Front emd width.

[K-Dub]

How wide is the front of the 250R stock? I measured my front end with plus 2 arms and 4 1 wheels and its just now 46" wide with the a arms level. So I figure if you take the 4" away with plus 2 arms that makes it stock at 42". Does that even sound right?

I also measured my stock 04 450R front end and its only 44" wide with the arms level. So plus 3 arms on the 450R would get you out to 50". But do you need plus 4s on the 250R to get to 50" with a 4 1 wheel? Never even heard of plus 4" a arms, do they make them? I bought a set of plus 3" arms but that will only get me 48" with arms level and a 4 1 wheel. What gives? I was always under he understanding they both was 46" wide stock, guess I was wrong.

I was reading on Walsh race crafts site that their plus 3 arms put you at 49.9" with a 4 1 wheel.
+3 arms (http://www.walshracecraft.com/#/trx-250r-1/4532431824)
Is that with a stock frame or the Walsh frame? Ive read that the Walsh frame is more narrow than stock. But by my figures plus 3 only gets you to 48" with the stock frame. Can someone explain this to me?

[Honda 250r 001]

+3 no matter what stock is should equal atleast 50 inches. mines got +3's and its 51 flat.

[01shee]

Tire, ride height, a-arms maker, rims, all are going to play a role in this. Im at 47" with 3-2 rim and +1 front end. ride height is 7.5 in the front.

[Honda 250r 001]

Originally posted by 01shee
Tire, ride height, a-arms maker, rims, all are going to play a role in this. Im at 47" with 3-2 rim and +1 front end. ride height is 7.5 in the front.

also 400ex spindles will add about an inch of width on each side.

[D Bergstrom]

Originally posted by 01shee
Tire, ride height, a-arms maker, rims, all are going to play a role in this.

What he said is true. Even the way you measure could play a role.

My 250R with +3 arms and 4:1 rims is 49" wide, but I also have it setup for desert, so my ride height is a little higher then usual.

Doug

[matt250r21]

Originally posted by K-Dub
How wide is the front of the 250R stock? I measured my front end with plus 2 arms and 4 1 wheels and its just now 46" wide with the a arms level. So I figure if you take the 4" away with plus 2 arms that makes it stock at 42". Does that even sound right?

I also measured my stock 04 450R front end and its only 44" wide with the arms level. So plus 3 arms on the 450R would get you out to 50". But do you need plus 4s on the 250R to get to 50" with a 4 1 wheel? Never even heard of plus 4" a arms, do they make them? I bought a set of plus 3" arms but that will only get me 48" with arms level and a 4 1 wheel. What gives? I was always under he understanding they both was 46" wide stock, guess I was wrong.

I was reading on Walsh race crafts site that their plus 3 arms put you at 49.9" with a 4 1 wheel.
+3 arms (http://www.walshracecraft.com/#/trx-250r-1/4532431824)
Is that with a stock frame or the Walsh frame? Ive read that the Walsh frame is more narrow than stock. But by my figures plus 3 only gets you to 48" with the stock frame. Can someone explain this to me?

I have the same problem as you. I'm running a stock width Laeger frame with +3+1 forward T-pin arms and PEP ZPS shocks. With 4x1 rims I'm at 48 inches wide. I started running the 3x2 rims to get out to 49 inches wide. I want to run the 4x1 rims but I don't want to be at 48 wide.

[FL-R]

Originally posted by Honda 250r 001
also 400ex spindles will add about an inch of width on each side.
I didnt know that, i have +3s/ 3-2 and 400ex spindles and mines 52" wide. But i love it.

[Honda 250r 001]

Originally posted by FL-R
I didnt know that, i have +3s/ 3-2 and 400ex spindles and mines 52" wide. But i love it.

yep, when i compared spindles between 86 250r and 400ex i found that they had to add more material around where the spindle goes through the aluminum knuckle part, so they had to move the mount out a bit because it would hit with the added material. But that means you will feel bumps more in the handle bars. :/ oh well you gain some you loose some.

[8686]

Ride height and camber angles have a big effect on front width. Don't strive for a 50 inch wide front end just cuz you think it's the magical number. I'd take a 48 inch wide front end that's properly set up over a 50 inch wide front end that's not any day.

[racerx573]

OEM Honda wheels are not 4+1, they're in between 3+2 and 4+1.

Walsh/Laeger narrow frames are about 2" narrower than a stock frame. (allows for +4 a-arms)

I ran +4 a-arms on my Laeger narrow framed 250R's with 3+2 wheels and sat 50" with 3 degrees of negative camber on each side, Holeshot MX's on one of my bikes and MX radials on the other.


It IS possible to also run +4's a-arms on a stock width frame, but you must run 4+1 wheels.

Companies like Burgard, JB, Laeger's Walsh, and Houser can make +4 a-arms for you.


Try measuring your front end with your stock 450R wheels on it.



Sell your 4+1 wheels and get some 3+2's and you'll be sitting a little over 48" depending on tires/camber.

[racerx573]

Originally posted by 8686
Ride height and camber angles have a big effect on front width. Don't strive for a 50 inch wide front end just cuz you think it's the magical number. I'd take a 48 inch wide front end that's properly set up over a 50 inch wide front end that's not any day.

Also what he said. ^^^^
50" isn't the magic number all the time.

A lot of guys used to run narrow frames with 3+2's and +3 a-arms sitting them about 48.5" or so with some negative camber.

[K-Dub]

Thanks for all the responses. What Im wanting to end up withis a 50" front end set up properly with 4 1 wheels. racerx573 you answered alot of my questions. But 1 more question, if your running a narrow front end which is 2" narrower than the stock frame you would need a plus 5 arms to run 4 1 wheels and be 50" correct? Well I geuss Ill try for a 48" front set up properly being as I already have my a arms.

Thanks again for the responces everyone.

[Honda 250r 001]

Originally posted by K-Dub
Thanks for all the responses. What Im wanting to end up withis a 50" front end set up properly with 4 1 wheels. racerx573 you answered alot of my questions. But 1 more question, if your running a narrow front end which is 2" narrower than the stock frame you would need a plus 5 arms to run 4 1 wheels and be 50" correct? Well I geuss Ill try for a 48" front set up properly being as I already have my a arms.

Thanks again for the responces everyone.

when you go to a narrow front end quad you have to run special a arms made for the narrow front ends, the laeger pro trax front end a arms are much more than +3 to compensate for the narrower frame. same with the roll design a arms and such.

[matt250r21]

Originally posted by Honda 250r 001
when you go to a narrow front end quad you have to run special a arms made for the narrow front ends, the laeger pro trax front end a arms are much more than +3 to compensate for the narrower frame. same with the roll design a arms and such. +3 arms for a narrow Laeger frame would measure out to be +4 arms on a stock width frame. I'm thinkng the Pro Trax was designed to run 3x2 rims. I don't think 4x1 rims were even made yet when that front end first came out.

[rigger]

My front end is about 48 with plus 2 on a stock frame with 400ex spendels and standard honda rims. That is just sitting in the garage with out compressing the front end.

[racerx573]

Originally posted by matt250r21
+3 arms for a narrow Laeger frame would measure out to be +4 arms on a stock width frame. I'm thinkng the Pro Trax was designed to run 3x2 rims. I don't think 4x1 rims were even made yet when that front end first came out.

That's right.



And in regards to the Roll Design frames and stuff, the Roll frames are only about 2" wide, and I believe compared to stock a-arms, the Lobo arms for a Lobo frame are around +6 or +7 I believe.



When I had my first Laeger narrow frame, I ran JRD +3's with 3+2's and was about 48" wide.

I called Houser and they made me some +4 long travel a-arms, but I ended up buying a +4 Pro Trax front end from Jason Dunkelberger.


+2 or +3 with a stock frame and 3+2 wheels will be a great setup regardless.

[racerx573]

Originally posted by Honda 250r 001
when you go to a narrow front end quad you have to run special a arms made for the narrow front ends, the laeger pro trax front end a arms are much more than +3 to compensate for the narrower frame. same with the roll design a arms and such.

Not necessarily the case.


Most frames are made to run any a-arms.

Roll Design frames are specific for Roll a-arms, I am 99% sure.

Laeger narrow frames can run any a-arms.

Walsh frames can run just about any a-arms (East Coast ran a lot of Gibsons on Walsh frames)

To run a Pro Trax on a Walsh frame, you need to do a small bit of modifications, according to Jason Dunkelberger, but that is only to run the t-pin stem. Walsh with a Pro Trax was one of the most indestructable chassis setups also according to Dunk.

Also I believe JRD frames are JRD or Roll Design a-arm specific.



I did A LOT of research with front end/a-arm combos, and also tried a lot of different combos as well on my first Laeger before I could cough up the cash for a Pro Trax.