+1" forward arms cause bumpsteer?

[frozenh2o]

Seems like most of the aftermarket wider arms for the 300ex and 400ex move the arms +1 inch forward at the same time they make them +2 or +3 wider. On the threads discussing the 400ex arm swap onto the 300ex, one of the alleged problems is the angle of the tie rod as viewed from the top when the 400 arms are used. The tie rods sweep back a small amount, causing undesireable bump steer.

When you put on a set of arms like +2, +1 that move the arms 1'" forward, wouldn't the tie rod angle be even worse than the 400ex arm swap? Do these arms have a bunch of bump steer?
Would a set of +2, +0 be better, assuming someone makes them?

[bradley300]

no, most of the bumpsteer from that conversion is from three things, the camber is different on the 400 a-arms, as well as the tierod end mounts on the steering stem and spindle.

also, the way i see it is if every aftermarket 300 a-arms set up is fowars an inch, then it must be the way to go

[cdalejef]

They compensate by moving the shock mount back one inch when building +1 arms. Note that not all quads work better with +1 arms.

[frozenh2o]

Well then Jeff, is +2, +1 a good choice for the 300ex with 400ex Elka's with relocated top mount? or +2, +0?

[bradley300]

theve been using +2+1 lonestars i beleive

[cdalejef]

like brad said, +2 +1 is a great setup.

[redrunner]

Hey Frozen I just PM'd ya. I have a set for sale, choice of color.

[frozenh2o]

PM back at ya Redrunner.