Wilsons Sandbox

scott_in_alaska wrote:

>I spent some time at buykawasaki.com and wondered why some on the >list are enamored with sticking a KLX 650 upsidedown front forks on >their bike? The frames arn't even the same. I understand the >reasoning for stiffer froks and all >

The KLR forks aren't as hard to break as you'd think. I broke a slider and Zack's been through three sets of tubes.

>but wouldn't it make more sense >to use some conventional 43mm forks off a KDX or something? I'd >imagine that there would be fewer mods needed for the triple clamps >

The klr has 38mm forks not 43, so you will need to change the triples regardless. Plus the klr stem is longer and thinner than most, so no neat tricks getting special head bearings. Since you have to graft the KLR stem into different triples, you might as well get something that looks cool. Or something you get cheap, like the set of DRZ forks I have on my A15. http://216.173.6.149/stem_machining_site/KLRZ_650_S.html

>and that the front end would be lower but you would still get >additional travel. I was thinking the forks off a mid 80's Yamaha IT >200 would be ideal since they were 43mm, and had 10" of travel. I >don't see the need for 11"-12" of front travel if you don't increase >the rear travel. Doesn't that turn the KLR into something of a >chopper? > > >

No, the front has more travel, but I run more sag up front so the the ride height is about the same. The front end is a lot more stable over rough rocks, and hitting bumps while cornering at speed on the road doesn't knock the front end off line. It's pretty nice. Though I had the stock KLR front end dialed in pretty good by the time I did the swap, I was frustrated by KHI's quality control. The second set of forks I had, with the same setup as my original ones, worked completely differently. Depending on whether the lathe operator at Kayaba had a three-sake-lunch or not determines the quality of your front end. Devon Devon

On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 15:59, scott_in_alaska wrote:

> I spent some time at buykawasaki.com and wondered why some on the > list are enamored with sticking a KLX 650 upsidedown front forks on > their bike?

I am largely responsible for the KLX fork phenomenon. I had heard that someone had upgraded the KLR with KLX forks, but I was unable to determine what was done to fit them. Being that the information available out there for us fork swappers is limited, I dove head first and simply bought a set. The nice thing about the KLX (and DRZ) forks for that matter is that they're in production on the KLX300s and KLX400s, so there are plenty of parts and upgrades available for them. And to boot, you get much better brakes!!

> The frames arn't even the same.

Duh. I very much doubt that anything shares the same front end (headtube) dimensions with the KLR. It's got a very long, thin (in comparison to the KLX) stem, even road bikes don't have headtubes in the same ratio, but I would be happy to have someone show me a bike with good forks that has the same dimensions.

> I understand the > reasoning for stiffer froks and all but wouldn't it make more sense > to use some conventional 43mm forks off a KDX or something?

Again, I picked the KLX forks because I had heard that *someone* had done it and because I found someone selling all the parts that I needed. I didn't pick them because I thought USDs were better than RSUs. The 38mm spaghetti sticks are way too easy to bend and according the good people at Forking by Frank they are some of the thinnest wall fork tubes they make... All I wanted was something bigger and stiffer [don't we all?]

> I'd > imagine that there would be fewer mods needed for the triple clamps > and that the front end would be lower but you would still get > additional travel.

See above, unless you find a bike with the same headtube and bearing race diameters, you'll end up designing a set of shims exactly like Jake's to fit the KLR stem in the new triples or turning a whole new stem. Again, I'd *love* to be proven wrong, so put your money where your mouth is...

> I was thinking the forks off a mid 80's Yamaha IT > 200 would be ideal since they were 43mm, and had 10" of travel. I > don't see the need for 11"-12" of front travel if you don't increase > the rear travel. Doesn't that turn the KLR into something of a > chopper?

A tiny bit, but it makes much more stable on the highway and it doesn't make a difference off road since the forks will be active and off road I'd rather have too much travel than too little. My KLX650R equipped KLR is more stable on the highway than my KLX650C equipped KLR due to the 4" difference in fork length. This doesn't work out to 4" more of trail, because with 11"+ of travel you can still set 3"-6" of static sag without negatively affecting the suspension. I have no idea what an IT-200 is, but I do know one thing: it's out of production, so even though parts for KLX's and DRZ's aren't the easiest to come across, they're easier than parts for a bike no longer in production. Z DC A5X A12X

> Duh.

I didn't realize there was so much difference in head tubes and triple clamps between two Kawasaki motorcycles. Thanks for clearing that up so eloquently. Again, I'd *love* to be proven wrong, so put your money where your

> mouth is...

Lighten up. I simply asked a question. I've noticed that most of the guys on this site are 40+ years old and don't come from a dirt bike background. Sticking an 11"-12" travel front fork on a bike with 9" in the rear doesn't make for ideal geometry. The KLR already pushes the front end in the dirt. To purposely slacken the head tube angle even more is too much of a compromise to gain some rigidity IMO. More power to you if you believe your conversion is the greatest thing since sliced bread, however, I've not noticed any instability with my KLR while on the highway. Evidently some can ride, some can't. The IT 200 is a Yamaha dirt bike produced in the mid eighties. I won't be doing a conversion like this to my KLR since I don't think it is worth the time, $, effort, or compromises that have to be put up with. Besides, when I ride offroad, I'd much rather ride my 115lb lighter KDX. Scott

scott_in_alaska wrote:

> > Lighten up. I simply asked a question. I've noticed that most of the > guys on this site are 40+ years old and don't come from a dirt bike > background.

I'm 32, and never rode a motorcycle in dirt until May '01. I live in the city, don't own a car (or pickup truck), and if I want to ride offroad I have to ride the bike to get there.

> Sticking an 11"-12" travel front fork on a bike with 9" > in the rear doesn't make for ideal geometry.

In theory, it doesn't. But if you just run some extra sag, you're back down to the same travel as the stock front end- except it's nearly impossible to kick the front wheel off the ground. And then the bike holds its line much better on washboard, rocks, or potholed 3rd world NYC streets.

> The KLR already pushes > the front end in the dirt. To purposely slacken the head tube angle > even more is too much of a compromise to gain some rigidity IMO.

See above. Better suspension keeps the tire on the ground, and the bike tends to push less. Also, the KLR has a front weight bias compared to a dirtbike, the pushing is too much weight, not too little.

> More > power to you if you believe your conversion is the greatest thing > since sliced bread, however, I've not noticed any instability with my > KLR while on the highway.

Tire wear, luggage, and windshields all affect highway stability. How drunk the machinist at Kayaba was when he made your particular set of forks will also affect this. Also, since in the end the geometry isn't much different, KLX and DRZ forks are simple harder to bend or break.

> Evidently some can ride, some can't.

Evidently some can't ride anything over 240lbs in the dirt. And some think "dirt" means a fire road. I like riding places where you can't fit anything more than two wheels, and I ride with others because a KLR that's stuck deep in the mud takes more than one person to get out.

> Besides, when I ride offroad, I'd much rather ride my 115lb > lighter KDX. > Scott

That doesn't work when you have 100mi of highway to get to the trails you are riding. Devon A15

> Duh. I very much doubt that anything shares the same front end > (headtube) dimensions with the KLR. It's got a very long, thin (in > comparison to the KLX) stem, even road bikes don't have headtubes

in the

> same ratio, but I would be happy to have someone show me a bike with > good forks that has the same dimensions.

I was unaware that motorcycle head tubes and triple clamps varied so much. Thanks for pointing that out so eloquently. Again, I'd *love* to be proven wrong, so put your money where your

> mouth is... >

Lighten up. I simply asked a question. I've noticed that most of the guys on this site are 40+ years old and don't come from a dirt bike background. Sticking a 11"-12" travel front fork on a bike with only 9" in the rear doesn't make for ideal geometry. The KLR already pushes the front end in the dirt. Too purposely slacken the head tube angle even more is too much of a compromise to gain some rigidity IMO. To each his own and if you think your conversion is the best thing since sliced bread then more power to you. Funny, I've not noticed my KLR being unstable on the highway. Evidently, some can ride, some can't. The IT 200 is a Yamaha dirt bike produced in the mid eighties. I won't be doing a conversion like this in the future because it isn't worth the time, $ or effort. When I ride offroad I ride my 110lb lighter KDX. Scott

At 6:02 PM +0000 5/6/03, scott_in_alaska wrote:

>I won't be doing a conversion like this to my KLR since I don't think >it is worth the time, $, effort, or compromises that have to be put >up with. Besides, when I ride offroad, I'd much rather ride my 115lb >lighter KDX. >Scott

I dunno, you should see the way Zack, Devon and Tumu cut through the gnarly stuff. Granted, they're good riders already, but I think the KLX/DRZ front ends give them even more of an advantage as I saw them soak up the big bumps. Anyone can slice through the woods on a tiny bike, but it take balls to do it on a KLR, and that's part of the fun... riding it on an interstate for 200 miles, showing the woods who's boss for a couple of days, and then riding home. Mark

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "scott_in_alaska" >

> Sticking an 11"-12" travel front fork on a bike with 9" in the

rear doesn't make for ideal geometry. The KLR already pushes the front end in the dirt. To purposely slacken the head tube angle even more is too much of a compromise to gain some rigidity IMO. > Of course, the 11-12" of travel is at an angle, not entirely vertical so it's not like you add 3" of front end drop at full compression. And I don't notice a difference in the pushing effect with the KLX front end. Just in the ability to handle harsh terrain and big whoops at speed.

> > I won't be doing a conversion like this to my KLR since I don't

think it is worth the time, $, effort, or compromises that have to be put up with. Besides, when I ride offroad, I'd much rather ride my 115lb lighter KDX. > I'd rather ride your KDX too but it would suck on the usual 2-3hour trip to get to the areas I often ride. I don't know what compromises you would have to put up with if you did the conversion, but no matter what you do with a KLR, there are compromises. Ahh compromise...the middle name of any biker...

On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 14:02, scott_in_alaska wrote:

> > Duh. > > I didn't realize there was so much difference in head tubes and > triple clamps between two Kawasaki motorcycles. Thanks for clearing > that up so eloquently.

Well, you were assuming that frames were the same and you based your comments on that. It would have been one thing to say "I noticed that the KLX doesn't even have the same frame, so how did you all come up with a way to use the forks?" or "The frames are totally different, did you look for other bikes with similar frames before picking the KLX?", but instead you came out with a critique of the choice without any knowledge of the actual process or decisions made to make it possible.

> Again, I'd *love* to be proven wrong, so put your money where your > > mouth is... > > Lighten up. I simply asked a question. I've noticed that most of the > guys on this site are 40+ years old and don't come from a dirt bike > background. Sticking an 11"-12" travel front fork on a bike with 9" > in the rear doesn't make for ideal geometry.

Well, you said that "I understand the reasoning for stiffer froks and all but wouldn't it make more sense to use some conventional 43mm forks off a KDX or something?" And I said no it wouldn't necessarily make more sense for reasons X,Y,Z, but PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG. Your comments were not based on any actual fact, they were simply all conjecture. My statement are based on my work and I have two (five if you count Tumu's KLRX's, and Devon KLRZ) to prove it! And FYI: The KLX650C has 9" of suspension travel, same as the KLR. The KLX650R has more, 11+" I believe. Devon can speak to the DR-Z conversion.

> The KLR already pushes the front end in the dirt. To purposely slacken the head tube angle > even more is too much of a compromise to gain some rigidity IMO.

But wouldn't slackening the head tube angle *reduce* the front end pushing? And who said the head tube angle is slackened? On my A5X-C, I believe the angle is actually steeper than stock. On my A12X-R, the opposite. This is irrelevant anyhow as the KLR's problem is a forward weight bias.

> More > power to you if you believe your conversion is the greatest thing > since sliced bread, however, I've not noticed any instability with my > KLR while on the highway. Evidently some can ride, some can't.

Never said it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It serves a very explicit purpose for me and for my riding needs. And I never said that the KLR was unstable on the highway, I said that my A12X-R is *more* stable than my A5X-C on the highway because of the longer KLX650R forks. I never compared them to a stock KLR.

> The IT 200 is a Yamaha dirt bike produced in the mid eighties.

Right, and my point was that it *was* (i.e. no longer *is*) produced in eighties. And if you'd read my email you'd see that my reason was to pick something currently in production.

> I won't be doing a conversion like this to my KLR since I don't think > it is worth the time, $, effort, or compromises that have to be put > up with. Besides, when I ride offroad, I'd much rather ride my 115lb > lighter KDX. > Scott

Great then DON'T do it. Jeezus, it's not like anyone is forcing you to do a front end conversion. I love answering questions about the front end conversion, but your *comments* about the conversion are 1) unsupported by fact 2) reflect that you did zero research as to why we (Devon, Tumu and I) have done the conversions and 3) Assumed that even in light of #1 and #2 you have an authoritative position on the subject and could offer your insightful comments about it. I have no problem with critique as long as you've got a valid POV, fact and research to present with it. I am happy that you have a KDX to ride offroad. I unfortunately don't and can't... I live in the city and I can't afford a truck and trailer, and the nearest dirt is 2 hours away. Could you have ridden your KDX 220 miles from DC to PA, then spent 2 days off-roading, then turned around and ridden 220 miles back to DC? No. I dunno why this has irked me so much, but flame ON! Z DC A5X A12X