FE 450e '06 Suspension..Please help!

there is lots of opinions on suspension setup, personally I like to stiffen up the springs, then back off compression damping. My 06 setup was perfect with 8.8 rear spring and 4.8 fork spring, make sure your sag setting are in check, fork sag is as important as shock sag.

It depends upon where you ride. I found my '06 suspension to be really good for 4th gear and up, 3rd gear stuff was OK, but 1st and 2nd gear rocks was not good. I am having the high speed dampening loosened up in an effort to find nirvana. The WP does has HSD adjustment in the shock, but not the forks.

hello sandman

have you looked at 'the doc'? it's on the right of your screen.

go into 'forums' then 'handling and suspension'. there you will find lot's of good threads including one that is active today about setting your suspension for enduros.

if you put up where you are from?
how much you weigh?
how quick and the type of riding?
what you think is wrong right now with your suspension?

i weigh 200 pounds/90KG naked and i have .048 springs front and a PDS4 rear (85/111 by 250). by dilligently getting your sag correct, then adjusting the clickers we can get you very close before you decide to spend money.

regards

Taffy

Having read seemingly hundreds of posts on the UHE and KTMtalk regarding suspension tuning, I am amazed at the range of settings being used. The rear end seems to be the biggest mystery of all to me.

Sandman, how much do you weigh? What type of riding do you do? Are you fast?

the std rear spring is and 80-250, does that equate to a 8.0 kg? According to my parts book that is the heaviest spring available. That seems odd, if a 9.2 is the recommended spring for a twig like me (175 lbs).
Is the fork spring a 4.4 standard? I think I read that the WEC bikes came with a 4.6 fork spring. Can anyone confirm any or all of this?

tm-enduro said:

the std rear spring is and 80-250, does that equate to a 8.0 kg? According to my parts book that is the heaviest spring available. That seems odd, if a 9.2 is the recommended spring for a twig like me (175 lbs).
Is the fork spring a 4.4 standard? I think I read that the WEC bikes came with a 4.6 fork spring. Can anyone confirm any or all of this?

Click to expand...

.44 is standard, don't know anything about the WEC bikes. My '05 parts book shows alternate rear springs up to 8.8.

9.2 is too much spring for a 175 pound rider. You'll have too much free sag. I'd set the free sag on your bike to 35mm and then see what the race sag is. I'll bet it is close to the optimum--100-105mm.

9.2 on a Husaberg will accomodate a 220 pound rider, easy, IMO.

sorry john

can't agree. just fitted a 9.5 to my mates ktm that i've done three races on. preload is now 3 times around which as you know is 6mm. that is considered the optimum preload i believe.

so 9.5 for a 200 pounder - nekid! also i think you're wrong to suggest that husabergs handle best with 100-105 sag on them. after a lot of testing i found between 95-100 was best, i actually discovered 97mm one day and have never gone back but i also haven't gone further forward with it to new territory's like 95mm or 90mm or if you run the old chassis - to 85mm. if you haven't tried it yet john, please lock yourself in the woods for the day and try and get around a few trees.

even the factory say 90-105 which puts your suggestion on the maximum while on my ol' gal you'd be inviting me to join the all usa chopper riders ***.

TM to know what they TRUTHFULLY run in a WEC bike is to know which way they valve the bikes so you will not get a straight answer to that - sorry mate but they'll be lying to keep their stuff secret.

last night i further added to the rear suspension part of the doc and now offer a rough guide to which straight rate you need for your weight. it's based purely on what seem to be sensible riders who have tried B2B stuff etc on the 'pin it' part of ktalk. the numbers for a 175 pounder crunch out at 9.2Kg.

very useful section. when i was at school there was 'mean' and another one where you took the end ones off and then did a mean. also another where you put them in order and took the middle one. began with M also.

ah what the hell...

i'm trying to be helpful. i'm just saying you aren't right at 8.0 and i think john will agree with at least that much.

regarding the .46s on the front, well the faster you go the more stable a bike must be and "immediately", that word "immediately" is the most important one. so i believe it. if i'm a 200 pounder with .48s and a clubman rider then GDR (see my american blaspheming is coming along nicely!) they're .46s!!!!!

there is now becoming a plethora of used springs coming onto the market TM so keep an eye out at the orange room/e bay etc....

regards

Taffy

Taffy
The WEC bikes come in different varieties. As far as I know, all the WEC bikes are basically laid out with the al tanks and 4.6 kg forks, and akra exhaust, etc. Folks like Bjorne and Joakim get special frames, and use single use before total overhall forks / shocks.

Springs will be easy. With the help of the local tuner, I will test the springs and then buy the one that works for me. He is treating me well. This will happen in December or so, after the WORCS season is over.

Taffy,
I got 35 mm of sag and "close " to 100mm (Ithink it was 102) of sag with a 8.8 out of my '05 Husaberg, and I go 220. That is why I said that for TM, his weight at 175, I think a 9.2 is too heavy. I currently run a 9.0-11.5 Factory Connection spring, and like it

Also, why did KTM and Husaberg in '05 go to a 8.0 stock from a 8.8 stock in '04? The internal valving on the newer sbocks reqiure a lighter spring, IMO.

I'm with ya on the earlier KTM's. They work best with heavier springs. I have never ridden another Husaberg besides my own, so I don't have a further point of reference there as far as the pre '04-framed ones handle.

Either way, the proper way (I think, anyways) to evaluate a rear spring for a husaberg is to set the static or free sag at 35mm and then check the race sag. If you like 90mm, fine shoot for 90. This way should point you in the right direction as far as proper spring rate.

I like the touch more trail I gain by running a bit more sag, hence the 105mm I use. I tried less sag and was getting some nasty oversteer, where the front would bite, and the rear would try to pass the front. Maybe it works better since it is the updated '04 and up frame. There are tons of variables, plus personal preferences invovled.

I am trying to make it to Moab for the Force ride. Maybe you can throw a leg over mine and see what you think. I only weigh a bit more than you anyway. It sure handles sweet, much better than my KTM.

john

the numbers on the PDS are always lower so a 71/90 that becomes a straight 80 is just the way it is. it is significant that they've gone to a straight rate and will probably have the later needle in them that KTM put in theirs from '06 model onwards. husaberg have often led ktm by one model year.

your right the later model may be different and it may be like comparing apples to pears.

one thing i think you're wrong on though is concentrating on the sag first and race sag second. race sag is the riason d'etre. we need this number last so why not start with it as well.

i always set my race sag as how i last tested the bike and liked the handling of. that way, the 'pitch' of the bike is the same - now how does this new spring/shimstack/gizmo feel?

the OEM stuff is geared up for very light riders and nearly everyone - especially stateside i guess - has to uprate the springs. easy money to the importer...

how can you go on about the handling as a closed finish when you, like me , are still testing? the new rear spring might be the thing that changes the handling. and even more so if you went for sag over race sag. IMHO of course.

the figures i took from the ktm tonight with it's 95Kg straight-rate in it were:
112 and 42. the bike is very, very slow in the woods so i'll probably drop the clamps down the legs and see if it doesn't liven it up. but more than that, the bike washes through easily on some stuff so that 112 could become 105 soon which is less than the golden rule at ktalk.

so i expect that it'll be 105-107 and 35-37. less wash through and better handling as well. that just leaves a set of 16-18TCs to try and again let the clamps down the legs.

regards

Taffy

anyone tried racetech progressive rate rear spring?

Taffy said:

john

the numbers on the PDS are always lower so a 71/90 that becomes a straight 80 is just the way it is. it is significant that they've gone to a straight rate and will probably have the later needle in them that KTM put in theirs from '06 model onwards. husaberg have often led ktm by one model year.

your right the later model may be different and it may be like comparing apples to pears.

one thing i think you're wrong on though is concentrating on the sag first and race sag second. race sag is the riason d'etre. we need this number last so why not start with it as well.

i always set my race sag as how i last tested the bike and liked the handling of. that way, the 'pitch' of the bike is the same - now how does this new spring/shimstack/gizmo feel?

the OEM stuff is geared up for very light riders and nearly everyone - especially stateside i guess - has to uprate the springs. easy money to the importer...

how can you go on about the handling as a closed finish when you, like me , are still testing? the new rear spring might be the thing that changes the handling. and even more so if you went for sag over race sag. IMHO of course.

the figures i took from the ktm tonight with it's 95Kg straight-rate in it were:
112 and 42. the bike is very, very slow in the woods so i'll probably drop the clamps down the legs and see if it doesn't liven it up. but more than that, the bike washes through easily on some stuff so that 112 could become 105 soon which is less than the golden rule at ktalk.

so i expect that it'll be 105-107 and 35-37. less wash through and better handling as well. that just leaves a set of 16-18TCs to try and again let the clamps down the legs.

regards

Taffy

Click to expand...

The reason I mention free sag first is it does give you an indication of proper spring rate, i.e; if you hit your intended race sag number, but don't have any free sag, you have too much preload on the spring and need a heavier one. If you have 50mm of free sag with 100mm race sag, you need a lighter spring.

I completely agree with you that race sag is the more important number, but I do think free sag has merit in determining proper spring rate.

cangokaw said:

anyone tried racetech progressive rate rear spring?

Click to expand...

These springs are supposed to mimic the Japanese (linkage) bikes rising rate for the rear. They are VERY progressive (large spread between begin and end rates). I have not tried one, but I have sure seen a lot of used ones for sale.

Johnf

The Race-tech spring has WAY to wide a progression ramp-up. It weighs a ton too...

ktmlew said:

Johnf

The Race-tech spring has WAY to wide a progression ramp-up. It weighs a ton too...

Click to expand...

I figured something was wrong since there are so many used ones for sale...

Again, I advise anyone to try MX-Tech's shock system. MXA gave them a 5-star (out of 5) for their KTM shock and called it simply "the best suspension you'll find on any KTM".

Link to MXA article

I can even get the first couple interested people to PM me a good discount.

Yes, I webmaster for MX-Tech but if the result was crap I would say so or just would not say anything.

The problem (as I see it) with PDS, is that you can put on a progressive spring, but you still have straight compression and rebound dampening. You can even give it more progressive compression, but rebound does not change. You get the exact opposite of what you want, when you rebound from a big jump (full compression of rearend), you get fast rebound due to the big wire, and when it gets to the end of the stroke, the rebound slows, so yo ueffectively get fast rebound on big hits and slow rebound in the roots and rocks. I have yet to hear of postions sensitive rebound control. Please feel free to disagree.

john

do you like your FC PDS spring? it's one step on from the last WP. i'm amazed WP don't make far more springs to cater for the big boys.

regards

Taffy