long travel vs regular travel set up

[andiboy123]

i have been trying to get this answer by serching but never found nothing, those 2 set up must have any diference , wishone is beter and why, nay body who race let me know!!!!!

[400exrider707]

For the average rider on here, standard travel will be more than they will ever need. LT for the most part is a nice selling gimmick. You can obtain the same travel with a good aftermarket standard setup vs a long travel setup. The important things in this are using quality arms and getting the shocks set up by someone who knows suspension!

The main advantages to LT are less shock fade, and they're easier to tune, but 90% of the people who have them couldn't tune a standard travel shock to save their lives anyways.

My personal opinion is to just get a good standard travel setup, then if you feel like you need the LT, go for it.

If you have the money to burn now though, then why not get LT.

What kind of riding/racing will you be doing?

[TNT]

Originally posted by 400exrider707
The main advantages to LT are less shock fade, and they're easier to tune, but 90% of the people who have them couldn't tune a standard travel shock to save their lives anyways.

Theres a little more to it than that my freind. The longer stroke and/or bore size has a direct relationship to number of cycles per hour, amount of kenetic energy and work reacted, rate of energy absorbed, etc. :D

[Honda 250r 001]

Originally posted by 400exrider707
For the average rider on here, standard travel will be more than they will ever need. LT for the most part is a nice selling gimmick. You can obtain the same travel with a good aftermarket standard setup vs a long travel setup. The important things in this are using quality arms and getting the shocks set up by someone who knows suspension!

The main advantages to LT are less shock fade, and they're easier to tune, but 90% of the people who have them couldn't tune a standard travel shock to save their lives anyways.

My personal opinion is to just get a good standard travel setup, then if you feel like you need the LT, go for it.

If you have the money to burn now though, then why not get LT.

What kind of riding/racing will you be doing?

most of your statement is true, but i dont believe you can get the travel with a standard that you can with a lt set up.

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by Honda 250r 001
most of your statement is true, but i dont believe you can get the travel with a standard that you can with a lt set up.

Yes you can. The only limiting factor within the travel is the balljoints on the arms and maybe tie-rod ends in an extreme case. You can only have so much up travel before the frame hits the ground anyways.

Its not really a "long travel" setup, its more of a long shock setup.

I'm sure a T-pin setup is capable of some impressive numbers, but again, how far can you go before the frame bottoms anyways?

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by TNT
Theres a little more to it than that my freind. The longer stroke and/or bore size has a direct relationship to number of cycles per hour, amount of kenetic energy and work reacted, rate of energy absorbed, etc. :D

Understood. Wouldn't this relate to shock fade though? Could you elaborate on it, I'm always up for some learning! Your knowledge on the subject is superior to mine!:chinese:

[Honda 250r 001]

Originally posted by 400exrider707
Yes you can. The only limiting factor within the travel is the balljoints on the arms and maybe tie-rod ends in an extreme case. You can only have so much up travel before the frame hits the ground anyways.

Its not really a "long travel" setup, its more of a long shock setup.

I'm sure a T-pin setup is capable of some impressive numbers, but again, how far can you go before the frame bottoms anyways?

honestly man show me a standard travel shocks that provides 7 inches of shaft travel, then will believe.

i dont think you can get 14 inches of travel out of a standard set of 250r a arms and shocks.

[TNT]

Originally posted by 400exrider707
Understood. Wouldn't this relate to shock fade though? Could you elaborate on it, I'm always up for some learning! Your knowledge on the subject is superior to mine!:chinese:

Not really however I was looking at some very complicated fluid dynamic formula's on the subject last night I have not seen for over 20 years, gave me a headache!! Glad you didn't challange me or I would a went back to formula's only way to elaborate but I'll spare us the math. Ouch! LOL!:eek2:

From what I got from trying to interpret formula's which is difficult (used a landing gear) the shock fade is a different subject/issue having to do w/boiling and air vs stroke and the fomula's used to find the correct stroke/ bore size/cycles/absorbtion rates/based on the formula's used to first find the kenetic energy and work produced based on loads on the tires in the verticle or angular direction.....see what I mean complicated!!! :blah:

So who really knows the benefit of the long travel shock do the math :confused:

[dustin_j]

TNT, you mentioned stroke and bore size has a relationship to cycles/hr; of course this depends on how you define cycles. Wouldn't long travel and standard travel setups cycle shaft travel at the same rate, since the wheel would move through the same motion with either setup. I'm sure this is 400exrider707's point; a well made set of a-arms accepting a standard length shock will have the same wheel travel as a long travel (long shock) setup.

Although, I would be interested in energy absorption differences between the different lengths of shocks. I would have thought the same as 400exrider707. Does the increased shaft travel (piston travel) and oil volume have that much of an effect? I would be interested in a more in-depth response if you are up to it. I also enjoy the chance to learn!

Thanks,
Dustin

[Scro]

Originally posted by Honda 250r 001
honestly man show me a standard travel shocks that provides 7 inches of shaft travel, then will believe.


That's the difference in ST and LT. If you compared the amount of shaft travel between a ST and LT setup with the same amount of wheel travel, the LT will have more shaft travel.

I understand the basic principles behind it all. But once you start talking about kinetic energy and fluid dynamics, I'll have to leave for the engineering nerds to discuss:p

[jacobw]

there is an article in the new atv rider about this and it say wheel travel for a standard travel shock and long shock are can be the same the limiting factor is ball joints, and with aftermarkets arms they will travel the same what you get with longer shocks is better leverage ratios, and easier tuning nothing less or nothing more long travel relating to shock length is a gimmick shock length means nothing, brandon sommers and don ockerman run standard length shocks on thier yfz xc bikes but still have the travel of the long shock

[jacobw]

and the reason that long shocks have more shaft travel is the pivot is place out further on the arm so is has to have more shaft travel, some of you guys are not seeing the big picture.

[TNT]

Sure I’m game…lets all have some fun and learn from each other. Can we all agree on the following?

1. When we extend the arm geometry the reaction to forces changed.

2. When we extend the shock geometry the reaction to dampening forces changed.

Note: We can proove this mathematically by taking moments (force times distance) around the arm/shocks pivots(see diagram).

3. That racing XC travel requirements will be shorter.

4. That racing MX travel requirements will be longer.

5. The following diagram I drew up quick.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk191/Terrylport/Slide1-5.jpg

[dustin_j]

I agree; however, if you had an extended a-arm with a standard length shock, arc length 1 would be the same for each setup, though AB>CD. A question for those running long shocks, what is the shaft travel (exposed shaft length from seal head to bottom of shaft)? I'm curious how much larger this is, and what leverage ratio is achieved for the two setups.

For example, the front end on my ex is kind of cobbled together, so it may be a poor example of a standard length setup. I only have 3.5" of shaft travel for my 9.75" of wheel travel. Resulting in a leverage ratio of 2.78:1.

One could argue that the longer shaft travel allows the oil and shims more time to react. The springs would be compressed less for each increment of wheel travel, smoothing out the spring reactions as well. However, I would be curious to see proof that a rider can notice the difference. I think this just reverts back to 400exrider707's original post, the only difference is ease of setup (and possibly shock fade). Didn't someone use an example of throwing darts at a target; where the "long travel" shock just offered a larger target?

[duke416ex]

I have ridden stock suspension, revalves, st elkas and axis, and lt elkas and axis. I can notice a difference in longer shocks. Biggest is like you said, it gives the shock longer to react and more shaft travel to do the same thing in, doing this lets you have more flow but still get the same result. This and the shock having more fluid helps me to feel a lot less fade by the end of the race. Plus with good arms you get a better leverage ratio and shock angle to help everythign work better.

I can't remember the exact measurements on my shocks, but it is somethign like 18 3/4" length with like 5 3/4" shaft travel. I am putting mine together this weekend so I will remeasure everything.

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by Honda 250r 001
honestly man show me a standard travel shocks that provides 7 inches of shaft travel, then will believe.

i dont think you can get 14 inches of travel out of a standard set of 250r a arms and shocks.

I agree, but we're talking wheel travel, not shock travel.

You can obtain the same amount of wheel travel with two different shock travels.


TNT, awesome info dude!

[400exrider707]

Originally posted by dustin_j
Didn't someone use an example of throwing darts at a target; where the "long travel" shock just offered a larger target?

Exactly!

To add to this, its almost impossible to directly compare a ST setup to a LT setup for ride quality anyways. There are so many builders out there that can fine tune a shock to make it ride like a cadillac, and on top of this, you'd need to have both setups dialed in after they're on the quad, and a lot of guys really just dont know how to do this. Setup will play a huge role in how a quad rides.

Anyone can bolt shocks on, but to set them up is another thing!


Dustin, I know most LT setups are usually trying to achieve 2:1 leverage ratio. 2in of wheel travel for 1in of shock travel. They will vary though and it really all boils down to what the shock/arm manufacturers think you should have.

[TNT]

Originally posted by dustin_j
I agree; however, if you had an extended a-arm with a standard length shock, arc length 1 would be the same for each setup, though AB>CD. A question for those running long shocks, what is the shaft travel (exposed shaft length from seal head to bottom of shaft)? I'm curious how much larger this is, and what leverage ratio is achieved for the two setups.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk191/Terrylport/DIAGRAM2.jpg

REF:
STROKE A + B = ARC LENGTH 1
STROKE C + D = ARC LENGTH 2
STROKE AB > STROKE CD

MOMENTS:
M1 = F1 X (E-F)
M2 = F2 X (E-G)

M2>M1 @ E (REGUARDLESS ON WHERE WE PUT THE SHOCK).

LT ARM: SHOCK A-B SEES LESS LOAD SINCE LEVER A-G < LEVER C-G. OR THE F2 MOMENT @ "A" IS LESS THAN "C".

THE SHOCK PLACED IN SERVICE AT “F2, A-B (LT)” WILL SEE LESS LOAD THAN C-D, THEREFORE THERE BE LESS FADE AND EASIER TUNING FOR THE LT SET-UP.

NOTES:
F1= F2 = TIRE FORCES( INCREASES SIGNIFICANTLY LANDING JUMPS).
E-F & E-G = LEVER ARM DISTANCES.

:D

[TNT]

Originally posted by TNT
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk191/Terrylport/DIAGRAM2.jpg

REF:
STROKE A + B = ARC LENGTH 1
STROKE C + D = ARC LENGTH 2
STROKE AB > STROKE CD

MOMENTS:
M1 = F1 X (E-F)
M2 = F2 X (E-G)

M2>M1 @ E (REGUARDLESS ON WHERE WE PUT THE SHOCK).

LT ARM: SHOCK A-B SEES LESS LOAD SINCE LEVER A-G < LEVER C-G. OR THE F2 MOMENT @ "A" IS LESS THAN "C".

THE SHOCK PLACED IN SERVICE AT “F2, A-B (LT)” WILL SEE LESS LOAD THAN C-D, THEREFORE THERE BE LESS FADE AND EASIER TUNING FOR THE LT SET-UP.

NOTES:
F1= F2 = TIRE FORCES( INCREASES SIGNIFICANTLY LANDING JUMPS).
E-F & E-G = LEVER ARM DISTANCES.

:D


NEXT WHEN I GOT SOME TIME WE'LL LOOK AT SOME FLUID DYNAMIICS AND SHOCK DESIGNS.

:cool:

[dustin_j]

Originally posted by TNT
NEXT WHEN I GOT SOME TIME WE'LL LOOK AT SOME FLUID DYNAMIICS AND SHOCK DESIGNS.

:cool:

Sounds good to me!

I agree with your above posts; I wanted to make sure you were comparing the same length of a-arm (with different lengths of shock, ST or LT). I agree that since the LT shock absorbs less force it should be easier to tune and with less fade, but I'm wondering if we can begin to quantify this? I eagerly await your next response :D .

Thanks,
Dustin

[number52]

400exrider707 is completely correct! Even if you did have 15 inches of wheel travel it wouldn't matter because the bike wouldn't handle as good as it could with 10.5 inches. A ST will have the EXACT same amount of shaft travel as a LT with the same leverage ratio period.

[TNT]

Originally posted by number52
400exrider707 is completely correct! Even if you did have 15 inches of wheel travel it wouldn't matter because the bike wouldn't handle as good as it could with 10.5 inches. A ST will have the EXACT same amount of shaft travel as a LT with the same leverage ratio period.

I guess I'm confussed about what you're trying to say, Arc 1 stroke A-B > Arc 2 stroke C-D although the LT/ST ratio's can be set up to be the same, nonetheless the load cases are definitely different LT is higher :confused: ...and we have not even begun to consider fluid flow and dynamics.

I know we are only talking about +1, +2 arms but I think we'll see the greatest impact on the shocks from landing a jump or compression stroke from fully extended @ 8-10 feet in the air. In that load case more stroke might make a big difference depending on shock design.

We have already estabished a higher LT bending moment on the frame regardless of shock placement , placing the shock closer to the tires (load) reduces shock dampening requirements for better tuning/less fade, true for LT or ST. There are distinct differences between LT/ST from a loads perspective, how much TBD....

I'm working on free body diagram of the arm so we can see some real numbers or get an idea of the LT/ST forces on the shocks shaft/ piston. There are alot of angles and distances to deal with that can vary from OEMS and vary results. I'm simplifing them just to get an idea. :cool:

[number52]

You're not talking the difference between LT and ST, you're comparing a higher leverage ratio vs. a lower leverage ratio. There is no such thing as an actual long travel or standard travel shock only a long body and short body shock!

[Honda 250r 001]

Originally posted by number52
You're not talking the difference between LT and ST, you're comparing a higher leverage ratio vs. a lower leverage ratio. There is no such thing as an actual long travel or standard travel shock only a long body and short body shock!

well some shocks do provide more travel, but thats only shaft travel, you can pair up almost any shocks and a arms and get good wheel travel. But technically the lt shocks would provide more wheel travel than the sdt. if both thrown on a set of either lt or sdt a arms.

[dustin_j]

Originally posted by Honda 250r 001
well some shocks do provide more travel, but thats only shaft travel, you can pair up almost any shocks and a arms and get good wheel travel. But technically the lt shocks would provide more wheel travel than the sdt. if both thrown on a set of either lt or sdt a arms.

Yes, "long travel" shocks have more shaft travel than "standard travel" shocks. However, I think you're missing the point. Well made a-arms have the same amount of wheel travel whether they are branded "long travel" or "standard travel."

The only difference between the two is where the shock is mounted on the a-arm. This changes the leverage ratio of the a-arm and thus the extended and compressed lengths of the shock. The discussion at hand is whether or not this changed leverage ratio and the accompanying shock changes are a noticable improvement. Otherwise worded, if shocks of each length were built well to their respective setup and rider, would there be a noticable difference in the performance of the "long travel" setup?

[number52]

Originally posted by dustin_j
Yes, "long travel" shocks have more shaft travel than "standard travel" shocks. However, I think you're missing the point. Well made a-arms have the same amount of wheel travel whether they are branded "long travel" or "standard travel."

The only difference between the two is where the shock is mounted on the a-arm. This changes the leverage ratio of the a-arm and thus the extended and compressed lengths of the shock. The discussion at hand is whether or not this changed leverage ratio and the accompanying shock changes are a noticable improvement. Otherwise worded, if shocks of each length were built well to their respective setup and rider, would there be a noticable difference in the performance of the "long travel" setup?
I still have to disagree with you. A long travel shock will have the same shaft travel, but will have longer bodies. The correct wording should be a lower leverage ratio shock will have a longer shaft travel. There is a range that will work and this range is around 1.75 - 2.75 in my opinion due to some of the factors you are trying to describe TNT. Just trying to get everyone to realize the difference

[dustin_j]

Originally posted by number52
I still have to disagree with you. A long travel shock will have the same shaft travel, but will have longer bodies. The correct wording should be a lower leverage ratio shock will have a longer shaft travel. There is a range that will work and this range is around 1.75 - 2.75 in my opinion due to some of the factors you are trying to describe TNT. Just trying to get everyone to realize the difference

I agree. I was assuming all long travel setups lowered the leverage ratio; however, it is good to point out that this is not necessarily true. Thank you for clearing this up.

[TNT]

Originally posted by number52
You're not talking the difference between LT and ST, you're comparing a higher leverage ratio vs. a lower leverage ratio. There is no such thing as an actual long travel or standard travel shock only a long body and short body shock!

Actually I have not begun to discuss shock designs or how shaft diameter or travel is determined. I can’t until we understand the loads that determine them. Shaft travel and piston diameter (body size) are an integral part of shock design along with orifice sizes, pressures, diameter or area, but to understand this we need to understand the different forces and moments between LT and ST.


Originally posted by Honda 250r 001
well some shocks do provide more travel, but thats only shaft travel, you can pair up almost any shocks and a arms and get good wheel travel. But technically the lt shocks would provide more wheel travel than the sdt. if both thrown on a set of either lt or sdt a arms.

The LT moment will be higher that’s why you see or should see stronger arms, the further the wheel moves away from the frame attach the greater the force on the arm (especially the lower arm) and the bending moment at the frame. I think it is the ones that don’t consider this throw any combination or shocks or arms together end up braking shafts and/or frames.


Originally posted by dustin_j
Yes, "long travel" shocks have more shaft travel than "standard travel" shocks. However, I think you're missing the point. Well made a-arms have the same amount of wheel travel whether they are branded "long travel" or "standard travel."

The only difference between the two is where the shock is mounted on the a-arm. This changes the leverage ratio of the a-arm and thus the extended and compressed lengths of the shock. The discussion at hand is whether or not this changed leverage ratio and the accompanying shock changes are a noticable improvement. Otherwise worded, if shocks of each length were built well to their respective setup and rider, would there be a noticable difference in the performance of the "long travel" setup?

LT arms see higher loads due to higher lever arms and have higher dampening requirements, that’s the big difference. Where we place the shock with respect to the load can add or subtract from those requirements. The shock placement does not change the arm load since it has no effect on the distance from the arm attach at the frame to the load input (wheel), also it does not reduce or increase the incoming load at the wheel. Again, the diameter of the shocks piston, stroke, etc, will determine the shocks capacity to dampen this load. We will isolate the shock later and look at what how it has to be designed and how different design features can be changed to take out or dampen the frequencies of the arm.


Originally posted by number52
I still have to disagree with you. A long travel shock will have the same shaft travel, but will have longer bodies. The correct wording should be a lower leverage ratio shock will have a longer shaft travel. There is a range that will work and this range is around 1.75 - 2.75 in my opinion due to some of the factors you are trying to describe TNT. Just trying to get everyone to realize the difference

I've addressed some of this above and you’re jumping ahead on me a little here but as far as the shock design goes it’s all about P over A, or Pressure over Area we can get there different ways. The shaft travel or unsupported shaft is all about bending moments in tension and compression, if we have a longer unsupported shaft it will have to be thicker to take out the bending moment. Also the shock placed at C – H is going to see more cycle time and fatigue/ less life cycle than the shock placed at G - H, sorta like a short leg guy and tall leg guy running side-by-side the short leg guy has to run more to keep up and will tire out faster. :)

Here’s another diagram to illustrate what I am talking about. The shock components of F1 and F2 are shown as F3 and F4. Here there are vertical, horizontal, and a resultant loads F3/F4 up the shaft to the piston if you will. We could do some trigonometry and more moment analysis to determine F3 and F4 for demo purposes let’s just say that F4 > F3 for now, these are the design loads or dampening requirements.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk191/Terrylport/shockproject4ppt.jpg

[number52]

TNT, why do you still refer to them as long travel and standard travel when they are not? You're actually comparing leverage ratios!

If the shock piston is designed correctly and the valving is close then there is no reason to run larger than 1/2" shafts. And the different leverage ratios don't change your piston size you need to run. And the piston size certainly isn't the deciding factor as to how much a piston will flow.

I'm just curious where you're getting your info on all of this? I also hope that you can open my eyes about something with suspension. I try to keep an open mind and I do enjoy the detailed pictures.

[TNT]

Originally posted by number52
TNT, why do you still refer to them as long travel and standard travel when they are not? You're actually comparing leverage ratios!

If the shock piston is designed correctly and the valving is close then there is no reason to run larger than 1/2" shafts. And the different leverage ratios don't change your piston size you need to run. And the piston size certainly isn't the deciding factor as to how much a piston will flow.

I'm just curious where you're getting your info on all of this? I also hope that you can open my eyes about something with suspension. I try to keep an open mind and I do enjoy the detailed pictures.

Actually I am not talking about LT/ST shocks or leverage ratios. I think we’re talking about too much at once and getting caught up in terms. I’m talking about loads. I probably did not explain my first diagram well here it is again shocks removed for clarity. Let’s just look at the loads on the lower arm and compare the difference between putting on standard and LT arms.

Do you agree the LT arm produces more load on the frame @ C than ST? OR, F2 X (A-C) is a higher number than F1 X (B-C) for the same load at the tires F1 = F2?

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk191/Terrylport/ARMMOMENTDIAGRAM.jpg

[number52]

I agree with you, but you're comparing a wider A-Arm to a shorter A-Arm, not long travel vs standard travel A-Arm still! If setup correctly these two setups will still use the same wheel travel.

[TNT]

Ok maybe I need to go back to basics….I understand a long travel arm to increase the distance from the frame attach to the ball joint attach by +1, +2, etc. that increases wheel base and improves lateral stability for MX. Wheel travel increases accordingly (in theory) (see arcs in my diagrams) although I understand the ball joint is a limiting factor as is the ground. I’m not sure about the arms up/ down travel being more or less and if the ball joint is the limiting factor in both directions I know the ground is not. :D

[TNT]

Also if the ball joints are the limiting factor we got a problem, I'd like to see a ball joint OEM advertise thier ball joints are mechanical stops as well. If the ground is a limiting factor we still got a problem, if a quad is bottoming out alot thats not good!

Agree? Disagree? :D

[andiboy123]

all my ? where aswered!!!!!! at the end of the day if you are going pro you should get a lt if you run locally keep and set the regular travel.
now tnt your ds still have the stock a arms, they came regular travel and your peps are regualr travel rigth?

[dustin_j]

Originally posted by TNT
Ok maybe I need to go back to basics….I understand a long travel arm to increase the distance from the frame attach to the ball joint attach by +1, +2, etc. that increases wheel base and improves lateral stability for MX. Wheel travel increases accordingly (in theory) (see arcs in my diagrams) although I understand the ball joint is a limiting factor as is the ground. I’m not sure about the arms up/ down travel being more or less and if the ball joint is the limiting factor in both directions I know the ground is not. :D

I think it's a word/concept confusion we're having :D. Whether the a-arm is +1 or +2 etc, it can come in "standard travel" or "long travel" configuration. So an extended a-arm is just that extended, and is either an LT or ST setup. Therefore, as number52 has stated, the only differences that can exist between long travel and standard travel shocks (and a-arms) are either body lengths or leverage ratios. Does this make sense and does everyone agree? Therefore, we can accurately say that the wheel travel is the same for standard or long travel setup.

You are correct TNT, the ball joints should never be used as stops for suspension travel. However, if it is known a ball joint will bind, your extended and compressed shock lengths need to be adjusted to prevent this from happening; indirectly, ball joint bind limits wheel travel.

[TNT]

I was curious so I talked to my buddies at Houser today who I have dealt with and have been doing this for years for an explanation. They said they offered both LT and ST arms and shocks. The LT arms are 1.1” wider than the ST arm, they refer to them as “LT” or “ST” arms. You can have a longer shock (LT) or STd stock w/either. What they do is change the lower shock point below or above the frame on either the wider or standard arms to get more wheel travel. The STD set up max wheel travel they can achieve is 8-9” before the shock bottoms out, LT set up about 10 ½ -12, measured if you were to take the wheel and move it up and down to it’s limits. They said there is a lot to consider, ball joints, tie rods, shock bottoming and stroke, frame bottoming, etc, which makes perfect sense to me.

With that said, the load diagrams I have provided are accurate the only thing I have not accounted for is variances in shock stroke above and below the arm for the LT/ST set-up. That’s an interesting one, all it does is change the load path to the shock.

Aniboy: To answer your question, yes there are significant differences between the two set-ups and can vary between OEM’s. I would not say one is more “pro” than the other, I would say it’s based on rider preference and the type of racing you’re doing. As we have seen by some responses on this thread, some prefer the LT set-up. The 09 MX DS is LT compared to the 08X set-up for lateral stability. I am not sure about the 09 XC compared to the 08X model, a suburb handling quad in either case, w/ PEPs unsurpassed IMO.

Interesting thread, I learned a few things so far I did not know.
:D

[number52]

Ok, so what length of shock do you consider a long travel then? from 17.12245" and up! Or 17.12246 and up? Just trying to let you see that there is no actual long travel shock or A-Arm. You don't have more travel with a standard travel arm than a long travel arm. Yes, you could raise the bike higher off the ground with a wider a-arm, but your not going to because the bike won't handle correctly so there's no use even going there. And if Houser is saying that they can only get 9" of travel out of there narrower arms then they are building them wrong or something! They should easily have 10.5".

[TNT]

Give Houser a call and straighten them out, I don’t build quad suspension for living and would make a terrible middle man lol! I have studied, designed, worked on hydraulics, fluids, structural loads, quad suspension but not designed-built quad suspension, although the underlying principles are the same. To me the terminology doesn’t matter for what I have been stating and illustrating with regard to loads and hydraulics, it’s the least important aspect of it all. Long travel, short travel, wheel travel, this and that, don’t matter! What does matter are dimensions, geometry changes or loads that have changed as a result. That is what I am trying to convey, I’m trying to get you all to think out side the geometrical box a little here. For that reason alone "loading" the difference between the set-ups are significant, I have demonstrated that mathematically.

Fact is with regard to travel, if you suspend the quad in air (as you stated above) as in a jump or freestyle mode and engaged the full downward travel of a wider arm (in your terms) by 1.1”, you have just significantly changed the loading on the tire and shock when it hits the ground, 1.1” is huge in this case. As I have stated before, where you place the shock with respect to that load (tire) will again, “significantly change the load on the shock”. For example, in this load case (suspended in air) reguardless of wheel travel when the quad hits the ground with a high gravitational force equal to the weight times 32 ft per second square w/ fully extended suspension (like an aircraft with fully extended back landing gear) the load on the shock will be higher as you separate the tires further distance apart. On the ground, in whoops, corners, etc… a lower and different cyclic load case, the loads on the arms/shocks will be different (higher) for arms that are 1.1” wider. In simplier terms different set-ups will be felt everywhere on the track(s) in XC, MX, FT, etc…..Those are the primary differences and reasons why some feel the difference in set-ups and why I said its rider preference.

This stuff is hard to discuss and illustrate on forums. If you want to discuss it further feel free to shoot me your number by PM, I’d be glad to discuss it with you if you wish. Terry

[number52]

Ok, now your getting somewhere. I just didn't want everyone confused that you were trying to compare long travel vs standard travel. You're only comparing a difference in leverage ratio. I think it would be a lot simpler if you were only talking about using 1 width of A-Arm and were comparing the changes from moving the shock mounting point inward or outward. What your pictures show is that you were changing the shock mounting point and the A-Arm length. It's hard to compare when you're changing 2 different things at 1 time!

Ok, so know let's look at which is better and why? Would a 1.25:1 Leverage ratio be better than a 3.5:1? or vise versa?

[Honda 250r 001]

Originally posted by number52
Ok, now your getting somewhere. I just didn't want everyone confused that you were trying to compare long travel vs standard travel. You're only comparing a difference in leverage ratio. I think it would be a lot simpler if you were only talking about using 1 width of A-Arm and were comparing the changes from moving the shock mounting point inward or outward. What your pictures show is that you were changing the shock mounting point and the A-Arm length. It's hard to compare when you're changing 2 different things at 1 time!

Ok, so know let's look at which is better and why? Would a 1.25:1 Leverage ratio be better than a 3.5:1? or vise versa?

imo you want as much shaft travel for wheel travel as you can get. I mean sure you can get 10 inches of wheel travel out of 2 inches of shaft travel but its not nearly as responsive as 5 inches of wheel travel to 10 inches of wheel travel. imo...

[number52]

I agree with you, but can there be too much shaft travel (which means there's a really low leverage ratio)? You also have to take into account the movement of your springs and how quickly they contact your springs which changes your spring curve tremendously! There are many factors too this equation and will be hard to narrow them down 1 at a time to see which is better.

[TNT]

Originally posted by number52
Ok, so know let's look at which is better and why? Would a 1.25:1 Leverage ratio be better than a 3.5:1? or vise versa?

In our application in general the longer the shock the more load and bending moment it will see. If you were to take the same shock of same shaft diameter lengthen it and move it to a lower attach point and/or outward from the frame it bend easier, as if you took a metal rod of a longer length grabbed at both ends and tried to bend it. With that said the longer shock or stroke or lever or whatever you all want to call it the easier it bends unless it has a larger diameter shaft.... If not it will transfer the bending moment from the tires to the shock body bind and cause friction or even break. Does that make sense? In that case the operation will not be smooth. We can take out the bending moment several ways before it ever sees the shaft/piston/springs/shock, in other words I can design a shock and arms to do what I want, so the answer to the question is in my mind is neither position is more favorable than the other if the design is correct.

I say this very loosely; in any design there are different load cases to satisfy(compression, shear, tension, fatigue, etc), as I tried to explain in my last post and it can be difficult to satisfy them all. The loads from landing a jump will be different than going over whoops, etc. In XC the primary loads are different than MX, in XC we see a lot of hydraulic and structural cycles, fatigue that can cause shock fade and short life cycles. I can however design a shock, arms, and materials to it. I have a lot to work with; arm structure, fluid capacity, spring rates, compression ratio, piston size, stroke, etc…. In MX I can put my arms and shock out wider and design to them to take out large impact loads from jumps, etc.

Make sense? Need more diagrams? Did I answer the question? Without a dimensioned drawing of exactly what we are comparing this is difficult. :D

[MtnEX]

Good thread.

I am glad some folks took the time to write as much as they did on the subject.

I think in the end as quads evolved the "terms" should have changed being as they were not entirely correct in description to start with.

I think most people's current frustration is with the fact that the terms don't apply correctly with the products.

When people look at long travel arms or long travel shocks they expect longer travel... more wheel travel, shaft travel, etc.

It is just not an accurate term.

Stock travel and extended travel are about the only correct terms. Stock gives you stock travel and extended gives you more travel.


Likewise different arm companies make it all confusing with different shock length and stroke requirements. Makes you wonder what is up.

I for example ride another brand quad and run an aftermarket shock for stock arms that has been modified to "extended" travel. It is .75" longer now and provides 5" of shaft travel.

There is a company that sells XC arms that are Long Travel and provide 10.5" of wheel travel. But they spec a shock that is almost the same as the shock I am running on a stock arm. My current shock is only .25" shorter and .38" shorter on stroke. So I am actually going to end up checking my actual wheel travel on what I have now to see what the actual benefit is if it exists.

The MGC contour of the arm may be the explanation and I may not currently have anything close to 10.5" of wheel travel. But I am also thinking that I won't be able to use these arms with my shocks and gain anything. I am thinking max travel with my shocks will be 9.75" with those arms considering a 2:1 motion ratio... .25" shorter x 2 = .5" loss of down travel. Then .38 - .25 x 2 = .25" loss of up travel.