Interstate 395

Bright sunshine.
Ignore the bird.

I went out yesterday (Saturday) for another Pachaug rock pile ride on the ol' WR-250FP with it's new/old fork settings.
I think what I have now is a good compromise, giving a good feel and a ridable front-to-rear ride height balance, along with fork action that is willing to absorb the pesky sharp bumps out there.
What did I settle on?
The internal valving was done by Tom at Nasin Machine (the re-revalve), featuring a different base valve piston that is not as restrictive to oil flow, along with shim specs that are to allow for more supple fork movement out on the trail (the stock fork setup was similar to that used in motocross where you don't see the pesky rocks I have to ride over for 60-or-so miles and gives a firm feel with little front end dive under braking).
The oil height is 5mm lower than stock at 145mm from the top.
The fork tube height is lowered 5mm (the fork legs have been slid down 5mm in the triple clamps) in order to raise the ride height back up due to the softer overall fork settings resulting in a lower ride height.

This worked well enough so that I felt satisfied, and, at least for now, no longer feel compelled to mess with the fork settings after each ride.
The sharp bumps are being absorbed in a good manner, and the front height of the bike feels decently-balanced with the rear.
The front does dive a bit more under braking and deceleration, but, at least for now with the current fork internals, that's a trade-off I'm going to have to accept until I feel like pulling the forks off again and try yet another re-revalve.
A re-re-revalve?

The Pachaug loop ride, itself, was only fair, all-in-all, and that was because the sun was out brightly and I had to squint like my life depended on it all over the place.
Well, it does actually depend on it, as hitting a big rock I can't see coming can result in a big crash, you know.
When you can't see well, that puts a big damper on the fun, and things were bad enough that for today's ride (assuming the weather forecast for more bright sun is true) I'll try the two-tinted-goggle-lenses-at-once trick to cut down the brightness and give my eyes a break.

Another thing about yesterday's ride was the use of a new rear tire:
A Michelin AC10, size 100/100-18.
This is a DOT-approved knobby tire, and the Michelin spec sheet lists it as being intended for harder terrain.
My opinion?
As is always the case, it can't match the feel the Bridgestone M22 gives me - even a worn M22.
No other tire has worked as well.

The AC10 was left behind at jerk by some meathead who ordered it but did not pick it up, so, out of curiosity, I decided to try it.
It may be listed as a hard terrain tire, but it simply doesn't feel (or even look) like one.
As all tires I've used seem to be (other than the M22), it prefers dirt where you can sink a knob into it, like loamy dirt with some grass on top of it.
Well, Lenny, there ain't much of that out there on the Pachaug loop, and it's performance over the hard ground and miles of rocks was, basically, a bit skittery-feeling.
It wasn't bad, but I knew the rear grip wasn't as good as the M22 delivers.
If I rate the M22 a 10 (on a scale of 1 to 10), the AC10 is a 6.5 .
Could be better, but at least not a disaster.
Guess what tire I'm putting back on before long.  :)

I plan on another ride today.

-John