Plus Forward Arms? Theory? (Help Please!)

[Honda]

O.K. Guys and Gals, we need to discuss this a bit, because I am sure everyone else is as confused as I am about the Plus Theory.

Why is it that Roll Design and ARS-FX all offer a .3/4" longer swingarm and .3/4" forward A-arms?

Now LSR has a set that is a plus forward design as well?

Some Manufactures are offering Plus Forward Designs, and some are not, but most of the Pro's I see are all running a Plus Forward set-up?

It's Driving me Crazy!!!

I am about to purchase a front end, and I just can't decide between Houser's New Non forward design, or the ARS-FX +3/4" forward set-up...............

What are the reasons I would want a plus forward system? What are the benifits or drawbacks if any?

I have the option to purchase a complete ARS-FX front/ rear set with Custom Axis for a reasonable price, but I already have the Houser +1 1/4" swingarm, LT Link and Elka Shock. I really like the Quality of Houser's Products, and that they use Needle Bearings instead of Bushings in the Arm Pivots. The Sli-Cast thingy is gonna be trick too......but they don't offer a plus forward design.

Should I swap everything out for the ARS-FX parts, or just throw a Houser Front end on her?

[punker69q]

Forward a-arms tranfer a little more weight to the rear of the quad and make the wheelbase longer. This make the atv more stable in whoops, have better traction but push a little more in corners. This is with a stock swingarm.

If you leghten the swingarm, the opposite effects will happen. Just remember that moving the wheel farther from the center of the atv will reduce the traction of those wheels.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by punker69q
Just remember that moving the wheel farther from the center of the atv will reduce the traction of those wheels.

i wonder why drag quads use extremely lengthened swing arms then

[punker69q]

Originally posted by Pappy
i wonder why drag quads use extremely lengthened swing arms then

To prevent from flipping over. Why does tt and ice racing quads got shortened swingers???

Have you ever looked at a new bmw? there front wheels are pushed to the front as much as they can for better front/rear weight ratio. In fact, they achieve near 50/50 ratio with front engine and tranny layout.

Trust me, it's easy to make the calculus to prove that, if ya want i'll show ya :blah:

[Smoker]

Traction bias was the reason I knew of also, I didn't think there was a need for it on the 4 strokes since you aren't searching for traction as much as you would on the a 2 stroke. I know it was the hot set-up on a 250r or Banshee but not on the newer quads?

[punker69q]

This is very true, you don't really need foward a-arms with the new 4 strokes, atleast for traction issue. Maybe they are trying to get a longer wheelbase for improved stability.

*edit* I was reading the first post again and I saw that roll are offering 3/4 foward a-arms and 3/4 longer swingarm. This way they almost do nothing for the weight distribution but they improve high speed stability and reduce the tendency to swap from side to side.

[bradley300]

if you extend the swingarm you might get a little front end push in the turns, not sure why, but pushing the a-arms foward gets rid of the push.

i really noticed this on the blaster. i had a plus 2 swinger with +0 foward a-arms. when i switched to +1 foward a-arms, the steering seemed quite a bit more responsive and "sure of its self"

i say if your sticking with a stock length swinger, dont worry about adding +foward a-arms, if you are getting a longer swingarm, match the swingarm length with a-arm "fowardness" (did i just make up a word?:confused: lol)

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Pappy
i wonder why drag quads use extremely lengthened swing arms then

All the traction in the world doesn't do any good if the front end comes up.

Ice and TT racers use a shorter swinger to improve traction, and they can get away with it because they aren't launching out of corners, they can roll on the throttle. Plus, they are often in a controlled slide anyways.

Drag racing requires a hard launch, so it becomes a delicate balance between traction, and keeping the front wheels down. You can't accelerate if your nose is skyward.

[Rdhanded2]

Did anyone read the article in the new DirtWheels about iShock? They bashed +1 a arms. iShock said the only quad that benifits is the Banshee. What is everyones opinion?

[Pappy]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
All the traction in the world doesn't do any good if the front end comes up.

Ice and TT racers use a shorter swinger to improve traction, and they can get away with it because they aren't launching out of corners, they can roll on the throttle. Plus, they are often in a controlled slide anyways.

Drag racing requires a hard launch, so it becomes a delicate balance between traction, and keeping the front wheels down. You can't accelerate if your nose is skyward.

i knew that, i just wanted to throw the drag boys in the mix seeing everything related to them is bassakwards:devil:

[punker69q]

Originally posted by Rdhanded2
Did anyone read the article in the new DirtWheels about iShock? They bashed +1 a arms. iShock said the only quad that benifits is the Banshee. What is everyones opinion?

It's true that the banshee benifit the most from +1 a-arms, because it is front heavy.

What they say in their ads is only half the truth. +1 a-arms are not good on many otherwise stock quads, but when you start to modify other things they may be needed. Also, it has alot to do with your riding style and your weight.

I am myself quite tall (6'7'') and heavy, so I like my quad with +1 a-arms, because I can get it to grip very well and not to push too much in corners, simply by adjusting my position on the atv. For lighter riders, this won't work as well.

[Honda]

Well, I have the Houser +1 1/4" swingarm, and it definatly improved the handling.

I felt as if it actually turned better with the longer swingarm, seems to bite a lot harder, less push through the corners?

Keep the info coming!

[Pappy]

Originally posted by Honda
Well, I have the Houser +1 1/4" swingarm, and it definatly improved the handling.

I felt as if it actually turned better with the longer swingarm, seems to bite a lot harder, less push through the corners?

Keep the info coming!

i found exactly the opposite on my 400ex with a longer swing arm and no forward arms. the bike turned like a tractor and pushed like a fat chick with a shopping cart. forward arms made the handling much better.

maybe a thread needs to be posted explaining what set up favors which quad:p

[bwamos]

Aye, every model has a differnt weight bias.

+1 forward arms on a 300ex/250x w/ a stock swinger would do bad bad things.. lol. The quad is already nose light with the super short swinger. A 300ex really needs a +3 swinger to make +1 forward arms a good thing.

On the above 2 (pappy and honda), I think you'r both talking about 2 different kinds of cornering.

Honda thinks the +0 corners better. It does when the brakes are not being applied. The weight bias in the front gives it better traction.

Pappy I'm sure is talking about braking HARD into a corner. (what other kind is there???) Having the weight bias further back gives you a better weight distribution and less of a forward roll/dive allowing you a position further forward on the seat, actually giving you more weight on the front, and less push.

[punker69q]

Originally posted by Pappy
i found exactly the opposite on my 400ex with a longer swing arm and no forward arms. the bike turned like a tractor and pushed like a fat chick with a shopping cart. forward arms made the handling much better.

maybe a thread needs to be posted explaining what set up favors which quad:p

What kind of front and back shock were you running? I will try to find a logical explanation, this seems quite the opposite to what it should do.

[TBD]

Originally posted by punker69q
It's true that the banshee benifit the most from +1 a-arms, because it is front heavy.

What they say in their ads is only half the truth. +1 a-arms are not good on many otherwise stock quads, but when you start to modify other things they may be needed. Also, it has alot to do with your riding style and your weight.

I am myself quite tall (6'7'') and heavy, so I like my quad with +1 a-arms, because I can get it to grip very well and not to push too much in corners, simply by adjusting my position on the atv. For lighter riders, this won't work as well.
The only thing that we considered when designing the arms was the other components bieng stock. I agree that if you run a different length swingarm then you could benifit from a forward arm. What they said in there ad is totally correct for what they were doing. Using the other stock components. You are a big guy so I could definentlly see that forward arms benefit you.

[punker69q]

Originally posted by TBD
The only thing that we considered when designing the arms was the other components bieng stock. I agree that if you run a different length swingarm then you could benifit from a forward arm. What they said in there ad is totally correct for what they were doing. Using the other stock components. You are a big guy so I could definentlly see that forward arms benefit you.

I just want to add that I never wanted to say that they where lying in there ads. I believe that the iShock setup is probably the best to get for recreational riders / average level racers who are on a budget. Every components seem to be engineered to work well together and this is very important.

[TBD]

Originally posted by punker69q
I just want to add that I never wanted to say that they where lying in there ads. I believe that the iShock setup is probably the best to get for recreational riders / average level racers who are on a budget. Every components seem to be engineered to work well together and this is very important.
I didn't take it that way. I just wanted to explain our goal when designing it. But you were partially right because we did consider aftermarket parts when deciding to move the Banshee arms forward. Most Banshees are used in the dunes with extended swingarms so we decided to go 1 forward to help with the wieght distrubution. Sorry if my previous post seemed to be a little aggressive.

[Honda]

On the above 2 (pappy and honda), I think you'r both talking about 2 different kinds of cornering.

Honda thinks the +0 corners better. It does when the brakes are not being applied. The weight bias in the front gives it better traction.

Pappy I'm sure is talking about braking HARD into a corner. (what other kind is there???) Having the weight bias further back gives you a better weight distribution and less of a forward roll/dive allowing you a position further forward on the seat, actually giving you more weight on the front, and less push.

I would agree with that, It does dive more in the corners now, and the front also fells much heavier than it once did.

I usually don't use the brakes much in the corner, usually before the corner, then power out! LOL!

So I gather that, with a lengthened swingarm I am going to wan't the plus forward arms, Arms wich Houser currently does not produce.

So now the question is, how much forward do I need to go?

+.5"
+.75"
or +1.0"

With a +1 1/4" Swingarm? If I went an +1 1/4" more on the front, then my bike would be a full 2.5" longer, sounds like a lot to me.

See, Frustrating isn't it! :ermm:

[bradley300]

i say buy the a-arms and swingarm from the same manufacturer so you can talk to them about it. they have plenty of r&d in them and have come up with what they think is the best set up

i have always thought you lengthen the front the same as the rear. the only time you wouldnt be if the stock swingarm was to short in the first place the you would lengthem the front an inch and the rear an inch plus however too short it was in the first place. for instance, if a 450r swinger is a quarter inch to short, you would get plus 1 foward a-arms and a plus 1 1/4 swingarm to make everything right

[bwamos]

Originally posted by Honda
I would agree with that, It does dive more in the corners now, and the front also fells much heavier than it once did.

I usually don't use the brakes much in the corner, usually before the corner, then power out! LOL!

So I gather that, with a lengthened swingarm I am going to wan't the plus forward arms, Arms wich Houser currently does not produce.

So now the question is, how much forward do I need to go?

+.5"
+.75"
or +1.0"

With a +1 1/4" Swingarm? If I went an +1 1/4" more on the front, then my bike would be a full 2.5" longer, sounds like a lot to me.

See, Frustrating isn't it! :ermm:

You can also raise your ride height in the front or lower the ride height in the rear like a 1/4 of an inch, which would counteract the diving, but make your front end a feel a little lighter under acceleration.. That's an easy setting to play with and costs nothing. ;)

[300exOH]

Originally posted by bwamos
You can also raise your ride height in the front or lower the ride height in the rear like a 1/4 of an inch, which would counteract the diving, but make your front end a feel a little lighter under acceleration.. That's an easy setting to play with and costs nothing. ;)

I agree. I have +1 forward arms on my 300ex with a stock length swingarm and after toying with the ride height a little I notice less dive in the corners, lighter steering and better handling overall. I'll probably have to tweak it again when I get my swinger lengthened though. I was told that with +1 forward arms on my quad that adding 3/4" to the swingarm should balance it out. I'm sure this will be different for all quads though depending on weight distribution.