Width for woods

[Dustin_Drews]

I just did a whole bunch of measuring I found that I could get. my quad down to 42 inches front and rear plus still have a longtravel shock!

All it would take in the front is +1 longtravel arms and 5 inch wid rims and 4 plus 1 inch offset rims.

I could make it an inch wider in the front then the rear 1/2 inch on each side if I wanted also... I have heard of people doing this!

In the rear I would just flip some stock 400 ex tires... What are your guys thoughts on this? How would it turn? How tippy would it be?

For tight woods you should be able to fly threw em!

Any one ever tried this?
God Bless,
Dustin

[MossboysRacing]

To me thats scary tippy. I run 47 up front and 46 in the rear. Thats with Houser +1 LT up front, and stock 400ex axle and hubs. I run stock 450r wheels all around. Hell, at Loretta Lynns my friend ran his mx z400 at 49.5 inches in the GNCC. MY local series cuts them pretty tight, but 42 inches is way too narrow.

[skyeryder]

Only if it's a drag race straight in the woods with no turns or anything, I used to try to stay around 46", anymore with most tracks the way they are built I run closer to 47" Not for sure how much XC racing you've done, but you'll find you can make up more time being fast in the corners and stuff by being more stable than you will on those few tight spots, just my .02

[Dustin_Drews]

Unless someone else has more to add I will go with the wider set up!
God Bless,
Dustin Drews

[rockingkfarms]

Try to stay around 46"...it's the best compromise.

[8686]

Agreed, 42 inches is way too narrow, even for xc racing. Like everyone has said, around 46 inches seems to be a good width for xc.

I think on a stock frame, the +1 a-arms with 3+2 wheels in front and a stock axle in the rear should get you close. Run the rear wheels the way they were designed to be used, don't flip them and face the valve stem in. Does anyone have this setup for a reference if I'm close or not?

[ny250r]

My series has some pretty tight stuff but I've noticed the trend towards wider trails recently...too many whiners don't like the tight technical stuff. In '08 there was a guy in my class on a stock width Warrior...maybe 42" and he could haul through the woods, but when they opened up a bit he was 2 wheeling and having a hell of a time controlling it.

My R is right aroujnd 46.25" setup with +1 Burgards, 3-2 offset beadlocks up front, and about 46" in back with a +4 Durablue with Baja rims flipped.

The only rims that should not be flipped are any that have the tapered insert for the lug nut. I have had my 5-3 offset Bajas flipped for 2 seasons now w/o a problem. Mud only collects on the small offset side. I think I read a post where Troybilt said his is setup the same way in the back.

[LONG-ROD]

im running burgard +2 with 3/2 wheels and I am only at 46" you running your valve stems in..

[ny250r]

Nope...valve stems are on outside.

Are you running OEM wheels? Apparently OEM wheels are somewhere between 3/2 and 4/1. How are you measuring your width? To measure for max width, compress front end or remove shocks and lower front end to get a-arms out to their widest arc, then measure.

[Rich250RRacer]

I'm running Lonestar standard length arms and a Dominator -1 to +2 axle on the -1 width, which puts me at 43" front and back. I love this for the tight woods we have on our local series, in fact most of the guys in my class always talk about how quick I can scoot the 250R through the tight, technical stuff. I used this set-up for years in the GNCC.

[Dustin_Drews]

In the open high speed stuff?
God Bless,
Dustin

[Rich250RRacer]

Originally posted by Dustin_Drews
In the open high speed stuff?
God Bless,
Dustin

The width doesn't really affect the wide open stuff, maybe a little noticable in high speed turns though. But the lower ride height of an "R" offsets this some.