hiper 3+2 or 4+1?

[yfz48rdr]

Yeah its tax refund time and I am definentaly considering hiper wheels for my yfz. These are only going to be used at the track, I am planning to get the 8 inch dual beadlock rear, but am undecided about the front. Is there much of a point in getting the beadlock fronts, or just the non-beadlock OK? Also, is 4+1 or 3+2 better for MX? I have JD +2 ST arms, +4 axle and stock shocks (soon to be revalved/sprung). I will just be racing C class (for now). Thanks for any info.

[Scro]

If you are strictly MX only, most guys will tell you that a non-beadlock will suffice. It just saves a little weight. You will defiantely want the 4+1 offset. They greatly reduce the amount of feedback felt through the bars compared to the 3+2.

[mx1791]

4-1 offset would make your quad thinner, 3-2 would be better with +2 a arms

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by mx1791
4-1 offset would make your quad thinner, 3-2 would be better with +2 a arms

Whats more important width, or a good handling bike?

4:1 is the better choice

[mx1791]

well a wide quad is good for mx, plus, if his shocks are rebuilt, and he has a steering stabilizer, it should handle just fine

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by mx1791
well a wide quad is good for mx, plus, if his shocks are rebuilt, and he has a steering stabilizer, it should handle just fine

Well Im sure it would be "fine" but its still not going to be as good as the 4:1. Usually most 450Rs with +2 arms and 3:2 rims are too wide anyways. 50" limit.

[1fst400]

I rode my buddies yfz with 3:2 ofset wheels. I will never own a set of thoes. I would much rather be a little narower than run them. every little bump was set back throu the bars. And it made it turn funny, like wicked touchy. He had a stabilizer to.

go with 4:1 and never look back.

[mx1791]

true, and if you ever get +3 long travel you wouldnt have a problem being over 50in

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by 1fst400
I rode my buddies yfz with 3:2 ofset wheels. I will never own a set of thoes. I would much rather be a little narower than run them. every little bump was set back throu the bars. And it made it turn funny, like wicked touchy. He had a stabilizer to.

go with 4:1 and never look back.

What was his front end set up like? Camber/castor adjustability? Usually you cant notice that big of a difference between the two rims, well not so much anyways that would make you never own a set. Perhaps his castor was setup wrong and that caused the twitchy steering? I wouldn't compare it like that... you would have to have both rims for one wheeler to compare...:ermm:

[1fst400]

they where on a stock yfz. I have ridden a stock yfz with stock wheels. He just had thoes stupid wheels on it.


when the spacing on a wheel changes from stock it does affect how the steering is to. Im shure you already know that tho.

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by 1fst400
they where on a stock yfz. I have ridden a stock yfz with stock wheels. He just had thoes stupid wheels on it.


when the spacing on a wheel changes from stock it does affect how the steering is to. Im shure you already know that tho.


Well stock wheels are 3:2 offset too though so ....?

Are you thinking 2:3? That I can understand

[yfz48rdr]

Thanks for all the replies! Right now the quad has 3/2 stock front rims with 21 inch holeshot XCR's, for the track, I am thinking about 20 inch MXR6's. After I installed the arms and set it up, i measured the front at 49.8 inches, rear at 50. I am running 1/4 inch toe in and have the castor set at the slowest setting( big spacers in the front of the top arms.) I noticed the quad was good in turns after I bumped the tire pressure up to 10 lbs.front, 7 rear. This was trail riding, fast whoops, and some MX at breezewood..

But the quad was twitchy at speed, thats why I want a stabilizer.
From experience with my Banshee, the stabilizer helpsa LOT, but I also had changed the font rims to a 2+3 offset( to make quad +2 overall- on the shee, that is.) The banshee had more feedback thru the bars, but the stabilizer compensated for it.
I guess my question is : Is the added 2 inches of width better than the 4+1 offset rims?
And no, I cannot afford +3 LT with 4+1 to make 50". (Although I can dream)

[the freak]

where in MD do you live

[Architects]

Originally posted by 400exrider707
Well Im sure it would be "fine" but its still not going to be as good as the 4:1. Usually most 450Rs with +2 arms and 3:2 rims are too wide anyways. 50" limit.


3:2 with +2 arms should be more like 48.
4:1 with +3's is 50.

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by Architects
3:2 with +2 arms should be more like 48.
4:1 with +3's is 50.

Have you measured these yourself? This is why most aftermarket Long Travel front ends for the 450R are +2 1/2 and +2 3/8, not +3 despite what they may advertise.

Plus your calculations are wrong.

Even if it is 48 with +2's and 3:2 rims...4:1 rims and +3's would be 48 too.;)

[matt250r21]

I'm with 400exrider on this with arm length and rim offset. I have played this game in my garage on 2 bikes, 0ne with +2s and one with +3 arms. +3s with 4x1 rims came out to 48 inches, +2 arms with 3+2 rims also came out to 48 as well. You guys must be super sensative, I can't fell much difference in bump steer between the 2 offsets.

Take a look at some pics of J Jones Laegers R, he ran a wide front frame with +3 arms and 3+2 offset rims. If 4+1 is better, you would think he would have run it, right?

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by matt250r21
I'm with 400exrider on this with arm length and rim offset. I have played this game in my garage on 2 bikes, 0ne with +2s and one with +3 arms. +3s with 4x1 rims came out to 48 inches, +2 arms with 3+2 rims also came out to 48 as well. You guys must be super sensative, I can't fell much difference in bump steer between the 2 offsets.

Take a look at some pics of J Jones Laegers R, he ran a wide front frame with +3 arms and 3+2 offset rims. If 4+1 is better, you would think he would have run it, right?


Bump steer is not caused from the different offset rims it is just what we have coined on this forum as "feeback" for a lack of a better word.

Also 4:1 is a proven better handling design. The closer the center of your rim is to the pivot point of the spindle, the easier it is to steer the rim. Think about if you had a rim that stuck 15inches out. When you turn that rim makes a humongous arc around the spindle, instead of nice and tight, and close to the spindle. But yes the measurements are correct.

[Architects]

Originally posted by 400exrider707
Have you measured these yourself? This is why most aftermarket Long Travel front ends for the 450R are +2 1/2 and +2 3/8, not +3 despite what they may advertise.

Plus your calculations are wrong.

Even if it is 48 with +2's and 3:2 rims...4:1 rims and +3's would be 48 too.;)


well as long as my + 3's from Jd and 4:1 rims don't go over 50 I'll be happy. If they do I have a problem:mad:


Regardless my bike as it sits now with 3:2 rims is 44 inches wide in the front without me sitting on it. +3's would put me right at 50. I was told I could get an extra inch width with the derisi ZPS setup. so now I'm at 51. the 4:1 rims will put me back to 49. I'm guessing with me on it it will squat another 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch so I will be under 50 or right at. Hope I'm looking at this the right way. Dave from Jd said this should put me right at 50 so I'm trusting him.

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by Architects
well as long as my + 3's from Jd and 4:1 rims don't go over 50 I'll be happy. If they do I have a problem:mad:


Regardless my bike as it sits now with 3:2 rims is 44 inches wide in the front without me sitting on it. +3's would put me right at 50. I was told I could get an extra inch width with the derisi ZPS setup. so now I'm at 51. the 4:1 rims will put me back to 49. I'm guessing with me on it it will squat another 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch so I will be under 50 or right at. Hope I'm looking at this the right way. Dave from Jd said this should put me right at 50 so I'm trusting him.

Um yes and no... you are taking in the fact that ZPS style shocks are going to lower your ride down and thus make it a little wider. However... I believe the JD arms are one of the companies that sell +2 3/8 arms IIRC. Your extra inch of width you speak of from derisi shocks... would be on the stock arms.... Im assuming your talking about rebuilds? Just for clarification what arms did you get and what shocks are you using now, and what shocks are you going to be using?

[Architects]

Not to hi-jack the thread but.

I'm going with derisi rebuilds and +3 Jd performance arms not Jb racing. From all the things I have seen this should set me right at 50 or a tad below.

[yfz48rdr]

Ok.. It sounds like the 4+1 non beadlock front is the way I wanna go. By the way,Freak, I live in laurel. It totally makes sense about the center point of the tire being in line with the pivot point of the spindle ( with the 4+1) and this resulting in less deflection or feedback thru the bars.
Also I'm always on the lookout for good "safe" riding spots in MD. Anybody from this state knows what I talking about. Thanks.