Fork and SAE2´5?
 

Hello!
I have curious if anyone has installed or tested in its cradle SAE 2.5 modified some of the retention system of valves on the market?: Rolleyes:

GoldValve I have installed and would like a bounce even faster. Has anyone experienced?;)

Jeff, when we talked on the PM, we didn't even cover 2.5wt suspension fluid, but yes...it can definitely work. Even with aftermarket valving that we have, this fork doesn't like 7.5 or 10. As you know, the rebound will really suck because the valving only addresses the compression stack and the rebound has not adjustment except by the oil. I know that quite a few folks using all kinds of higher quality forks on their race bikes will sometimes go to 2.5 wt with great results. It's the heavier oil that you seldom see a quality fork use...at least in shim stacked damper units like our KLX. Ported orifice forks are often a different story.

I am very happy as it operates the fork now.
But maybe in a month do some tests with SAE 2.5 and see what happens.

I understand that for off-road use is now serving fork perfectly. However, I love driving by soils and stone broken loose, where the fork and shock have to work very quickly and with little travel. That's why my interest in doing the forks rebound faster.

I thought someone else had experience with this oil, and could discuss their impressions. But it seems that only a few users who have tried this oil.

I think this information is VERY interesting!

Fork oil weights

I am thinking the 100C value is not much use in fork situations, unless you ride only in rock gardens...... ALL DAY!

I'm doing an assessment of the behavior of the fork rebound using different oils. Noting that it seems no one has experimented with SAE 2.5 I decided to do it myself and check the behavior.

I am evaluating different brands and densities:

Silkolene Pro RSF 2.5 SAE real viscosity: 13.60
Silkolene Pro RSF SAE 5: real viscosity: 26.70
FORMULA SAE 5 Putoline GP: real viscosity: 25.10

It is too early to draw conclusions, but I can say that the SAE 2.5 is not suitable for the fork: it produces a terrible rebound.
Also there is a large difference between the various existing SAE5.

I hope I have clarified the concepts weekend. And please note that I am an amateur, not a professional, so my impressions may not be all that accurate than required.

I use SAE 10 fork oil. It does help slow the bound/rebound rate of the forks.

Jear, if you review the chart, you will find that stating the SAE # is virtually meaningless. You will need to list manf & wt to evaluate & compare with other fluids...... it seems this is complicated too!

A contribution on the fork oils
 

Indeed. You are right.

What really matters is not the SAE, as each manufacturer has its own criteria and different. As we have to look is in the actual viscosity (centistokes) and VI to determine the oil quality.

As we all know the hydraulic extension or rebound in our bike is not adjustable, neither with nor with Gold Valve MOTOPro UltraMax. These valves only vary the behavior in compression.
Therefore, the extension or rebound value is determined by the viscosity of the oil we use.

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5085/dscf6701x.jpg




1 - The range of series comes ready to work with an oil KAYABA 01. This oil is very light (15'60), is actually closer to an SAE 4.

2-So far all the complaints of the behavior of the fork are related to problems of rigidity, very soft. Right? But I have read comments that are disgusted with the rebound.

3 - In my particular experience, I usually pass through very broken roads full of small stones and roots. In this type of terrain the suspension of the 2009 KLX250 was very acceptable: absorbs quickly and works relatively well. As a critical point is that if you run into a fairly large obstacle fork sank helplessly. A disaster. We were limited to driving on relatively gentle terrain without steep slopes.


4 - The addition of stiffer springs for rigidity, but not sinking. To solve the soft excess are best valve system that we all know (Gold Valve, Ultramax). They are really eficacez to remove the soft.


5-When I decided to install the GoldValve, I took to replace the OEM oil (18000km) by GP5 Putoline (25'10 centistokes). The result was that I did not like the behavior of the fork. It was hard and dry, especially when passing through tiny obstacles, which requires a fast and smooth. Kill the rock-hard forearms. However, it was excellent for driving on sand, mud, or road. But that was not what I wanted.
Automatically I started working on the shims and lower the settings that I had recommended RACE TECH. But even going to extremes of behavior least shims remained dry, violent. Was I mistaken and had used SAE90?

6-I decided to use a much softer oil: the Silkolene 2.5RSF (13.60). Similarly there was another disaster: the bike showed a very violent bouncing on dry stone. Horror.

7-It was then that I discovered the actual weights table for fork oils and began to understand. After some more tests could determine that our fork works well-for off-road-with parameters around 15.00 (2.5wt Ohlins, Race Tech Light US1, 01 OEM Kayaba, Showa SS-05, Maxima 5wt, etc.) and 20.00 centistokes (Bel Ray HV1, Maxima 7wt, Ohlins 5wt, 5wt Agip, etc), according to the taste of each pilot.
Fork oil weights


8-Currently I have a mixture of 20/30% Silkolene 2.5 (13.60) +70 / 80% Silkolene 5RSF (26.70). in an attempt to get closer to the 15.60 of KAYABA 01.
Some may wonder why not buy directly KYB 01 directly. In the first place where I live is difficult to acquire, and secondly the Silkolene has a much higher VI.

I hope this will be helpful for someone else. Once again I apologize for my pessimism command of language, thanks google!

Greetings and gas for all!
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3184/dscf6702c.jpg

Great info Jeff !!!

Thanks !!

Spot on and good info.

SAE focuses on engine specifications to achieve their rating systems, in addition almost any oil thats SAE will probably have polymers in it to obtain great VI characteristics at a broad range of temperatures... this is cool, but this usually converts the oil from a newtonian fluid to a non-newtonian fluid...
So basically instead of the oil being mostly dependent on temperature for is viscosity factor, it becomes largely dependent on velocity as well for its viscosity factor... this is obviously a poopy condition for your forks on your bike that have ever changing velocity lol

An animated video where I do the test suspension. Greetings!
The Kawa is the best dual purpose!

de paseo....jeje - YouTube

Wow, an amazing track you have there! Wish I could join...

What a cool track, fast and hard packed. Nice post

Jeff I am trying to find stiffer fork springs for my weight, 85 Kg, for 2010 klx.
I need 46 rated springs, { I think } Do you have part numbers for the fork springs you are using and where did you order from?

I only place I could get was in the Pro Moto

Moto-Pro Suspension

Thanks Jeff. Do you have a part number? I cannot find on site and these guys do not reply to my e mails.

Moto Pro Suspension - Company - Woodinville, Washington | Facebook

tlf. +1 425.844.0661

Do not understand why do not respond to e-business have closed ... maybe?

OK thanks Jeff. They replied and are sending .42kg/mm stiffer springs. They also suggested a 5.8Kg/mm rear spring. Did you change yours?

Is your stock spring already a 5.8 or did they change to another rate at some point on the S model?

Yes:
eBay - New & used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods & more at low prices

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2247/dscf6727.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Ajuste amortiguación KLX250S - Kawasaki - 2y4t.com

TNC, According to MOTO PRO web site, the stock spring is 5.5 and recomended is 5.8 for my weight -187 Lbs. The workshop manual tells me nothing...
I checked my Static sag which is 32mm, This seems high. { Bike sagging under own weight }.
The race sag is only at 63 mm, This seems low. { Me and kit on the pegs } My impression is that the stock spring is way too soft innitially and a bit stiff with me on the bike and on trails. Gives a harsh ride, especially over rocks n roots.
Makes no sence to buy another spring with the standard 5.8?

Any suggestions?

Thanks Jeff
Is it better than stock spring?

Unlike the fork springs, the shock absorber spring is the possibility of multiple brands: Eibach, DSP, KYB, Moto-Pro, etc. No problems with that.
They are compatible with KX250 springs fitted with KYB, so there is a large market.

Definitely put springs suitable for the weight of each rider is important, but I would like to make a clarification:
When I installed the stiffer springs (fork as in shock) expected a firmer suspension. While it is true that hardened a little, in my opinion was not enough.
Really where I have noticed difference is installing the fork hydraulic valve system quality, as RaceTech or Moto-Pro.
In the shock I have only 5'8kgm spring and it still seems insufficient (weight 185lb). As you can install a GoldValve as the fork to prevent this excess subsidence, lacking in progressivity, as recommended by TNC.

Diverse Spring Company that manfactures DSP had this to say.. Thanks for your interest in Diverse Spring. Our F6161265XX series shock springs will work on your KLX250S. I would recommend a 6.0 or 6.2 kg/mm shock spring. If the stock spring is just a little too soft, go with the 6.0, but if it is way too soft I would go with the 6.2 kg/mm.

So which is it, 6.0 or 6.2 for my weight? 187 Lbs/ 85 Kg

Tough choice.
I am sure with either an excellent compromise reached after completion of preload to adjust the SAG.
Seeing how soft is my 5'8kg I would go for the 6'2kgm. Especially if you do not plan to install GoldValves.

I have an Eibach 6.0 spring...up from the OEM 5.8...on my '06 model. I weigh 190 pounds nekkid and carry a large Camelback, some tools, and other gear on the bike...quite a few pounds actually on my bigger epic rides. I think a 6.2 would be too heavy for me. I do have Race Tech revalving. Jeff, I think my revalve softened up my rear suspension to where I needed the 6.0. Before that the 5.8 felt just fine. And I guess we can't even compare revalves, as you know when you and I talked on a PM about revalving, my revalve may be noticeably different than yours by my riding needs and preferece.

OK guys, I am going to pull the trigger on the 6.0. I will report back after I fit and ride it.

Thanks a lot for the input.

Yes, I think the 6'0kg is a safe option.
TNC that you say is very interesting. I'll remember that when you install the GoldValve in the rear suspension. I'm wishing for it but the birth of a daughter being delayed. I'm going to be a father within a month!
I wait a bit then.

[birth of a daughter being delayed. I'm going to be a father within a month!
I wait a bit then.[/QUOTE]

Congratulations Jeff. Well done.