Suspension evolution really in progress?

DrSweden
Posts
6767
Joined
8/30/2008
Location
Stockholm SE
12/15/2011 5:14am Edited Date/Time 1/27/2012 8:54am
Can someone explain to me the evolution in suspension tech the last decade? People rave about diff version, exemplified as in the superiority of the KYB SSS, amazing FC revalving. Still I get the impression that every time someone jumps on a mid nineties well maintained bike, they come out saying, the suspension wasn't that bad. I have rode some, owned a 91 CR and I can't really say I would loose a race because of bad suspension?

I remember reading the CR500 vs CRF450 test MXA did some years ago and they felt the 2001 CR500 suspension was pretty decent after all?

I figure there's a difference when you are a A rider, riding SX but how much can you do? Has the configuration really changed? Still oils going threw small holes, springs compress and bushing with basically same materials sliding on similar steel and alumnium surfaces no?

Right springs for your weight, and the right oil amount and viscosity and just go?

Obviously I'm clueless, but I would appreciate if someone could explain it, like how come the 2002 Showa of a CR250 is so much worse than the Showa version on the later CRFs. What did they really do to make it SOOOOO much better?
|
FlickitFlat
Posts
3014
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
,, WV US
Fantasy
595th
12/15/2011 5:50am
I couldn't begin to answer your question but I do think the stock stuff now is pretty comparable to some modified stuff of the late 90's early 2000's. With that being said. My favorite suspension of any bike I have ever had was a 1997 KX 250 with ProAction mods for a 155lb. Pro. I swear I could jump a house with that stuff and not bounce. I passed tons of guys on that bike by just over jumping shit. The suspension on that bike also done everything else well, inside corners, rail outside corners, changed lines, breaking bumps. I have yet to have another bike I could do that with. 1997
Cory976
Posts
279
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Littleton, CO US
12/15/2011 6:00am
I wonder that all the time. I'm like, "How much more improvement can be done to something that just goes up and down? How much more can you improve the wheel? " If suspesion im proves SOOOOOmuch every year, then the new bikes coming off the showroom floor should have suspesion as good as the full works stuff 10 years ago.
ama530
Posts
200
Joined
10/19/2011
Location
Lehighton, PA US
12/15/2011 6:10am
Suspension has evolved gradually but really hasn't made leaps. Fine tuning year after year. I think the manufacturers took a huge step backwards when they introduced the upside-down fork. That was a marketing ploy for rigidity. Then they spent years trying to put flex back into the chassis design. The best suspension I ever rode was on a '87 CR250. A close second was Trampas Parker's '91 GP bike. That was an incredible mxer. I got to ride that when I worked for Eyvind Boyesen.
CR500Rider
Posts
1272
Joined
4/4/2008
Location
San Antonio, TX US
12/15/2011 7:26am
Evolution in the last decade? Nothing. Seriously, besides reaching in a jar and pulling out this years valving specs, what has "really" changed (technology wise) since 94ish when Suzuki introduced twin chamber forks? As for the shock, have they really changed anything besides adding low/high speed compression adjusters? Until the manufacturers figure out how to get more than 12" of travel out of a bike, we're there, and we've been there for a very long time. In my opinion, and I'm nobody, ever since USD forks and aluminum frames were introduced manufacturers have been playing catch up. They were already playing catchup from USD forks then they got to start over with the introduction of aluminum frames. Suzuki got it right in 96-98 when they offered the 49mm twin chamber conventional fork.

One of my favorite quotes from Bob Hannah.

Reporter - Bob, did you ever get arm pump?
Bob - Not until they came out with USD forks.

The Shop

Hando
Posts
1571
Joined
11/13/2011
Location
US
12/15/2011 7:45am
USD forks are good for SX right?

Showas Airfork will be cool when it comes out
Shawn142
Posts
2598
Joined
10/27/2008
Location
Burleson, TX US
12/15/2011 8:11am
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450, are not significantly different nor would they really improve the feel of your typical novice guy. Actually bolting late model suspension to your older bike is a big mistake too because the valving is so different. It causes some weird problems that take a complete rework of the components to fix. You'd be better served putting the correct springs in your stock stuff.

To say that A-kit stuff isn't the shit though is to admit you've never ridden on it. The high-end expensive as the bike suspension is worth it if you're a pro. That stuff soaks up big hits and square edge bumps like it's nothing. On a normal practice track that's smooth with small berms you'd never tell a difference between A-kit or stock, but on rough ass rutted up tracks at big races that stuff is a dream.
Deetsmx
Posts
880
Joined
4/21/2008
Location
Visalia, CA US
12/15/2011 8:14am
I loved the right side up forks on the 90's suzuki's. I'd like to ride one again just to see if they were as good as I remember. I raced one of those zooks with an Ohlins shock in Belgium one year, I loved that bike.
ama530
Posts
200
Joined
10/19/2011
Location
Lehighton, PA US
12/15/2011 8:26am
I never rode any of the link bikes. Eyvind had his and the Suzuki that Hannah raced. He would ride the wheels off his at Field's Hill. Constantly adjusting and tinkering. He built one for Dag when he raced in Norway. Only a few were ever built. Fred Vertucci had one until he broke the frame. From what I know, they had a unique feel and was something to get used to. He tried to get the manufacturers to notice but they thought it would be to costly to mass produce. Pretty ironic when we're paying almost $9Gs retail for a dirtbike.Sad
CamP
Posts
6828
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX US
12/15/2011 8:33am
The Suzuki Full floater rear suspension that was produced 30 years ago is still good by today's standards. The low hanging fruit has all been plucked.
Drew580
Posts
167
Joined
1/27/2011
Location
CA
12/15/2011 8:39am
ama530 wrote:
Suspension has evolved gradually but really hasn't made leaps. Fine tuning year after year. I think the manufacturers took a huge step backwards when they introduced...
Suspension has evolved gradually but really hasn't made leaps. Fine tuning year after year. I think the manufacturers took a huge step backwards when they introduced the upside-down fork. That was a marketing ploy for rigidity. Then they spent years trying to put flex back into the chassis design. The best suspension I ever rode was on a '87 CR250. A close second was Trampas Parker's '91 GP bike. That was an incredible mxer. I got to ride that when I worked for Eyvind Boyesen.
i think the forks were mounted upside down to reduce unsprung weight also
FreshTopEnd
Posts
12477
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA US
Fantasy
4133rd
12/15/2011 8:55am
I think probably the differences we're talking about are ones that matter at a level of performance only a very few are at. It still ends up being the settings, and the ability to make and track settings, and the resources to do that. Some of the rest us, hopefully, at best get what we have "pretty good," and that's good enough for us.

If we were honest, most of us don't have a clue about the fine differences; we don't demand that much.
Motodrew295
Posts
1027
Joined
5/2/2008
Location
Kennewick, WA US
12/15/2011 9:17am
I just want my suspension predictable. No kicking, swapping or huck a bucking. I leave the clickers alone because I cant feel a difference. I can only really tell after a spring and revalve change but other than that I just ride what I have. As long as its dialed in for you, or you think its dialed in for you, thats all that matters. Also, keeping what you have serviced is a big deal. when the oil is done for, it makes a big difference to get fresh oil in. I used to think I was fine just changing fork oil when I did seals only after they were leaky but changing the oil more often is a good to keep the same feel.

So to answer Drsweeds question I think suspension in the last 10 years is pretty much the same or can be massaged to feel pretty much the same. Until we adopt some F1 technology we wont be seeing leaps and gains in suspension R&D.
mark_swart
Posts
2398
Joined
11/2/2011
Location
Chapin, SC US
12/15/2011 9:24am Edited Date/Time 12/15/2011 9:25am
I don't think you're wrong at all. If anything, the reason that stuff on a 2002 would feel much worse or different than new is that it is old and hasn't been maintained or revalved/resprung to the rider's weight, but that is a maintenance issue, not a technology/design issue.
The twin chamber Showa design was actualy introduced by Honda in 1997, not Suzuki in 1994. There have been tweaks since then but it's mostly just valving changes and evolutionary stuff (coatings, different outer shapes, etc). Rebuild kits interchange from 97-07 or something like that.
I put 98 model twin chambers on my 96 CR and with the correct spring rates, they felt just fine. But I'm not a pro and definitely not on a SX track.
Shocks started getting adjustable high and low speed rebound in the mid to late 90s also.
I think a lot of the benefits have just been understanding how the chassis and suspension work together and designing around that equation. That's why the first gen of Honda aluminum frames were so bad to ride.
SFF forks look like a real step forward in design, and I also read that PC is testing an "air fork" with no spring at all. It's also not really air (it's nitrogen I think), so that'll be another special tool/gauge that people will have to buy if this ever goes into production.
I've never ridden A kit or factory stuff, so I can only talk on what I've noticed in production.
reded
Posts
3685
Joined
3/26/2011
Location
KS US
12/15/2011 10:12am Edited Date/Time 12/15/2011 10:13am
mark_swart wrote:
I don't think you're wrong at all. If anything, the reason that stuff on a 2002 would feel much worse or different than new is that...
I don't think you're wrong at all. If anything, the reason that stuff on a 2002 would feel much worse or different than new is that it is old and hasn't been maintained or revalved/resprung to the rider's weight, but that is a maintenance issue, not a technology/design issue.
The twin chamber Showa design was actualy introduced by Honda in 1997, not Suzuki in 1994. There have been tweaks since then but it's mostly just valving changes and evolutionary stuff (coatings, different outer shapes, etc). Rebuild kits interchange from 97-07 or something like that.
I put 98 model twin chambers on my 96 CR and with the correct spring rates, they felt just fine. But I'm not a pro and definitely not on a SX track.
Shocks started getting adjustable high and low speed rebound in the mid to late 90s also.
I think a lot of the benefits have just been understanding how the chassis and suspension work together and designing around that equation. That's why the first gen of Honda aluminum frames were so bad to ride.
SFF forks look like a real step forward in design, and I also read that PC is testing an "air fork" with no spring at all. It's also not really air (it's nitrogen I think), so that'll be another special tool/gauge that people will have to buy if this ever goes into production.
I've never ridden A kit or factory stuff, so I can only talk on what I've noticed in production.
I believe your wrong, the Twin Chamber was introduced in 1994 on the Suzuki RM's and was even used in a conventional type fork on the 1996-1998 model bikes.
WORCSRacer
Posts
2295
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Clovis, CA US
12/15/2011 10:34am
The biggest difference is tolerances have gotten much tighter via improved production capability but ultimately the Valve stacks from the factory are still just what the test riders or engineers spec. With any suspension set up is the key to performance. Spring it for your weight then with consideration to the valve stack and intended use. A-kit suspension isn't any better than the stock set up if you don't take the time to tune it for you.
mark_swart
Posts
2398
Joined
11/2/2011
Location
Chapin, SC US
12/15/2011 10:53am
mark_swart wrote:
I don't think you're wrong at all. If anything, the reason that stuff on a 2002 would feel much worse or different than new is that...
I don't think you're wrong at all. If anything, the reason that stuff on a 2002 would feel much worse or different than new is that it is old and hasn't been maintained or revalved/resprung to the rider's weight, but that is a maintenance issue, not a technology/design issue.
The twin chamber Showa design was actualy introduced by Honda in 1997, not Suzuki in 1994. There have been tweaks since then but it's mostly just valving changes and evolutionary stuff (coatings, different outer shapes, etc). Rebuild kits interchange from 97-07 or something like that.
I put 98 model twin chambers on my 96 CR and with the correct spring rates, they felt just fine. But I'm not a pro and definitely not on a SX track.
Shocks started getting adjustable high and low speed rebound in the mid to late 90s also.
I think a lot of the benefits have just been understanding how the chassis and suspension work together and designing around that equation. That's why the first gen of Honda aluminum frames were so bad to ride.
SFF forks look like a real step forward in design, and I also read that PC is testing an "air fork" with no spring at all. It's also not really air (it's nitrogen I think), so that'll be another special tool/gauge that people will have to buy if this ever goes into production.
I've never ridden A kit or factory stuff, so I can only talk on what I've noticed in production.
reded wrote:
I believe your wrong, the Twin Chamber was introduced in 1994 on the Suzuki RM's and was even used in a conventional type fork on the...
I believe your wrong, the Twin Chamber was introduced in 1994 on the Suzuki RM's and was even used in a conventional type fork on the 1996-1998 model bikes.
No, I'm not wrong. Pull up an old bike test of the 97-98 CR 250, or even the pats schematic at motosport.com.
Twin chambers were introduced in 97 with the aluminum frame. The design of my 98 CR twin chambers is identical to that of my 2009 RMZ 450.
If you look at the schematic, you can see that's a twin chamber design. "Twin Chamber" means there are two separate oil chambers, right?
I have no idea if the twin chamber design was ever used in a conventional fork.
CamP
Posts
6828
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX US
12/15/2011 10:58am
Suzuki had the first twin chamber forks in '94.
scooter5002
Posts
4761
Joined
6/6/2010
Location
Nanton Alberta CA
12/15/2011 11:20am
Shawn142 wrote:
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450...
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450, are not significantly different nor would they really improve the feel of your typical novice guy. Actually bolting late model suspension to your older bike is a big mistake too because the valving is so different. It causes some weird problems that take a complete rework of the components to fix. You'd be better served putting the correct springs in your stock stuff.

To say that A-kit stuff isn't the shit though is to admit you've never ridden on it. The high-end expensive as the bike suspension is worth it if you're a pro. That stuff soaks up big hits and square edge bumps like it's nothing. On a normal practice track that's smooth with small berms you'd never tell a difference between A-kit or stock, but on rough ass rutted up tracks at big races that stuff is a dream.
Huh. So you are saying that when I bolted my 04 450 forks to my 99 CR500 was a COMPLETE mistake, and even though they were awesome, I was wrong?! Well, golly gee!
"Doc, get me back to spring 05, I have to go back and NOT ride a motorcycle. I need to prove somebody right. What do MEAN, the fuckin' DeLorean is in for an OIL CHANGE?!?! NOW, Doc!
Shawn142
Posts
2598
Joined
10/27/2008
Location
Burleson, TX US
12/15/2011 11:22am
Shawn142 wrote:
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450...
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450, are not significantly different nor would they really improve the feel of your typical novice guy. Actually bolting late model suspension to your older bike is a big mistake too because the valving is so different. It causes some weird problems that take a complete rework of the components to fix. You'd be better served putting the correct springs in your stock stuff.

To say that A-kit stuff isn't the shit though is to admit you've never ridden on it. The high-end expensive as the bike suspension is worth it if you're a pro. That stuff soaks up big hits and square edge bumps like it's nothing. On a normal practice track that's smooth with small berms you'd never tell a difference between A-kit or stock, but on rough ass rutted up tracks at big races that stuff is a dream.
Huh. So you are saying that when I bolted my 04 450 forks to my 99 CR500 was a COMPLETE mistake, and even though they were...
Huh. So you are saying that when I bolted my 04 450 forks to my 99 CR500 was a COMPLETE mistake, and even though they were awesome, I was wrong?! Well, golly gee!
"Doc, get me back to spring 05, I have to go back and NOT ride a motorcycle. I need to prove somebody right. What do MEAN, the fuckin' DeLorean is in for an OIL CHANGE?!?! NOW, Doc!
The fact that you're claiming anything makes a CR500 handle good completely negates any slap-stick Canadian joke you're trying to make.
mark_swart
Posts
2398
Joined
11/2/2011
Location
Chapin, SC US
12/15/2011 11:49am
CamP wrote:
Suzuki had the first twin chamber forks in '94.
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today.

Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in 97. The link will take you to the parts fiche from motosport.com.

http://www.motosport.com/dirtbike/oem-parts/HONDA/1997/CR250/FRONT-FORK-97

Follow the link and tell me that's not a twin chamber fork. I remember rebuilding those SOBs back in 97.
CamP
Posts
6828
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX US
12/15/2011 12:03pm
CamP wrote:
Suzuki had the first twin chamber forks in '94.
mark_swart wrote:
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today. Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in...
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today.

Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in 97. The link will take you to the parts fiche from motosport.com.

http://www.motosport.com/dirtbike/oem-parts/HONDA/1997/CR250/FRONT-FORK-97

Follow the link and tell me that's not a twin chamber fork. I remember rebuilding those SOBs back in 97.
Honda introduced "their" first twin chamber fork in 1997. Suzuki introduced the very first twin chamber fork three years earlier.
1
CamP
Posts
6828
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX US
12/15/2011 12:07pm
Shawn142 wrote:
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450...
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450, are not significantly different nor would they really improve the feel of your typical novice guy. Actually bolting late model suspension to your older bike is a big mistake too because the valving is so different. It causes some weird problems that take a complete rework of the components to fix. You'd be better served putting the correct springs in your stock stuff.

To say that A-kit stuff isn't the shit though is to admit you've never ridden on it. The high-end expensive as the bike suspension is worth it if you're a pro. That stuff soaks up big hits and square edge bumps like it's nothing. On a normal practice track that's smooth with small berms you'd never tell a difference between A-kit or stock, but on rough ass rutted up tracks at big races that stuff is a dream.
Huh. So you are saying that when I bolted my 04 450 forks to my 99 CR500 was a COMPLETE mistake, and even though they were...
Huh. So you are saying that when I bolted my 04 450 forks to my 99 CR500 was a COMPLETE mistake, and even though they were awesome, I was wrong?! Well, golly gee!
"Doc, get me back to spring 05, I have to go back and NOT ride a motorcycle. I need to prove somebody right. What do MEAN, the fuckin' DeLorean is in for an OIL CHANGE?!?! NOW, Doc!
Shawn142 wrote:
The fact that you're claiming anything makes a CR500 handle good completely negates any slap-stick Canadian joke you're trying to make.
I have a set of stock 08 CRF450 forks on a '95 CR250. I also have a stiffer 5.6kg rear spring to match the .47kg fork springs. The suspension was totally unbalanced until I add a lot of HS compression to the shock's shim stack.
reded
Posts
3685
Joined
3/26/2011
Location
KS US
12/15/2011 12:14pm
CamP wrote:
Suzuki had the first twin chamber forks in '94.
mark_swart wrote:
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today. Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in...
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today.

Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in 97. The link will take you to the parts fiche from motosport.com.

http://www.motosport.com/dirtbike/oem-parts/HONDA/1997/CR250/FRONT-FORK-97

Follow the link and tell me that's not a twin chamber fork. I remember rebuilding those SOBs back in 97.
Use your own link to look at the fork on a 1994 RM and get back to us with your apology.
OldTiddler
Posts
630
Joined
4/16/2007
Location
Longwood, FL US
12/15/2011 12:21pm
I like to look down at my wheels when I ride and see them go up and down over bumps! Weee!
chrisbuehler
Posts
3351
Joined
2/9/2009
Location
North Stonington, CT US
12/15/2011 12:27pm
Shawn142 wrote:
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450...
Stock suspension hasn't made many improvements in the last 10 years. Forks and a shock from say your example, a 2002 CR250 vs a 2008 CRF450, are not significantly different nor would they really improve the feel of your typical novice guy. Actually bolting late model suspension to your older bike is a big mistake too because the valving is so different. It causes some weird problems that take a complete rework of the components to fix. You'd be better served putting the correct springs in your stock stuff.

To say that A-kit stuff isn't the shit though is to admit you've never ridden on it. The high-end expensive as the bike suspension is worth it if you're a pro. That stuff soaks up big hits and square edge bumps like it's nothing. On a normal practice track that's smooth with small berms you'd never tell a difference between A-kit or stock, but on rough ass rutted up tracks at big races that stuff is a dream.
Huh. So you are saying that when I bolted my 04 450 forks to my 99 CR500 was a COMPLETE mistake, and even though they were...
Huh. So you are saying that when I bolted my 04 450 forks to my 99 CR500 was a COMPLETE mistake, and even though they were awesome, I was wrong?! Well, golly gee!
"Doc, get me back to spring 05, I have to go back and NOT ride a motorcycle. I need to prove somebody right. What do MEAN, the fuckin' DeLorean is in for an OIL CHANGE?!?! NOW, Doc!
Shawn142 wrote:
The fact that you're claiming anything makes a CR500 handle good completely negates any slap-stick Canadian joke you're trying to make.
Owned
CR250Rider
Posts
6706
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Moses Lake, WA US
12/15/2011 12:28pm
forks with compression damping in one leg and rebound in the other
chrisbuehler
Posts
3351
Joined
2/9/2009
Location
North Stonington, CT US
12/15/2011 12:30pm
CamP wrote:
Suzuki had the first twin chamber forks in '94.
mark_swart wrote:
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today. Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in...
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today.

Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in 97. The link will take you to the parts fiche from motosport.com.

http://www.motosport.com/dirtbike/oem-parts/HONDA/1997/CR250/FRONT-FORK-97

Follow the link and tell me that's not a twin chamber fork. I remember rebuilding those SOBs back in 97.
reded wrote:
Use your own link to look at the fork on a 1994 RM and get back to us with your apology.
"Part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today." How about STFU NOOB!! Lol
CR500Rider
Posts
1272
Joined
4/4/2008
Location
San Antonio, TX US
12/15/2011 12:46pm Edited Date/Time 12/15/2011 12:47pm
CR250Rider wrote:
forks with compression damping in one leg and rebound in the other
Like my 99' KTM 250SX had?
CR500Rider
Posts
1272
Joined
4/4/2008
Location
San Antonio, TX US
12/15/2011 12:48pm
CamP wrote:
Suzuki had the first twin chamber forks in '94.
mark_swart wrote:
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today. Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in...
Yeah part of me wants to be the bigger person and just let this go, but nah, not today.

Honda introduced the Showa twin chamber in 97. The link will take you to the parts fiche from motosport.com.

http://www.motosport.com/dirtbike/oem-parts/HONDA/1997/CR250/FRONT-FORK-97

Follow the link and tell me that's not a twin chamber fork. I remember rebuilding those SOBs back in 97.
reded wrote:
Use your own link to look at the fork on a 1994 RM and get back to us with your apology.
He sure is fighting it isn't he.
mark_swart
Posts
2398
Joined
11/2/2011
Location
Chapin, SC US
12/15/2011 12:58pm
Ok, I pulled it up, I'll be damned. What makes it even worse is that back in the day I had a 95 RM (which apparently I never took apart), I really should have known this. I stand corrected, sorry guys.
So what that really means as far as the evolution topic is that the suspension technology we are using now goes back even further than I had thought.

Post a reply to: Suspension evolution really in progress?

The Latest