Cone Valve-AER48-4CS Ride Height?

Related:
Create New Tag

10/1/2017 3:17 PM

Hey guys, so today I took off my cone valves and put my 4CS on my 2016 KTM125 for an off-road trip. I noticed the upper tubes are shorter than the cone valves.

For example I run my cone valves at 2 lines up in the clamps.I run 105mm sag. The 4CS will need to be flush in order to get the same balence.

What height do you guys run on your forks and sag? Thanks!

|

10/1/2017 3:23 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Hey guys, so today I took off my cone valves and put my 4CS on my 2016 KTM125 for an off-road trip. I noticed the upper tubes are shorter than the cone valves.

For example I run my cone valves at 2 lines up in the clamps.I run 105mm sag. The 4CS will need to be flush in order to get the same balence.

What height do you guys run on your forks and sag? Thanks!

Running mine on the second line for the CV forks, same as I ran with the AER. For sag I'm running around ~107 mm, though it's been two weeks since I checked it.

|

10/1/2017 5:26 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Hey guys, so today I took off my cone valves and put my 4CS on my 2016 KTM125 for an off-road trip. I noticed the upper tubes are shorter than the cone valves.

For example I run my cone valves at 2 lines up in the clamps.I run 105mm sag. The 4CS will need to be flush in order to get the same balence.

What height do you guys run on your forks and sag? Thanks!

LumpDog841 wrote:

Running mine on the second line for the CV forks, same as I ran with the AER. For sag I'm running around ~107 mm, though it's been two weeks since I checked it.

Cool, have you ever compaired the upper tube Length between the 2?

|

10/1/2017 7:05 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Cool, have you ever compaired the upper tube Length between the 2?

I honestly haven't. Though they appear to be exactly the same, but I don't have actual numbers to back that up. One weird thing though is the CV forks seem to fit better in the xtrig clamps...maybe better dimensional tolerance?

|

10/3/2017 7:50 AM

I got my 4CS forks revalved by Craig at Enzo. He told me to run the black part on top of the forks even with the triple clamp. The fork was moved down slightly from the stock position.

|

10/3/2017 10:22 AM

I ran my 4CS flush at the top, but my AER48 I run at the 3rd line. Sag at 105mm.

|

10/3/2017 3:20 PM

Very interesting! I wonder if the 4CS are shorter than the AER.

Thanks for the info guys.

|

10/3/2017 9:15 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Very interesting! I wonder if the 4CS are shorter than the AER.

Thanks for the info guys.

I will check when I get home after work.

|

10/3/2017 9:57 PM
Edited Date/Time: 10/3/2017 9:59 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Very interesting! I wonder if the 4CS are shorter than the AER.

Thanks for the info guys.

Yeah the AER forks are usually about 10-12mm longer than the 4CS!! Its kind of interesting that they would have such drastically different fork lengths, but not change the chassis to supplement... It makes you wonder if the chassis was originally developed to accept the shorter fork, and realized that they needed the extra length to work out some bugs? Or if they designed it for the longer fork, but wasn't ready to release the AER fork to the rest of the world? Questions that someone higher up on the KTM food chain would have to answer I'm guessing...

I think I saw an MXA article a while back supporting this, I'll go through the archives to see if I can find anything!

|

10/3/2017 10:14 PM

Found it!! April 2016 Issue of Motocross Action!Photo

Photo

|

10/4/2017 6:17 AM

Yeah 1/2 inch is a big difference.

|

10/4/2017 9:56 PM

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Yeah 1/2 inch is a big difference.

Huge difference!!

|

10/5/2017 7:45 AM

I ran my cone valves on the 3rd line on 15.5 FE450 because of the length difference between the 4CS and the cone valve forks. I ran my cone valves on my 16 & 17 on the 2nd line because the cone valves are very close to the same length as the AER fork. I actually tried the AER cone valves on the 3rd line this weekend and went from 105mm of sag to 108 and the bike worked really well on a very fast and very choppy track. It settled better in the turns and tracked very good in the rutted turns and was super stable at speed.

|

10/5/2017 8:23 AM

Digger29 wrote:

I ran my cone valves on the 3rd line on 15.5 FE450 because of the length difference between the 4CS and the cone valve forks. I ran my cone valves on my 16 & 17 on the 2nd line because the cone valves are very close to the same length as the AER fork. I actually tried the AER cone valves on the 3rd line this weekend and went from 105mm of sag to 108 and the bike worked really well on a very fast and very choppy track. It settled better in the turns and tracked very good in the rutted turns and was super stable at speed.

Cool, do you like steering with the front or rear of your bike? I'm going to try some different sag numbers tomorrow.

|

10/7/2017 6:22 AM

Digger29 wrote:

I ran my cone valves on the 3rd line on 15.5 FE450 because of the length difference between the 4CS and the cone valve forks. I ran my cone valves on my 16 & 17 on the 2nd line because the cone valves are very close to the same length as the AER fork. I actually tried the AER cone valves on the 3rd line this weekend and went from 105mm of sag to 108 and the bike worked really well on a very fast and very choppy track. It settled better in the turns and tracked very good in the rutted turns and was super stable at speed.

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Cool, do you like steering with the front or rear of your bike? I'm going to try some different sag numbers tomorrow.

I like to steer with the front end but definitely use both ends depending on the track and the situation, why?

|

10/7/2017 7:59 AM

Digger29 wrote:

I ran my cone valves on the 3rd line on 15.5 FE450 because of the length difference between the 4CS and the cone valve forks. I ran my cone valves on my 16 & 17 on the 2nd line because the cone valves are very close to the same length as the AER fork. I actually tried the AER cone valves on the 3rd line this weekend and went from 105mm of sag to 108 and the bike worked really well on a very fast and very choppy track. It settled better in the turns and tracked very good in the rutted turns and was super stable at speed.

CarlinoJoeVideo wrote:

Cool, do you like steering with the front or rear of your bike? I'm going to try some different sag numbers tomorrow.

Digger29 wrote:

I like to steer with the front end but definitely use both ends depending on the track and the situation, why?

Just wondering for bike set up and style of riding. I'm all front end, I like it to track hard and turn like front wheel drive.

I ran 105-107 yesterday with forks at 2 lines. I think that's the money spot. Went back to my base suspension setting and I did some tweaking on my clickers, she is set up really good right now. I'll take this setting to a few more tracks and see how it holds up.

|

10/7/2017 8:35 AM
Edited Date/Time: 10/7/2017 8:37 AM

I've been running 104-105 on all 3 of my 450s and when Powerband came to the Racer X event in Maine a few wks ago he set mine from 105 to 108 and that's where it's been for the last 3 weekends. He was very surprised at just how rough the track was. I've been telling Billy for 3 yrs that our tracks get very rough here in New England. He came over to my RV at the end of the Fridays practice and told me to pull my stuff and he going to revalve it based on what he's seeing track conditions wise. I'm very pleased with the revalve and that he finally believes me :-) I'm going to leave the forks on the 3rd line for tomorrow at NHMX.

|

10/7/2017 4:15 PM

Digger29 wrote:

I've been running 104-105 on all 3 of my 450s and when Powerband came to the Racer X event in Maine a few wks ago he set mine from 105 to 108 and that's where it's been for the last 3 weekends. He was very surprised at just how rough the track was. I've been telling Billy for 3 yrs that our tracks get very rough here in New England. He came over to my RV at the end of the Fridays practice and told me to pull my stuff and he going to revalve it based on what he's seeing track conditions wise. I'm very pleased with the revalve and that he finally believes me :-) I'm going to leave the forks on the 3rd line for tomorrow at NHMX.

I could see 108sag and 3 lines up being similar feel to 105-106sag and 2 lines up but the ride feeling taller off the ground. What do you think?

What spring rate and how much preload do you guys run?
I'm 160lbs, 4.7 spring with 2 clicks of preload.

|

10/7/2017 6:49 PM

I ran my CV on the 3rd line on 16.5 250 SXF FE, and 108 sag.
I'm 180lbs, 4.8 spring, 1 click of preload, setup by powerband.
I tried 4th line, it is good for corner, but a little unstable on high speed.

|

Excuse my english - it's my second language!

10/9/2017 7:54 AM

whats considered a drastic change in sliding the forks up? 1 line? 5 lines?

|

10/9/2017 10:35 PM

slothy wrote:

whats considered a drastic change in sliding the forks up? 1 line? 5 lines?

I think if you go 2 lines in either direction from where you are it's big.

Just saw this photo of marven- looks like he's 3 lines up.

|

10/9/2017 10:36 PM

Photo

|