[Steering and Handling Discussion.] - ATV Riders Forums - Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Polaris, CanAm, Arctic Cat, Kymco ATVsPages:1
Steering and Handling Discussion.
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: 400exrider707
DISCLAIMER: If you do not want to learn anything, or feel you are not going to have anything productive to say in this thread, dont even bother reading below this line, this is for people who like to add factual information, and for people who are in the dark on the subject and want to learn something. Please feel free to ask questions or add more technical information to this discussion at any time.
I am going to use this thread as an open area for members to discuss steering and suspension and how certain pieces effect others. There has been an overwhelming number of people asking about wheel spacers recently, as well, more than a few talking about diamond J custom widening kits. I feel like it is unfair to not explain the theories behind these "add-ons" to people who dont understand them. We all had to learn at some point. Some people get offended when then realize that the inexpensive route isn't going to work and start looking for excuses to make it work. There will be no arguing of this in here, this is strictly technical information, with facts.
To start with, lets explain what a "perfect" setup is for an ATV. First things first, you have an atv frame with your basic dual a-arm setup. Dual a-arms are the way to go with front suspension. Using two arms creates four (4) pivot points. You have two (2) pivot points at the frame, and you have two (2) pivot points at the spindle. If you were to draw an imaginary line looking straight on at this, you would have a square, or a parallelogram, depending at what angle the arms are to the frame. This allows the spindle to remain at the same camber angle through its entire travel. This is only if both the upper and lower a-arm are parallel to each other. This would be the "ideal setup." However you can alter the mounting points at either the spindle or the frame to achieve a camber gain/loss through travel. You can do this by making the upper and lower arm unparallel. This is also quite common to see on some buggies and some offroad vehicles. I wont get into it to much more as of now, I want to keep this as basic and technical as possible.
Next area of focus is your spindle/wheel assembly. Your spindle is mounted to the a-arms, which holds the hub and then the wheel. To understand the ideal setup at this point, imagine a line drawn through both the upper and lower balljoints (or heims) that attach the a-arms to the spindle. You would want this line to travel through the pivot point of each. Now since most atv spindles are setup so that the upper balljoint is closer to the frame than the lower, your line should start from the atv and move away as it goes towards the ground, it will not be a straight up and down line, it will be angled. To make your handling ideal, this line should pass through the centerpoint of your contact patch on your tire. This is often why we see racers using an offset rims of 4:1 (see the FAQ section at the top of the page to understand wheel offsets). The 4:1 rim brings that centerpoint of the contact patch closer to this imaginary line, if not right on it, depending on setup. Having the centerpoint of the contact patch directly in line with your balljoint pivot points will create the least amount of effort to steer. Running a different offset rim like a 3:2 which is close to stock, moves this patch away from that pivot point line. This in turn puts more leverage on the "steering" Wheel spacers do the same thing, they essentially move the centerpoint of that contact patch away from the balljoint pivot points. This is why wheel spacers DECREASE handling efficiency. Sure they might make it harder to tip over, but at what cost? This is why I suggest to stay away from flipped/large offset rims and wheel spacers.
Last major important part of handling is your tie rod ends. You might say what the heck do these have to do with anything? A LOT is the answer. The location of your tie rod ends at both the spindel and the steering stem play a major role in bumpsteer. Bumpsteer is when your wheels steer themselves without input from the handlebars. It is caused from the suspension going through its cycles (moving up and down over terrain) and having improper location of steering linkages (tie rods and tie rode ends on quads). This is easy to demonstrate yourself is you so choose, it is always easiest to see this rather than read this on here. Jack your front end of your quad off the ground so the tires are not touching. Take one of your front shocks off. Now have the handlebars locked in a centered position (have a buddy hold it), now grab the tire/wheel and move it up and down. Watch as the front of the tire will point in and point out. This is the action of bumpsteer. I have yet to see a factory quad that came with NO bumpsteer. The cause of this on many quads is the location of the tie rod ends on the steering stem. To have NO bumpsteer, your tie rod ends must fall into these imaginary pivot point planes that we have been talking about. At the spindle, the tie rod end must fall on a plane with the balljoint pivot points (this one is generally hard to picture cause you only have an imaginary line instead of a plane) At the frame, the tie rod end pivots must fall on the plane of the a-arm pivots. As you can see on your quad, this is not the case at the frame. Your tie-rod ends are further inboard mounted on the steering stem. This is what causes bumpsteer for most atv's today. Kawasaki has tried combating this with their new frame design. By making the frame narrower in the front, it brings the a-arm pivot points in closer to the tie-rod ends on the steering stem, helping to rid of some unwanted bumpsteer. Laeger has also tried the same concept and as far as I know were the original company with the narrow frame. Many have heard of this, maybe not everyone understood the concept behind it, but it is the same, just bringing the a-arm pivot points in closer to the tie rod ends on the steering stem. The Diamond J custom kits, which seemed to die off for a while, but are back in question again, do the exact opposite of what Kawasaki and laeger have done. They widen your quad sure, but they drastically increase bumpsteer by moving the pivot point of the a-arms much further away from tie rod end pivot points, this creates a LOT of bumpsteer. You do not need to ride this setup to tell this, it is a simple mechanical design.
We will start here with this for now, anyone who wants to post questions/comments you are more than welcome. Also I know there are a few pictures floating around that will help explain a lot of this, if you are having a hard time visualizing. If anyone has any pics that they think will help, I ask that you do not post them in here as I would like them to go into each separate section of the original post, instead email them to me (send me a PM to let me know you emailed them) and I will post them up in this post, in an attempt to keep it clean, detailed and easy to follow. If not I will attempt to find more pics in the next few days and add them as we go along. Thanks.
Posted by: zrpilot
400exrider707,
That is an informative and factual explanation.
I can hardly wait until the next lesson! I hope you will go into the following topics ( not in any order)
What camber and castor are and how changing them effects handling
Toe and how it effects handling
Extended length A-arms and their advantages/disadvantages
I'm sure others may have suggestions as well so I'll shut up and listen....
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by zrpilot
400exrider707,
That is an informative and factual explanation.
I can hardly wait until the next lesson! I hope you will go into the following topics ( not in any order)
What camber and castor are and how changing them effects handling
Toe and how it effects handling
Extended length A-arms and their advantages/disadvantages
I'm sure others mat have suggestions as well so I'll shut up and listen....
As long as at least one person learns something, then I am more than happy to explain more. Castor and Camber are very important I think I will do them next, as well as how to set castor and camber. I will wait til around tuesday to do so (when I get back from vacation) and hopefully snape some useful pics over the weekend!
Posted by: culichi
i know this is not the tpic but can u describe what components does a suspension have and ecything i want to konw about suspensions
Posted by: Louie
NOW THAT'S SOME GOOD STUFF. With nearly 6000 posts these are the type of people to learn from. That should be in a text book somewhere, or at least a sticky. This will be helpfull when i widend the ol' 400ex. Thanks
Posted by: 400exrider707
Ok, I should be able to grab a camera for tomorrow, I will take pics of everything I already talked about, and hopefully get a section typed up about castor and camber, and tie it into a-arm design. I can also talk about ackerman to as well, but we'll save that for later.
Posted by: Flyin-Low
As you mentioned in the first post, you are yet to see an ATV with zero bumpsteer, but doesn't Polaris claim exactly that with their front design on the Predator (maybe the outlaw too?).
Might have to check out that setup as well. I'm curious as to how it works.
-Martin
Posted by: IMSROLL450R
That is explained in enough detail that most people should be able to imagine the lines and planes you are talking about. Talking about these things in a geometry explanation type of manner is very helpful in understand suspension travel. Excellent job man. If I still had Pro-Engineer on my home computer I would draw the planes/lines and animate it but I no longer have it. Keep it coming man, great job!!!
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by Flyin-Low
As you mentioned in the first post, you are yet to see an ATV with zero bumpsteer, but doesn't Polaris claim exactly that with their front design on the Predator (maybe the outlaw too?).
Might have to check out that setup as well. I'm curious as to how it works.
-Martin
Yes I thought about the Polaris as well, but I have absolutely no experience with it, though they do claim no bumpsteer. They do it using multiple steering linkages, I will look into it and see what I can find, though the few things I have heard about them were not good.
As an update, its been a long weekend, been at the races the last couple of days, and somehow my digi cam mangaged to get smashed 
, perhaps I will draw something up in autocad, and later today I will get into castor and camber...
Posted by: Chino886
Very good discussion!
I too had a lot to learn and still do.............
I learned a lot from talking to several individuals........including Ab****, TBD, and Wolfpack from this site, GT Thunder from another site.............as well as lots of research.
Based on my research, I have found 1 very helpful suspension setup guide (Thanks to Lonestar Racing).......
Here it is:
http://www.lsracing.com/img/Guide_21.pdf
I could try to explain everything, but I would be repeating 400exrider707.
I will take some pics of my tools that I use for suspension install/removal!
Posted by: nofearrider1
What about something on ride height and ZPS shocks
Posted by: Chino886
Ride Height-"there is no magic number" ~L Sommers of GT Thunder
Chasing that magic number without properly setting up your sag on a shock could possibly lead to a set up that is not set right!
I will find my post on how to set race sag also.
As for ZPS, it is just one of the many names used by different companies. All it stands for is Zero Preload System..........99.9% sure on that!
Posted by: trx250r180
http://www.can-amds450.com/
i saw this on www.quadsonly.com its new can am site and has interesting video on thier suspention and some explanation,and test rider Jeremy Shells input
Posted by: 400exrider707
Ok so here we go for installment #2. I will discuss castor and camber per zrpilots request. I have not been able to get a digi cam since last time, so I quickly drew something up in autocad to illustrate the ideas, I think the drawings will also help to firm up the grasp on the concepts of the first discussion. So here we go.
Castor:
In simplest terms, to understand what castor is, stand on the side of your quad facing the front wheel. Take off the wheel. Now you will be looking at your hub and spindle area. If you look at the imaginary line here that is drawn through the balljoints attached to the spindle, this will be your castor in degrees. Castor plays a very big part in handling. This is your steering axis. Having the two balljoints perfectly in line is "0" castor. If you were to move the upper balljoint farther forward than the lower, this would be negative castor. Negative castor will make your handling very precise, but will also make it somewhat twitchy. There is a fine line there. If you were to move the lower balljoint farther forward than the upper, this would be positive castor, and this makes your quad much more stable at speed. Positive castor is recommended for nearly all applications on our quads, but there are special circumstances, and if you have adjustable arms on your quad, it is something I think you should play with to get a feel for how your quad will handle. Below is a picture from the side of the quad (bare with me here) The blue represents the frame and a-arms, the black is the spindle, and the green line is the imaginary line through the balljoints.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f160/05honda505/SideView.jpg
Castor adjustability is usually an upgraded option on aftermarket a-arms. Some arms come with it and others dont. It is usually adjusted using heims on the upper a-arms where they connect to the frame.
Camber:
Camber seems to be slightly more understood than castor, and the only reason I can think of is more a-arms come with this adjustability. None the less, camber, in simplest terms, is best understood by standing in front of the atv looking at a wheel. It is angle of the wheel in relation to vertical. Same concept as castor, only now you are looking straight instead of from the side. This too is adjusted through use of balljoints and heims on the arm, however the measurement should be taken at the wheel. I drew this in my drawing somewhat so you can understand. The balljoints have their own angle set shown in the red line, BUT, this is not your camber, your camber is measured at the wheel. The wheels are represented by the green lines. If the top of the wheel points in towards the frame, this is said to be negative camber. If the tire points out, positive camber. Negative camber is what is most commonly used in our sport, and I honestly cant think of a use for positive camber. The idea behind camber is that when you are railing a corner hard (and we've all seen pics on this site) your tire will actually flex causing the tread to almost roll under the wheel. By adding camber, when the tire flexes like this in a turn, you are putting more of the tread in contact with the ground. Very important for handling. Again this is also something I recommend playing with (for those of you with this adjustment) to see how your quad reacts to different camber settings.
I also took this opportunity to illustrate the effects of offset wheels. To have optimum handling you would want your centerline of your wheel to intersect with the imaginary line through the balljoints. Now I know this is not drawn to scale and my measurements are all made up, but it is perfect to look at and grasp the concept. The red line again is the imaginary line through the balljoints, and the green line represent the wheels and your camber. They are all drawn at "0" camber. The 4:1 offset wheel is the closest to the red line, which means it will be the easiest steering and the best handling. The 2:3 offset is the furthest away, it will have the most tip over resistance but at a negative cost of poor handling and also offering a lot of unwanted feedback through the handlebars, as there is more leverage on your arms. Here is the picture:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f160/05honda505/FrontView.jpg
Aftermarket companies such as Houser have made many great strides in the ability to easily adjust these very important attributes to handling. Slicast was the first, and I also believe Santo Derisi developed arms similar to this at around the same time. Slicast arms use an eccentric adjuster, much like the way you would adjust the chain on a Honda style swinger. Rotate it to pull it back one way, rotate the other way to bring the carrier forward. Well this adjuster is placed on the upper arm where the balljoint attaches to the spindle. You simply unbolt it, pull it slightly out from the locating pin, and turn it. This will move the balljoint forward or backwards. This is one of the simplest ideas for castor adjustments, and also very time saving, where before many would have to unbolt at least one if not both heims on the upper arm at the frame, twist them in and/or out, bolt them back up and remeasure. Here is a pic of the setup, though Im sure most have seen it already. Better pics are available throughout the net...
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f160/05honda505/DSC00855.jpg
Houser has now also come out with an automatic castor adjuster. The tric trac. I know, I know, I probably sound like a walking billboard for Houser, but in reality, I'm not a fan of the tric trac, but I can appreciate the ingenuity that went into this. I also feel that it does have its place, but its not on an MX track, I think this setup is ideal for TT or flat track. The upper arm is on a set of helical gears if you will. As the arm moves up (diving into a corner or on the brakes) the upper arm is moved forward, giving you negative castor and making your steering very precise. As you accelerate and the arms droop a bit, the upper arm moves back giving you negative castor and making your atv more stable. Seems like a great idea right? Well it is, however what happens when you skim over the top of a set of whoops, or you flat land a 65 foot jump? Your steering becomes twitchy. This is my speculation as I have not tried a set of these arms out for myself, but testimonials from sponsored riders say they do not feel this twitchiness at all, which would also make me believe either A) they dont feel twitchy when jumping or skimming whoops, and you probably dont notice anything in the corners either or B) you feel it in the corners and its also very twitchy on jumps and whoops. Again this is my speculation and not something I have actually tried. I do believe these would be perfect for TT racers or flat trackers though. Here is a pic for those living under a rock:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f160/05honda505/HouserTricTrac.jpg
Well I suppose this concludes this discussion on castor and camber for now. If anyone has any questions feel free to ask away, and if anyone has anything they would like to add or dispute, again, post away. I'm glad my 6000th post was an informative one!
I found this online somewhere but it is perfect for this discussion, I modded it to fit ATV'ers:
Also remember ATV manufacturers will always have recommended toe, castor, and camber settings. They arrived at these numbers through exhaustive testing. Yet the goals of the manufacturer were probably different from yours. And what works best at one race track may be off the mark at another. So the "proper" alignment settings are best determined by you-it all boils down to testing and experimentation.
Posted by: trx250r180
what effect do shock lengths and lower a-arm shock locations ,and motion ratios have ,seems like a longer shock would hold more oil and stay cooler longer,i know a 16 -inch shock can be set up to have as much travel as a 20.5 shock,some manufacturers ,example leagers ,epic,houser mount shock below lower arm , example roll,holz gibson mount on top and all use different length shocks
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by trx250r180
what effect do shock lengths and lower a-arm shock locations ,and motion ratios have ,seems like a longer shock would hold more oil and stay cooler longer,i know a 16 -inch shock can be set up to have as much travel as a 20.5 shock,some manufacturers ,example leagers ,epic,houser mount shock below lower arm , example roll,holz gibson mount on top and all use different length shocks
What you are referring to is mostly known as long travel and standard travel. Shock mounts are determined by the arm manufacturers, they then call a shock company to design a shock to work for the arm. Travel is limited by balljoints/heim joints and tie rod ends. They can only travel oh so far before binding. The pro-traxx setup was made to eliminate binding for the most travel, but honestly how much travel do you really need, or how much can you really use on an atv? For basic understandings of "long shock" and standard travel applications you can try searching on here for the time being, but I suppose this could be the next topic of discussion. Is there any specific questions you had pertaining to shock length? Shock length is usually more beneficial for the simple fact that they are easier to tune. I'm willing to bet 75% of the people on this site cant tune a shock to the full capability of a standard travel shock and waste a lot of money on long travel shocks. I personally dont feel like I can tune past the abilities of a standard travel shock, and see no need for the long travel, at this point in time, and for my level of racing. Others can however and some do actually benefit from long travel. I believe the term long travel should be thrown out the window as it confuses a lot of beginners. It should be called long shock, because realisitcally this is all it is. It is a longer shock with a lower mounting point on the a-arm. Think of it as shooting an arrow at a dinner plate, or shooting an arrow at a trampoline. The dinner plate being the standard travel and the trampoline being long travel. The trampoline is the easier target to hit, and the long travel is easier to pin point problem areas throughout travel. IMO! I am just a weekend warrior and an extreme enthusiast, with a small budget, so Ill keep shooting at my dinner plate for now. Anything else you were wondering about?
Posted by: 04TRX400EX
Wow. I feel much more knowledgeable about suspension setups now. I've heard explanations about caster, camber, toe, etc. but you made it very simple to understand and pictures help a lot ... thanks. Very good info!
Posted by: 04TRX400EX
Wow. I feel much more knowledgeable about suspension setups now. I've heard explanations about caster, camber, toe, etc. but you made it very simple to understand and pictures help a lot ... thanks. Very good info!
I would like to hear your opinions on the mounting location of shocks on aftermarket a-arms. I find it interesting how some manufacturers place the mounting bracket very close to the ball joint positioning the shock at an extreme angle whereas others move the mounting point closer to the frame positioning the shock more upright. I've heard that more upright is better because it allows more use of the shock's travel. Any comments?
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by 04TRX400EX
I would like to hear your opinions on the mounting location of shocks on aftermarket a-arms. I find it interesting how some manufacturers place the mounting bracket very close to the ball joint positioning the shock at an extreme angle whereas others move the mounting point closer to the frame positioning the shock more upright. I've heard that more upright is better because it allows more use of the shock's travel. Any comments?
Well this could go both ways. This is esentially the same idea as the difference between standard travel and long travel. Most standard travel setups place the shock roughly at midpoint on the lower a-arm. Most long travel set ups place the shock closer to the balljoint as you have said. This means the same amount of movement of wheel travel on both setups will yield more shock travel on the long travel setup and less travel on the standard setup. This is what makes the long travel shock easier to tune, there is more travel going on at the shock for the same amount of wheel travel. Now something to think about is if you could use the same amount of shock travel as a long travel setup and move it further in, you could gain more wheel travel. This is not something easily done on our atvs as tire sizes, ride height and frame design all limit travel. Like I said before how much travel do you need and how much can you actually use?
also to clarify, wheel travel refers to the amount the wheel itself moves vertically, and shock travel refers to how much the shock shaft moves in and out of the shock housing. Wheel travel can also be deceiving too, because many manufacturers (Honda/Yamaha) measure the arc that the wheel travels, and not true vertical travel. The wheel actually forms an arc when being moved up and down because of the relative length of the a-arms. Try it, pop off a shock on the front with the wheels off the ground and cycle it through your suspension.
Posted by: guinness77
I own the Diamond J Customs A-Arm extension pkg. I got the 4".
First off comes installation. Be aware that the 4" extension is four inches PER SIDE; NOT OVERALL. The install was on a 400ex. The install went pretty smooth. Essentially, the a-arms and upper shock mounts are move outward from the frame 4". The plate pieces lined up perfectly. As I tightened them down the frame brackets did bend just a bit. But nothing that couldn't easily be fixed with a pair of lock-jaws in the event I wanted to take them off. The brake lines must be unclipped from the a-arms and the c-clips on the calipers. The banjo bolt does fine without the extra clamps. When the quad is lifted from the ground and the tires turned so-as to pull the brake lines tight, the lines are long enough to do the job. BUT THAT'S IT. Another 1/2 inch and the lines would be so tight as-to-be unsafe. So it'll work in the typical jumping and twisting. But in a crash, all bets are off. A stock oil tank won't interfere with install. But if you have an aftermarket high-capacity tank, well... better get some longer tank bolts and some spacers... say... 1/4 inch. That'll make the a-arm extension brackets clear the tank by 2 or 3 millimeters. The instructions were woefully poor. But a mechanically inclined person could do it. You must layout all parts very carefully before installing. Install takes about 4 hrs. The bolts are 1.5 inches longer than they need to be and I was short a couple of washers. But neither of those issues were any problem.
After install came ride time. Moving the a-arms out 4" softened the shocks up front.. that's for sure! But it was nothing the couldn't be compensated for by even a medeocre rider. Stiffen the shocks by adjusting them.
The 400ex handles MUCH better now. There's very little lean when you're in a corner. The quad likes to track flat when you're going around anything.
I'm slowly increasing the air on my jumps and I'm detecting no stress as of yet. The metal on those brackets is 1/4 inch thick. So that ought to handle just about anything.
The trade off is in the tight trails. An extra 8" in width is quite a bit. Be careful. Watch out for those trees.
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by guinness77
I own the Diamond J Customs A-Arm extension pkg. I got the 4".
First off comes installation. Be aware that the 4" extension is four inches PER SIDE; NOT OVERALL. The install was on a 400ex. The install went pretty smooth. Essentially, the a-arms and upper shock mounts are move outward from the frame 4". The plate pieces lined up perfectly. As I tightened them down the frame brackets did bend just a bit. But nothing that couldn't easily be fixed with a pair of lock-jaws in the event I wanted to take them off. The brake lines must be unclipped from the a-arms and the c-clips on the calipers. The banjo bolt does fine without the extra clamps. When the quad is lifted from the ground and the tires turned so-as to pull the brake lines tight, the lines are long enough to do the job. BUT THAT'S IT. Another 1/2 inch and the lines would be so tight as-to-be unsafe. So it'll work in the typical jumping and twisting. But in a crash, all bets are off. A stock oil tank won't interfere with install. But if you have an aftermarket high-capacity tank, well... better get some longer tank bolts and some spacers... say... 1/4 inch. That'll make the a-arm extension brackets clear the tank by 2 or 3 millimeters. The instructions were woefully poor. But a mechanically inclined person could do it. You must layout all parts very carefully before installing. Install takes about 4 hrs. The bolts are 1.5 inches longer than they need to be and I was short a couple of washers. But neither of those issues were any problem.
After install came ride time. Moving the a-arms out 4" softened the shocks up front.. that's for sure! But it was nothing the couldn't be compensated for by even a medeocre rider. Stiffen the shocks by adjusting them.
The 400ex handles MUCH better now. There's very little lean when you're in a corner. The quad likes to track flat when you're going around anything.
I'm slowly increasing the air on my jumps and I'm detecting no stress as of yet. The metal on those brackets is 1/4 inch thick. So that ought to handle just about anything.
The trade off is in the tight trails. An extra 8" in width is quite a bit. Be careful. Watch out for those trees.
Strength of the kit was never my concern... if you read the posts so far you would understand why I am against these kits. What shocks are you using by the way? If it softens the front end up how are you getting less lean in corners?
You say you are detecting no stress as of yet? What are you looking for. I wouldn't count on the brackets breaking, it will be things like balljoints and tie rod ends. They will snap without warning most likely.
Also even at 1/4" thick you say they will handle anything? Not quite, run into anything with it and forget about it, the a-arms are acting like giant levers on those brackets, they will bend, they're just mild steel. Post some pics of your setup if you wish with the tires at ride height, full squat and full extend just so we can visibly show everyone the amount of bumpsteer built into the kit.
Posted by: IMSROLL450R
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
Strength of the kit was never my concern... if you read the posts so far you would understand why I am against these kits. What shocks are you using by the way? If it softens the front end up how are you getting less lean in corners?
You say you are detecting no stress as of yet? What are you looking for. I wouldn't count on the brackets breaking, it will be things like balljoints and tie rod ends. They will snap without warning most likely.
Also even at 1/4" thick you say they will handle anything? Not quite, run into anything with it and forget about it, the a-arms are acting like giant levers on those brackets, they will bend, they're just mild steel. Post some pics of your setup if you wish with the tires at ride height, full squat and full extend just so we can visibly show everyone the amount of bumpsteer built into the kit.
I rode a 400 with one of these kits on it and any rough stuff just completely beat the crap out of you through the handlebars. Mild bumpsteer is an understatement.
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by IMSROLL450R
I rode a 400 with one of these kits on it and any rough stuff just completely beat the crap out of you through the handlebars. Mild bumpsteer is an understatement.
I never said anything about mild bumpsteer!
The bumpsteer that is designed into these kits, is absolutely ridiculous. It makes me laugh when anyone says how nice they ride...
Posted by: guinness77
Just stiffen the shocks. That'll make up for the added softening. I ride in the dunes. I wouldn't take this thing into the tightly wooded trails.
The upper shock mounts, and the A-Arm brackets are moved exactly the same distance from the frame. But think about if they were 5 feet long. The tires would still sit the same. But a bug landing on the handlebars would push down the front suspension. So... the up-and-down action of the suspension (for lack of a better term) is pretty close to stock. It's just a bit easier to get the suspension to compress...until you click up the shocks. Which on my machine are stock and pretty much suck.
A wider base is (usually) a more stable base. And I notice it in the sand.
Pics.... If I actually had enough time to learn how... then maybe. But you can go to DiamondJcustoms.com and see plenty of examples already.
Posted by: IMSROLL450R
quote:
Originally posted by guinness77
Just stiffen the shocks. That'll make up for the added softening. I ride in the dunes. I wouldn't take this thing into the tightly wooded trails.
The upper shock mounts, and the A-Arm brackets are moved exactly the same distance from the frame. But think about if they were 5 feet long. The tires would still sit the same. But a bug landing on the handlebars would push down the front suspension. So... the up-and-down action of the suspension (for lack of a better term) is pretty close to stock. It's just a bit easier to get the suspension to compress...until you click up the shocks. Which on my machine are stock and pretty much suck.
A wider base is (usually) a more stable base. And I notice it in the sand.
Pics.... If I actually had enough time to learn how... then maybe. But you can go to DiamondJcustoms.com and see plenty of examples already.
Bumpsteer has nothing to do with the shocks or basically the plushness of the ride. What he is talking about is how far the a arm pivot points are from the center of the frame. When they are moved outward, bumpsteer is increased, which is transmitted through the tierods, steering stem, handlebars. Thats what we are talking about being rough. Stiffening the shocks will not affect bumpsteer.
Posted by: guinness77
quote:
Originally posted by IMSROLL450R
Stiffening the shocks will not affect bumpsteer.
Agreed. But it will change the plushness of the ride. Bumpsteer isn't much of a problem in the sand. Maybe it's different in MX'ing (or other kinds of riding.). I havn't tried any of that.
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by guinness77
Agreed. But it will change the plushness of the ride. Bumpsteer isn't much of a problem in the sand. Maybe it's different in MX'ing (or other kinds of riding.). I havn't tried any of that.
Bumpsteer is a problem no matter where you ride. You are just making it that much harder on yourself to ride it in any conditions. On a 400ex you have no way of adjusting the compression on stock front shocks. About all you can do is adjust the preload collars a little stiffer, but you wont notice the difference. I really didn't want this to turn into another thread arguing about why the Diamond J custom widening kits are ok for average riders. I created it so people would understand why they are NOT OK. If it's working out for you thats fine, but I am trying to keep this an informational thread. If you have any questions on anything I will be more than happy to try to answer them. Thanks.
Posted by: trx250r180
question on suspention cycle,i had a set of epic +3 arms making my 450r 50 inch wide with 4+1 rims ,when i would push up and down on front bumper of quad tires would slide about 1/2 to 3/4 inch sise to side on garage floor ,i recently put laeger +2 a-arms on to make 48 wide so id fit in woods a little better when trail ride ,i noticed when i cycle the +2 laeger arms the tires stay in contact with the floor throughout the cycle without sliding,is it the added width making them slide through the travel or desighn of a-arms?i noticed the +2 arms i was able to square off inside corners faster without front end push like i had before ,i have to use a little more body english to take a 4th gear sweeper corner being narrower but my laptimes seemed to increase being narrower ,and had less rider fatique also
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by trx250r180
question on suspention cycle,i had a set of epic +3 arms making my 450r 50 inch wide with 4+1 rims ,when i would push up and down on front bumper of quad tires would slide about 1/2 to 3/4 inch sise to side on garage floor ,i recently put laeger +2 a-arms on to make 48 wide so id fit in woods a little better when trail ride ,i noticed when i cycle the +2 laeger arms the tires stay in contact with the floor throughout the cycle without sliding,is it the added width making them slide through the travel or desighn of a-arms?i noticed the +2 arms i was able to square off inside corners faster without front end push like i had before ,i have to use a little more body english to take a 4th gear sweeper corner being narrower but my laptimes seemed to increase being narrower ,and had less rider fatique also
Good questions and good observations on your part. This is really tough for me to say not seeing it in person. It could be a number of things contributing though. First question for you, were the epic arms by any chance +1 forward, I've noticed this has quite a negative effect on the handling of the R's. This would definitely cause the "pushing" in corners as you described. This could also be from poor castor setup. Whether the arms are adjustable or not for this I'm not sure. As far as the movement of your wheels, good observation. This happens on all atv arms. What I find odd however is that your longer arms moved more. This should be quite the opposite actually. The shorter the physical length of the arms, the more they have to travel up and down to get the wheel to move a set distance. Longer arms have to move vertically less to get the wheel to move the same distance, as the wheel is further from the frame. 1 inch is almost negligible however. Another question are you using the 4:1 wheels still? I'm assuming you are. Now I really cant say for sure as I don't know the design intent of the epic arms, but there could be a few different things going on here. First, nonparallel arms could cause this. Using nonparallel arms can be used to an advantage to gain camber as your wheels cycle through their motions. Using unequal length arms could also cause this. (Please don't confuse my term "unequal length" arms, as I've yet to see an ATV that used the same length top and bottom, it just means that one arm is not cycling as much as the other arm. Adjusting Camber could cause this too, as you are effectively taking length or adding length to the upper arm by doing so. It is possible your new arms are non adjustable or adjusted so that the arms are "parallel" and "equal length" Meaning they are following the exact same cycle pattern, they remain parallel throughout the entire cycle of the suspension.
From the sounds of it your epic arms were either designed poorly or poorly setup. No offense I don't know your abilities or how the arms are built, and I certainly don't want to step on anyones toes, yours, or epics! Suspension setup could have also played a role in how these arms performed, so there really are too many variables for me to give you a definite answer. Your leagers have to move throughout the wheel travel, they might just move little enough for you to not notice or its possible they are losing camber throughout travel so that the top of the tire is doing all the moving and the bottom stays planted, which isn't good either. Having camber remain constant is good to have, or even slight camber gain would be good too. It really depends on rider preference and type of racing. If you're faster with a narrower quad then you have obviously nailed a better setup, whether it be rider input, suspension design or suspension setup, or a combination of the three, something is right now. Let me know if anything else needs explaining, I realize some of this may be confusing. Please don't be afraid to ask, because if someone doesn't understand something, then chances are other people don't understand it either.
Posted by: trx250r180
the epic arms are +3+1 and the laegers are +2+0 and im running custom axis 20 1/4 inch length shocks on both,i am also running 4+1 hyper rims both setups,was having frame scraping problems with 20 inch mx razr tires so i "bandaid fixed" with taller 21 inch tires to keep frame from scraping on bottom outs,now im able to run the 20 inch mx tires and no problem with frame scraping a lot,i will enclose photo of epics raised to full ext and with shock sag ,i only have a photo of laegers with the shock sag but extended length is similar to the epic pic,also spring preload with the epics i had to max the tightness of the spring with the top circlip ,with the lagers i was able to go 2 clips below having springs totally loose from moving up and down in adjuster clip
Posted by: trx250r180
pic with bike sag
Posted by: trx250r180
laeger arms
Posted by: 400exrider707
Ok a couple things... your front end pushing was caused mainly from the epics being +1 forward. I've found that the 450R's at least the 04/05 models do not need +1 forward, IMO! They push way too much in the corners, much like you are experiencing. However you have more problems. Your shocks are not setup properly for you. Where did you get them? Used? What were they setup for? they are obviously not set up correctly for YOU, they may have been correct for the previous owner, or a different setup for you. Using larger tires tells me that they may have already been setup for a larger tire, ie. an XC or trail rider. The reason you could soften the preload up on the shocks with the laegers is strictly because of less leverage offered by a shorter arm, and nothing more. It sounds like you should have your shocks checked out to make sure they are set up correctly for you and your bike. You might have to give the shock builder some measurements to get them setup correctly, but no big deal. Good luck and let me know if you need any more info, I'll try to answer as much as I can.
Posted by: Dupontster
Great thread! Very helpfull! How about some info on rear setup?
like shock wise?
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by Dupontster
Great thread! Very helpfull! How about some info on rear setup?
like shock wise?
Sure I'll try my best, what exactly do you want explained? Just the physics of how everything works, or more of a shock tuning deal?
Posted by: Dupontster
More of shock tuning like.
Posted by: pro-rider46
and how about how steering stabilizers work after the rear topic. like how they work. and the differences between sticktype stabilizers and the other stabilizers. that would be great. good read by the way
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by Dupontster
More of shock tuning like.
Shock tuning is more of an art than a science. Anytime I am asked how to setup a shock, I really cant give you an answer to that. There are so many variables to this question. Terrain, riding style, suspension components, suspension design, tire size, rider weight, all these things play a role.... I'll post my favorite link on suspension setups, from Laz at GT Thunder...
http://www.gtthunder.com/SuspensionHome.htm
Its short, simple and to the point, and broken down enough for all of us to understand. Hopefully that steers you in the right direction. Once you get your proper sag, then go out and ride it and make some changes, see what you like and what you dont like. You need to experiment by riding. Get some seat time on and you will see what works and what doesn't work. Take trx250r180 for example, he went to a narrower setup and has faster lap times now... Sorry I couldn't help more with that question but there is no one single answer for you. If you try some setups out and are having problems tryign to get it dialed in right, we may be able to point you in a certain direction though. Good luck with your setup!
Posted by: Dupontster
Gotcha. Its more of just playing with it to get it right for you
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by Dupontster
Gotcha. Its more of just playing with it to get it right for you
Yes, once you have shocks built correctly for you and your specs (weight, riding style, suspension components like swinger/arms, tire sizes) then you can fine tune, and that comes down to what you like and how the ride of the quad matches your style.
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by pro-rider46
and how about how steering stabilizers work after the rear topic. like how they work. and the differences between sticktype stabilizers and the other stabilizers. that would be great. good read by the way
Really all a stabilizer is, is a shock for the turning motion of your handlebars/steering stem. It literally dampens the force going through the bars, much like a shock dampens the force from the ground to your atv frame. Works the same way. Difference between a stick and puck are just how they're built. I cant really say that a puck is way better than a stick, because I've never used one, but this is what I've heard. I personally use a stick type and have been happy with it. They also sell rebuildable stick types, which cost more than a traditional stick type. Puck ones are all rebuildable as far as I know. They usually have an adjustment that would be similar to a compression adjustment on a shock. Turn it to a harder setting and the damping force required to push the the shaft through the "shock body" is increased, thus not letting the bars be jerked as hard.
Posted by: trx250r180
well off to experimenting again for my bike,first setup rear was a gt link / axis shock ,results pretty nice ride ,worked with 20 inch tires but mx with 18 tires frame would drag a lot,setup #2 was a holz xc link /fox podium shock,worked a lot better for mx than the gt for me and frame didnt drag anymore,i just got a complete holz mx front and rear suspention with fox podium shocks,the rear has a cr500 type link like my old laeger 250r ,the fronts are 2.5 wide with ti springed fox podium shocks,pushing on the bike i think im finnally getting close or even better than my laeger was now,i have a supermoto this weekend and a mx race weekend after and will post what i think of new setup after track tested,as for steering dampers i like the stick type but the rotary puck type i like a little better,im running a wer now and am not having problem blowing seals like did with stick type
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by trx250r180
well off to experimenting again for my bike,first setup rear was a gt link / axis shock ,results pretty nice ride ,worked with 20 inch tires but mx with 18 tires frame would drag a lot,setup #2 was a holz xc link /fox podium shock,worked a lot better for mx than the gt for me and frame didnt drag anymore,i just got a complete holz mx front and rear suspention with fox podium shocks,the rear has a cr500 type link like my old laeger 250r ,the fronts are 2.5 wide with ti springed fox podium shocks,pushing on the bike i think im finnally getting close or even better than my laeger was now,i have a supermoto this weekend and a mx race weekend after and will post what i think of new setup after track tested,as for steering dampers i like the stick type but the rotary puck type i like a little better,im running a wer now and am not having problem blowing seals like did with stick type
Glad to hear you're getting somewhere with it. What GT link were you using and what was the axis setup for? Stock swingarm? Give us some more info on both setups that you tried in the rear. What weight and riding style they were setup for and what links you used. GT Thunder sells about 6 different linkages for the 450R.
Post a pic of your new setup it sounds sweet.
Posted by: trx250r180
new rear setup
Posted by: trx250r180
rear susp 2
Posted by: trx250r180
front end holz +2.5
Posted by: trx250r180
close up holz front
Posted by: trx250r180
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
Glad to hear you're getting somewhere with it. What GT link were you using and what was the axis setup for? Stock swingarm? Give us some more info on both setups that you tried in the rear. What weight and riding style they were setup for and what links you used. GT Thunder sells about 6 different linkages for the 450R.
Post a pic of your new setup it sounds sweet.
the gt link i was running i found out was a cross country link ,and it worked real good with 20 inch tires but 18 inch tires had some frame draggage on mx track ,the second link i ran was a holz xc link , i liked it better it is similar to lonestar dc6 mx linkage and had a little skid plate on it ,i really liked this setup with a fox shock valved at 200 pd rider,my newest setup the rear is almost a copy of my laeger 250r the shock is more up and down not laid back so no air box clearance issues real similar to a walsh setup but linkage doesnt hang down as low, the holz front looks real similar to a roll desighn except lower arms arent bent down,they use a 18 3/4 long shock with 5 3/4 stroke which gives all the travel of a long shock a-arm and more ground clearance
Posted by: 07250ex
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
On a 400ex you have no way of adjusting the compression on stock front shocks. About all you can do is adjust the preload collars a little stiffer If you have any questions on anything I will be more than happy to try to answer them. Thanks.
I have a question about those 5 way preload collars ... how do you actully change them like, and do they do anything iwould assume not because if you move a to the next collar which say extends the coil length the way the shock is will just be more mushy in the begging but the height will not change because off the added shock sag from changing the preload ??
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by 07250ex
I have a question about those 5 way preload collars ... how do you actully change them like, and do they do anything iwould assume not because if you move a to the next collar which say extends the coil length the way the shock is will just be more mushy in the begging but the height will not change because off the added shock sag from changing the preload ??
Take your front end off the ground to make it easiest. I've seen screwdrivers used with a hammer to turn them, but not exactly the easiest thing in the world. I use the tool made for it. I believe Motion Pro sells one in RMATV. Changing that, in my experience, offers no difference in ride/handling. More or less useless/selling point.
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by Flyin-Low
As you mentioned in the first post, you are yet to see an ATV with zero bumpsteer, but doesn't Polaris claim exactly that with their front design on the Predator (maybe the outlaw too?).
Might have to check out that setup as well. I'm curious as to how it works.
-Martin
you are correct, the predator and outlaws have absolutly no bumpsteer with the PRO steering system. this creates its own problems tho, and shows bumpsteer (in small amounts) isnt all that bad.
with the a-arms and tierods on the exact same arc, they are the same length. so when you turn the wheels both tires are turned at the exact same angle. do this with any other quad and you will see the inside wheel has turned more than the outside. this helps the inside wheel dig and in turn, the quad turns more precise than the PRO system, that has no bumpsteer what so ever, but in turn, does push in the turns more so than other quads in its class
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by bradley300
you are correct, the predator and outlaws have absolutly no bumpsteer with the PRO steering system. this creates its own problems tho, and shows bumpsteer (in small amounts) isnt all that bad.
with the a-arms and tierods on the exact same arc, they are the same length. so when you turn the wheels both tires are turned at the exact same angle. do this with any other quad and you will see the inside wheel has turned more than the outside. this helps the inside wheel dig and in turn, the quad turns more precise than the PRO system, that has no bumpsteer what so ever, but in turn, does push in the turns more so than other quads in its class
Thanks for the info bradley, I am not too familiar with the polaris setups. Also the act of the inside wheel turning more than the outside is known as ackerman.
Posted by: F-16Guy
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
....Also the act of the inside wheel turning more than the outside is known as ackerman.
I was waiting for someone to bring that up. By angling the spindle arms to point so that the two imaginary lines meet at the center of the rear axle (bearing carrier), you create an effect that causes the front wheels to follow parallel arcs around a common center point of a turn, which eliminates tire scrub. Another thing I haven't seen mentioned is roll center. If you look at your front end, you'll most likely see that the upper a-arm frame mounts are farther out toward the spindles than the lowers, and that the upper a-arms are slightly shorter. This causes the upper and lower arms to follow two different arcs, which creates a little bit of negative camber as the front suspension compresses. This helps keep the contact patch of the front tire squarely on the ground as the body of the ATV rolls while you're negotiating a corner. By altering the relationship between the lengths of the upper and lower arms and their mounting points, you can control the amount and progression of the camber change. You could also potentially cause a positive camber change, but you won't see that much since it's not very desireable under normal conditions.
Posted by: drsnugfit
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
Good questions and good observations on your part. This is really tough for me to say not seeing it in person. It could be a number of things contributing though. First question for you, were the epic arms by any chance +1 forward, I've noticed this has quite a negative effect on the handling of the R's. This would definitely cause the "pushing" in corners as you described. This could also be from poor castor setup. Whether the arms are adjustable or not for this I'm not sure. As far as the movement of your wheels, good observation. This happens on all atv arms. What I find odd however is that your longer arms moved more. This should be quite the opposite actually. The shorter the physical length of the arms, the more they have to travel up and down to get the wheel to move a set distance. Longer arms have to move vertically less to get the wheel to move the same distance, as the wheel is further from the frame. 1 inch is almost negligible however. Another question are you using the 4:1 wheels still? I'm assuming you are. Now I really cant say for sure as I don't know the design intent of the epic arms, but there could be a few different things going on here. First, nonparallel arms could cause this. Using nonparallel arms can be used to an advantage to gain camber as your wheels cycle through their motions. Using unequal length arms could also cause this. (Please don't confuse my term "unequal length" arms, as I've yet to see an ATV that used the same length top and bottom, it just means that one arm is not cycling as much as the other arm. Adjusting Camber could cause this too, as you are effectively taking length or adding length to the upper arm by doing so. It is possible your new arms are non adjustable or adjusted so that the arms are "parallel" and "equal length" Meaning they are following the exact same cycle pattern, they remain parallel throughout the entire cycle of the suspension.
From the sounds of it your epic arms were either designed poorly or poorly setup. No offense I don't know your abilities or how the arms are built, and I certainly don't want to step on anyones toes, yours, or epics! Suspension setup could have also played a role in how these arms performed, so there really are too many variables for me to give you a definite answer. Your leagers have to move throughout the wheel travel, they might just move little enough for you to not notice or its possible they are losing camber throughout travel so that the top of the tire is doing all the moving and the bottom stays planted, which isn't good either. Having camber remain constant is good to have, or even slight camber gain would be good too. It really depends on rider preference and type of racing. If you're faster with a narrower quad then you have obviously nailed a better setup, whether it be rider input, suspension design or suspension setup, or a combination of the three, something is right now. Let me know if anything else needs explaining, I realize some of this may be confusing. Please don't be afraid to ask, because if someone doesn't understand something, then chances are other people don't understand it either.
awesome thread, so much info, with regards to 450Rs with +1 forward arms and pushing into corners, I have +1 arms and have noticed it doing this, other than change the arms is there anything i can adjust to try to either stop it pushing in or lighten the effect a bit.?
Thanks.
Posted by: bradley300
a + 1.25 swingarm will ballance it back out.
the stock swingarm is .25 inch too long for the a-arm design, so adding +1 foward a-arms, your just adding to the problem of too much foward weight, so a +1.25 swingarm should ballance the weight evenly, or as close as possible
someone correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not 100% up to date on 450r's
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by bradley300
a + 1.25 swingarm will ballance it back out.
the stock swingarm is .25 inch too long for the a-arm design, so adding +1 foward a-arms, your just adding to the problem of too much foward weight, so a +1.25 swingarm should ballance the weight evenly, or as close as possible
someone correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not 100% up to date on 450r's
In theory it sounds like it would work, but even at that, I was still disappointed in +1 forward arms, they just push no matter what, or at least push a lot more than +0 arms. The only way we could get the front end of the quad in question with +1 forward arms to bite better was with brand new holeshot MX tires on the front and with the front end sitting nearly 1" lower than the rear end, which is a terrible idea, we just wanted to see what had to be done to get it to bite like it did when it was +0 forward.
Posted by: FoxHondaRider
Magazines have done test with the +1" foward or +.5" foward and the only quad they noticed a benefit in was the banshee. Other than that they said all other atvs handle worse with the +1 or +.5
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by FoxHondaRider
Magazines have done test with the +1" foward or +.5" foward and the only quad they noticed a benefit in was the banshee. Other than that they said all other atvs handle worse with the +1 or +.5
I have also read this from the owner of Ishock.
Posted by: FoxHondaRider
yeah dirt wheels did a test with it, Hydrodynamics (iSHOCK) said it was worse, there were a few others too.
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by FoxHondaRider
Magazines have done test with the +1" foward or +.5" foward and the only quad they noticed a benefit in was the banshee. Other than that they said all other atvs handle worse with the +1 or +.5
that is assuming that you dont extend the back end to match
Posted by: brian66
using 4-1 offset front wheels is an advantage but the front is 2 inchs narrower than when using 3-2 offset. so would there still be an advantage using 4-1 offset front wheels and wider front hubs to get the width (not wheel spacers)?
Posted by: bradley300
you have to think of your whole steering suspension as a whole peice. thats really where the 4+1 wheels shine is when you have the extended a-arms to get the width back. with that said, some still prefer the 4+1 on stock a-arms, but i really dont prefer one or the other if its all stock otherwise.
if you got extended hubs/spacers you would negate any benefit you got from the 4+1 wheels as the purpose of the wheels is to get the center of the wheel as close to the balljoint as possible, and spacers/hubs do just the opposite
Posted by: tim colston
Great thead 400exrider707, I just read it and it was very informative. Someone should sticky this if it hasn't been already. I don't see any moderators posting or commenting. I just find this unusual in a quality thread like this. Good job and a lot of nice work.
Posted by: JOEX
quote:
Originally posted by tim colston
Great thead 400exrider707, I just read it and it was very informative. Someone should sticky this if it hasn't been already. I don't see any moderators posting or commenting. I just find this unusual in a quality thread like this. Good job and a lot of nice work.
It was stickied shortly after the original post was made.
June 5th 2007 at 10:30am pacific time to be exact
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by tim colston
Great thead 400exrider707, I just read it and it was very informative. Someone should sticky this if it hasn't been already. I don't see any moderators posting or commenting. I just find this unusual in a quality thread like this. Good job and a lot of nice work.
Thanks Tim, been stickied for a while though haha
Posted by: frank mb
Why would walsh make the arms of a Yamaha yfz 450 0.5 forward, if it is not better?
And would the framegeometrie of a KFX450 or Honda be better than a yamaha because they angled there front-end up more?
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by frank mb
Why would walsh make the arms of a Yamaha yfz 450 0.5 forward, if it is not better?
And would the framegeometrie of a KFX450 or Honda be better than a yamaha because they angled there front-end up more?
I'm sure walsh has their reasons, and I'm not saying it wont handle better. I really only have enough seat time on 04/05 honda 450R's to comment on front end setups. Mathematically from what I understood the Banshee is the only quad to truly benefit from +1 forward arms. Perhaps the YFZ can too, I'm not really sure, haven't done the math myself.
Now when you say angle the front end up more, are you talking about the front of the frame? The approach angle of the frame so to speak is an anti-dive thing. its to keep the front end up and from plowing into everything, it also forces the wheels to travel backwards slightly through uptravel, to combat diving when going through say whoops or a ditch. The angle of that is determined by the manufacturer, and my guess is they base it on what they think most of their purchasers will use the machine for. There is no set degree that should be at, it will vary with rider/terrain and the such.
Posted by: frank mb
Yes that is what in ment to say. Here in Holland we have big holes in our tracks when racing, I will try to find a picture. Because of those holes I thought maybe with a different angle I could get better over those holes/whoops.
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by frank mb
Yes that is what in ment to say. Here in Holland we have big holes in our tracks when racing, I will try to find a picture. Because of those holes I thought maybe with a different angle I could get better over those holes/whoops.
Just short of redesigning a whole new frame, you can always run bigger tires. They will help you roll through larger stuff easier. Think of it like a pickup truck and a monster truck, which will go over a car easier... the monster truck because the tires are so much bigger. Granted this is an extreme example, but it helps you get an idea. This is why ITP came out with their 19" rear holeshot and 20" front tires which now seem to be industry standard fronts.
Posted by: frank mb
I run already 23's in front and also 23's in the rear. Next year I want to run 22's in the rear because it's better, but I don't have an explanation for it. on my website you can see some pictures about different races here in Holland, a few on the hard packed and some on the sand. FVMracing pictures
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by frank mb
I run already 23's in front and also 23's in the rear. Next year I want to run 22's in the rear because it's better, but I don't have an explanation for it. on my website you can see some pictures about different races here in Holland, a few on the hard packed and some on the sand. FVMracing pictures
Pretty neat pics. I see the big tires and the big holes! I know some desert guys running DS 650's run 25" tires on theirs and say they ride awesome in desert terrain, maybe something to think about.
Posted by: frank mb
Overhere we race with dirtbike's and sidecars together on a raceday. So therefore we use small and large tires so that we can come thrue those holes and the tracks (I don't know how you say that in English, but what I mean is that a sidecar diggs itself thrue the sand and than the rearwheel leaves a big "track")
To get back on topic, For next year I want to race walsh products so I can get more caster for a easier ride. but are there specific products that would help me getting a plusher ride?
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
Mathematically from what I understood the Banshee is the only quad to truly benefit from +1 forward arms.
thats because banshee's use an overly long swingarm stock. its like that so they get less traction, making the tires easier to spin, keeping the revs in the powerband. but it throws the weight bias off, which the +1 foward a-arms helps correct
Posted by: maticus
i recently put herrman plus 2 arms on my 450 and now it seems to be stiffer to steer. im now thinking that it might have to do with the extreme camber that they have.(they were used and i installed them with that camber setup). does that sound like a likely reason. they are also +1 forward, which i might like in turns cause i seem to ride up front more anyways.
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by maticus
i recently put herrman plus 2 arms on my 450 and now it seems to be stiffer to steer. im now thinking that it might have to do with the extreme camber that they have.(they were used and i installed them with that camber setup). does that sound like a likely reason. they are also +1 forward, which i might like in turns cause i seem to ride up front more anyways.
Being they are used, I would check the balljoints and tie-rods for binding.
Posted by: Def-e-nition
This bike .05 400 Ex.
I'm looking for Arms . Being so far away - and because I am not racing again - I was focussing on price . Laeger , Houser , Walsh all pricey as Hell this side. I found a company by the name of fullflight racing .
fullflight make 2 sets : both 12 point castor adjustable .
Question : +2 +1 - Or buy +2 only ??
What does dialling in too much Castor cause Gents ?
I.o.w - I go ballistic and put it on the 11th point - what repercussion does too much castor cause ?? [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a201/stuart101/e31.jpg[/IMG]
Posted by: F-16Guy
I would probably stay away from arms that use heim joints at every point. I can't say for sure because I've never owned Full Flight arms, but heims at all points are an easy way to compensate for sloppy quality control. Heims also wear fairly quickly, especially in the dirt, so you'll probably be replacing them more often than traditional bushings or bearings.
To answer you other question, castor is the forward or backward tilt of the spindle when viewed from the side. Too much reward slant makes the quad more stable at high speed, but also makes the steering less responsive. As the spindle moves forward toward a more vertical orientation, the quad becomes more responsive to steering inputs, but gets twitchy at higher speeds.
Posted by: 400exrider707
I am not a fan of any arm that is 12 point adjustable. It is fact TOO much adjustability, in my personal opinion. I prefer not to have heims on the lower a-arms. The lower arms take a lot of stress being that they hold the shock to the frame, so all the stress your shock takes, is putting it down through that lower arm. The heims are the weakest point on that arm and will break. If you were to possibly upgrade all the heims to a good chromoly heim, it would be a lot safer, but then the total cost would probably be more than a set of houser or lonestar arms. Try taking a look at SMC fab arms.
Posted by: Def-e-nition
quote:
Originally posted by F-16Guy
To answer you other question, castor is the forward or backward tilt of the spindle when viewed from the side. Too much reward slant makes the quad more stable at high speed, but also makes the steering less responsive. As the spindle moves forward toward a more vertical orientation, the quad becomes more responsive to steering inputs, but gets twitchy at higher speeds.
Ok well put .
Ai Karramba for the first answer about the Heims . Ill need to go and take a look at the Pics to se if there are on the Lower arms .
I was also amused to fnd that the joints had no rubber cover on them , and the guys swears they'll last . Not that I am a sucker for sales-pitch - the sales guy is the LAST person you ask about issues relating to breakages , but it looks pretty solid . I would have prefferred rubber boots.
I tried in vian searching on E bay for a simple set of +2 arms - mmm any takers on answering the +2 +1 , or simply +2 question ? I am in two minds about the +1 forward stance after reading through the thread .
So -too much caster will slow the steering response down. Makes sense : look at a chopper with it's Massive front rake : a bit exaggerrated , but it would explain the effect caster has on steering . Not the same principle , but the rake-effect is there .ok .
got it .
Shucks . I was hoping full flight would be the answer to some of my smaller prayers . I so badly want to remove the front spacers as my hands and arms take a virtual Beating having them on .
american star - going to look there tonight as well .
So is it to be +2+1 or just +2 ??
thank you .
Posted by: F-16Guy
The general concensus is that arms that are +1 forward are not beneficial to just about any sport quad except the Banshee. If you balance it out with a +1 swingarm you'll be okay, but just the arms alone will cause the quad to push in corners.
I have the American Star "Sport Star" a-arms that have conventional bushings at the frame mount points and Heims at the ball joint locations. The lower ball joint heims wore very quickly because of the stress they take. I called and they sent me their best heims for replacements and they've been tight ever since. If you're going to order their arms, make sure the lower ball joint heim is the upgraded version. Personally, I'd recommend trying to hold out and find a good used set of name brand arms, but the ASRs aren't too bad for the money if you can't wait.
Posted by: F-16Guy
I just looked on eBay and there is a set of Wicked a-arms that look okay for $375 plus shipping. They have conventional lower bushings and standard ball joints. I would buy those before the ASR arms.
Posted by: Def-e-nition
Yip . did the maths .
read up on FFR .
Not bad - but half were good , half were bad .As if Living 7000 miles away wasnt hard enough ...
Dom steel : Bad ! Chromoly : good .
Ones on e bay = DOM steel ... Nothanks ..
Also - I saw a pic n the upgraded Heims - holy crap - those are nice to the X degree .
I e mialed him with a quote from a rant in the FFR topic post - I am waiting to hear from him . This Bill guy seems nice enough - he replied quick as lightning first and secon time , I jut want to see what he has to say about building me a set of arms with the upgraded heims .
Somehow I think then that a normal set of laegers would solve all my damn problems .
Hoyl crap - check this out - he replied quick as a flash .
Dman this guy is quick .
Stuart, we have been manufacturing for 7 years, we have never had an a-arm break at the weld,as a weld is always stronger than any material you use. we have never had any welds break at all. we have had some guys send an a-arm back because the bent a lower , but never a break. as far as lubrication, you can use teflon spray, not oil. I will send you a set of the chromoly heims that are self sealing, no lubrication nessasary, the new chromoly-chrome nyla matrix heims that you see on the website, which is a $199.99 value, and add the skidplate for $399.99, they are not the black heims as seen on ebay. We have rider all over the world with our a-arms on their quads, these guys on the forums, run other companies down to promote their own parts companies. I will assure you, when you receive your product, you will see first hand, the craftsmanship. Let me know what you would like to do. Also ,I forgot to mention, the skid plate that we would be putting on your lower a-arms, are our 08 edition, that we havent even marketed yet, you will be the first. they are the pro series x-plates, they are sharp looking, not the plain plates you see in the pics on ebay
the man is quick .
ANd - he's fitting the Mean Mother Nyla Matrix stuff .
good grief ....
eh ?
Posted by: Def-e-nition
quote:
Originally posted by F-16Guy
I just looked on eBay and there is a set of Wicked a-arms that look okay for $375 plus shipping. They have conventional lower bushings and standard ball joints. I would buy those before the ASR arms.
Damn I need lessons on how to surf E bay , type in wicked a arms I assume ?
That reply i posted was from FFR Nice of him . I am impressed .
Posted by: F-16Guy
I just typed in "400ex a-arms" and they were about 1/2 way down the page.
My take on DOM steel a-arms is this: I have been riding for a very long time and have never bent a steel a-arm. Is chromoly better? Yes. Is it absolutely necessary for the average rider? I don't think so. If I were going to race competitively, I would probably invest in chromoly, but my steel +2 arms have logged a considerable amount of flight time and had some other rough treatment with no problems. Just my $0.02
Posted by: Def-e-nition
I will be sending you chromoly a-arms. dom is (drawn over mandrel) carbon steel, it is just a grade under chromoly and is very strong. You are correct (the pic you sent)they are our top of the line, but as i said we are gonna send you the nyla matix chromoly heims, which are upgraded for the black chromoly heims and the skid plate is not plain as in the pic, we have the new design that i spoke to you about in the last email
So . It is to be the Chromo . NOW - to +1 - Or NOT to + 1..... that is the question !!! lol .
The Nyla matrix thrown in is too good to be true .
Shiiaat those wicked arms are nice F16 - I must agree with you on that.
I will contat them - I found the red set .
Prittty Neat dude .
wicked , in fact !!! (oh g% , lame joke )
Posted by: Def-e-nition
Lastly F16 :
Wicked ? Or FFR as Bill is going to make them for me ?
Chromo and Nyla-matrix .
To the wire !!
aRGGHHHH !!! which one ??
S%#
Posted by: 400exrider707
Stay away is my best advice and like F-16 said, look on here for a good used set that are name brand. Im all for "you get what you pay for" Also I would go +2,+0 but thats my preference.
Check out the used section here.
You said it best yourself... quote:
Originally posted by Def-e-nition
Somehow I think then that a normal set of laegers would solve all my damn problems .
I bought my +2 Housers for my 450R for $250 shipped on here.
*EDIT* Ok I mispoke - I take back what I said about the wicked arms. It was Full Flight Racing arms I was thinking of. Stay clear. I have the proof in anyone wants it PM me your email address and tell me.
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by Def-e-nition
I tried in vian searching on E bay for a simple set of +2 arms - mmm any takers on answering the +2 +1 , or simply +2 question ? I am in two minds about the +1 forward stance after reading through the thread .
it seems back when a 400ex was the quad to have everyone that had +1 foward a-arms also had a +1.25 swingarm
remember with alot of the cheap a-arm companies you are really getting what you pay for. stick with something like a set of houser a-arms. they are reasonably priced at 600 bucks for standard travel if i remeber right
Posted by: 400exrider707
Houser std travel are $575 last I knew, and I believe SMC std travel are $475 with liftetime warranty.
Posted by: 400exMO
some more question.
what's a good sag to be at?
what's good ride heigth for mx?
also can you explain zero preload shocks?
I have a zps converted C@D rear shock, elka trip rate comp. adj. front. I believe I have heard before that all three shocks should be zps or none should. Also if the rear shock is zps why can I still adjust ride height?
Thanks.
Posted by: 400exrider707
This should help...
http://www.gtthunder.com/SuspensionHome.htm
Posted by: 400exMO
I read up on that site and couple others. I couldn't seem to find any starting numbers...
Posted by: bradley300
only your shock builder can tell you how much sag you need. and they probably wont tell you an exact number, but a percentage of your travel
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by 400exMO
I read up on that site and couple others. I couldn't seem to find any starting numbers...
Did you really read it or did you skim looking for numbers? Your ride height - "there is no magic number" Set your sag first, other-wise you could end up chasing your tail. Your height will depend on the type of riding you do. For MX, I actually may change depending on the track and/or conditions. As low as I go is usually 7 3/4 up front and 7 1/2 - 7 1/4 in rear. Highest is usually 8 1/2 front and 8 1/4 - 8 in the rear. Note that this will all also change with tire size too, so make sure you use the same size tires!
Posted by: 400exMO
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
Did you really read it or did you skim looking for numbers? Your ride height - "there is no magic number" Set your sag first, other-wise you could end up chasing your tail. Your height will depend on the type of riding you do. For MX, I actually may change depending on the track and/or conditions. As low as I go is usually 7 3/4 up front and 7 1/2 - 7 1/4 in rear. Highest is usually 8 1/2 front and 8 1/4 - 8 in the rear. Note that this will all also change with tire size too, so make sure you use the same size tires!
I read it, I understand how to setup it all up. I'm just having problems with my suspension. I believe if I play with it more I should be able to get it performing much better. I'm just looking for some starting points because I spent to much money on my suspension and want to get it working as good as it can.
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by 400exMO
I read it, I understand how to setup it all up. I'm just having problems with my suspension. I believe if I play with it more I should be able to get it performing much better. I'm just looking for some starting points because I spent to much money on my suspension and want to get it working as good as it can.
Ok, understood. If doing MX, I would start with 7 3/4 up front and 7 1/2 in the rear. If you find yourself scraping frame a lot, raise it up 1/2 front and back and try again. This should help. Make sure to have it measured with you on the quad in full riding gear. Feel free to ask more questions if you need any more help. Feel free to post some pics up too if you want setting the height and what not to help others.
Posted by: bradley300
your ride height will change with the sag. if the builder built the shock right, set your rear sag and the rear ride height will be right. then make the front .25 to .5 inches higher than the rear, or .75 if your ona yamaha
Posted by: Scro
This may be way out in left field, but it just popped into my head. It's a given that a linked rear end is more popular, and thought of by most as a superior setup compared to no-link.
I know the upper a-arm may have something to do with it, but why hasn't anyone tried a linked front a-arm? I mean the lower a-arm is making the same general range of motion as the swingarm. Would it not be as beneficial?
Posted by: bradley300
i would geuss it has to do with weight and ground clearance. the rear linkage goes front to back so it just slides with the terrain, a linkage on the a-arms would go side to side, taking many many direct hits instead of sliding
Posted by: Derrick Adams
Reading thru these definitions, would adding taller or shorter tires than stock contribute to bumpsteer, much like changing offsets of the rims?
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by Derrick Adams
Reading thru these definitions, would adding taller or shorter tires than stock contribute to bumpsteer, much like changing offsets of the rims?
I understand where your question is coming from, but no that wouldn't change bumpsteer. Bumpsteer is strictly controlled by the pivot point of the a-arms in realtionship to the pivot point of the tie-rod ends. If the tie-rod ends are at different pivot axis' than the a-arm pivots, when the arms cycle through their motions they all move at different rates. This is what causes bumpsteer.
Now as far as what is actually effected by the taller or shorter tire scenario, I need to think about this a bit before I leave an answer.
Posted by: Def-e-nition
quote:
Originally posted by Derrick Adams
Reading thru these definitions, would adding taller or shorter tires than stock contribute to bumpsteer, much like changing offsets of the rims?
good question .
Posted by: Derrick Adams
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
I understand where your question is coming from, but no that wouldn't change bumpsteer. Bumpsteer is strictly controlled by the pivot point of the a-arms in realtionship to the pivot point of the tie-rod ends. If the tie-rod ends are at different pivot axis' than the a-arm pivots, when the arms cycle through their motions they all move at different rates. This is what causes bumpsteer.
I was under the impression that changing wheel offsets contributes to bumpsteer as well as pivot point locations. Would that be correct?
It seems that changing tire diameter would effectively change contact patch location, same as wheel offset.
Now the real question would be how much tire height effects contact patch location. Say if someone went from a 22" tire to a 19" tire. Is the stability two-fold because of reduced sidewall AND better steering geometry, due to a better contact patch location in relation to the spindle?
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by Derrick Adams
I was under the impression that changing wheel offsets contributes to bumpsteer as well as pivot point locations. Would that be correct?
No wheel offsets do not effect bumpsteer. Again it is strictly the pivot points. Taller or shorter tires also have no effect on bumpsteer
quote:
Originally posted by Derrick Adams
It seems that changing tire diameter would effectively change contact patch location, same as wheel offset.
Now the real question would be how much tire height effects contact patch location. Say if someone went from a 22" tire to a 19" tire. Is the stability two-fold because of reduced sidewall AND better steering geometry, due to a better contact patch location in relation to the spindle?
Of course diameter will effect the contact patch location, but I think the locational change as far as imaginary lines goes, between a 19" tire and a 22" tire is quite minimal. Also if you factor in most quads with aftermarket setups run some negative camber, you are putting the wheel/tire combination more parallel with that imaginary line running through the balljoints, so change would be even less between tire heights. Between two vast extremes as far as sport atv front tires go, 19" to 22" is only 1.5" on each side of the tire. That 1.5" of vertical distance equates to almost nothing in horizontal distance from that imaginary line to the center point of the tire. Though I can say that to your original question it doesn't effect bumpsteer, but what it does actually effect I don't think I know. I need to do more research on this, but thank you for bringing it up. I'm having a very hard time visualizing this all in my head, I think I need to go spend some time playing around with my quads front end in the garage.
Posted by: f1502nv
anyone got anything on how to set the sag
i cant do a search cause the word sag isn't long enough
Posted by: LotusPosition
quote:
Originally posted by f1502nv
anyone got anything on how to set the sag
i cant do a search cause the word sag isn't long enough
http://www.4strokes.com/tech/racesag.asp
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by f1502nv
anyone got anything on how to set the sag
i cant do a search cause the word sag isn't long enough
Here's one too, it's already been posted though...
http://www.gtthunder.com/SuspensionHome.htm
LotusPosition - great link!
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by Derrick Adams
I was under the impression that changing wheel offsets contributes to bumpsteer as well as pivot point locations. Would that be correct?
"bumpsteer" can be a confusing term becasue its popular to call two different issues bumpsteer. the first is the toe change as the tire goes thru its travel, this is actually what bumpsteer is. the term gets confused because say you hit a rock with one tire and the bars steer that way. many people also cal this bumpsteer, but trail feed back thru the handlebars is a more accurate and less confusing term
to answer your question, yes wheel offsets will affect the trail feed back you feel thru the bars. the basic theory is the closer you can get the ball joints to the centerline of the wheels, the less feedback you will have. offsets do not effect actuall bumpsteer
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by Derrick Adams
It seems that changing tire diameter would effectively change contact patch location, same as wheel offset.
Now the real question would be how much tire height effects contact patch location. Say if someone went from a 22" tire to a 19" tire. Is the stability two-fold because of reduced sidewall AND better steering geometry, due to a better contact patch location in relation to the spindle?
i'm not 100% sure, but i know the shorter tires will turn quicker, as well as transfer more feedback to the bars so its a compromise between a positive and a negative. given the same air pressure, i would say the bigger tires would have a larger contact patch for the sheer fact that they are bigger.like someone else said, the difference in extreme sizes are pretty close, so i would say that would be a minimal difference in contact patch. also, the taller tires will ride smoother, all with a sacrifice of center of gravity though.
will a bigger tire effect bumpsteer, if everything else is the same then i would say no, because you havent changed a pivot point. but say you have a bigger tire now, and adjust the shocks to keep the same ride hieght you had with the smaller tires. ( you would do this for a smoother ride, less twitchy steering, but maybe you dont want the higher ride hieght that comes with it) now you are going to run into some issues.
1. you have changed the length of the shocks (made them shorter for the lower ride hieght) so now, they will bottom out at a ground to frame clearance then the same ride height with the smaller tires. so you have taken away some of your suspension travel.
2. since the shocks are shorter, you have raised the position of the a-arms within thier travel. you have not added any bumpsteer, but now you will come to the max amount of bumpsteer thru the travel quicker.
ex. say at ride hieght, the quad has .175 inches of bumpsteer and an inch into the upstroke it has .190 inches and another inch it has .250 another inch it has .320. as you can see it gets progressivly worse as you go thru the travel.
since you have added bigger tires and lowered the ride height (raising the a-arms posistion in the travel) you are skipping the .175 inches of bumpsteer and you ride hieght now has .190 inches. now everytime you hit a 1 inch bump the bumpsteer increases .600 inches, if you left the ride hieght alone, it would only increase .150 inches if you hit that same 1 inch bump.
so you havent increased given the quad more bumpsteer, but you have changed how quicky the bumpsteer gets worse
Posted by: bradley300
if you cant understand that, i'll try and re word it
Posted by: 400exrider707
Makes perfect sense to me, very understandable. Thanks for bringing it up to, it was a point I never really thought to mention. I still would really like to know what the actual effect of tire sizes has on the location of the spindle. I think this is also complicated by the fact that nearly every quad is running different camber settings. You could effectively run a camber setting that no matter what size tire you ran, it was always in that imaginary line of the balljoints. Add to that, your castor setting could give you camber gain throughout the travel. I think that this would actually be very difficult to put a "set in stone" definition or number on, but I think it's safe to say for our purposes, its negligible because the contact patch doesn't vary much between the smallest and largest tire a sport quad would genearlly use.
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
Makes perfect sense to me, very understandable. Thanks for bringing it up to, it was a point I never really thought to mention. I still would really like to know what the actual effect of tire sizes has on the location of the spindle.
none really. yes you are rasing the spindle farther from the ground (or closer with smaller tires), but you are doing this to the entire quad, so no change would be felt except you higher (or lower) center of gravity
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by bradley300
none really. yes you are rasing the spindle farther from the ground (or closer with smaller tires), but you are doing this to the entire quad, so no change would be felt except you higher (or lower) center of gravity
With a taller tire, like mentioned before, it moves your contact patch away from the imaginary line that the balljoints create on the arms though. I honestly just dont know the answer to this one, I need to do more research!
Posted by: juanki
hi guys. excelent thread you have here.
i have a question on the set up of my bike.
i have +2+1 dentor caster and camber a-arms and tcs triple rate with compresion only. all this of a 88trx270R
so i have read all i can find on how to fine tune the suspension, i know (or at least i know) what rebound, and compresion is. but havent done anything to the shocks. i never move anything, and i want to do some changes.
what i want to know is how the suspenison would react to the changes.
lets say. what wolud happen if i set the springs to the tallest part of the shock and the compresion to the softest setting?
then if i leave the springs like that and then move the compresion to the harder setting.?
then if i leave the compresion hard and the springs to the bottom of the shocks?
then if i leave the springs on the bottom and put the copresion to the sofftest side?
so i have four scenarios here. i ride both, mx and trails.
when i go mx i change the tires 19 front 18 rear.
when i go trail i use 22 front and rear.
but i've never have change the settings.
also i sent the back shock to revalve and told the guy tha i wanted it set up for mx. so they did. (also the front where set up for mx)
the last q. would be for the rebound. only the rear shock has it so it can be adjusted.
what wolud happend if i put it in the lowest or the highest.
what i'm looking for with this at the end is recomendations or general knowledge. as if..
for mx i recomend hard spring and hard compresion and for trails i recomend soft springs and soft compresion. at the rear the same with rebound. something like this.
thanks
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by 400exrider707
With a taller tire, like mentioned before, it moves your contact patch away from the imaginary line that the balljoints create on the arms though. I honestly just dont know the answer to this one, I need to do more research!
i see what you are saying now, the contact patch would be further from the spindle. That in theory would create more feedback thru the bars (think wheel spacers). At the same time tho, bigger tires turn slower so i think and feedback you would gain from having the contact patch such a small amount further from the imaginary line, is automaticly cured, plus some, by using the bigger, less responsive tire
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
lets say. what wolud happen if i set the springs to the tallest part of the shock and the compresion to the softest setting?
your shocks would be incredibly soft, and bottom very easy.
you are thinking too much on this one. get your rear sag set before you do anything.
pull up on the grab bar until the quad wants to lift. have a friend measure from the axle to say, a grab bar mounting bolt, call this A measurement. Then sit on the quad with your gear on in a riding position and have your friend take a measurement from the axle to that same grab bar mounting bolt, call this B measurement. subtract B from A to get your rider sag. adjust the preload until the rider sag is 50% of the available travel. then measure the ride height with you on it under the foot peg. then adjust the front ride height to .25 to .5 inches higher than the rear. Now dont ever worry about the preload again. note: i would do this with your MX tires on since the shocks are valved for MX. now when you switch to the bigger tires, i personally wouldnt mess with the ride height. i would go on and play with the compression knob. it takes test and tune time but go 2 or 3 clicks softer until its comfortable for xc. (just record the settings so you can switch back to mx easy). i would go 3 clicks faster on the rebound to start also.
quote:
then if i leave the springs like that and then move the compresion to the harder setting.?
the shocks will get stiffer and ride rougher as you raise the compression
quote:
then if i leave the compresion hard and the springs to the bottom of the shocks?
they would be incredibly stiff
quote:
then if i leave the springs on the bottom and put the copresion to the sofftest side?
somehwere in the middle of the other two scenarios
you dont need to think of the preload adjustments as anything more than a way to adjust the ride height/sag. do not use them to make the ride stiffer or more plush, thats what the compression knob is for
quote:
the last q. would be for the rebound. only the rear shock has it so it can be adjusted.
that all depends on how bumpy the terrainis and how fast you ride. typicly the faster you ride and the bumpier the trails, the faster the rebound needs to be and vise versa. your best bet is to start in the middle of the adjustment range. if the rebound is too slow, the rear shock will "pack up" because it cant fully extend back out between bumps and eventually runs out of travel and it will swap the whole rear end back and forth. if the rebound it too fast, the rear end will feel like a pogo stick constantly bouncing straight up, even on smaller bumps
Posted by: juanki
thanks for the reply bradley
i'll do that, so for what i understand the springs are used to set the heigth of the bike and the compresion knobs for changing for stiffer or plusher ride.
if that is so, why there are dual, triple and cuadruple rate springs?
Posted by: number52
quote:
Originally posted by juanki
thanks for the reply bradley
i'll do that, so for what i understand the springs are used to set the heigth of the bike and the compresion knobs for changing for stiffer or plusher ride.
if that is so, why there are dual, triple and cuadruple rate springs?
That's correct, the springs are used to hold the bike up and the valving is used to control the springs.
The reason for having multiple spring rates is to create a progressive spring rate or "rising rate" The crossovers control when the next spring takes into effect causing the spring rate to rise when it bottoms out. The crossover height is the most major external adjustment you can change on a shock. Most quad rate shocks have a ZPS spring and are actually a triple rate shock. If you look at the 2nd and 3rd spring you will notice that they are the same length, ID and wire size, which actually makes them the same spring rate, so I would consider these two springs as 1 spring! Mostly a sales gimmick.
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by juanki
thanks for the reply bradley
i'll do that, so for what i understand the springs are used to set the heigth of the bike and the compresion knobs for changing for stiffer or plusher ride.
if that is so, why there are dual, triple and quadruple rate springs?
its just shock builders personel preference. shocks are made to get stiffer as they go thru the travel. this is so they can havea smooth ride, and still have bottoming resistance. its called progression. some shock builders use the shims on the inside to tune the correct amount of progression, and some use multiple spring rates to do the same job. it seems the latter is the easier of the two which is why you see so many multi rate springs. but really multi rate or single rate doesnt make a difference as long as the rest of the shock is built around that set up.
thats why people shouldnt say "i'm going with brand X hock because they are tripple rate, and brand Y is only single" because more springs dosent mean it automatcly a better shock.
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by number52
Mostly a sales gimmick.
there is actually a purpose to multi rate springs so they are really a gimmick, just a different way of doing things.
now ZPS or SSD is a gimmick. all shocks sag, there isnt a SSD spring needed for that. SSD just makes it sit lower when no one is on it, but the reality is no one rides there quad while they arent on it, and when a person sits on equal shocks that arent SSD, they will sag jus the same
Posted by: number52
quote:
Originally posted by bradley300
there is actually a purpose to multi rate springs so they are really a gimmick, just a different way of doing things.
now ZPS or SSD is a gimmick. all shocks sag, there isnt a SSD spring needed for that. SSD just makes it sit lower when no one is on it, but the reality is no one rides there quad while they arent on it, and when a person sits on equal shocks that arent SSD, they will sag jus the same
I was saying that when they call it a quad rate is the sales gimmick. just like charging more for Long Travel shocks. They should only be charging more for that extra spring. The springs do have a purpose as I already stated.
Posted by: LotusPosition
"adjust the preload until the rider sag is 50% of the available travel. "
I have read some info on race sag where they say to use 30% of the travel. I realize that tuners have varied opinions on this. Is there an explanation of why there is such a difference?
Reason for asking, if you set your race sag at 50% of travel, and then at 30 %, there would be a huge difference is handling characteristics.
Not questioning anyone's advice, just trying to understand why.
Posted by: bradley300
quote:
Originally posted by LotusPosition
"adjust the preload until the rider sag is 50% of the available travel. "
I have read some info on race sag where they say to use 30% of the travel. I realize that tuners have varied opinions on this. Is there an explanation of why there is such a difference?
Reason for asking, if you set your race sag at 50% of travel, and then at 30 %, there would be a huge difference is handling characteristics.
Not questioning anyone's advice, just trying to understand why.
i asked Laz at GT Thunder about this a while back and he said 30% is a good percentage for a bike, but a quad does alot better with 50%. As for the why i couldnt tell you, Laz's shock set up are pretty darn good, so i beleive him
Posted by: LotusPosition
Ok, thanks for the info. I have been dealing with some race sag issues with my GT Thunder rear, and was unable to get those facts from Laz.
Posted by: John451
Hey, just joining in. Great forum. I've learned alot from it! I really wish i read this a few months ago because.... Sorry, I have a diamond j customs kit. haha. It's the +6" 6 total that is. I have the setup with the 400ex shocks. I thought it was so great when i got it and for 2 months because i got it in winter. Then i actually used it. Big dissappointment. The shocks can bottom out from jumping on the front bumper. Sometimes for some reason when i turn for more than 90 degrees the shock bottoms out and i cant turn out of the turn unles i stop. It's actually more likely to flip now than without it. I only flipped it once doing 40 on the lake and hit a fishing hole. lol. But it looks ok. Just cut the fenders to the kit today. I might ditch the kit because i dont really like it. I will attach a picture of it before i cut the fenders from the day i put it in. I have some with wheels, without, of kit, of setup, alot of them. In the picture i have the +6 kit with 1+4 wheels on. Not a typo. they're way out. But, yes, I agree with you. The kit's not good. I'm going to take it out for the determining ride tomorow. Idk what i was thinkig with it though, i just wanted a monster wheeler. I was the bicycle king before. Idk why i though i would not miss doing them. very depressed without them. lol. I could do them for miles and have... 
held one for 23 minutes once! Miss those days...
Posted by: John451
i see what you were talking about now with the wheel angle. my tops are out. Might move them to the 4.5" holes on the top sometime to look for a difference. Again, great forum. Learnin soooo much!
Posted by: number52
quote:
Originally posted by LotusPosition
"adjust the preload until the rider sag is 50% of the available travel. "
I have read some info on race sag where they say to use 30% of the travel. I realize that tuners have varied opinions on this. Is there an explanation of why there is such a difference?
Reason for asking, if you set your race sag at 50% of travel, and then at 30 %, there would be a huge difference is handling characteristics.
Not questioning anyone's advice, just trying to understand why.
Yes, this will change the way your bike handles because it will change the springs preload, but what makes the most difference when changing preload that most people don't think about is Crossover Height! This will drastically effect the way your bike handles. All of the way through the travel.
Posted by: John451
Yeah, the kit's really wierd. I think I'll sell it when i get the chance. You cannot take a turn in high speeds. I found it unstable for turning at 30 mph. On pavement though. Whenever the shocks compressed the wheels steer out. Don't particularly like it. Also when turning around it's very unpredictable. Cant tell when its gona compress 5" or when the rear wheels gona lift.
Posted by: 400exrider707
quote:
Originally posted by John451
Whenever the shocks compressed the wheels steer out. Don't particularly like it.
This is the action of bumpsteer, which is much more drastic than stock with this kit, as you can now see.
quote:
Originally posted by John451
Yeah, the kit's really wierd. I think I'll sell it when i get the chance. You cannot take a turn in high speeds. I found it unstable for turning at 30 mph. On pavement though. Also when turning around it's very unpredictable. Cant tell when its gona compress 5" or when the rear wheels gona lift.
Sounds like it would be safer to take it off now, and then sell it when you have the chance. Thanks for your input here.
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by Adam J. de Jaray
