i-shock [Archive] - ATV Riders Forum

05-17-2006, 04:36 PM

They have said that the standard "Phantom" set with the arms and shocks is best suited for recreational riding while they have a new arm set that is made more for racing with aluminum uppers and a slight reverse gullwing lower.

While their caster adjustment on those looks interesting, I find it odd that one of their designers said in the past that aluminum upper arms weren't the best idea since the weight savings wasn't all that much but the arms are more prone to failure....

Also intresting is that HD USA made statements in their DW articles pretty much bashing bent arms saying their straight arms are the best way to go...now they have bent arms...even if it is subtle.

RXM

05-17-2006, 05:48 PM

TBD

05-17-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by mrbluehair
They have said that the standard "Phantom" set with the arms and shocks is best suited for recreational riding while they have a new arm set that is made more for racing with aluminum uppers and a slight reverse gullwing lower.

While their caster adjustment on those looks interesting, I find it odd that one of their designers said in the past that aluminum upper arms weren't the best idea since the weight savings wasn't all that much but the arms are more prone to failure....

Also intresting is that HD USA made statements in their DW articles pretty much bashing bent arms saying their straight arms are the best way to go...now they have bent arms...even if it is subtle.

I would have to admit that I wasn't a big fan of aluminum uppers several years ago. The wieght savings is ok. The main reason I decided to work with aluminum uppers is the knowledge I have gained in the last year of the different strengthining procedures when working with aluminum. We have been testing these arms for the last 8 months with excellent results using untreated arms.

As for the article, he (the owner) was refering to arms that bend down below the shock mount not the high ground clearance arms.

I know you were just fishing for a confrontation but it seems you won't be allowed to have that much of my time.

FUELATV

05-17-2006, 08:31 PM

If those freestyle guys AKRAIX are running the i-shock stuff it must hold up and work good. I saw the add for the new stuff in Dirt Wheels and the castor adjustment looks top notch.

jeremy_283

05-18-2006, 05:11 AM

yea i noticed they were bashing gullwing in dirt wheels to and long travel arms but now they have them

TBD

05-18-2006, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by extremejrowe
yea i noticed they were bashing gullwing in dirt wheels to and long travel arms but now they have them

They still believe that LT arms are not necessary but like any other business they are going to give the public what they want. Is there something wrong with that?

willow2679

05-18-2006, 09:09 AM

No to me theres not a problem but is not nice to see people that put things in one ways saying that they have the truth to see that one or two years laters they give up and say the opposite thing is not credible to them to go backward on somethoing that they HAVE TO KNOW before they design those high tech and spensive stuff like suspension
I like the kits very much they look like they have a very high end product and looks tricky and like the fact that maybee they can ridd of multiple spring configuration because they have arrange the valving on them. but if that is true (now Im going to see If they are testing that "bent" arm system) is not good for them in giving a confidence inspiring product.

Yes they have it now on sale they looks very good but that doesn´t change the other thing, even the upper one looks bent

FUELATV

05-18-2006, 10:07 AM

I dont think they are bashing the GULLWING design. Just stating that the GULLWING serves no purpose and offers LESS ground clearace. They still offer both lines of a-arms. The new line is not GULLWING. It is more of a MAX CLEARANCE, and ALSO has adjustable camber. I think its a matter of demand ...... no matter what is tested and proven because top pros run it people think its better. As far as springs go as time goes by i am sure they are not just sitting back. They are testing and constantly trying to improve to be on top of the game. What that leads to who knows? But i do know this with their customer service nobody with their products will be hung out to dry.

05-18-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by TBD
I would have to admit that I wasn't a big fan of aluminum uppers several years ago. The wieght savings is ok. The main reason I decided to work with aluminum uppers is the knowledge I have gained in the last year of the different strengthining procedures when working with aluminum. We have been testing these arms for the last 8 months with excellent results using untreated arms.

As for the article, he (the owner) was refering to arms that bend down below the shock mount not the high ground clearance arms.

I know you were just fishing for a confrontation but it seems you won't be allowed to have that much of my time.

No, I wasn't fishing for confrontation Tim. Actually, I was truly confused on things that have been said both in person and in print. Just wanted clarification as it was printed that you could build an arm that makes a complete loop and it wouldn't matter but their opinion was that a straight arm was stronger than a bent one.

Now as to going "Long Travel", and this is a legit question, do the new arms offer increased travel? I would bet they do, even if it is an inch...maybe the term should be "Longer Travel"... while offering the ability to utilize a longer shock, or as you prefer to call it a "Long Shock" steup.

As for the tuneability of the new upper's, that's actually a cool feature for people who are tuning freaks. While it's racing uses in drag racing and such is more dramatic than it's effects in dirt, it could offer quicker "In Race" changes where maybe some slight damage to the quad might throw things out of whack a bit.

Again, my points were all legit with the main focus on what was said in printed articles, and I don't recall you making those statements in DW.

The complete kit is a novel idea, just raising questions to statements made.

TBD

05-18-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by mrbluehair
No, I wasn't fishing for confrontation Tim. Actually, I was truly confused on things that have been said both in person and in print. Just wanted clarification as it was printed that you could build an arm that makes a complete loop and it wouldn't matter but their opinion was that a straight arm was stronger than a bent one.

Now as to going "Long Travel", and this is a legit question, do the new arms offer increased travel? I would bet they do, even if it is an inch...maybe the term should be "Longer Travel"... while offering the ability to utilize a longer shock, or as you prefer to call it a "Long Shock" steup.

As for the tuneability of the new upper's, that's actually a cool feature for people who are tuning freaks. While it's racing uses in drag racing and such is more dramatic than it's effects in dirt, it could offer quicker "In Race" changes where maybe some slight damage to the quad might throw things out of whack a bit.

Again, my points were all legit with the main focus on what was said in printed articles, and I don't recall you making those statements in DW.

The complete kit is a novel idea, just raising questions to statements made.
#1, bent arms: A tube bent such as the gullwing style bend is not as strong as a straight tube. A tube that is bent such as the over the shock mount max clearance arms is much stronger then a straight tube or gull wing bent tube because the gusseting and the bend bieng reverse to the force applied.
#2, Long travel arms: Yes they do have about a 1/2" more wheel travel then there standard arms but as I'm sure you know it's not the wheel travel that the LT stands for. I could easilly get the exact same travel from both but the numbers came up better utilizing that little bit extra wheel travel. Yes it is Long shock but bieng the smart business person that he is (the owner) he is calling them LT arms so that the consumer will be able to relate to them.
#3, Castor adjustment: You are totally incorrect on this statement that you feel it will be more usefull to a person that operates there quad on pavement. It does benifit them but it also benfits the dirt rider just as much. Castor adjustment is needed for several reasons. 1st is the fact that not all riders like the same steering characteristics that are connected to caster adjustments. Some like quicker steering in the corners and then there are some that like the quad to steer a little slower for better hi speed steering stability. 2nd is that not all quad riders run the same sag or ride hieght. If you were to run the rear of the quad lower then the front then you would create more positive caster and of course if you ran the rear higher you would have less positive caster. So by bieng adjustable you are able to set your front end with the correct caster after you have determined what ride hieght works for you. I know that can be done with any set of arms that have adjustable caster but the fact that you don't have to remove the a-arm pivot bolts to make the adjustment is the best part of the feature.

05-18-2006, 11:58 AM

So placing a bend in an arm is ok, so long as it's in the direction your product uses? For the way I see it, if you have a traditional gull wing design that uses a gusset to strenghten the bend (Not Roll or Gibson neither have bridge gussets), the directional force would be down into the "bend" and transferred out to the gusset that would be pinched on either side causing the stress to be loaded laterally along the gusset, so failure would have to occur with the gusset actually buckling onto itself... like trying to squeeze somthing with pliers. That would be an amazing feat.

Conversly with the reverse gull style, the force is transmitted to a gusset welded to the bottom of the bend would need to rely on the welds themselves to not only to keep the shock from breaking loose, but also to keep the tubing from wanting to return to it's original straight shape, so the welds need to keep the reverse bend from opening back up, causing a potential shear point with compression forces as well as lateral forces that move outward instead of inward.

No, I didn't say anything about operating a quad on pavement, what I said was that the the micro adjustibility is more dramatic than on dirt. With a dirt or sand surface, there is more room for error so to speak because there is less traction than on asphalt.
On a quad, the ability to adjust is limited to turning heim joints 1/2 turn at a time, correct? Now, you can do 1/4, 1/8,1/16th?? I'm sure that you feel these micro adjustments are very important, and perhaps on a sticky blue groove track, or even on the street part of a supermoto race, they are, but in most situations they won't be felt by most riders and many racers. The real benefit is that you don't have to remove the arm to make adjustments which could save time during testing.

TBD

05-18-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by mrbluehair
So placing a bend in an arm is ok, so long as it's in the direction your product uses? For the way I see it, if you have a traditional gull wing design that uses a gusset to strenghten the bend (Not Roll or Gibson neither have bridge gussets), the directional force would be down into the "bend" and transferred out to the gusset that would be pinched on either side causing the stress to be loaded laterally along the gusset, so failure would have to occur with the gusset actually buckling onto itself... like trying to squeeze somthing with pliers. That would be an amazing feat.

Conversly with the reverse gull style, the force is transmitted to a gusset welded to the bottom of the bend would need to rely on the welds themselves to not only to keep the shock from breaking loose, but also to keep the tubing from wanting to return to it's original straight shape, so the welds need to keep the reverse bend from opening back up, causing a potential shear point with compression forces as well as lateral forces that move outward instead of inward.

No, I didn't say anything about operating a quad on pavement, what I said was that the the micro adjustibility is more dramatic than on dirt. With a dirt or sand surface, there is more room for error so to speak because there is less traction than on asphalt.
On a quad, the ability to adjust is limited to turning heim joints 1/2 turn at a time, correct? Now, you can do 1/4, 1/8,1/16th?? I'm sure that you feel these micro adjustments are very important, and perhaps on a sticky blue groove track, or even on the street part of a supermoto race, they are, but in most situations they won't be felt by most riders and many racers. The real benefit is that you don't have to remove the arm to make adjustments which could save time during testing.
Since you are directing this post directlly at me ("So placing a bend in a arm is ok, so long as it's in the direction your product uses?) I will make just one more comment and then I'm done answering your post.
I have done test (something that the company your dad is part owner of "Epic" doesn't do) on both types of tubes to see the difference in force needed to change the tube. The Gullwing style bend takes much less force to add bend to then the tube that is used in the opposite direction (reverse gullwing if that is how you want to refer to it). The gusset that is used by Epic is very strong design as is the tube and gussets used with all high ground clearance designs. The only thing with there design is that they are relying on the shock mount tube to hold the main tube together as to where Ishocks arms main tube is all one piece with only a bend to worry about.
Your time is up. C-ya

05-18-2006, 01:30 PM

The reason it was directed at you is because of all the contradictions you have made that seem to serve your purpose. Your design relies not on the material the gusset and shock mount to not only keep the main tube from spreading, but also to keep the shock mount gusset iteslf from ripping out the bottom, therefore, the weld itself is the strenght of the reverse style where the material for the gusset is the strong point of the other, and when things break or fail, it tends to be at a weld before a piece of material has it's molecular structrue fail.

Ding!!!

atcdad

05-18-2006, 01:40 PM

TBD

05-18-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by mrbluehair
The reason it was directed at you is because of all the contradictions you have made that seem to serve your purpose. Your design relies not on the material the gusset and shock mount to not only keep the main tube from spreading, but also to keep the shock mount gusset iteslf from ripping out the bottom, therefore, the weld itself is the strenght of the reverse style where the material for the gusset is the strong point of the other, and when things break or fail, it tends to be at a weld before a piece of material has it's molecular structrue fail.

Ding!!!
The "other" arms are completelly relying on the weld. Main tube is WELDED to the shock mount tubes and is not a continous tube so it is totally relying on the weld so who cares about there gusset. Do you think I'm making just assumptions. No I'm not. I have done destructive testing to the "other" arms unlike you. I still like the fact that the "other" arms are still using mild steel pivot tubes. Boy, that one back fired on you. Since you're so damn smart why aren't you building suspension components for your dad? You seem to just like spreading BS that you've either read or heard from someone else and have no idea how to apply it. I can go way further if you would like but these forums are for exchanging good info and not just trying to bash a individual.

Oh yeah, Ding!!

05-18-2006, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by TBD
The "other" arms are completelly relying on the weld. Main tube is WELDED to the shock mount tubes and is not a continous tube so it is totally relying on the weld so who cares about there gusset. Do you think I'm making just assumptions. No I'm not. I have done destructive testing to the "other" arms unlike you. I still like the fact that the "other" arms are still using mild steel pivot tubes. Boy, that one back fired on you. Since you're so damn smart why aren't you building suspension components for your dad? You seem to just like spreading BS that you've either read or heard from someone else and have no idea how to apply it. I can go way further if you would like but these forums are for exchanging good info and not just trying to bash a individual.

Oh yeah, Ding!!

LOL....you crack me up!!! I mean...Pot.....Kettle....Black. You decided to respond. You have been nothing but a contridiction, and no, I am not an engineer, however I have discussed different designs and how and where stress is applied with people that have done more with suspension design in a wide variety of pedestrian as well as racing applications than you will ever be able to comprehend. Just because you break somthing in your own environment does not make for a legitimate test of durability. Plus you get set up all the time with misinformation that makes it here wich is all laughable because you actually think you have dirt or insider info, and at no point have you even figured this out.

Let's not forget, sometimes you come in and offer helpful info, other times, you love to bash. Sad thing is, that if ever this gig goes south, you've just burned a couple more bridges in the process, and it was all your doing, which you seem good at.

All I did was raise a question that was echoed by another poster and you come in and got to start up like you like to do. That is why you crack me up....predictibility and contradiction.

I never said straight arms were best....your crew did, I questioned why now the change of heart. You poo pooed aluminum arms....now you design them...I could go on, but I have more interesting endeavours to attend to.

I had fun catching up, and oh, BTW, I'm still waiting for the royalty check for being an inspriation to the name of the kits you sell....

"Phantom" Ahhh to be a thing of inspiration....:D

jeremy_283

05-19-2006, 06:04 AM

they did bash gullwing and LT arms but i do believe they are just giving the people what they want............. hey its a buisness

fandl450r

05-19-2006, 06:47 AM

That was an....ummm....interesting read. Can't we just all get along? :)

FUELATV

05-19-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by extremejrowe
they did bash gullwing and LT arms but i do believe they are just giving the people what they want............. hey its a buisness

I think their point was that the GULLWING offers no real benefits. The MAXCLEARANCE stye does offer more ground clearance and some structural advantages too.

400grl

05-19-2006, 01:57 PM

That's kind of how I took it as well.....:confused:

Pappy

05-19-2006, 02:25 PM

My new arms will be out soon:o

They will feature gullwing and straight styling, combined with maximum ground clearence attributes.

They will be constructed of chromoly, aluminum, mild steel, titanium and a material I scraped off the space shuttle:devil:

Shock mounts will be gusseted to the point it will never fail. I have Catapillar doing the design and fabrication on that part
;)

There will be no chrome or powdercoating, they will be such a work of genuis that anyone who tried to coat them in anything would be foiled as they will not accept a coating. That leads to the roost shedding qualities but i can not devulge that as it is still top secret.

There will be no ball joints, they will be conected to the spindle and frame via a new technolgy taken from an Area 51 resident. Not sure how it all works, but if he can get pictures of a green dude on Pluto...I will trust him;)

And lastly, they will be priced to compete with the OLD style arms on the market. Ofcourse I will give a few sets to some pro rider buddies of mine and get some fancy pictures in a magazine or two and they will be the next greatest thing.

Just wait, you'll see:D

05-19-2006, 04:41 PM

Max Clearance arms offer marginal clearance advantages at best. When you have to build a gusseted shock mount that hangs down below the main tubes, it pretty much eliminates any ground clearance you might gain.

Not to mention that when you do hit somthing, it's not the actual tube that takes the hit, but the gusset/shock mount. Plus when you run the Max Clearance arms, some that run a threaded ball joint have had them shear off because they are now very exposed to the elements which results in a bad situation.

Bottom line is that they made statements with a negative tone towards others in the industry, and if you don't believe in a certian type of design, why use it then. Now they have decided to spin the advantages of their design as being better, when I know that in most every other type of racing, building a setup like the Max Clearance type would be laughed at. You never want the place where you mount your shock hanging down that way because welds break more frequently than solid materials. You want to eliminate possible shear points, not add them into the design, which was explained to me by the very person that now argues with me. If they want to use ideas that were originally dismissed by one of their designers then so be it, heck he was the one who had reservations designing a similar lower style arm for another manufacturer. Now it's all good.

In reality, everything can be broken, I just prefer to have the odds stacked in my favor.

Oh, and BTW, if you want to be able to utilize their arms's trick upper arm adjustment, you better hope a digital gauge is included to measure those small incriments beacue without it you'll be chasing your tail and having a real difficult time getting it dialed in. That is what racers that have used this type of adjuster have needed to make accurate adjustments. And that's fact, and those guages are not cheap!!!

atcdad

05-19-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by mrbluehair
Max Clearance arms offer marginal clearance advantages at best. When you have to build a gusseted shock mount that hangs down below the main tubes, it pretty much eliminates any ground clearance you might gain.

Not to mention that when you do hit somthing, it's not the actual tube that takes the hit, but the gusset/shock mount. Plus when you run the Max Clearance arms, some that run a threaded ball joint have had them shear off because they are now very exposed to the elements which results in a bad situation.

Bottom line is that they made statements with a negative tone towards others in the industry, and if you don't believe in a certian type of design, why use it then. Now they have decided to spin the advantages of their design as being better, when I know that in most every other type of racing, building a setup like the Max Clearance type would be laughed at. You never want the place where you mount your shock hanging down that way because welds break more frequently than solid materials. You want to eliminate possible shear points, not add them into the design, which was explained to me by the very person that now argues with me. If they want to use ideas that were originally dismissed by one of their designers then so be it, heck he was the one who had reservations designing a similar lower style arm for another manufacturer. Now it's all good.

In reality, everything can be broken, I just prefer to have the odds stacked in my favor.

Oh, and BTW, if you want to be able to utilize their arms's trick upper arm adjustment, you better hope a digital gauge is included to measure those small incriments beacue without it you'll be chasing your tail and having a real difficult time getting it dialed in. That is what racers that have used this type of adjuster have needed to make accurate adjustments. And that's fact, and those guages are not cheap!!!

So what a-arms do you reccomend? Are they gullwing, max clearance, or standard? I would guess that max clearance a-arms offer atleast an inch more clearance then standards, and a couple inches more then the gullwing a-arms. That clearance can make a difference in cross country, trail ridding and mx. You also never responed do you manufacture or design atv suspension?

Brown450R

05-23-2006, 05:02 AM

The original question of this post was" who here has tried the I shock and what do you think of it"?
I have tried it. It is better than stock. Before installation I noticed a small oil leak around the top of the shock by the pre-load adjustment threads. After 15 laps on a mx track, it is definately leaking. Not much, but it shouldn't leak at all. It handles alright so far, big improvement over stock. I'd be happier if one of the shocks wasn't leaking.
One more issue is the inability to lower the ride height enough. If I loosen the collars enough to lower it where I want it, the spring is loose and if I rode it that way the collar and spring would fall out of position, as the collar depends on spring tension to stay in position.
I have not contacted Hydrodynamics yet, but I am sure they will take care of the leaking problem. I hope they can offer some help on the ride height issue. Its too damn high for mx by a good inch.
My initial feelings after one ride at the mx track, is that for $1,800 I'm not that impressed. Since I have spent the money, I am going to give them a chance and maybe they can make me feel a lot better with good customer service. If the leak gets fixed and the ride height gets resolved, then I'll at least get to give them a good test. Otherwise I'll stick them on e-bay and get some housers and elkas. Their customer service is going to make or break them for me.

Colby@C&DRacing

05-23-2006, 07:56 AM

They will be happy to fix the leak for you I am sure they have great service. As for the the ride height the I5500 shocks are not designed to lower the quad they have preload adjustment not an ssd or zps setup.

Brown450R

05-23-2006, 08:31 AM

I hope they can give me a softer spring too. The ones that are on there are harsh. Way too stiff. Setup for a 250 pound guy I guess.

TBD

05-23-2006, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Brown450R
I hope they can give me a softer spring too. The ones that are on there are harsh. Way too stiff. Setup for a 250 pund guy I guess.
Please take a minute and call ishock and you will realize very quicklly that there customer service is one of the best. Colby was correct that those shocks in the I5500 kit are not designed to take all the preload out. They will soon have multi spring set ups ready but are still working on the set ups. If you feel the spring is too stiff then they can set you up with a lighter wieght spring. Like I said, just give them a call and you will not be dissapointed.

Brown450R

05-23-2006, 09:47 PM

Colby, I understand the differences in zps, ssd, and single rate spring set ups. If the spring was the appropriate rate, it would be possible to get the right ride height I would think. It was way too stiff on the track, and backing off the preload as much as possible didn't help that or the ride height enough. It helped of course, but not nearly enough. I understand these are made to be used by your average sized person. I guess I am a lot lighter than average.
I did call hydro today and they were very nice. I am sure they will handle all my complaints. I will let everyone know how this turns out.

Colby@C&DRacing

05-24-2006, 08:52 AM

I tried two different spring rates in the testing we performed on the I5500 kit and found that I liked the lighter spring rate. I am 180 and an average B class MX rider (since I race XC mx isn't my strongest point) You are correct that is you have a lighter spring rate you can achieve a lower ride height with less preload. Let us know what you think after you get your shocks dialed in:)

KingpinsEx

05-25-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by FUELATV
If those freestyle guys AKRAIX are running the i-shock stuff it must hold up and work good. I saw the add for the new stuff in Dirt Wheels and the castor adjustment looks top notch.

I dont think anyone actually from AKRAIX is running an ishock setup. What i read sounded like they just went along for a photo shoot and ishock had their own rider thier. They might have hit some jumps with an ishock system, but i would be surpised to see any of them running them all the time. And just because a good rider is running their shock does not say much, its all about the money today. And i dont know if anyone's familiar with Hevous 5 and the farm scene with someone jumping a raptor with stock shocks? You can run anything if you are skilled enough, or willing to take the abuse ;)

Now i am not saying anything against ishock, im simply saying that's not a very good reason to believe in a product...