Max Ground Clearance A Arms +2?

[SwainRacing]

Does anyone make Max Ground Clearance A Arms in +2 width for Desert racing? If not whay are you Desert racers using for A arms?

[HiperEX]

check out www.atvfourplay.com

[ThePhantomRider]

IMO max ground clearance arms are not a necessity since the true ground clearance savings are minimal at best. Once you take into account the gusseting required to locate the lower shock mount that gusset eats up most of the ground clearance you are trying to save....

Not knocking any product, if you find a set of MGC arms you like at the right price, get them, just don't expect a world of extra clearance.

TPR

[pudamac12]

check out smcfabrication.com best warranty out there and nearly indestructible. Also long travel is $600 for the high clearance and you can get the castor adjustable for and extra 50

[04TRX400EX]

Why has no one mentioned Houser? They make their Sli-Cast max ground clearance a-arms for between $950-1000. Houser makes great quality suspension components and should definitely be considered.

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by 04TRX400EX
Why has no one mentioned Houser? They make their Sli-Cast max ground clearance a-arms for between $950-1000. Houser makes great quality suspension components and should definitely be considered.

Probably because they are not offered in a +2 max ground clearance...:ermm:

[SwainRacing]

I know all there are a lot that make MGC a arms, but most are for XC racing and only come in a +1 max width. I am looking for at least +2 if not +3 for desert racing.

[pudamac12]

call up steve at smc fabrication. He makes a plus two that require a 18.5" shock and I am sure he could do a plus three if you wanted. There is a pic on the homepage with the plus two's that were made for desert racing. He is currently updating the site so not too many pics on there right now just so you know.

His number is 989-305-0983

[TBD]

Max ground clearance arms do offer you more ground clearance then the normal arms. You can also check out V2 Products hi ground clearance arms. They are offered in 2.2" and are built to either use a 20.25" shock or a 19.5" shock. Both set ups get 12.287" of travel. The 19.5" shock version offers a 2.0-1 leverage ratio and does have a little bit better of a leverage curve then the 20.25" shock set up. The 20.25" has a 1.94-1 leverage ratio and has a more linear leverage curve.

[T@AFP]

ATV Four Play offers a +2.5" for the YFZ and TRX.
Why are you limiting yourself to only +2 for desert racing?
AFP offers at no additional charge an option to incorporate a thicker wall in the front tube for off road racing and XC. This is standard on a +1 on most models.

In addition I disagree with: IMO max ground clearance arms are not a necessity since the true ground clearance savings are minimal at best. Once you take into account the gusseting required to locate the lower shock mount that gusset eats up most of the ground clearance you are trying to save....


There are several companies offering this style of arm for a reason..... It works.

[SwainRacing]

Just wanted to thank everyone for the info. I have now hooked up with Teixeira Technologies and will be running their +3 Arms. Check them out or give them a call and tell them I sent you!

http://www.teixeiratech.com/images/ktm%20a-arms.JPG

[TBD]

Originally posted by SwainRacing
Just wanted to thank everyone for the info. I have now hooked up with Teixeira Technologies and will be running their +3 Arms. Check them out or give them a call and tell them I sent you!

http://www.teixeiratech.com/images/ktm%20a-arms.JPG

For that kind of money why don't you go with LT arms?

[ThePhantomRider]

Originally posted by T@AFP
ATV Four Play offers a +2.5" for the YFZ and TRX.
Why are you limiting yourself to only +2 for desert racing?
AFP offers at no additional charge an option to incorporate a thicker wall in the front tube for off road racing and XC. This is standard on a +1 on most models.

In addition I disagree with: IMO max ground clearance arms are not a necessity since the true ground clearance savings are minimal at best. Once you take into account the gusseting required to locate the lower shock mount that gusset eats up most of the ground clearance you are trying to save....


There are several companies offering this style of arm for a reason..... It works.

OK, so I will agree that people, espically those in the GNCC community have started to use this type of arm, and the 1 inch at best clearance in the triangular area that is created may help about 5% of the time, I've just never seen anyone claim they would have won a race if they had MGC arms.

IMO I would rather have a set of more traditionally designed arms. If I rode in rocky terrain, those exposed ball joint ends most MGC arms have would worry me.

One company was testing a MGC style arm and during a race the racer had a rock shear off the end of the exposed balljoint...bad news.

That said, there is no one "best" design, ride what you like but remember what you're front end misses your rear end is likely to hit.

TPR

[TBD]

Originally posted by ThePhantomRider
OK, so I will agree that people, espically those in the GNCC community have started to use this type of arm, and the 1 inch at best clearance in the triangular area that is created may help about 5% of the time, I've just never seen anyone claim they would have won a race if they had MGC arms.

IMO I would rather have a set of more traditionally designed arms. If I rode in rocky terrain, those exposed ball joint ends most MGC arms have would worry me.

One company was testing a MGC style arm and during a race the racer had a rock shear off the end of the exposed balljoint...bad news.

That said, there is no one "best" design, ride what you like but remember what you're front end misses your rear end is likely to hit.

TPR

You are right in the fact that the amount of ground clearance gained is not as much as some would think. But it is for sure more then what you are stating.
As for the ball joints bieng exposed I could see something like that possibly happening. I have yet to see it and we have many miles of testing to back that up.
You have a good point about the fact that even though the front misses it the back is the lowest point. The only reason I still say the MGC arms work is because of the fact that if you hit the obstacle with the a-arm all of the mass is still behind the object as to where if you miss the object in the front and only hit it with the swingarm skid or axle 95% of the mass is already past the obstacle so it will be a much less severe of a hit then in the front.
I have had quite a few MX riders comment on how nice it was to be able not dig in on corners that had ruts so they are not just for the XC guys. They also work really well in jeep grooves that happen in desert racing.
I feel MGC arms offer plenty of benifits to be used anywhere.

[ThePhantomRider]

Agreed on the aspect of mass comming into an object and mass leaving an object.

Where I could see MGC arms work the best would be on somthing like an Outlaw where you could add to an already great ground clearance number.

The only way to really make a MGC truly effective is if you were to be able to mount the shocks at or near the lower ball joint to eliminate the big mid-gusset that holds the lower shock mount. To do this would likely not be optimal for motion and leverage ratios (At least what I know of them) as if it was it would have likely been done already.

As for the broken lower ball joint, the one I saw break I don't know the maker (Could have been home built) but he learned a lesson. I see some MGC's have more protection than others.

TPR