Last edited by a moderator:
wilding brackets wtf!
- Thread starter Dude
- Start date
Oh yeah.Lots of people run them.There is alot of mixed reviews on them.Although never heard or seen one break it is usually user preference that makes the reviews.I personally will never own or run one of these setups,alot of people like them and have no problems with them.Just not for me.lol For another $100-150 you can get some extended a-arms and have no worries.
The only thing I dont like is they are weak in a frontal impact situation. Strong up and down but not front to back. I agree, I would wait and save the additional cash to get the a-arms.
ii saw them on ebay and was wondering the same, ive never seen or heard of anyone running them and i was wondering if anyone did
Blaner
Your Friendly South African Ambassador
think of a fat wide bird with short little wings...not going to be very effective in flying... thats the same principle as quads, think of a thin, sleek bird with wide wings...its going to fly much better and with greater ease! thats what you want. Your a arms must be mounted as close together as possible, look at the new yfz450r, its arms are almost toching each other where they join the fram, same principle, widening them like that kit does will probably make the bike understeer like mad and will likely make it feel like you riding a tank...
Phragle is the only suspension guru I know of, but it sounds like a good analogy for explaining suspension travel to me.
All the brackets really do is add some stability, a worthwhile thing for sure, but if you want to fly (or jump), ya gotta have big wings!
The analogy is a bit flawed and not really comparable in this situation, simply because you cannot compare wing length in flight to a-arm length on the ground.
Have you ever seen an air race airplane? Large engines with relatively short wings for high speeds and tight turns. The short wings necessitated much higher speeds to maintain the lift required for flight. The wide body and short wings creates a centralized mass center for quicker maneuvering.
Compare that to the plane that circumnavigated the globe. Both are prop driven aircraft but the later operated at a much slower speed, using a much larger wingspan for additional lift at that slower speed. A similar concept is used when an aircraft takes off “into the wind” as the air speed is traveling that much faster over the wings to create additional lift, while the ground speed of the aircraft is reduced compared to if there was no wind, or it was taking off “with the wind”.
Back to the widening kits……Modern race quads or custom chassis with a single rail up front, do this for handling and for additional wheel travel. The kit’s inherent flaw and sole base of the reasoning behind it is that the A-arms pivot points are moved outward for additional width, but the tie rod pivot point at the stem is not addressed. There is no explainable gain in wheel travel, the kit only adds additional width. The “narrow frame” allows the A-arm pivot to be almost directly in line with the tie rod pivot, Polaris used a similar idea with their PRO steering setup which really works. They moved the tie rod pivot outward keeping the A-arm pivot inline to reduce steering deflection throughout the travel (bump-steer).
The other benefit of a “narrow frame” allows for additional length in the A-arms. Simply put, longer a-arms means more wheel travel. Your wheel is at the end of a lever, maintain the pivot point and extend the lever and the wheel will move farther vertically in relationship to the angle of the A-arm. That’s why an I-beam, TIB or TTB, is popular for use in the desert. A longer lever allows more travel; of course there are other factors that I’ll explain if anyone is interested….with an F-150 as an example popularity dictates 96 and older, 97-03, then 04+ Beams on a 96, Fairly long A-arms on 97-03, and then the 04+ uses fairly short A-arms.
With all of that said, the only terrain I would use one of those kits would be flat with minimal suspension input required where additional width would have a benefit. Flat track or Ice racing are the only ones that come to mind. A true TT track is a bit rougher and in my opinion uses more suspension travel than flat track or ice racing.
I can add some drawings later this evening to give a visual of the lever reference if need be.
Have you ever seen an air race airplane? Large engines with relatively short wings for high speeds and tight turns. The short wings necessitated much higher speeds to maintain the lift required for flight. The wide body and short wings creates a centralized mass center for quicker maneuvering.
Compare that to the plane that circumnavigated the globe. Both are prop driven aircraft but the later operated at a much slower speed, using a much larger wingspan for additional lift at that slower speed. A similar concept is used when an aircraft takes off “into the wind” as the air speed is traveling that much faster over the wings to create additional lift, while the ground speed of the aircraft is reduced compared to if there was no wind, or it was taking off “with the wind”.
Back to the widening kits……Modern race quads or custom chassis with a single rail up front, do this for handling and for additional wheel travel. The kit’s inherent flaw and sole base of the reasoning behind it is that the A-arms pivot points are moved outward for additional width, but the tie rod pivot point at the stem is not addressed. There is no explainable gain in wheel travel, the kit only adds additional width. The “narrow frame” allows the A-arm pivot to be almost directly in line with the tie rod pivot, Polaris used a similar idea with their PRO steering setup which really works. They moved the tie rod pivot outward keeping the A-arm pivot inline to reduce steering deflection throughout the travel (bump-steer).
The other benefit of a “narrow frame” allows for additional length in the A-arms. Simply put, longer a-arms means more wheel travel. Your wheel is at the end of a lever, maintain the pivot point and extend the lever and the wheel will move farther vertically in relationship to the angle of the A-arm. That’s why an I-beam, TIB or TTB, is popular for use in the desert. A longer lever allows more travel; of course there are other factors that I’ll explain if anyone is interested….with an F-150 as an example popularity dictates 96 and older, 97-03, then 04+ Beams on a 96, Fairly long A-arms on 97-03, and then the 04+ uses fairly short A-arms.
With all of that said, the only terrain I would use one of those kits would be flat with minimal suspension input required where additional width would have a benefit. Flat track or Ice racing are the only ones that come to mind. A true TT track is a bit rougher and in my opinion uses more suspension travel than flat track or ice racing.
I can add some drawings later this evening to give a visual of the lever reference if need be.
Here's the lever idea in a simple model, dimensions are made up randomly but the principals are all the same.
"Stock" A-arms depicted in green and +3 in blue.
Stock is 9.614" of wheel travel, +3 is 14.423"
First picture is drooped all the way out.
Dimensions read 21.78 and 17.852
Second picture is at full bump. Dimensions read 7.357 and 8.238
Again, the numbers are not actual wheel travel of any blasters that I know of. Based upon arbitrary numbers for dimensions.
"Stock" A-arms depicted in green and +3 in blue.
Stock is 9.614" of wheel travel, +3 is 14.423"
First picture is drooped all the way out.
Dimensions read 21.78 and 17.852
Second picture is at full bump. Dimensions read 7.357 and 8.238
Again, the numbers are not actual wheel travel of any blasters that I know of. Based upon arbitrary numbers for dimensions.
Last edited:
I wanted to add a visual to the tie rod situation with the kit that I touched on above. Here's a couple more models. Again the dimensions are arbitrary.
"Stock" arms in green, a simulated frame kit with "Stock" arms in yellow.
Tie rods are "Stock" in purple and the tie rods from the kit in blue
Full droop note the angle of the tie rods compared to the A-arms
Full droop from the top look at the change in toe in/out.
Full bump again note the angle of the tie rods compared to the A-arms
Full bump from the top, once again look at the change in toe.
"Stock" arms in green, a simulated frame kit with "Stock" arms in yellow.
Tie rods are "Stock" in purple and the tie rods from the kit in blue
Full droop note the angle of the tie rods compared to the A-arms
Full droop from the top look at the change in toe in/out.
Full bump again note the angle of the tie rods compared to the A-arms
Full bump from the top, once again look at the change in toe.
Similar threads
