A-Arm Question??

[Pro1200]

Will Roll Design +2 +1 A-arms from an 88' 250R fit my 86' 250r??

Thanks,

David

[250-R-250]

YES!!!!and the +1 is what you want if you have an 86 frame, and to go with it, you might want a -1 swinger!!

[Pro1200]

Well it is a used +2+1 that was on a 88R. I have a stock swing arm now. Going to get LSR carrier and axle, cause my carrier just broke on me.

-David

[Pro1200]

So it will definetly work?? right now I have a stock 86' Frame and stock arms and shocks.

-David

[250-R-250]

I am almost positive that it will, you may want to look into waiting for a used - 1 swinger and carrior package on ebay or something like that to correct the geometry.

[Pro1200]

Well right now, I'm tight on budget and am buying an aftermarket carrier and LSR axcaliber axle.

-David

[Tom TRX250R]

Yes, Like stated above it will def. fit but a -1 swingarm will be wanted later down the road to achieve the 88-89 geometry.

[punker69q]

It will work, but you will need new shocks that are the correct lenght and valved for +2 a-arms

[TBD]

Hopefully the arms will have enough adjustment for camber because the 86-87 TRX chassis upper a-arm mounts are a 1/2 inch wider then the 88-89. As for going to a -1 swingarm to get the geometry the same as the 88-89 is incorrect when using +1 forward arms. The 88-89 swingarm is 1 inch shorter then the 86-87. By moving the arms forward and then shortening the swingarm you will end up with more wieght bias to the rear of the quad making it have a tendency to have a push in the frontend.

[TheFontMaster]

Originally posted by TBD
The 88-89 swingarm is 1 inch shorter then the 86-87. By moving the arms forward and then shortening the swingarm you will end up with more wieght bias to the rear of the quad making it have a tendency to have a push in the frontend.

Wrong. The 88/89 geometry is a better handling set up than the 86/87 geometry, by putting on the +1 forward a arms, and -1 swingarm, you get the same geometry as the 88/89 R's, and therfore a better handling 250r.

[TBD]

Originally posted by TheFontMaster
Wrong. The 88/89 geometry is a better handling set up than the 86/87 geometry, by putting on the +1 forward a arms, and -1 swingarm, you get the same geometry as the 88/89 R's, and therfore a better handling 250r.
There were several changes made to the 88-89 TRX but the only two changes to geometry were the shorter swingarm and narrowing the upper a-arm mounts. To make the 86-87 the same as the 88-89 you would only need to change the swingarm(-1).

[Tom TRX250R]

To make the 86-87 the same as the 88-89 you would only need to change the swingarm(-1).


WRONG AGAIN BUDDY!!
The 88-89's moved the weight forward by having a -1" swingarm AND moving the a-arms forward 1 inch. That moved the weight forward making them handle better. Like stated above, you would need the swingarm and a-arms to achieve 88-89 geometry I think it's been over a year since we have posted the ol' difference list from the 86-89 250R's, looks like it is needed again!:rolleyes:

[TBD]

Originally posted by Tom TRX250R
WRONG AGAIN BUDDY!!
The 88-89's moved the weight forward by having a -1" swingarm AND moving the a-arms forward 1 inch. That moved the weight forward making them handle better. Like stated above, you would need the swingarm and a-arms to achieve 88-89 geometry I think it's been over a year since we have posted the ol' difference list from the 86-89 250R's, looks like it is needed again!:rolleyes:
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong but this time I know for a fact that I'm not wrong. First of all if they did what you say they did then there wouldn't be more wieght to the front to make it handle better it would be just the opposite. Second of all I've been designing and building suspension components for quads for 15 years now and have measured out both quads in question and know for a fact that you are wrong. If you have facts that I'm not privy to then present them.

[TheFontMaster]

Originally posted by TBD
There were several changes made to the 88-89 TRX but the only two changes to geometry were the shorter swingarm and narrowing the upper a-arm mounts. To make the 86-87 the same as the 88-89 you would only need to change the swingarm(-1).

This statemnet that weather Tom TRX250R was acurate in what he said your not, what you said here is not acurate. The 88/89 250r's handle better than previous years, due to a shorter swingarm, and the a arms moved forward 1 inch. So to get the 88/89 geometry on an 86/87 you wound need to change the swingarm AND the a arms, not just the swingarm.

[TBD]

Originally posted by TheFontMaster
This statemnet that weather Tom TRX250R was acurate in what he said your not, what you said here is not acurate. The 88/89 250r's handle better than previous years, due to a shorter swingarm, and the a arms moved forward 1 inch. So to get the 88/89 geometry on an 86/87 you wound need to change the swingarm AND the a arms, not just the swingarm.
I haven't had a chance to review my TRX notes yet but I will in just a little bit and post wheelbase measurements which will prove that I'm correct.

[TBD]

Originally posted by Tom TRX250R
WRONG AGAIN BUDDY!!
The 88-89's moved the weight forward by having a -1" swingarm AND moving the a-arms forward 1 inch. That moved the weight forward making them handle better. Like stated above, you would need the swingarm and a-arms to achieve 88-89 geometry I think it's been over a year since we have posted the ol' difference list from the 86-89 250R's, looks like it is needed again!:rolleyes:
Maybe you should know the numbers before you call someone wrong. Here are the factory specs.
86-87= 51"
88-89= 49.8"
Beside the fact that you were wrong about the wheelbase you are also wrong about wieght bias. The further you move the wheels forward the more wieght you transfer to the rear. I'm not here to sound like I know it all I just want to give out correct info unlike you and the fontmaster. Nice try though.

[250-R-250]

I know he is right that if you shorten the swinger then there is more weigth in the back. I thought that the 88's handled better because of that weight change to the rear(MORE TRACTION), but since it was -1 swinger, then wouldnt the +1 arms even that out on the 88?

[TBD]

Originally posted by 250-R-250
I know he is right that if you shorten the swinger then there is more weigth in the back. I thought that the 88's handled better because of that weight change to the rear(MORE TRACTION), but since it was -1 swinger, then wouldnt the +1 arms even that out on the 88?
What kind of ridding are you doing? If it's mx then you wouldn't want to go forward with the arms.