Long Travel A-Arms

[Jekyl_22]

I am looking for some +3 Long Travel A-Arms (400ex) to go along with some PEP 19" that I plan on getting. I was just wondering who makes them, and how much do they cost? Also, is there much of a difference between all the a-arms other than durability?

Wasn't John Arens saying that he was gonna make some long travel a-arms for under $600 or $500 a while back?

[Silverfox@C&DRacing]

There should be many options out there.. my choice would be Houser.

[Dave400ex]

I think Herrmann and Laeger also make some +3 LT's. Can't go wrong with a Laeger/PEP setup...

[Blake24]

Originally posted by Dave400ex
Can't go wrong with a Laeger/PEP setup...



What he said....:devil:

[Jekyl_22]

Does anyone know hom much the Laegers in +3 are? About how long do they take to get?

[RiPPiNiTuP7]

Call Baldwin or Nac's...they sell Laeger products.

[AFTERMARKET]

Originally posted by Blake24
What he said....:devil:

YES PEP/ LAEGER'S

[Mxbubs]

MY +3 Herrmanns for 19" schocks are for sale for $600 shipped. Ti rods and ends included.

MY +3 Herrmanns for 19" schocks are for sale for $600 shipped. Ti rods and ends included.

would those fit on a 300 ex?

[Mxbubs]

Originally posted by mikexxx
MY +3 Herrmanns for 19" schocks are for sale for $600 shipped. Ti rods and ends included.

would those fit on a 300 ex?

I doubt it.

[toby400ex]

they will if they are for a 400ex

do you have any pics then?

[crap-banshee32]

mx buds are the same as mine but his lower arms are anodized blue i believe!!
heres pics

[crap-banshee32]

another

how much are those new?

[Mxbubs]

$775 without shipping.....shipping is around $25

There not +3 (+1 for XC) but I like posting the pic.

[310Rduner]

hey crap-banshee, how much did that sweet Lt shock set up cost ya :devil: :p

[RiPPiNiTuP7]

Originally posted by crap-banshee32
another

Sweet shocks :devil:

[crap-banshee32]

800 for the arms, 925 for the shocks, (not the wooden ones) but PEP zps lt!!
so 1,725!! its worth it though

[Dave400ex]

440EX4me how wide is your front end with 4+1 rims?

[Chanman420q]

those hermann arms look funny...... especially the top ones.

I love the way the housers look....... the a arms look the same except the shock mount drops.... i like that :cool:

Originally posted by Dave400ex
440EX4me how wide is your front end with 4+1 rims?

I havent had the new rims (and BTW there not exactly 4:1 either but more like 4:1.5)on long enough to take a measurement and its not easy because there is over an inch diff from fully compressed to fully extended. The set up with the stk ex rims was right about 45"+ without rider and the quads weight preloading the suspension.

Originally posted by Chanman420q
those hermann arms look funny...... especially the top ones.

I love the way the housers look....... the a arms look the same except the shock mount drops.... i like that :cool:

I hear you on that.

I had decided on the Housers for a few reasons and the fact that the bottom arm resembled the Laegers LT and the ball joint set up was similar to the Roll didnt push me into another brand.

Some of the guys I ride with make noise about the shock mount or bolt being below the arm but there are some reasons that I prefer it that way "functionally" over the bent lower arm. Believe me on this one, your frame would be hurting if you hit something hard enough to do any real damage to these lower arms.

It will be getting close to a year since I installed them and I cant say I have had any real problems with them, and the couple that I have had were or are being corrected by Houser.

On a side note I just want to add that there are a lot of people out there making a-arms and some are deff better than others. It seems that there is enough profit in this stuff to attract a lot of players and some are just too interested in proft and others just dont seem to be experienced in our sport. I am not naming names but there is some great stuff and some garbage out there so do your homework and be carefull of the cheap (ok not all is priced cheap but its made cheap) "generic" stuff so many of the mail order guys sell on the pages of your favorite atv mag.

Its been a while but one of the guys I ride with is still out some $$$ for a set of NO BRAND a-arms he received from Factory Racing that were supposed to be Houser and they just shipped him any ole crap they could get and wouldnt accept them back. Would you believe they required that most of the $$ be a money order or bank check and he couldnt do much but back the deposit on his CC.

So be sure you deal with someone you know, trust or have dealed with b4 so you dont get scammed.

[mxdave28]

Ok since were talking about LT a-arms i have a question or two...what excaty makes it a LT arm??? is anything over a +2 considered LT? or is there such a thing as +2 LT? lets say i have a set of +3 arms on order from somebody are they just Reg. ol'e +3 arms or did i just really screw up and order LT arms? please help me on this one since i have no clue Thanks

[Chef]

While I havent seen any +2 LT's, that doesnt make all +3's LT. To make an arm long travel you need to use different balljoints and move the shock mount down an inch or two. I have a set of Burgard chrome +3 regular travel, I use em to race TT, and they arent LT for sure.

[oj250r]

since when does laeger make a long travel front end for a 400??

[norrisboat]

I have my 19 inch peps on order an im getting +4 arms for them from lonestar. Lonestar has garuntee about breakage.

[AFTERMARKET]

Originally posted by oj250r
since when does laeger make a long travel front end for a 400??

Let me go get some pictures of a Ex with a Tpin front end

[Dave400ex]

Yes please do. I've never seen a 400 with a T-Pin either.

[MOUSE]

i like jrd :macho

[INFANTRY RACING]

a cdale t-pin front end will bolt up except for the steering stem

Originally posted by mxdave28
Ok since were talking about LT a-arms i have a question or two...what excaty makes it a LT arm??? is anything over a +2 considered LT? or is there such a thing as +2 LT? lets say i have a set of +3 arms on order from somebody are they just Reg. ol'e +3 arms or did i just really screw up and order LT arms? please help me on this one since i have no clue Thanks

The answer isnt 100% black and white but here it goes.

Most consider a-arms set up for the 19" shocks to be lt. as opposed to the std 16" ones that came stock.

Some consider any a-arm that will allow additional up and down movement over stock to be lt. Most of these still use the 16" or std shock length.

So while originally it may have been just the amount of total wheel travel that was considered lt now its also common that its just the "potential" of a larger amount of travel.

There has been discussions about lt arms that dont allow any more travel due to binding in certain areas but from what I am hearing this isnt as much an issue as in the past.

Where I get confused is when a product is sold as lt but it is designed to use the stock length shocks and thereby limited in travel due to the shock shaft travel. IF the a-arm is capable of having x amount more travel but the shock its designed to use is only capable of y amount of travel then why call these arms lt?

Now when the a-arm is set up for the longer shocks that have more shaft travel than the shorter ones and there isnt any binding then this is what I would consider to be LT (and also what I have).

While the length of the a-arm will allow a certain amount of wheel travel and increases or decreases with changes to the length this is not what is commonly reffered to as LT, and LT a-arms are avail in many +lengths and the wider they are the more travel they will allow.

Hope that helps.

[Mxbubs]

1

i dont see how its worth it:ermm: call me old fashion but i think if my shocks are valved good and there good to start with they will work just as good how can i benefit from 13 inches of travel if my frame bottoms out before i use what i got:confused:

[crap-banshee32]

:eek: :huh

wat?

[Nausty]

Originally posted by freeride132
i dont see how its worth it:ermm: call me old fashion but i think if my shocks are valved good and there good to start with they will work just as good how can i benefit from 13 inches of travel if my frame bottoms out before i use what i got:confused:

i'm not a shock expert but from what I understand most long travel shocks will extend down a lot farther than stock and they run more sag. Also I think when you have a longer shock on a +3 a-arm the performance is much more consistant and refined than a 16" shock on +3 a-arms.

lol, I hope i'm coming across the way I mean too. I'm really bad at desribing things and trying to get my point across.:confused:

naw that made sense, i still dont see me needing it unless im pro:ermm:

[QuadTrix6]

Originally posted by 440EX4me
The answer isnt 100% black and white but here it goes.

Most consider a-arms set up for the 19" shocks to be lt. as opposed to the std 16" ones that came stock.

Some consider any a-arm that will allow additional up and down movement over stock to be lt. Most of these still use the 16" or std shock length.

So while originally it may have been just the amount of total wheel travel that was considered lt now its also common that its just the "potential" of a larger amount of travel.

There has been discussions about lt arms that dont allow any more travel due to binding in certain areas but from what I am hearing this isnt as much an issue as in the past.

Where I get confused is when a product is sold as lt but it is designed to use the stock length shocks and thereby limited in travel due to the shock shaft travel. IF the a-arm is capable of having x amount more travel but the shock its designed to use is only capable of y amount of travel then why call these arms lt?

Now when the a-arm is set up for the longer shocks that have more shaft travel than the shorter ones and there isnt any binding then this is what I would consider to be LT (and also what I have).

While the length of the a-arm will allow a certain amount of wheel travel and increases or decreases with changes to the length this is not what is commonly reffered to as LT, and LT a-arms are avail in many +lengths and the wider they are the more travel they will allow.

Hope that helps.


:huh Long travel is any a arm that moves the shock mount from the stock position, whether its using 16" or 19" shocks

[Chef]

Originally posted by QuadTrix6
:huh Long travel is any a arm that moves the shock mount from the stock position, whether its using 16" or 19" shocks

If you were to move your shock mount up on the a-arm, it would be short travel, but if we went by your rules it would still be called long travel. If you move it down on the a-arm, you lose ride height, and your tires still move the same distance. Its not long travel if the shock cant move any farther.

[QuadTrix6]

Originally posted by Chef
If you were to move your shock mount up on the a-arm, it would be short travel, but if we went by your rules it would still be called long travel.

Yes you are right about the short travel. I just assumed that you would know i meant moving it down the a arms bc why would u move it up?


Originally posted by Chef
If you move it down on the a-arm, you lose ride height, and your tires still move the same distance. Its not long travel if the shock cant move any farther.

Thats when you would use the 19 inch shocks.

If im still wrong with this info i have no problem with learning how it does work :blah:

I thought that this was covered in my orig post but here goes.

If you are looking for a definition of long travel that is cut and dry, forget it. There are people in this industry who adapt allmost anything or everything to fit there need to sell their product, so there is some built in confusion.

What one suspension parts builder will tell you will immediately be in conflict by what you hear from the next.

I can only understand this stuff when I look at it this way. If a suspension part (a-arm for this discussion) is designed to increase the amount of wheel travel by either its geometry or by relocating the shock mounting points then it has the potential to be "long travel". I say potential because it seems that if the shock that is used doesnt allow the wheel to actually travel any farther then where is the "longer travel"?

Consider that if you use a aftermarket shock on stk arms it will actually increase the travel due to a longer piston stroke, but obviously this isnt LT.

Look at the +2 or +3 arms that are considered std travel and then look at the additional travel they will allow just due to the leverage ratio of the longer arm, and is this considered LT?

I have seen threads here about Arens Bro's new a-arms for the 400ex that use 16" shocks and are called LT, but are these LT allowing the same additional travel as the other 19" LT arms? I seriously do not know but if they do then this just got even more confusing.

When I was researching the suspension upgrade for my machine the only LT set ups avail (or that I could find) were Roll, Laegers and Houser and though there are more out there today thats what I had to work with. Now I had a choice of running the stk arms with the aftermarket shocks for a very small gain in travel, running +1 std arms with aftermarket shocks for slightly more (from the longer arms leverage ratio) or running the LT arms with the 19" shocks to allow the most avail travel.

Since I was setting this up to run XC I couldnt even consider the +2 or +3 set ups cause I was limited in the width. So since I wanted to get the additional travel the only choice I had was the LT and I am happy its the one I made.

The Housers LT 19" a-arms are able to allow several inches additonal travel (without binding, measured at the spindle) than the 19" Elka's are, so I guess they are true long travel.

Hopefully some day this all gets less complicated and makes choosing that much easier.