I am looking for a set of a-arms to use for MX racing. What set is a better deal for my money? Chassis Inc Fab or Burgard?
What a-arms are better for my money?
- Thread starter Prime
- Start date
There were a lot of people on E2S talking down on ASR arms. That's why I didn't make that a poll choice. A lot of people said they are more likely to bend than Burgard and Burgard also comes with a lifetime warranty, so if something bends, they replace it for free.
If they will survive awk08 then they will survive mx. awk is using ASR LT arms on his.
Also, What does everyone think about lonestar arms? I forgot to include that in the poll :/
Are they overpriced or actually worth the money?
Are they overpriced or actually worth the money?
Durability is something's ability to withstand many repeated uses within it's design parameters. Construction techniques and material choices make durability. .083" chromoly material Tig welded in a jig using ER70s-6 welding rod will survive a certain number of hard bumps and a certain number of miles down the trail. For a relatively large initial investment, you'd hope to have MANY MANY years of durability. I use the same material and method as ASR, Lonestar, Burgard, Leagar's, etc. etc. They (including the arms I make) will all be as durable as one another.
Unless one manufacturer uses like .120" tubing (which they don't) or makes them out of titanium (which would be WAYYYY expensive) they're nearly the same survivability.
Survivability is the ability of a product to withstand limited use outside of it's design specs. Survivability is HIGHLY subject to circumstances...... everyone has heard a story and it goes like this: "I saw my brother's, room-mate's, cousin's, coffee barista roll down a HUGE hill and his quad wasn't even hurt!"
Fantastic stories of things survivability is how "legends" about durability are started and people get confused about actual durability. What the story didn't mention was that the hill was actually only 35 feet tall and the quad slid most of the way down it after coming over backwards only once....
As far as durability goes, I'd put my a-arms against other manufacturers. I have been to the motocross track at busco and raced a 300ex around it. I didn't do any HUGEEEEEEE jumps but I did run around the race track (and spanked that 300ex BTW!)
As far as survivability goes I could drop a quad out of an airplane and my a-arms survive while another manufacturers don't. Again, not mentioning that I would attach a parachute to the front bumper of the quad with my a-arms on it and NOT to the other guys. So much for survivability stories....
Unless one manufacturer uses like .120" tubing (which they don't) or makes them out of titanium (which would be WAYYYY expensive) they're nearly the same survivability.
Survivability is the ability of a product to withstand limited use outside of it's design specs. Survivability is HIGHLY subject to circumstances...... everyone has heard a story and it goes like this: "I saw my brother's, room-mate's, cousin's, coffee barista roll down a HUGE hill and his quad wasn't even hurt!"
Fantastic stories of things survivability is how "legends" about durability are started and people get confused about actual durability. What the story didn't mention was that the hill was actually only 35 feet tall and the quad slid most of the way down it after coming over backwards only once....
As far as durability goes, I'd put my a-arms against other manufacturers. I have been to the motocross track at busco and raced a 300ex around it. I didn't do any HUGEEEEEEE jumps but I did run around the race track (and spanked that 300ex BTW!)
As far as survivability goes I could drop a quad out of an airplane and my a-arms survive while another manufacturers don't. Again, not mentioning that I would attach a parachute to the front bumper of the quad with my a-arms on it and NOT to the other guys. So much for survivability stories....
I don't care what any of you say. When I get mine, I'm buying them from sicivic. Cheaper, just as good as the others and supporting a Blaster Brother.
Not gonna argue about that.
I can't wait to open my big box I just got from him. I:I
Well, I was going to have Prime call me so I could discuss all of the different options for a-arms and exactly what everything means.... (including the misnomer Long Travel) but it seems some untimely dental surgery prevents that.
I'll try to keep this short and simple then and go over a few basics...
First off, Long Travel is kind of a misnomer. I say that because Long Travel a-arms may or may NOT travel any further than "regular" travel a-arms. The name LT comes from the fact that they use longer shock absorbers. It has MUCH less to do with the actual wheel travel and more to do with the shock mount.
Standard blaster shocks are 14 1/2" long, banshee shocks are 14 3/4" long, YFZ shocks are 16.25" long, 400ex/z400 shocks are 17" long. Much longer than 400ex/z400 shocks and you start having to redesign the lower control arm because a "standard" setup of straight tubing and shock ears will no longer allow the shock to sit inside of the ball joint mount on +3 +1 a-arms.
Actual travel is limited NO MATTER what by a few things. First off, it doesn't matter if the arms can come up until they hit the moon, at some point the frame hits the ground. You definitely want the suspension to stop BEFORE that point because if not, it's over the handlebars you go when the quad comes to a screeching halt and you don't... Trust me I know, I did it Sunday and have the bruises/sore ribs to prove it!
The lower limit of suspension travel is when the tie rod ear hits to lower control arm or the upper control arm hits the shock body. If you build +3 +1 a-arms with MAXIMUM travel (regardless of the type of joints used) physically possible from "standard" geometry is a little over 10". You can get more but it requires some REALLY funky modifications to the frame, a-arms, shocks, hubs, knuckles, and possibly rims.
Second, I don't like heim joints unless you're using this is a full on race bike. Heim joints are teflon lined steel "ball" in the middle of a steel "socket" with a fastener through the middle. They do allow a little more travel (angle wise not necessarily suspension wise) than ball joints but generally they have NO lubrication and NO protection from the elements. Mix a little sand in with a little water and that teflon will get silica embedded in it and it's only a matter of time. I like ball joints because they have a layer of rubber between the joint and the mud/sand/water/rain/dirt/rocks or whatever else you might encounter in the REAL world (where most folks ride). Granted, you do sacrifice a little bit of travel (a little more than an inch) to use ball joints instead of heim joints but the MAIN advantage goes to the manufacturer. Instead of having to do their homework and get the joint mounting angles manufactured to TIGHT tolerances, they can just whip them up and the high mis-alignment heims will take care of the rest. All the while the first creek crossing you encounter, your joints are a ticking timebomb.
Third, +3 +1 means +3 inches longer on each side and +1 more forward. The more forward does correct some of the bumpsteer blaster's have from the factory. It also makes the turning radius tighter because the tie rods are pulled more angled. Think of the tightest place you have to drive through (across a bridge, through the middle of two trees) and think if a 6+ wider quad would make it through there. If so, there's no disadvantage to aftermarket a-arms. They ride smoother, turn tighter, and travel farther than stock a-arms.
Fourth, travel.... I don't care what yamaha "advertised" as the travel on the blaster...a stock blaster has just a touch more than 6" travel on the front suspension. My a-arms can travel 8 3/4" ball joint bind to ball joint bind (remember the maximum possible is only a little over 10") That increase in travel seems rather small until you fit +3 +1 a-arms on the quad. In the words of Acezeesawtooth, "Got width"?
Fifth, shocks. If you weigh over 200# stock shocks absolutely will not cut it with extended a-arms. The problem is the leverage the new a-arms have over stock a-arms. Regular a-arms the shock lower mount is about 3/4 of the way towards the ball joint. On +3's the shock lower mount is about 1/2 way. The increased leverage alone decreases the shocks spring and valving strength by 25%. Imagine having a "perfectly" tuned set of shocks and then increasing rider weight by 25%. They would horribly undersprung and undervalved.
YFZ450 shocks are a good option for a rebuildable relatively inexpensive reservoir'd shock. Also, the LT shock mount on +3 +1 is nearly 3/4 of the way down the lower control arm so the spring and valving will be much closer to the "normal" settings.
I'll try to keep this short and simple then and go over a few basics...
First off, Long Travel is kind of a misnomer. I say that because Long Travel a-arms may or may NOT travel any further than "regular" travel a-arms. The name LT comes from the fact that they use longer shock absorbers. It has MUCH less to do with the actual wheel travel and more to do with the shock mount.
Standard blaster shocks are 14 1/2" long, banshee shocks are 14 3/4" long, YFZ shocks are 16.25" long, 400ex/z400 shocks are 17" long. Much longer than 400ex/z400 shocks and you start having to redesign the lower control arm because a "standard" setup of straight tubing and shock ears will no longer allow the shock to sit inside of the ball joint mount on +3 +1 a-arms.
Actual travel is limited NO MATTER what by a few things. First off, it doesn't matter if the arms can come up until they hit the moon, at some point the frame hits the ground. You definitely want the suspension to stop BEFORE that point because if not, it's over the handlebars you go when the quad comes to a screeching halt and you don't... Trust me I know, I did it Sunday and have the bruises/sore ribs to prove it!
The lower limit of suspension travel is when the tie rod ear hits to lower control arm or the upper control arm hits the shock body. If you build +3 +1 a-arms with MAXIMUM travel (regardless of the type of joints used) physically possible from "standard" geometry is a little over 10". You can get more but it requires some REALLY funky modifications to the frame, a-arms, shocks, hubs, knuckles, and possibly rims.
Second, I don't like heim joints unless you're using this is a full on race bike. Heim joints are teflon lined steel "ball" in the middle of a steel "socket" with a fastener through the middle. They do allow a little more travel (angle wise not necessarily suspension wise) than ball joints but generally they have NO lubrication and NO protection from the elements. Mix a little sand in with a little water and that teflon will get silica embedded in it and it's only a matter of time. I like ball joints because they have a layer of rubber between the joint and the mud/sand/water/rain/dirt/rocks or whatever else you might encounter in the REAL world (where most folks ride). Granted, you do sacrifice a little bit of travel (a little more than an inch) to use ball joints instead of heim joints but the MAIN advantage goes to the manufacturer. Instead of having to do their homework and get the joint mounting angles manufactured to TIGHT tolerances, they can just whip them up and the high mis-alignment heims will take care of the rest. All the while the first creek crossing you encounter, your joints are a ticking timebomb.
Third, +3 +1 means +3 inches longer on each side and +1 more forward. The more forward does correct some of the bumpsteer blaster's have from the factory. It also makes the turning radius tighter because the tie rods are pulled more angled. Think of the tightest place you have to drive through (across a bridge, through the middle of two trees) and think if a 6+ wider quad would make it through there. If so, there's no disadvantage to aftermarket a-arms. They ride smoother, turn tighter, and travel farther than stock a-arms.
Fourth, travel.... I don't care what yamaha "advertised" as the travel on the blaster...a stock blaster has just a touch more than 6" travel on the front suspension. My a-arms can travel 8 3/4" ball joint bind to ball joint bind (remember the maximum possible is only a little over 10") That increase in travel seems rather small until you fit +3 +1 a-arms on the quad. In the words of Acezeesawtooth, "Got width"?
Fifth, shocks. If you weigh over 200# stock shocks absolutely will not cut it with extended a-arms. The problem is the leverage the new a-arms have over stock a-arms. Regular a-arms the shock lower mount is about 3/4 of the way towards the ball joint. On +3's the shock lower mount is about 1/2 way. The increased leverage alone decreases the shocks spring and valving strength by 25%. Imagine having a "perfectly" tuned set of shocks and then increasing rider weight by 25%. They would horribly undersprung and undervalved.
YFZ450 shocks are a good option for a rebuildable relatively inexpensive reservoir'd shock. Also, the LT shock mount on +3 +1 is nearly 3/4 of the way down the lower control arm so the spring and valving will be much closer to the "normal" settings.
Similar threads
