im not a fan of busy graphics. Still want to add some blue radiator hoses...

Thanks, I tried to go for a real simple clean look Im not a fan of busy graphics. Still want to add some blue radiator hoses. Thinking about trying FCP Racing Motor mounts as well Interested if anyone else has tried them yet? Sounds like everyone who tries them likes them.

turndownwhip wrote:

This sir is one of the better looking bikes I have seen! Looks heaps better than the current JGR or even RCH bikes from a few...

This sir is one of the better looking bikes I have seen! Looks heaps better than the current JGR or even RCH bikes from a few years back...

motofool wrote:

Thanks, I tried to go for a real simple clean look Im not a fan of busy graphics. Still want to add some blue radiator hoses...

Thanks, I tried to go for a real simple clean look Im not a fan of busy graphics. Still want to add some blue radiator hoses. Thinking about trying FCP Racing Motor mounts as well Interested if anyone else has tried them yet? Sounds like everyone who tries them likes them.

ML512 wrote:

If you’re interested, I have mounts available for the RM-Z450 and a Vital discount www.WorksChassisLab.com Enticknap and the HEP Suzuki team run them, along with the...

If you’re interested, I have mounts available for the RM-Z450 and a Vital discount www.WorksChassisLab.com

Enticknap and the HEP Suzuki team run them, along with the German Suzuki team.

Code is: vitalmx10

turndownwhip wrote:

This sir is one of the better looking bikes I have seen! Looks heaps better than the current JGR or even RCH bikes from a few...

This sir is one of the better looking bikes I have seen! Looks heaps better than the current JGR or even RCH bikes from a few years back...

motofool wrote:

Thanks, I tried to go for a real simple clean look Im not a fan of busy graphics. Still want to add some blue radiator hoses...

Thanks, I tried to go for a real simple clean look Im not a fan of busy graphics. Still want to add some blue radiator hoses. Thinking about trying FCP Racing Motor mounts as well Interested if anyone else has tried them yet? Sounds like everyone who tries them likes them.

ML512 wrote:

If you’re interested, I have mounts available for the RM-Z450 and a Vital discount www.WorksChassisLab.com Enticknap and the HEP Suzuki team run them, along with the...

If you’re interested, I have mounts available for the RM-Z450 and a Vital discount www.WorksChassisLab.com

Enticknap and the HEP Suzuki team run them, along with the German Suzuki team.

Code is: vitalmx10