Suzuki DR650 Build - Transformation to an Adventure Bike

You're right, one uses a nut and one uses a bolt. It still works. You can see the bushing Jesse made for the smaller DR stem in the larger KTM clamp. Oh and I looked up where I got the idea from. Ron Seida's Building a DR650 Adventure... and he is using a DR650 stem. Check it out lots of pics.

DisTech -

You're the man - a photo helps me out alot. Now I get the bushing placement and use in the upper triple to bush out the dimensional difference between the KTM clamp and the Suzi stem. Thank you very much for posting !

I will also check out Ron Seida's info - did not know that existed either.

THANKS - Dave

Not sure if I like how this turned out or not. I wanted to use a rebuildable inline fuel filter and found the Pingel - same as my fuel petcock manufacturer vs. a clear plastic inline fuel filter. I wanted to be able to clean it if plugged or dirty and not carry a spare plastic filter. Plus the housing is machinjed aluminum and should be tough.

When received it is a bit LARGER than what I had anticipated. Crap.

I have tried to route the fuel line & filter to be away from my legs & boots, tucked up under the tank; and not get hooked on brush or twigs. I also installed fuel line armor to try and avoid any chance of a puncture.

Fuel Filter with cleanable / replaceable insert



Installed




Far away from the cylinder head & heat source



The fuel filter is actually tucked in & under the tank fairly well - view from the top looking down - cannot see the filter or fuel line



Any input or suggestions for improvement ?

Dave

The way the fuel will need to go down and then back up is sure to cause a problem. When you've got the weight of 5 gallons of gas pushing down on it, then it should be OK. But by the time you have only 1/2 a tank of gas left, there may not be enough force on it to push it back up into the carb inlet. In effect, you'll be running out of gas when you're half full. Perhaps a 90 degree elbow to bend it in, or shorten the hose. Either way, the hose shouldn't sag lower than the carb inlet.

Having experimented with various alternative routings with my Safari and a similar style filter, I see no issues with what Dave has done. The Safari presents more challenges because of an even lower head at low fuel levels. What we have here is a siphon and it should stay full. It is air bubbles that cause problems when the line goes up and then down, an inverted siphon, but like this, down and then up, should be fine, especially with the IMS.

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15965467&postcount=157

Steve

Awesome build. Thanks for the photos. Makes very nice reading. I'm in.

Just a questions though. Why ditch the stock carb? I know the throttle response and performance edge etc, but the stock CV is far more forgiving with regard to altitude and climate changes that you'll be encountering. The CV carb is also simpler with fewer parts to go wrong. Plus, the CV is more economical in the area of fuel consumption, which appears to be a minor concern.

Not true.

Good to see you're still at it!

Hope you can balance out the front end. Maybe use a well set up STOCK DR650 to remind yourself how the stock bike should "feel" and handle?
Just as a reference model.

Love the Ohlins .... but obviously way too high. Handling must be scary ...
Watch out for "Moose" bearings. (All Balls)

Regards the 18" conversion ... I believe you've been away from Cent. & S. America a while. The 17" rear tire is more readily available these days.
In fact, the 18" are very hard to find. Lots of local bikes use a 120 or 130/17 ... plus most BMW's, KLR, DR's, XT's and many more.

Here is a quote from Crashmaster's Ride Report. He raves on about this more vehemently in another thread regards time wasted searching for 18" tires. He just did two years and 49,000 miles on his KTM990:

But you can probably use "connections" to stock pile tires in key places ahead of time.

I was curious if your frame was Heat Treated again after the plates were welded in place?

That filter is a beauty IMO. But the real test with any filter using the IMS tank is range ... and does the filter and hose routing allow you to use ALL fuel in the tank. I'd definitely run the tank dry so you know what your "true" range is and so you know if all fuel is available.

I've had mixed results with inline filters ... at times going onto reserve with over 1.5 gal remaining in the tank.

Now, with NO in-line filter (and by rotating inlet fuel tube) I can go about 235 miles before reserve (stock jetted carb). Not sure on the Pingel petcock ... hopefully it allows a longer range for reserve. The stock supplied petcock for the IMS allows only about 10 or 15 miles MAX on reserve! This sucks!

I've run out a few times. But you can often lay the bike over on it's left side ... slosh remaining fuel over to left lobe ... and get a few more miles down the road.

Love to hear a testing report out on rough ground, fully loaded!

Yes, still at it & will be for awhile I think. For me, the experimentation is part of the fun yet at the same time I want to get it done and ride the thing to get it "right". We are sorting out the headstock bearings first, then forks - we'll see how it goes. Handling is indeed a bit scary ad has a pronounced weave to it. I expected it after we had done the initial measurements & reassembly, but was a bit surprised at the effect.

I stopped operating in Central and South America in 2008, but we ran enduro tours, so 18 inch full-knobbies were the rule and not DS tires in 18 inch size. I have read the reports & opinions on 17 inch vs. 18 inch DS tires south of the border. I do plan to do more research on this topic as I get closer to a date for the trip - but that is quite some time in the future.

I went with the 18 inch wheel in part due to the front end / height & also to get the stronger Excel wheel. I still have the 17 inch stock wheel and as you know it is a quick and easy swap if I ultimately elect to use the 17 inch wheel for the trip. For sure no All-Balls bearings after what Jay experienced!

I wondered if anyone would ask about post-weld heat treating. The short answer is no, I did not feel that heat treating the mild-low carbon steel frame was worth the effort, nor had we induced sufficient differential heating to merit post-weld heat treatment IMHO. I am not a metallurgist, but have worked with large bore and small bore nuclear grade welding - including dissimilar metals. Low carbon steel characteristics are just not that affected by the level of heat that we input via the small gussets - in my opinion. My 2 cents.

This bike is a bit of an overall experiment and time & heavy use will prove or disprove what I have done. Should be interesting to see - just hope that I am not stranded somewhere in the Andes ....... I have ridden at high altitude in the Andes Mountains in Peru before and my XR650 and I were both wheezing alot. :eek1

I also plan to carry a 1 or 2 gallon Rotopax fuel container with me - that will be yet another modification project to figure out where that will be mounted and secured.

Lots to do yet, for sure.

Thanks again for your comments, suggestions and observations !

Dave

Kawidad -

Thanks for looking through the thread. Good question on the carb & all I can say is that we'll see with time how the whole package performs - or not.

My opinion is that the Mikuni's overall performance will outweigh any possible negatives on the need to re-jet periodically as the variables in altitude require. Going to the TM40 flatslide carb (or similar) has been one of the most recommended mods by many on this forum and others on the DR650 that I have read.

I am not overly concerned with the cost of fuel, but certainly range is always an issue with how I intend to use my DR650. I need to get the moto finished & rideable and then see how it truly does on fuel economy, true range, resolve any petcock / filter / fuel line routing issues, etc. when ridden on gravel roads, fire roads and tarmac.

I am not planning on any single track use with my DR650, as I have my trusty XR400 for that - another heavy girl, but truly a lightweight compared to my loaded & fully fueled BMW R1200GS/Adventure.

Many riders have quoted 50+ mpg with the stock CV carb on the DR650; while others have quoted similar figures with the flatslide. I don't have any data myself to agree with or to rebut what others have stated.

I did ride my DR650 enough when it was stock to know that I was not too impressed with the stock CV carb or the stock suspension - on light gravel roads and tarmac.

Thanks again for looking and for "following along" on my experiment(s) with the venerable DR650....

Regards - Dave

Yeah, just cruising along the MPG should be very close and could be better with the new carby. The twist of the wrist is where the MPG goes way down because of the accelerator pump.

BTW, whoever is doing your welding is a true artist. Those welds are a thing of beauty. And, the way you approached the frame gussets are really nice and appear to be well thought out and well executed. Jolly good show.

Kawidad -

Ha, ha !! Absolutely, twist the wrist and watch the range [mpg] go away quickly - you got it !

Thanks much for the compliment on the welds. I will let my welder know - he is an artist and is super creative. He has more talent in his little finger than I could ever even HOPE to have. I am always envious of people that have fantastic fabrication talents.

regards - Dave

If its jetted correctly, there is almost no difference in economy. On my recent trip, my FCR equipped DR650 was the second most economical bike of the 4 DR650s on the trip. The shape of the top of the airbox also makes a difference in my experience for both stock and pumper carbs. The usual cutout as per Jesse and MxRob works fine. I have tried some different arrangements, as has a mate of mine, and throttle response and economy suffered.

And in more technical terrain where you are on and off the throttle, and maybe the economy suffers a little, its a far more enjoyable ride. However, if you only cruise, a pumper is probably not worth the effort.

Steve

Nice build Dave - thanks for the time and effort. (I wish that I could put the time in to complete my build write up).

As BergDonk said, the carb upgrade is worth the extra enjoyment. I havent tested my fcr enough to post economy results but when I do, i'll post the results.

I took BergDonks recommendations and sent my Ohlins, and WP4860's to Frank Pons and on my first brief ride today, I was impressed.

I'm not sure if you noted the way I adapted the headstem/ bearing fit but for now it works. With the money that you seem to be spending on the build, I'd go the machining a new stem option to fit the DR ID's straight-up. I will also travel this path in the future.

Good luck with the build Vs time! I'm tuned in.

OK - we have been measuring, thinking, re-working and using the lathe. We knew going into this that the Ohlins forks were longer and would therefore affect steering geometry - how much we did not know.

Here is a set of pics that places each of the forks - stock Suzuki, KTM WPs and Ohlins legs side-by-side, using an axle through all 3 fork legs to align the centerlines of the axles of each leg and then measure the fork length difference.




Lining up the top of the Suzuki fork legs at the fork caps and then measuring off the length differentials between the three sets of forks.

The Ohlins and WP are tapered legs at the top - hence some daylight visible at the top of the Ohlins leg with the square attached to it. I am decently square to the longitudinal centerline of the fork legs. Photo angle distorts the perspective a little.




The Ohlins leg looks to be approximately 46 mm longer than the stock Suzuki fork leg when measured from the axle centerline.



The WP leg looks to be "approximately" 38.5 mm longer than the stock Suzuki forks.




We know that the Ohlins forks, with the fork caps set at the top of the KTM triple clamp produces some evil weave and handling issues. Therefore, we decided to work on keeping the fork leg distance / length from the lower triple clamp to the axle centerline as close to stock as possible for the next setup & test.

In order to do this, we had to design a longer steering stem with a bushing to effectively raise the upper triple clamp to accomodate the extra length of the Ohlins forks. This - we think - will have three primary benefits:

1) it will raise the bars - I had thought about using bar risers anyway

2) it will provide additional clearance for ease of ignoition key removal and use

3) it will provide additional clearance for headlight and windscreen vertical adjustments

This move, if we decide to keep it after testing it, will require a re-work of the ignition switch locking mechanism to the headstock. We think spacers can be made to solve this height issue. We do not know about cable length and any possible binding issues until we get the bike back together and see if we have any problems.

My machinist friend drew up a dimensional diagram, we measured yet again and turned a new 6061 stem on the lathe. He also fabricated a new 6061 bushing to our dimensions to effectively raise the upper triple clamp and provide the required height for the Ohlins lork legs.



He used liquid nitrogen to shrink the newly turned stem and dropped the new stem into the lower triple and dropped the bearing on the new stem. Once all the parts returned to ambient temperature, the interference fit for the new stem and the lower bearing with dust cap was perfect.

New aluminum bushing for use between the upper triple clamp and the upper headstock bearing.



Here is the new stem installed in the lower triple clamp with the old KTM stem beside it in its approximate relative position as if it were installed. This is just to provide a rough idea of the extra length on the new stem.



Here are the calipers on the new stem that has an upper and lower end to match the KTM triple clamps perfectly, lengthened for the Ohlins forks, yet diameter turned to match the stock Suzuki 30 mm ID NTN bearings with dust cap.

At the lower bearing & triple clamp with interference fit dimension & yes I whacked my left hand getting one of the old bearing races out of the headstock.........




Upper bearing surface - slip fit only.

Note the dimension - varies at 29.97 to 29.98. Should work well.




First test fitup of newly fabricated KTM steering stem, sized for Suzuki 30mm bearings with upper bushing to accomodate Ohlins forks.



Another view from underneath the upper triple clamp.



No interference between lower headstock surface and lower triple clamp. This verifies that the shoulder for the lower bearing position that we cut into the new steering stem was placed correctly. The position of the lower bearing will not allow the lower headstock to interfere with the rotation of the steering assembly; or allow the lower triple clamp to rub on the headstock anywhere.



Obviously we will have to lower the ignition switch and locking mechanism to engage with the headstock properly. I am hoping to have the forks back on, the new headstock bearings installed & pre-loaded and test ride the bike sometime this weekend. I want to see what the effects are to the bike from the geometry changes and bar position changes.

Thanks for looking - Dave

You may find with that setup that with the extra travel of the Ohlins forks, your front wheel will bottom under the guard before the forks bottom. This can instantly stop or slow the front wheel. Same effect as grabbing a handfull of front brake with the front suspension fully compressed.

Yes, you are correct. We are going to stroke the Ohlins forks to bottoming and attempt to determine the full stroke length & then the tire / fender clearance. I would rather not find out the hard way.

Thanks for the comment & input - Dave

I did a USD swap on my DL so I have kinda looked at this experiment. I got a push bike rim with the same OD as the standard rim with tire and then just moved it up the forks knowing the amount of travel the forks had. Its a bit backyard but found a close result without to may complications. Might work...

why not just bolt on an rm/drzsm usd fork?:huh

adjust spring and valves to new weight