How wide is to wide??

[Mathius]

Hey guys.
I have been wondering a lot lately about wide track setups, (extended A-arms, and adjustable axles) and how they affect stability?
I have noticed a trend of guys going at least +3 up front, but not much is mentioned about the adjustable rear axles? What do most of you guys set them at?? I would have to think that a staggered track would make the quad feel loose, and out of control.
I was also curious about guys running these types of setups. If they like a softer shock, or a more stiff setup to feel the trail better..

The hybrid is going to be a mostly Dune machine.
But I could use some advise on the proper set up I should use? Like should I just try to setup a run of the mill LT type of suspension, (Longer front shocks, with a 660 rear). Or something stiffer, and more simple... I haven't played in the sand much before...

I finally broke down, and ordered a custom A-arm setup from ASR. It should be here after the new year. But I need a swinger, shocks, wheels, tires, and an axle yet..

Just thought I would get some feedback before I buy more ****..
The last thing I wanna do right now is spend a bunch of money on a setup that doesn't feel right, cause I didn't do any research or ask any questions.

 

[Gen1Pat]

Well the question is... what length a arms did you custom order? Are they set up for stock shock length? Or longer shocks? I built my own +2 arms, if you remember, and made them for stock length shocks. I have been running WORKS dual rate AT STEELERS and it has been a great set up for the hard, fast, trail riding I do. I just upgraded to a set of WORKS AT STEELERS set up specifically for +2 arms (weight and valving). I have not gotten to really ride the ole girl to test them out. My old AT STEELERS were set up for stock arms, and, although they rode well and handled the chop pretty good, they would blow through the travel on landings. Hence why I went with the +2 set up shocks.

IMO!!! Stock length shocks are plenty sufficient for the Warrior. My frame will kiss the ground before the shocks completely travel through their stoke. So... is LT worth it? In my opinion, and for my ridings style, no it is not. Your frame will wail into the ground long before the shocks get even close to going through their travel.

Okay, okay, I'm going to catch flak for that from those that are running LT set ups. But, honestly a good aftermarket shock makes all the difference in the world. Would I like to have triple rates one day? Of course. But, will an LT set up be what makes the difference in my bike that I'll blow my load all over it? No it's not.

As for axles, just get the G-Force +2+4, run it at it's widest (+4), and call it a day. Don't even think about it being too wide. It is just right. Little tight fitting through a 4' gate, but, goes right through the tightest trails.

On to the rear shock. I'm running a stock SHEE rear on a +2 (+3 2nd gen) swinger, and have zero complaints. With my suspension, I can ride hard all day on the Hatfield McCoy trails, and only have sore muscles from the obvious motions of riding. No joint pain, no body ready to kill me, knees don't even hurt ( I have pretty bad knees).

 

[geeessfore]

See +4 on trails we ride is sketchy. +2 is prob widest or I'd be like bkroll worried on every turn

 

[bkroll84]

Still didn't stop me but yeah I would say +2 would be best

 

[beastlywarrior228]

Well the question is... what length a arms did you custom order? Are they set up for stock shock length? Or longer shocks? I built my own +2 arms, if you remember, and made them for stock length shocks. I have been running WORKS dual rate AT STEELERS and it has been a great set up for the hard, fast, trail riding I do. I just upgraded to a set of WORKS AT STEELERS set up specifically for +2 arms (weight and valving). I have not gotten to really ride the ole girl to test them out. My old AT STEELERS were set up for stock arms, and, although they rode well and handled the chop pretty good, they would blow through the travel on landings. Hence why I went with the +2 set up shocks.

IMO!!! Stock length shocks are plenty sufficient for the Warrior. My frame will kiss the ground before the shocks completely travel through their stoke. So... is LT worth it? In my opinion, and for my ridings style, no it is not. Your frame will wail into the ground long before the shocks get even close to going through their travel.

Okay, okay, I'm going to catch flak for that from those that are running LT set ups. But, honestly a good aftermarket shock makes all the difference in the world. Would I like to have triple rates one day? Of course. But, will an LT set up be what makes the difference in my bike that I'll blow my load all over it? No it's not.

As for axles, just get the G-Force +2+4, run it at it's widest (+4), and call it a day. Don't even think about it being too wide. It is just right. Little tight fitting through a 4' gate, but, goes right through the tightest trails.

On to the rear shock. I'm running a stock SHEE rear on a +2 (+3 2nd gen) swinger, and have zero complaints. With my suspension, I can ride hard all day on the Hatfield McCoy trails, and only have sore muscles from the obvious motions of riding. No joint pain, no body ready to kill me, knees don't even hurt ( I have pretty bad knees).

Not really, the quads need around a 16" shock for a good woods or 18" for dunes and mx. Its not that the suspension travels more, its the rate the shock moves in comparison to the wheel assembly. A longer shock that compresses at a greater rate will help dial in the spring rate better

 

[Gen1Pat]

Not really, the quads need around a 16" shock for a good woods or 18" for dunes and mx. Its not that the suspension travels more, its the rate the shock moves in comparison to the wheel assembly. A longer shock that compresses at a greater rate will help dial in the spring rate better

I was thinking of how to word that, but, just couldn't figure out how so I left it alone. Lol. I know that, that, is the main reason behind them being a longer shock. Between a spring that can be dialed in better, compression, rebound, and preload, are all what makes the longer shocks all the rage. I'm still more then pleased with my WORKS though. lol

 

[Mathius]

Well Pat, I got the +2 400ex Pro-x lower arms, and the 2nd Gen uppers just like I was told to get. But I had no idea how long the tierods would be? I'll order those later.

I also have to get my swinger custom made. I dunno if anyone remembers how I built my quad? But the swing arm has been modified (heavily)..
I'm going with a +4 swinger for a few reasons. The biggest being the power to weight ratio I have right now. But with that being said I think I would prefer a softer shock setup in the dunes here in Alberta. They get wet, and turn hard as rock after getting rutted up..

I wasn't really looking to go any longer than a 17" shock up front.
I'm not gonna drop a shitload of cash on my front shocks. I would still like a pair of HLS like these. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Honda-TRX40...Parts_Accessories&hash=item3ccb0defc3&vxp=mtr
But I have seen them go cheaper than that.. lol

The main reason I was asking the question was to simplify a decision to run a softer shock setup with a wide track width.. I should just build it, and shut up.. lol

 

[Gen1Pat]

Well it will be interesting to see how she turns out! It will be tight, but, I have taken the measurements, (from stock arms) and they will fit.

If I were you I'd talk to the shock MFG and let them know what you are using the quad for, and what length arms you are using. Soft may sound great and all, but, longer arms means more leverage. So, don't just get a set of shocks sprung and valved for stock arms. Sure, you may be riding in the dunes, and they may get wet. But, you don't want to blow through the travel, and you don't want them to compress while turning (just from the weight transfer and rolling resistance). My bike would do that with the first set of WORKS I had that were set up for stock arms. I'd make an extremely hard turn in 1st or sometimes 2nd and the front end would dip to the outside harder then it should, and the inside rear wheel would lift off the ground.

 

[jwrape]

I know I love the stability that my old Suzuki LT500 had. It was 48" wide front and rear.
It was by far the most stable quad I have had. Right now I have a Dura blue rear axle and spacers on the front stock wheels and like it but would prefer the front a little wider. The rear axle is great.




I am rebuilding a 96' Warrior now and wondering how I'm gonna get it wider now because stock is just too un-stable for me.

 

[Mathius]

At least with the 2nd gen you have more A-arm choices..
Not like the 1st gens, your really limited to what you can do to the front end.
On my quad I flipped the front wheels, and I'm running 2 inch spacers on the rear. But it's not really that wide.... It did make the quad feel way more stable at speed.
But at the same time it seemed to me (cause the rear is wider) that it unsettled the frontend, and it almost pushes the front tires threw tighter corners.. That gets a bit sketchy on tight mountain trails.. lol
But that also could play into the right shocks for the machine..

Thanx for the heads up about the valving there to Pat.. That's good advice.
I'm gonna have to get an accurate weight of this machine when I get it all back together again.
I'll also let you know how those arms fit.

 

[Gen1Pat]

Yeah man, please do! If it saves me from building arms in the future, I'm all for it! You'll also have to give the shock MFG your weight, as well as your riding style and where you ride.

You have those handling issues because of the length of the stock arms, with the flipped rims creating a vastly different leverage on them, then you would with +2 arms and non-flipped rims. It's all because the rim isn't "centered" over the spindle, for lack of a better term. Stock shocks suck balls, too, and do not help.

 

[jwrape]

Yeah man, please do! If it saves me from building arms in the future, I'm all for it! You'll also have to give the shock MFG your weight, as well as your riding style and where you ride.

You have those handling issues because of the length of the stock arms, with the flipped rims creating a vastly different leverage on them, then you would with +2 arms and non-flipped rims. It's all because the rim isn't "centered" over the spindle, for lack of a better term. Stock shocks suck balls, too, and do not help.

I might lengthen my A-Arms too. I do notice the weird feel in the steering after flipping the wheels.

 

[alex456123]

I know I love the stability that my old Suzuki LT500 had. It was 48" wide front and rear.
It was by far the most stable quad I have had. Right now I have a Dura blue rear axle and spacers on the front stock wheels and like it but would prefer the front a little wider. The rear axle is great.




I am rebuilding a 96' Warrior now and wondering how I'm gonna get it wider now because stock is just too un-stable for me.

Holy **** if you are running wheel spacers and flipped rims say goodbye to your ball joints! Take off the spacers! :loco:

 

[Gen1Pat]

I might lengthen my A-Arms too. I do notice the weird feel in the steering after flipping the wheels.

Don't lengthen your stock arms. Waste of time. They are too weak to handle that.

 

[jwrape]

Holy **** if you are running wheel spacers and flipped rims say goodbye to your ball joints! Take off the spacers! :loco:

I mis-spoke, after looking last night, they are not flipped only spaced. I have only ridden it twice since I finished it. I don't know how I feel with the spacers but the rear end is MUCH wider than the front so I need to widen the front end some how.

 

[Bahnstoermer]

For those going +2 in the front, is it required to widen the rear also?

 

[1998yamahawarrior]

Its not really a requirement, but suggested and just makes sense. Do you plan to widen the rear eventually? I do have a set of ITP rear wheels that I dont plan on using at all that are offset for more width. If memory serves me correct its atleast an 1" each side.


And since I never had any input in the thread earlier Im at about 50" outside of tire to outside of tire out back and I only have my rear at +2 but the rims are offset for more width to. The front I havent measured since I finally got everything sitting the way it should, but the front tires stick out past the full fenders. Heres a pic for reference

 

[geeessfore]

You can always just flip the rears

 

[Warrior1996]

My rears are flipped right now and I think it added around 1 1/4 in per side, but it could be 1 1/2 in, I don't remember. Either way, its free and an easy way to see if you want a wider rear end.

 

[bronc3buster842001]

My rear is wider than my front and its seems like it wants to push going into a turn instead of turning and/or sliding around a corner... I think the front should be a little narrower than the rear, by about an inch on each side... Seems that would help with slabilty coming into a corner