Wheel question for those who know your stuff!?

[racerx573]

Ok, I'm running a Laeger narrow frame, +3 a-arms, and 3+2 (stock) off set wheels. I am lookin to get a few more inches of width (right now I'm like 48 1/2). If I got some 2+3 wheels, would it push too much in the corners? or how should it be adjusted?

[2k2-300exnj]

the bigger offset will give u a slighty more of a push in the corners but the most of the set back would be the bump steer

[racerx573]

Well right now, I have just about 0 bump steer.

[lil400exman]

get wider arms the wider wheels stress your spindles and everything like that......keep it at 4+1 and no more.........lol thats what i am running with my plus 4's...............;)

[racerx573]

Well I just bought the +3's in March, so I dont see myself getting new a-arms any time soon. I dont have another $800 to spend. I plan on getting a +4 pro trax front end next season. You have to run 4+1's because youre running +4's on a stock frame. Most pros run 3+2's with +3's w/ a stock width frame, and +4's w/ 3+2's on a narrow frame. Here is a pic of a quad pretty much the same set up as mine, but with 2+3's

[racerx573]

Here's my quad with the 3+2's.

[phatswinn]

ooo shiney

Sorry I dont have an easy answer for you but just a question.

Where did you measure to come up with 48"? It does look wider than that, and I know the frame does give that illusion but it still looks more than the 48".

Just curious thats all.

[racerx573]

Measuring from the bottom of the tires at the widest point. The narrow frame is 2 inches narrower than a stock frame, so If I had a stock width frame I'd be exactly 50"

[86atc250r]

And you need to be exactly 50" because??

It's also going to depend heavily on how much the suspension is compressed when you measure - it will change by several inches.

Remember that wider isn't always better.

[lil400exman]

just wodnering why did u get a narrow frame? but the wider the wheels like i mean offset (2+3's) will give u horrible bumpsteer man i would stay with 3+2's or 4+1....................;)

[racerx573]

Well let's just say it was the right price at the right time. And the narrow frames were made to reduce bump steer to almost none. Combine that w/ a Roll-style front end and your bump steer is just about zero....If I ran 4+1's I'd be at like +1 width. I'd imagine a stabilizer and 2+3's I'd be right back around zero.

[racerx573]

Originally posted by 86atc250r
And you need to be exactly 50" because??

It's also going to depend heavily on how much the suspension is compressed when you measure - it will change by several inches.

Remember that wider isn't always better.

I guess the pros are at 50" just for the heck of it...must not make it more stable or anything...

In that pic of my quad, the machine is at ride height, any lower on the ride height it will have adverse effects on my suspension (i.e. too stiff, like it was..)

I was thinking maybe the roll set up wasnt exactly +3 sort of like how my Housers are +1.375 not exactly +1 etc.

From what I know you have the right idea with the 3:2 offset and may have to just accept being 48" width as part of the bargain on the parts.

I agree with the others that the 2:3 offset will not be favorable to long motos. I had rode a 400ex with stk set up and the 2:3 and it was a bear on anything other than flat stuff.

[86atc250r]

No need to cop a 'tude mr x

Just remember that everything's a trade off. 50" is not a magical number. I'm fairly certain that "the pro's" aren't all running "exactly" (if there is such a thing with the design of a quad front end) 50".

If you get to your magical 50" with offset wheels and wonder why all the sudden you've got arm pump, and/or you can't get it to hold a corner as well as some of the other quads, maybe then you'll understand my comments.

Take a brief look at Roll Design's website and see what they sell & recommend - it's not 2/3 wheels.

In fact, if you're so intent on "what the pro's" are doing, why are you even considering 2/3 wheels?

Personally, I'd seriously question the wisedom of going to the trouble & expense of a narrow front end (which also has it's disadvantages), then putting some God awful offset wheels on it.

[lil400exman]

run ur stock frame if you really dont want to run 2+3 wheels man............. those things are only good for flattrackin! the bumpsteer is:confused2 it messes ur suspension up horribly cause of the new offset............... dont run them run 4+1 and you wont have bumpsteer run it this way and upgrade to wider a-arms next year jason.........;)

[Bill Fuller]

I'm no MXer but isn't 50 in. the max allowed width per ATVA rules?

[lil400exman]

Originally posted by Bill Fuller
I'm no MXer but isn't 50 in. the max allowed width per ATVA rules?
and ama too! +4's like mine are the limit..........................:D lol

Originally posted by 86atc250r
50" is not a magical number. I'm fairly certain that "the pro's" aren't all running "exactly" (if there is such a thing with the design of a quad front end) 50".



I understand what you are saying to him abt not trying to push 50 inches by going to a wider offset and how it is not effective but why wouldnt you want to be at 50 inches with like +5 a arms and a 4:1 offset? Wouldnt that give you low bumpsteer and great stability? Is it for the fact that i have heard that the 400exs wheelbase is abt 50 inches and that it would cause bad handling in whoops? then couldnt you correct that with a +1 1/4 swingarm? just curious as to why not go as wide as possible with low bumpsteer and push (keeping the 3:2 or 4:1 offsets)


Originally posted by 86atc250r
a narrow front end (which also has it's disadvantages

What disadvantages does a narrow frame have? I have a stock 400ex frame and around here i am goin against some Paul Turner PC2000 powervalved 305r's with full axis shocks, cr500 links, and narrow frames:eek2: and im gunna need some hope that i can compete so im curious as to what disadvantages they have over me cuz right now its not looking like i have one edge over them lol:macho :blah Just here to learn and thanks for all your great info:muscle:

[86atc250r]

Stability is good - but you have to consider that it doesn't come without a price.

Much in front end design (like most things in life) is a compromise. When you go wider, you affect turning.

Think of things in extremes. How well does a 50" wide quad turn compared to a 3-wheeler - not very well.

My point to him was sometimes you may be better off to go a touch more narrow and have better turning than to just blindly shoot for the maximum width allowed by the rules. Especially if you're considering wheels that will adversely affect steering input as the "solution".

Narrow frames - while I don't have a ton of experience with them, I understand that many top pro's have gotten away from them - front end roll being one reason. Think of where the pivot point is on a narrow front -- again, tradeoffs....

Remember - quads don't come from the factory with "perfect" front end setups because they don't exist. Almost everything in front end design is a compromise - different manufacturers choose to compromise differently based on what they feel is important, to suit a wide range of riders & styles, or what their quad will be used for. Sometimes the compromise is simplicity vs complexity or cheap vs expensive. All these things are taken into account when designing a front end.