Widening a-arm kits [Archive]

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 12:30 PM

I have one on one of my 400ex's, and my other 400ex has extended a-arms. I love the kit! It gives the same wide stance as the extended arms without the problems created by spacers. The only drawback relative to extended arms is that it does not increase the suspension travel as the arms do... BUT if you camp on ebay, you can get a kit for around $100. A whole lot better than arms at $350 minimum. The only drawback is the added weight of all the steel brackets, but I really didn't notice much of a change after installation... wheelies are about the same.

The DiamondJ kit is NOT cheap/weak. Only people who have no experience with the kit feel this way. Everyone I've spoken with who DOES have experience agrees. It's extremely well made and very strong, actually strengthening your frame at the a-arm mounting points. I spoke with the owner of DiamondJ before buying. He's a mechanical engineer with a good understanding of the loads involved.

I liked the handling performance gain on my 400ex so much that I just got done installing the kit on my Raptor 660 this weekend... WOW what a difference it makes to a bike that was way too skinny in the first place. No more tippy feeling!

I believe that extended a-arms do give slightly better performance, from a travel standpoint, and they weigh less... so I prefer them in the long run... BUT for a $100 or so investment, it's going to be hard to find anything else that gives you such an improvement in handling.

I'm a big fan, or can't you tell? I think it's the perfect interim step, at a minimal cost, for those that would like extended a-arms but just can't afford the cost. I'll probably upgrade to extended arms later, when I can afford them... but I'm in no great hurry. I love the kit the way it is now.

One thing you should notice: The eBay auctions, even though the heading is for a particular bike, are really for ANY of their kits, for any bike. They usually have one auction a day. So if you watch carefully, you can usually find an auction nearing end with the current bid at around $100 or less. Many go for much more, but I had to watch for a week or two both times before I won mine at right around $100.

Good Luck!

dustin_j

11-05-2007, 01:03 PM

The kit should give you similar results to the wheel spacers. The vibration should be gone, but due to geometry of the kit, bump steer will increase greatly. This means that when going through rough terrain the front wheels will want to turn slightly as the suspension goes through its travel. I have no experience with the setup, but I've looked at the kit myself and read many other posts in the suspension section.

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 01:11 PM

NO, NO, NO... unless you have first hand experience with this, why do you make such assumptions? The geometry, relative to bump steer is IDENTICAL to the stock and tie rod geometries are identical to that of extended a-arms... the A-arms have been moved out, not the rotational axis of the tire relative to steering axis at the ball joints.

This is just incorrect! Are these "other posts" from users like me or more naysayers with no direct experience like you?

gcart2

11-05-2007, 02:04 PM

yea im getting a set for my sisters 250ex

tanner 222

11-05-2007, 02:09 PM

i actually mad emy own kit for my 400 and it was alright for little jumps and corners but as soon as i hit a big jump they blew out and the ones i made were just as strong if not better than that type of kit.

dustin_j

11-05-2007, 02:32 PM

400exrider707's post "steering and handling discussion" is what I'm mainly referring to. Quadmaniac, I am agreeing with you that it is cheaper than buying new a-arms and shocks, I'm just trying to tell him what is expected with the geometry change. I say there should be bump steer because the a-arms still follow the factory arc as the suspension compresses; however, the arc is just moved further away from the frame. The tie rods follow a larger arc from the same central point on the frame. It would be interesting Quadmaniac if you would take off your front shocks and watch the movement of the front wheels as they move upward. Since the radiuses are different, I would think the wheels should toe in more and more as the wheel moves upward in travel. It may be that the suspension does not allow enough travel for this bump steer to show up as bad as I am guessing, and if that were so I admit "defeat".

You are right I don't have direct experience, I'm just trying to help 2old2race out with his decision. I'm not against the kit, I'd like to know myself whether or not there is much bump steer.

2old2race

11-05-2007, 02:52 PM

My biggest concern would be this bump-steer being referred to.
My quads steering has gone back to being great now that I removed the front wheel spacers.

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 04:37 PM

You're not describing bump steer, you are describing tie rod geometry changes, which are identical (or at least, extremely close) to that seen with extended a-arms. In reality, toe change with the kit and extended a-arms is LESS than it is when stock. The tie rods are longer and therefore sweep out less of an anglular change when the suspension goes through full travel.

NOW: Bump steer is the phenomena seen when force is applied to the tires away from the center of the steering axis. In the stock 400, the axis of steering (vertical, turning left to right at the ball joints) is very close to the point where road forces push on the tire, so there is very little steering force projected to the rider if, for instance, a one tire hits a rock. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE WITH EITHER EXTENDED A-ARMS OR THE WIDENING KIT. The wheel to steering axis geometries stay stock. However, when you add spacers, it moves the tire patch out, but NOT the center of the steering axis. THIS is what causes significant bump steer - the irregularities of the road pushing on the tire through the longer lever arm to the steering axis. Again, both extened a-arms and the widening kit do not change bump steer (which, i believe is the phenomena that 2old was complaining about with the spacers, in the first place) AT ALL.

I hope this helps clear up some of the confusion. 2old: from an OLD engineer (me), with a lot of mechanical engineering, auto and motorcycle/quad experience, the kit only changes geometries in the same way that extended a-arms do... and they're all good. There are a lot of people who look at the kit and say "that can't be good." But they have not used the kit, and they have no leg to stand on once the physics is explained.

And as a last reminder, I have both a 400ex with the kit, and a 400ex with extended a-arms. There is no difference in steering feel (bump, vibration, road feel, or anything else) between them. The only improvements from the extended arms is lower weight and more suspension travel.

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by tanner 222
i actually mad emy own kit for my 400 and it was alright for little jumps and corners but as soon as i hit a big jump they blew out and the ones i made were just as strong if not better than that type of kit.

How can you possibly know this? Are you a mechanical engineer with a specialty in metallurgy?

TheNewn

11-05-2007, 07:22 PM

In risk of having Captain Avenger try his darndest to poke holes in an opinion, I'll further elaborate on mine.

I was present during an installation of this kit on a 300EX, and in my opinion i would not feel safe with it on my quad. Perhaps for leisurely trail riding it would be fine. But if someone were to get aggressive, in my opinion, enough to the point where something would break, in my opinion, it would be the brackets on this kit or the several new mounting points it introduces to the front end.

In my opinion.

I've not ridden a quad with the widening kit on it, so i cant say anything about the handling differences. A friend of mine, same age about, has it on his blaster. And he himself said he would be hesitant to jump it any great distance and agrees that it might be the first thing to break if something were to.

Another interesting thing that came to mind, that I'm not going to pretend to know anything about. Is all the after market frames of the old school 250R's and the new KFX450, they are narrow frames. Perhaps this was just to get more travel for how wide the quad was (50" max in mx or something) i had always the impression it had something to do with the handling of it as well. Maybe not. But putting this kit on would put more distance between the pivot points of the a-arms.

I'd enjoy having it explained.

Captain Avenger! Go!

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 07:26 PM

I appreciate your's and other's opinions... when you get some facts that counter mine, let me know. You're friend's 'agreement' carries the same weight. You know the saying about opinions and a** holes, right?

FYI, I know of two people who have had pretty good crashes on their kit acessorized quads... one had no problems at all. The other had hooked a tree at 40mph and two of the kit's brackets bent, but he felt that if he had had extened arms instead, he likely would have trashed the arm and ripped the arm mount off the frame. Granted, this is an opinion, but an educated one, since he also has experience with both extended a-arms and with the kit. (guess this means I too fit the above definition saying about opinions, doesn't it?)

Your first assumption about narrow frames is the correct one. It allows maximization of suspension travel for a given track width. Other than that, it has nothng to do with handling.

Look, to back up here... I just want to give 2old the best information I can, based upon my understanding of engineering and physics, and of my unique position of being able to compare two 400ex's side by side, one with extended arms, and one with the kit. I start to get a little ruffled when ppl who have little or no knowledge about the product and its true advantages or disadvantages start throwing un-educated fuel on the fire. If you have apriori knowledge of problems with this system, let us know. If you have a reason, based upon fact or good engineering science, why this is a bad idea let us know. If, instead, you just sorta think it might have a problem, why spread just rumor and innuendo without fact to back it up?

I'm only continuing to argue this point because I want 2old to see fact and not fiction here. (Oh, and DiamondJ, I'll be expecting my royalty check soon! lol)

GraphicDisorder

11-05-2007, 08:28 PM

If widening kits worked as well as A-arms then pros would be running them. You cant name one pro worth his sole running them and there is a reason for that. If you dont know anything about suspension geometry you probably would think they are fine... Sadly though they aren't.

Will they make your bike less tippy? Sure, will they cause bump steer, sure... would I put them on my bike, nope. Frankly I think people with them deffend them so hard because they dont know better, nor can afford better.

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 08:33 PM

That's the whole idea... They're NOT as good as a-arms... but for $100 you could do a whole lot worse! AND THEY DO NOT CHANGE BUMP STEER, DAMMIT. Look at the damned physics.

Graphics... I'll defend my education and experience against yours any day. And you insulting idiot, what the hell do you think we've been talking about... AFFORDABILITY!

400ex_rider13

11-05-2007, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by GraphicDisorder
If widening kits worked as well as A-arms then pros would be running them. You cant name one pro worth his sole running them and there is a reason for that. If you dont know anything about suspension geometry you probably would think they are fine... Sadly though they aren't.

Will they make your bike less tippy? Sure, will they cause bump steer, sure... would I put them on my bike, nope. Frankly I think people with them deffend them so hard because they dont know better, nor can afford better.

Thank god, someone knows what they're talking about.

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 08:44 PM

This thread has ended as far as I'm concerned... I get so sick and tired of you a**holes who obviously know NOTHING about mechanical engineering or the basic laws of physics spouting gibberish about "geometries", etc.

Draw me a load force vector diagram and show me how the geometry is different in ANY way from extended a-arms, oh bright ones. You can't, because it isn't. So stick to what you understand and leave the rest to those of us who really have a clue.

There is a reason why pros don't run this... it does not provide additonal suspension travel and it adds 15 to 20 pounds to the front end... okay? That's it in a nutshell. I don't know how this will stand up to 150' triple jumps, but of course, neither do we know how well the low end extened arms will because the pros don't use them, either.

I do know that those that use them (and yes, can't afford extended arms) are all quite happy with them. I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME A POST FROM AN OWNER THAT ISN'T. I CAN show you many posts from satisfied users.

00.400ex#55

11-05-2007, 08:55 PM

definatly have to agree with every word quadmaniac said. All the little kids who ride quads there parents paid for need to stop posting bs.

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by QuadManiac

I do know that those that use them (and yes, can't afford extended arms) are all quite happy with them.

I must change this statement, because it is not correct.

Instead: Of all the information I have gathered in many forums, not just here, owners appear to be overwhelmingly happy with them.

JOEX

11-05-2007, 09:27 PM

This topic is getting interesting now....

Some detailed graphic illustrations comparing how stock, extended arms and the widening kit work throughout the suspension travel and what the positives and negatives of each would be great.

Animations would be a bonus:D

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 09:29 PM

lol, I may just do it! although the animations are a bit much.

JOEX

11-05-2007, 09:41 PM

Something I try to keep aware of when reading personal reviews of a product is IMO most people who purchase a product will most likely give a postive review of it either out of pride or lack of experience of other versions of the same or similar product.

Still looking forward to some 'scientific' reports:)

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 09:43 PM

I must agree with you there, JO. And for that reason, I AM biased. But I'm also a degree'd engineer with 25+ years experience, so I hope that would lend me a little credence, without having to resort to graphic proof. And, I liked the handling improvements enough to buy a kit for another of my quads after a year of playing (a lot!) with the first one.

JOEX

11-05-2007, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
I must agree with you there, JO. And for that reason, I AM biased. But I'm also a degree'd engineer with 25+ years experience, so I hope that would lend me a little credence, without having to resort to graphic proof.
That's why i'm paying attention to this thread;) And graphics are cool:p Along with being easier to to understand for us laymen:)

Your profile states you're an electrical engineer. Isn't that quite different than a mechanical engineer?

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 09:55 PM

My profession is electrical engineering. My degree is in electrical with a minor in mechanical. I've also had to deal with many mechanical engineering issues throughout my career. The basic laws of physics apply equally to both, and are the solid basis for any engineering degree.

TheNewn

11-05-2007, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by 400ex_rider13
Thank god, someone knows what they're talking about.

Good god i hope you're being sarcastic, because that guy had no idea what he was talking about.

Quadmaniac has completely convinced me. I'm sure they're worth every penny and are a good alternative to those who cant afford extended a-arms. I can, so i'll buy the a-arms.

Simple as that.

QuadManiac

11-05-2007, 10:03 PM

Just make sure to camp on eBay auctions and don't pay the full price! You CAN get them for $100 or so with just a little patience.

edit: OOPS. I misread, Newn. A-arms ARE the best way to go, so good luck! I wish one could get extended arms for $100!

On that subject, does anyone really think that the cost of aftermarket parts are truly reflective of their value? Arms and shock prices, steering stems, exhausts! Most everything seems way overpriced relative to their component values. But, this is capitalism... I guess it's what the market will bear. Somebody outa come out with economy aftermarket stuff, not good enough for the racing crowd, but tailored for the recreational riders that want a little better performance.

Toadz400

11-06-2007, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
On that subject, does anyone really think that the cost of aftermarket parts are truly reflective of their value? Arms and shock prices, steering stems, exhausts! Most everything seems way overpriced relative to their component values. But, this is capitalism... I guess it's what the market will bear. Somebody outa come out with economy aftermarket stuff, not good enough for the racing crowd, but tailored for the recreational riders that want a little better performance.

I think it has a lot to do with Supply & Demand also. Control arms and shocks for vehicles cost a fraction of what they cost for our ATV's. I believe it has to do with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of vehicles out there while there are quite a few less ATV's and a lot of the products for ATV's aren't mass produced.

11-06-2007, 05:49 AM

i have old dirtwheels and atv magazines from 2005 and 2006 and if you compare them o present its crazy! HMF in 2005 was like $200 at almost every place, shock revalves were $150 for everything, porting was $250, now everything just 2 years later is so much more expensive. 2 years ago you could get great suspension so cheap it sucks i didnt buy anything then

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by TheNewn
Good god i hope you're being sarcastic, because that guy had no idea what he was talking about.

Quadmaniac has completely convinced me. I'm sure they're worth every penny and are a good alternative to those who cant afford extended a-arms. I can, so i'll buy the a-arms.

Simple as that.

That shows exactly how ignorant you are, if someone can convince you over the internet that they are great with out:

1. You trying them
2. Him never trying arms
3. Him not being a proffesional or even a ameture at that.
4. Him not making a single point yet that is valued.
5. Him being completely wrong on it all except that they are "affordable".... wow congrats there is a reason for that also.

Widening kits are targeting exactly who they should be... people that dont know any better... and if you dont know any better it might just be good enough for you... but dont act like that its the end all be all because your to ignorant to understand suspensions.

Bottom line, I double dog dare any of you to put this "kit" on your bike then walk up to a pro, or a factory rep, or anyone in the sport worth there sole and tell them how great it is... they will laugh at you till you leave.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
Just make sure to camp on eBay auctions and don't pay the full price! You CAN get them for $100 or so with just a little patience.

edit: OOPS. I misread, Newn. A-arms ARE the best way to go, so good luck! I wish one could get extended arms for $100!

On that subject, does anyone really think that the cost of aftermarket parts are truly reflective of their value? Arms and shock prices, steering stems, exhausts! Most everything seems way overpriced relative to their component values. But, this is capitalism... I guess it's what the market will bear. Somebody outa come out with economy aftermarket stuff, not good enough for the racing crowd, but tailored for the recreational riders that want a little better performance.

I think a-arms are fully worth there price... they dont have bump steer... :eek2:

There are budget arms out there, and other parts, and nobody uses them that wants to be taken serious because they break/bend/ect. Man honestly you really need to do some research... big time.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Toadz400
I think it has a lot to do with Supply & Demand also. Control arms and shocks for vehicles cost a fraction of what they cost for our ATV's. I believe it has to do with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of vehicles out there while there are quite a few less ATV's and a lot of the products for ATV's aren't mass produced.

Being in the custom truck/car world as a proffesion I can say that is just not true. Custom a-arms built to handle different sizes of wheels and correct camber/caster/toe cost a pretty penny. Ranging from 400-700 for uppers and again for lowers.

Heres one of the cheaper companies that make A-arms for sport trucks. They get even more expensive when you start talking about serious off-road a-arms. Pre-runners ect....

http://www.candospecialties.com/

Shocks are a whole other topic but those can range from about anything you want to spend. Obviously you cant compare a auto zone shock for a S10 to a fully adjustable fox shock with ressys...

2old2race

11-06-2007, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by GraphicDisorder
Bottom line, I double dog dare any of you to put this "kit" on your bike then walk up to a pro, or a factory rep, or anyone in the sport worth there sole and tell them how great it is... they will laugh at you till you leave.
The pros use the best of the best beacause a lot of their parts are provided free of charge. Plus, they do not shop on a budget.
Just because something costs 10x the amount of money does NOT always mean it 10x better.

I don't need a set of $1500 superlight a-arms for recreational, trail riding. But, I would like to make my quad safer and allow myself additional piece of mind by widening the front end.

I always love guys that have to boast about how their toys have to have the best of the best. Unless you are racing, and I mean competitively, why do you or me need the same exact parts the pros use anyway?

I would rather have some scientific explanations on the geometrical advantages/disadvantages or on the proven durability of an item that just a "The pros use this, SO so must I." :rolleyes:

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by 2old2race
The pros use the best of the best beacause a lot of their parts are provided free of charge. Plus, they do not shop on a budget.
Just because something costs 10x the amount of money does NOT always mean it 10x better.

I don't need a set of $1500 superlight a-arms for recreational, trail riding. But, I would like to make my quad safer and allow myself additional piece of mind by widening the front end.

I always love guys that have to boast about how their toys have to have the best of the best. Unless you are racing, and I mean competitively, why do you or me need the same exact parts the pros use anyway?

I would rather have some scientific explanations on the geometrical advantages/disadvantages or on the proven durability of an item that just a "The pros use this, SO so must I." :rolleyes:

They also use them because they perform better... There are MANY people out there racing on there own money, none of them are using some 100$ widening kit. Pro or not.... you dont think a pro or racer or even a guy riding in the woods on his quad for fun doesn't want his quad to turn like it should? Handle like it should? Seriously your not that dense are you?

My advice, hop on one of these "widening kits" (good luck finding someone that uses one, again theres a reason for that), and then hop on a bike with some arms on it...

Then come back and tell me again that pros only use them because they are free... ive rode both and its night and day.

dustin_j

11-06-2007, 09:57 AM

Quadmaniac, below is a CRUDE drawing of what I would be concerned about with this kit, a better drawing to scale would be interesting to prove if this is a concern or not. I used circles to represent the arcs that the a-arms and tie rods follow (look at the right sides of the circles). The uppers represent the stock setup and the lowers represent the diamond j kit installed. Since the arms are further from the centerpoint of the tie rods, the arcs do not follow the same path. I may have used the term bump steer loosely, but as the suspension compresses I would expect to see the toe in/out change since the tie rod arc is larger than what the a-arms follow. I would think this would have a large affect on handling. It may be that the suspension travel is not sufficient enough to notice this change, wherein this kit is a good choice for the casual rider. I would appreciate any input on the above concern.

PS. I don't question your engineering knowledge/ability, I'm a senior in mechanical engineering right now, and until I read this concern in someone else's post I hadn't even thought of it.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 09:58 AM

Graphic... just to even the playing field here, what's your education, profession and experience level? You are calling people ignorant and discounting sound technical statements out of hand without anything close to a valid rebuttal. It is VERY obvious that it is YOU that is ignorant.

The reasons why pros won't use the kit has already been explained. That is not the issue here unless it is your only argument (which so far appears to be the case).

And one last time, if you truly knew what bump steer was, and it's obvious that you don't, you would understand why this system has exactly the same bump steer as stock and as extended arms.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by dustin_j
I may have used the term bump steer loosely, but as the suspension compresses I would expect to see the toe in/out change since the tie rod arc is larger than what the a-arms follow. I would think this would have a large affect on handling.

Youve nailed it, I was going to draw up something like that, good job, there was a website that analized these "kits" also and has some more diagrams showing just how bad they are. I thought i bookmarked it but cant find it ill look again for it.

It does have a large affect on handling, unless your driving 4mph in a trail and never use the quad like it should be used... And in that case I would suggest the quad owner to get a rino with a cup holder since your really not riding, your coasting....

300exOH

11-06-2007, 10:03 AM

There is a reason these kits are a bad idea...
They change the pivot point of the a arms which changes the arc in which the wheels travel. The kit does NOTHING to change the arc and pivot point of the tie rods. This in turn (no pun intended) adds up to increased bumpsteer. As the a arms move up/down the tie rod will push/pull the tire in and out therefore "steering" the wheels as the suspension moves through its range of travel.

Normally any front end will have some bumpsteer but with these kits it is increased greatly.

You don't have to have the best products out there but there is a right way and a wrong way to build suspensions and you can't always believe the manufacturer of the product when he tells you the kit is not going to cause issues with suspension geometry . Try calling any suspension builder or even shock builder and they will explain in greater detail than I can why these kits are a bad idea. And there are ways to have a decent setup without spending tons of cash by buying used parts. Granted it won't be $150 but then it will be done right.

I have to ask...if you are just a casual rider then why isn't a stock 400ex good enough for rec riding even in stock form? A decent set of stock with a lowered ride height would do more for stability/handling than that widening kit. ;)

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:06 AM

Dustin, love the thought process and drawing... Not sure i fully understand it yet though... i'll look some more.

What you are talking about is a valid issue... not bump steer though, and I believe, not terribly significant if you do the analysis quantitatively, i.e., do the actual numbers.

Since you've thought about this carefully, can you think whether there would be any significant difference in tie rod geometry change between the widening kit and extended a-arms, given the same amount of increase in width from frame to ball joint?

I think you will see it's essentially the same. If not, lets discuss why. In the mean time, i'll digest your drawing a little more.

Thanks!

300exOH

11-06-2007, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by dustin_j
Quadmaniac, below is a CRUDE drawing of what I would be concerned about with this kit, a better drawing to scale would be interesting to prove if this is a concern or not. I used circles to represent the arcs that the a-arms and tie rods follow (look at the right sides of the circles). The uppers represent the stock setup and the lowers represent the diamond j kit installed. Since the arms are further from the centerpoint of the tie rods, the arcs do not follow the same path. I may have used the term bump steer loosely, but as the suspension compresses I would expect to see the toe in/out change since the tie rod arc is larger than what the a-arms follow. I would think this would have a large affect on handling. It may be that the suspension travel is not sufficient enough to notice this change, wherein this kit is a good choice for the casual rider. I would appreciate any input on the above concern.

PS. I don't question your engineering knowledge/ability, I'm a senior in mechanical engineering right now, and until I read this concern in someone else's post I hadn't even thought of it.

You beat me to it but that is an excellent representation of what I was getting at... nice job:macho

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
Graphic... just to even the playing field here, what's your education, profession and experience level? You are calling people ignorant and discounting sound technical statements out of hand without anything close to a valid rebuttal. It is VERY obvious that it is YOU that is ignorant.

The reasons why pros won't use the kit has already been explained. That is not the issue here unless it is your only argument (which so far appears to be the case).

And one last time, if you truly knew what bump steer was, and it's obvious that you don't, you would understand why this system has exactly the same bump steer as stock and as extended arms.

Ive been apart of building vehicle chassis for years, on road and off road. So I understand suspensions... you dont need a degree to understand a suspension bud. There are millions of people on this planet with a degree that wouldn't know the first thing to do with it in the real world if it wasn't in there text book. Sorry but you having a "degree" honestly means nothing in my book. Had you not been deffending this "kit" you might have some more respect from me... but since your deffending it I can see just how much you really know.

My vehicles have been featured in multiple magazines, web sites, and have won many shows. I dont need your approval bud.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:11 AM

300, as many others have also. you are not describing bump steer, you are descibing toe change as a function of suspension travel. If this IS the definition of bump steer, then I stand corrected, but this phenomena is changed almost identically in the kit described and with extended a-arms, so the point is moot.

Bump steer, as I understand it, is what occurs when the tire patch on the ground is offset from the steering rotation axis (ball joints or kingpin). As you increase this offset, by adding wheel spacers or using wider rims or reversing the rims, the forces applied to the steering and therefore the bars, when one wheel hits an obstacle, are increased proportionally.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:14 AM

Graphic, the fact that you are able to make "Show" toys also carries no weight with me. You obvious ignorance of physics has little effect on your ability to add bling to a stock vehicle yet is of paramount importance when trying to discuss the viability of a system which you also obviously don't understand.

300exOH

11-06-2007, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
300, as many others have also. you are not describing bump steer, you are descibing toe change as a function of suspension travel.

Bump steer is what occurs when the tire patch on the ground is offset from the steering rotation axis (ball joints or kingpin). As you increase this offset, by adding wheel spacers or using wider rims or reversing the rims, the forces applied to the steering and therefore the bars, when one wheel hits an obstacle, are increased proportionally.

I stand corrected...but either way the toe change does occur with these kits which will affect handling.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
Dustin, love the thought process and drawing... Not sure i fully understand it yet though... i'll look some more.

What you are talking about is a valid issue... not bump steer though, and I believe, not terribly significant if you do the analysis quantitatively, i.e., do the actual numbers.

Since you've thought about this carefully, can you think whether there would be any significant difference in tie rod geometry change between the widening kit and extended a-arms, given the same amount of increase in width from frame to ball joint?

I think you will see it's essentially the same. If not, lets discuss why. In the mean time, i'll digest your drawing a little more.

Thanks!

Actually what he outlines is exactly bump steer. WOW do you really think your going to change any or our minds that have had seat time on both a "kit" set up and rea a-arms?

Heres another explination for you:

Bump Steer is when your wheels steer themselves without input from the steering wheel. The undesirable steering is caused by bumps in the track interacting with improper length or angle of your suspension and steering linkages.

Most car builders design their cars so that the effects of bump steer are minimal. However, you must still take care to bolt on your suspension carefully so as not to create unwanted bump steer. Make sure that you are always using the correct components for a particular car. Bump steer must be designed into the car and cannot be adjusted out if improper parts are used or if pivot points are moved without considering bump steer design principles.

In order to accomplish zero bump the tie rod must fall between an imaginary line that runs from the upper ball joint through the lower ball joint and an imaginary line that runs through the upper a-arm pivot and the lower control arm pivot. In addition, the centerline of the tie rod must intersect with the instant center created by the upper a-arm and the lower control arm (See diagram below).

The instant center is an imaginary point that is created by drawing a line from the upper a-arm ball joint through the a-arm pivot where it is intersected by an imaginary line that extends from the lower ball joint through the inner control arm pivot. Where the two imaginary lines intersect is the instant center.

Sounds complicated? Really it is very simple. To achieve zero bump the front end must be designed correctly. The tie rod must travel on the same arc as the suspension when the car goes through travel. Simply matching lengths and arcs to prevent any unwanted steering of the front tires.

To exaggerate, if the tie rod were only 10" long and the suspension were 20" long then when the suspension traveled the tie rod angle would shorten much quicker than the suspension arc. In this scenario the tie rod would shorten much quicker through travel than the suspension and the car would toe in drastically over bumps. The shorter arc of the tie rod would pull on the spindle and toe it in through travel.

Bump Simplified - When designing a car, if the centerline of the outer tie rod lines up with the centerline of the lower ball joint, and the inter tie rod lines up with the lower pivot point then the length and angle of the tie rod and suspension will be the same resulting in zero bump. Most car builders design their cars in this fashion.

http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/images/bsdrawing.jpg

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
Graphic, the fact that you are able to make "Show" toys also carries no weight with me. You obvious ignorance of physics has little effect on your ability to add bling to a stock vehicle yet is of paramount importance when trying to discuss the viability of a system which you also obviously don't understand.

I have been apart of building vehicles for street/strip/show/tracks... So yet again your assuming alot from what little im letting you think you know.

Its funny still though that your degree has not only not earned you any smarts, but also isn't earning you very much money if you cant afford to set your quad up right to start with. That in its self is amazing...

You can yap on all day, you have zero seat time on a proper quad if you think "widening kits" are the way to go.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by 300exOH
I stand corrected...but either way the toe change does occur with these kits which will affect handling.

It appears as if I stand corrected for using the term incorrectly, thanks to Graphics good Wikipedia or similar quote.

But the issue doesn't change, nor is the intent of this long mess... the tie rod geometry is a very small fraction of an inch different from that of extended arms. I'll make a drawing shortly.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:23 AM

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:29 AM

Graphic, will you please go back and read the original post again?

2old had SPACERS on his front wheels, and removed them due to excess vibration (impact hitting the wheels offset from the steering axis)... and wanted to know whether the kit works. In the long winding path since then I have said several times that extended a-arms are superior, but that for the price, the kit is a very good alternative. I also said that I didn't know the durability of jumping 150' triples.. but for the hard recreational rider, the kit performs quite well and that I've heard nothing but satisfaction from owners/users. Sure I like my extended arms better, but compared to stock and for $100, the kit, IMO, is a good, economical alternative.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:30 AM

And graphic, please don't use the term WE here. This argument is all you. Others are at least interested in determining the truth, all you want to do is insult and add rhetoric.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
It appears as if I stand corrected for using the term incorrectly, thanks to Graphics good Wikipedia or similar quote.

But the issue doesn't change, nor is the intent of this long mess... the tie rod geometry is a very small fraction of an inch different from that of extended arms. I'll make a drawing shortly.

Yup you were wrong, I mentioned bump steer in my very first post in this thread, page 2. So its not like I went out and just researched it. I did though go get that write up just a few ago and paste it because im not typing all that up just to get you to see that your wrong... lol.

How come your the only one deffending it? You still dont get it? I gave you that nice diagram and everything.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
Graphic, will you please go back and read the original post again?

2old had SPACERS on his front wheels, and removed them due to excess vibration (impact hitting the wheels offset from the steering axis)... and wanted to know whether the kit works. In the long winding path since then I have said several times that extended a-arms are superior, but that for the price, the kit is a very good alternative. I also said that I didn't know the durability of jumping 150' triples.. but for the hard recreational rider, the kit performs quite well and that I've heard nothing but satisfaction from owners/users. Sure I like my extended arms better, but compared to stock and for $100, the kit, IMO, is a good, economical alternative.

There is nothing "very good" with the alternative of your $100 buck kit, sorry but its just not an alternative to anyone that takes it serious. For a hard recreational rider your STOCK stuff was fine. You can hear nothing but satifaction of users of anything on this planet if you look hard enough. There are people on this planet that will tell you there Geo Metro is a race car, or that it will run 1,000,000 miles without a oil change... PEOPLE dont always know the answer.

The facts are A LOT of people take what they have as the best because they dont know any different.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:36 AM

I hope you also then understand why very precise toe adjustment throughout suspension travel is critical for a car racing on a hard surface and why it is very significantly less important for a quad riding in dirt or sand.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
And graphic, please don't use the term WE here. This argument is all you. Others are at least interested in determining the truth, all you want to do is insult and add rhetoric.

Actually others here KNOW the truth. No need to determin it... You dont really think your the first person to think these kits are ok and later find out just how wrong they were.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:39 AM

What I KNOW, graphic is that your distaste for this system is a strong as is my enthusiam for it. Mine is based upon installation, a year's hard use and an true understanding of the technical principles involved. What is your's based upon?

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
I hope you also then understand why very precise toe adjustment throughout suspension travel is critical for a car racing on a hard surface and why it is very significantly less important for a quad riding in dirt or sand.

I guess to someone riding slow like a they might on a big wheel wouldn't notice bump steer much. But when im hitting a 200yrd curved stretch of whoops in 4th gear I want my bike to go where I point it...

You may not ride that hard is why you probably dont see it... or maybe youve never rode on a bike with a-arms and shocks set up right. Have you rode on a bike with +2 or bigger a-arms? Cause ive rode both types and its night and day.

dustin_j

11-06-2007, 10:44 AM

I would be very interested in a drawing; please include dimensions. I would think since the a-arms are the same length (follow the same arch, except this arch is moved away from the quad 3 inches) and the tie rods are now 3 inches longer (follow a larger arch that is still in the same place) the archs would diverge and the increased length in tie rod would push the spindle, in other words create more toe in.

I would imagine you would also see this if you took a corner real hard, let's say to the left. This would cause the front right shock to compress more. If the above thoughts are true, the front right wheel should turn even more to the left just from the suspension motion. This would in turn cause the quad to really push in corners. Quadmaniac, do you notice this at all? Or if you land a decent sized jump, is the steering real twitchy until the shocks rebound? It would be very interesting to tackle all these questions with sound numbers and facts to see for sure what may be wrong with these kits.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
What I KNOW, graphic is that your distaste for this system is a strong as is my enthusiam for it. Mine is based upon installation, a year's hard use and an true understanding of the technical principles involved. What is your's based upon?

Understanding of suspensions on and off road.
Hours of use of the "kit" type set ups you speak of.
100's of hours of use on multiple well set up quad with a-arms.
Building suspension for trucks/cars, which are the same priciples as a quad experience.

Ive used both and even considered using the set up for my girlfriend who never leaves 3rd gear on her 400ex but id rather not get her laughed at....

You list you understand the technical principles which clearly isn't the case or you wouldn't be defending it.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:47 AM

Again, graphic, the guy had SPACERS on his bike...

I would suggest that the difference between stock and extended arms IS night and day, and if you ever read any of the previous posts or my sig, you would see that I do have +2's on one of my 400's... I would also suggest, using the same scale, that the difference between stock and the kit is night and dawn... not bad at all for someone who was trying to improve over spacers.

I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine. I wouldn't expect you to use this, it's not your style nor does it meet your riding expectations. BUT it can do a great job as an interim step for many.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by GraphicDisorder

You list you understand the technical principles which clearly isn't the case or you wouldn't be defending it.

What kind of backassward logic is this? Unfortuanately follows the logic used in your arguments so far. And you finally revealed the true issue... you're afraid of being laughed at by using this.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
Again, graphic, the guy had SPACERS on his bike...

I would suggest that the difference between stock and extended arms IS night and day, and if you ever read any of the previous posts or my sig, you would see that I do have +2's on one of my 400's... I would also suggest, using the same scale, that the difference between stock and the kit is night and dawn... not bad at all for someone who was trying to improve over spacers.

I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine. I wouldn't expect you to use this, it's not your style nor does it meet your riding expectations. BUT it does can do a great job as an interim step for many.

We will have to agree to disagree then, I wouldn't run a widening kit if it were given to me, I wouldn't run one if someone paid me to run it and gave it to me. I think anyone that takes it real serious would agree. People that ride hard or race or hit tracks are looking for every advantage possible.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by GraphicDisorder
People that ride hard or race or hit tracks are looking for every advantage possible.

And they SHOULD run a-arms, we are NOT in disagreement there at all! Even if performance were IDENTICAL, and it isn't, why would they want to add 15+ pounds to the front of their ride?

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
What kind of backassward logic is this? Unfortuanately follows the logic used in your arguments so far. And you finally revealed the true issue... you're afraid of being laughed at by using this.

No ive road bikes with kits before and they are crap... thats why I dont want them. Personally I dont care what anyone thinks about the parts I use, if they work ill use them. The kits do not work up to my standards or many standards for that matter... Dont try to twist it up...

You still dont back up anything with any kind of technical principles. Your stuck "standing corrected" huh.

2old2race

11-06-2007, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by 300exOH
A decent set of stock with a lowered ride height would do more for stability/handling than that widening kit. ;)
I don't think a lowered ride height would in any way be better for woods riding. Maybe track, but not woods.

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by QuadManiac
And they SHOULD run a-arms, we are NOT in disagreement there at all! Even if performance were IDENTICAL, and it isn't, why would they want to add 15+ pounds to the front of their ride?

Nobody would, so why in the world would you. Put out some money and get truely happy with your bike.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 10:56 AM

Are we having fun yet, 2old... man what a firestorm!

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 11:08 AM

Im having a blast, navigating right through this thread like a bike with A-arms...

LMAO sorry had to.. :devil:

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 11:10 AM

ROFL, you're allowed that one. :D

2old2race

11-06-2007, 11:15 AM

Hell, I've been shuffling between this and the Baltimore Ravens site.
Now THAT is taking a beating! :D

GraphicDisorder

11-06-2007, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by 2old2race
Hell, I've been shuffling between this and the Baltimore Ravens site.
Now THAT is taking a beating! :D

Ravens got pounded last night.

QuadManiac

11-06-2007, 11:17 AM

Obviously didn't watch the Chargers get embarassed by the Vikings yesterday... oh the pain.

2old2race

11-06-2007, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by GraphicDisorder
Ravens got pounded last night.
You don't need to tell me. :(

300exOH

11-06-2007, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by 2old2race
I don't think a lowered ride height would in any way be better for woods riding. Maybe track, but not woods.

You don't THINK or you don't KNOW?
A lowered ride height is a great benefit on AND off the track. The overall ride height of the vehicle is lower yes but you really don't lose any ground clearance since you are mainly limited by the clearance under the swingarm anyhow. I have been running 8.5" of ride height on my quad (which is 1-1.5" lower than stock) for a couple of years now and it never has caused any problems. The only times I get hung up are when something catches the rear swinger skidplate. With a lower ride height the quad has greater stability in high speed turns and also when side hilling/off camber.