2016 Cone Valve Forks

Related:
Create New Tag

1/29/2018 7:35 PM

Guys,
I took 2016 Cone Valve forks (old style.....not black) off of my 2016 ktm450sxf and put them on my 2017 ktm450sxf. I thought nothing of it until i called Factory Connection and they suggestes the new style because they are longer. Have any of you had issues using the older cone valves with a 2017 or newer ktm?

|

1/29/2018 10:03 PM

They’ve said that to me but I do not buy into it. Many of the younger KTM team riders are using those forks on the 17s and 18s.

Some guys run a longer link in the back to lower the rear 5mm instead of the long forks, but it’s a personal preference.

For me I think the new bikes(18) feel too high in the front so I like the lower the size. I’m also still running the forks +2 lines up in the clamps.

|

1/29/2018 10:14 PM

I would just run them and see how it goes.

|

1/29/2018 10:17 PM

Bruce372 wrote:

I would just run them and see how it goes.

Bruce......you know thats not how it works with me!

How you been anyways?

|

1/29/2018 10:25 PM

Bruce372 wrote:

I would just run them and see how it goes.

Moto520 wrote:

Bruce......you know thats not how it works with me!

How you been anyways?

All good mate, hope you guys are good

But seriously, i am sure it will be fine, I know mine are aer but if I don't raise them all the way up the clamps it feels like a chopper.

|

1/29/2018 11:45 PM

I asked Billy At Powerband about this a few months ago and he said 5mm isn’t a big deal. If you are worried, start with the cone valves flush in the clamps. That should be the same geometry as the new longer forks. But like started above, feels like a chopper at that height.

|

1/30/2018 2:54 AM

There is no chassi difference between 16 SXF and 17. So run them as you did on your 2016. If anything, theoretically, they did go the other direction lowering the front (or raising the rear...) between 16 and 17 since they went from 110 sag to 105.

Some minor adjustment on shock was made between 16 and 17 but nothing affecting or compensating for the longer fork.

Euros have had the longer AER fork on both 16 and 17 models, and most run them on second line.

|

1/30/2018 7:20 AM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

I asked Billy At Powerband about this a few months ago and he said 5mm isn’t a big deal. If you are worried, start with the cone valves flush in the clamps. That should be the same geometry as the new longer forks. But like started above, feels like a chopper at that height.

Thanks bud. They are 13MM shorter!

|

1/30/2018 8:21 AM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

I asked Billy At Powerband about this a few months ago and he said 5mm isn’t a big deal. If you are worried, start with the cone valves flush in the clamps. That should be the same geometry as the new longer forks. But like started above, feels like a chopper at that height.

Moto520 wrote:

Thanks bud. They are 13MM shorter!

The guys at WP said they are 5mm shorter. I’ve not personally measure them. Lots of conflicting around this but FC is the only one saying it’s a “problem”.

|

1/30/2018 11:02 AM

So what line is everyone running there cone valves at? Im having some trouble turning in. I run the 1st line for sand, second line for hardpack. Im thinking of testing the 3rd line? 108sag.

|

1/30/2018 12:01 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

I asked Billy At Powerband about this a few months ago and he said 5mm isn’t a big deal. If you are worried, start with the cone valves flush in the clamps. That should be the same geometry as the new longer forks. But like started above, feels like a chopper at that height.

Moto520 wrote:

Thanks bud. They are 13MM shorter!

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

The guys at WP said they are 5mm shorter. I’ve not personally measure them. Lots of conflicting around this but FC is the only one saying it’s a “problem”.

First of all, The AER fork is 950mm. 4CS fork is 940mm. Fork stroke is 310mm for AER fork, and 300mm for 4cs fork. So 10mm difference.

Why would this be a problem to run 4CS fork on 2017? The 2016 SXF chassi is IDENTICAL and it worked with the shorter 4cs fork. Sure some rider dropped it down and run it flush already on hard packed (equoal to second line on AER and CV fork).

|

1/30/2018 12:02 PM

JB479 wrote:

So what line is everyone running there cone valves at? Im having some trouble turning in. I run the 1st line for sand, second line for hardpack. Im thinking of testing the 3rd line? 108sag.

108 sag you probably need 3 line. 105 second line. Depends on static sag/preload (+HSC) compared to your weight. I dont like going under 2nd line, chassi just drags the ground.

|

1/30/2018 12:05 PM
Edited Date/Time: 1/30/2018 12:06 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

I asked Billy At Powerband about this a few months ago and he said 5mm isn’t a big deal. If you are worried, start with the cone valves flush in the clamps. That should be the same geometry as the new longer forks. But like started above, feels like a chopper at that height.

Moto520 wrote:

Thanks bud. They are 13MM shorter!

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

The guys at WP said they are 5mm shorter. I’ve not personally measure them. Lots of conflicting around this but FC is the only one saying it’s a “problem”.

The guys at WP in Cali did not even know what sag was printed in the manual 2016. They where like question marks when i went there and asked what sag they run on the new 2016. We (WP) run 98 for supercross, and 102 for MX. Really, the manual says 110mm they asked me. laughing dizzy

|

1/30/2018 12:41 PM

Bill at Powerband did a phenominal job of explaining things to me. KTM is really weird with certain things. The frame actually did change in 2017 (although a tiny, insignificant amount) but was never mentioned. Try putting a Works Connection skid plate off of a 2016 on a 2017 and you can see that the down tubes are different. Very odd that this was never spoken of. Works Connection doesn't even offer a full coverage, aluminum skid plate for the 2017....but they do for the 2016.

My guess is.....certain higher profile suspension builders don't fully understand the WP cone valve suspension and how to make it work. So....they avoid the questions and anything that doesn't fit into a chart...they don't want.

|

1/30/2018 12:44 PM
Edited Date/Time: 1/30/2018 12:45 PM

Moto520 wrote:

Thanks bud. They are 13MM shorter!

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

The guys at WP said they are 5mm shorter. I’ve not personally measure them. Lots of conflicting around this but FC is the only one saying it’s a “problem”.

aees wrote:

First of all, The AER fork is 950mm. 4CS fork is 940mm. Fork stroke is 310mm for AER fork, and 300mm for 4cs fork. So 10mm difference.

Why would this be a problem to run 4CS fork on 2017? The 2016 SXF chassi is IDENTICAL and it worked with the shorter 4cs fork. Sure some rider dropped it down and run it flush already on hard packed (equoal to second line on AER and CV fork).

I think its a preference thing for the test riders to extend the forks out. Like mentioned above, I feel the new bikes are too high in the front.

With CV's I've been running 2nd line and 104-105 sag. I really like the weight on the front end. I haven't had any headshake issues with this set up.

|

1/30/2018 12:48 PM

Moto520 wrote:

Bill at Powerband did a phenominal job of explaining things to me. KTM is really weird with certain things. The frame actually did change in 2017 (although a tiny, insignificant amount) but was never mentioned. Try putting a Works Connection skid plate off of a 2016 on a 2017 and you can see that the down tubes are different. Very odd that this was never spoken of. Works Connection doesn't even offer a full coverage, aluminum skid plate for the 2017....but they do for the 2016.

My guess is.....certain higher profile suspension builders don't fully understand the WP cone valve suspension and how to make it work. So....they avoid the questions and anything that doesn't fit into a chart...they don't want.

Yea, but kind of the same as with engine mounts, yes changes, but geometri? No. Have little to do with the length of the forks. Wonder why they did the change frame?

I ordered a Acerbis skid plate for 2016/2017 models, and it fitted my 2017 SXF.

|

1/30/2018 12:52 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

The guys at WP said they are 5mm shorter. I’ve not personally measure them. Lots of conflicting around this but FC is the only one saying it’s a “problem”.

aees wrote:

First of all, The AER fork is 950mm. 4CS fork is 940mm. Fork stroke is 310mm for AER fork, and 300mm for 4cs fork. So 10mm difference.

Why would this be a problem to run 4CS fork on 2017? The 2016 SXF chassi is IDENTICAL and it worked with the shorter 4cs fork. Sure some rider dropped it down and run it flush already on hard packed (equoal to second line on AER and CV fork).

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

I think its a preference thing for the test riders to extend the forks out. Like mentioned above, I feel the new bikes are too high in the front.

With CV's I've been running 2nd line and 104-105 sag. I really like the weight on the front end. I haven't had any headshake issues with this set up.

With 46nm shock spring for my 200lbs i could run 104-105mm sag. With the 48nm i could not, armpump directly with AER and CV spring (2017, 4.8, 420ml).

But that was with a revalved stiffer rear shock. So gona try now with stock valving, 48nm and 105 sag.

What setup in rear you running?

|

1/30/2018 12:53 PM
Edited Date/Time: 1/30/2018 12:54 PM

Moto520 wrote:

Bill at Powerband did a phenominal job of explaining things to me. KTM is really weird with certain things. The frame actually did change in 2017 (although a tiny, insignificant amount) but was never mentioned. Try putting a Works Connection skid plate off of a 2016 on a 2017 and you can see that the down tubes are different. Very odd that this was never spoken of. Works Connection doesn't even offer a full coverage, aluminum skid plate for the 2017....but they do for the 2016.

My guess is.....certain higher profile suspension builders don't fully understand the WP cone valve suspension and how to make it work. So....they avoid the questions and anything that doesn't fit into a chart...they don't want.

Everett, I had a good think about this and you are correct that there is a fundamental problem with your forks and they are trash. The best path forward is to ship them to me, since you are a good mate, I will waive the recycling fee. smile

|

1/30/2018 1:39 PM

aees wrote:

First of all, The AER fork is 950mm. 4CS fork is 940mm. Fork stroke is 310mm for AER fork, and 300mm for 4cs fork. So 10mm difference.

Why would this be a problem to run 4CS fork on 2017? The 2016 SXF chassi is IDENTICAL and it worked with the shorter 4cs fork. Sure some rider dropped it down and run it flush already on hard packed (equoal to second line on AER and CV fork).

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

I think its a preference thing for the test riders to extend the forks out. Like mentioned above, I feel the new bikes are too high in the front.

With CV's I've been running 2nd line and 104-105 sag. I really like the weight on the front end. I haven't had any headshake issues with this set up.

aees wrote:

With 46nm shock spring for my 200lbs i could run 104-105mm sag. With the 48nm i could not, armpump directly with AER and CV spring (2017, 4.8, 420ml).

But that was with a revalved stiffer rear shock. So gona try now with stock valving, 48nm and 105 sag.

What setup in rear you running?

2016 250SX-F I have Trax shock and 2016 125SX I have stock WP shock. Both are valved by FC and run same 104-106 sag.

|

1/30/2018 7:52 PM

Moto520 wrote:

Bill at Powerband did a phenominal job of explaining things to me. KTM is really weird with certain things. The frame actually did change in 2017 (although a tiny, insignificant amount) but was never mentioned. Try putting a Works Connection skid plate off of a 2016 on a 2017 and you can see that the down tubes are different. Very odd that this was never spoken of. Works Connection doesn't even offer a full coverage, aluminum skid plate for the 2017....but they do for the 2016.

My guess is.....certain higher profile suspension builders don't fully understand the WP cone valve suspension and how to make it work. So....they avoid the questions and anything that doesn't fit into a chart...they don't want.

Bruce372 wrote:

Everett, I had a good think about this and you are correct that there is a fundamental problem with your forks and they are trash. The best path forward is to ship them to me, since you are a good mate, I will waive the recycling fee. smile

I agree there is definately a fundamental problem here. However since I was trying to aquire his AERs for my Alta, they really should go to me and I'd be willing to pay scrap value for them.

|

1/31/2018 4:15 AM

I went through this with FC myself. They sent them back to me and would not revalve until I talked to someone I knew for a while there. They sent a call tag and picked them back up. The AER forks are 950mm, the new cones are 945mm and the 16s like I have are 940mm. The explanation was that people were trying to use different forks often to get away from air forks and they had some problems. WP factory services said just run them flush and if I needed to I could always go to a Ride or SDI link. I'm happy with them flush and even on the first line on tight slower tracks.

|

Take it to the limit, one more time!

1/31/2018 4:19 AM

Mine are on a 17 450 SXF

|

Take it to the limit, one more time!

1/31/2018 7:37 AM

mx317 wrote:

I went through this with FC myself. They sent them back to me and would not revalve until I talked to someone I knew for a while there. They sent a call tag and picked them back up. The AER forks are 950mm, the new cones are 945mm and the 16s like I have are 940mm. The explanation was that people were trying to use different forks often to get away from air forks and they had some problems. WP factory services said just run them flush and if I needed to I could always go to a Ride or SDI link. I'm happy with them flush and even on the first line on tight slower tracks.

Im super sensitive to fork height (easilly notice 1mm difference). I went back and fwd between my AER48 being 950mm and AER48 CV being 945mm. Could not feel they where 5mm different. Even with same pressures.

Same between my CV spring now and AER48, i can not feel a difference in ride height if i place them both on second line for example.

So i guess conclusion is that it depends on how the fork is setup in general. Oil level, air pressure spring/preload and valving.

So i dont buy that because AER48 is 950, you should place them 10mm higher than 4cs.

|

1/31/2018 8:05 AM

mx317 wrote:

I went through this with FC myself. They sent them back to me and would not revalve until I talked to someone I knew for a while there. They sent a call tag and picked them back up. The AER forks are 950mm, the new cones are 945mm and the 16s like I have are 940mm. The explanation was that people were trying to use different forks often to get away from air forks and they had some problems. WP factory services said just run them flush and if I needed to I could always go to a Ride or SDI link. I'm happy with them flush and even on the first line on tight slower tracks.

Thanks MX317....I thought I was losing my mind. Did FC eventually do the forks for you?

|

1/31/2018 8:10 AM

Anyone use Racetech for their Cone valves and traxx?

|

1/31/2018 9:19 AM

Moto520 wrote:

Thanks MX317....I thought I was losing my mind. Did FC eventually do the forks for you?

They did and they work very well. They changed out the red cone for the blue ones which are a little firmer along with their shimstacks. The problem I was having with them was they felt too firm on top (which hurt cornering), but blew through and bottomed more than they should have when ridden hard. The firmer cones let them be valved softer initially, but the action had more progression further into the stroke.
Steve Ross is the guy to talk to at the East Coast NH location.

|

Take it to the limit, one more time!

1/31/2018 9:40 AM

Moto520 wrote:

Anyone use Racetech for their Cone valves and traxx?

Race Tech now has a fork guy(Luke) who was working for WP and the TLD KTM Team.

|

1/31/2018 11:02 AM
Edited Date/Time: 1/31/2018 11:04 AM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Race Tech now has a fork guy(Luke) who was working for WP and the TLD KTM Team.

Is it Luke Boyk? A friend of mine bought a set of cone valve forks from him that he ran on his personal bike. He said the cones like I have were fine to run and to just run them flush or first line for tighter tracks. I didn't know he went to work at Race Tech though. I'll file that info away, thanks!

|

Take it to the limit, one more time!

1/31/2018 3:31 PM
Edited Date/Time: 1/31/2018 3:41 PM

Does the 16.5 FE have the 17 frame? Im running the 17 CV's on my 16.5 FE on the first line and they feel balanced with my Trax shock and sag set at 108. Im running 3mm of preload on the CV how would that fit into the equation?

|

1/31/2018 4:45 PM

Moto520 wrote:

Guys,
I took 2016 Cone Valve forks (old style.....not black) off of my 2016 ktm450sxf and put them on my 2017 ktm450sxf. I thought nothing of it until i called Factory Connection and they suggestes the new style because they are longer. Have any of you had issues using the older cone valves with a 2017 or newer ktm?

Everett, what spring rate are you running? Stock linkage?

|