Author Topic: Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot  (Read 14058 times)

Adnoh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« on: May 10, 2009, 03:09:05 PM »
I was working on a econmy kit for a wide body LT kit for the pilot. So I need input from the board on the pramitors for the kit. As we know the Lt kit available are expensive. Worth the money, I think so by not real afordable. Plus there welding and other thing to do altering the pilot for life. The lt kits provide 12" of vertical wheel travle and a plush ride. So if an an afforidable kit was able to be done. What price and what travle should be considered with a bolt up and non weld non reloacte anything kit.

Thanks for the input.

hoodlum

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
  • Karma: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2009, 05:28:36 AM »
Quote from: "adnoh"
I was working on a econmy kit for a wide body LT kit for the pilot. So I need input from the board on the pramitors for the kit. As we know the Lt kit available are expensive. Worth the money, I think so by not real afordable. Plus there welding and other thing to do altering the pilot for life. The lt kits provide 12" of vertical wheel travle and a plush ride. So if an an afforidable kit was able to be done. What price and what travle should be considered with a bolt up and non weld non reloacte anything kit.

Thanks for the input.

Atleast 12 " and as cheap as possible...lol...
I would be careful calling it a "bolt on"....Some folks take that as meaning bolt on and go...No measureing, adjusting,or anything else, which I don't see being possible with the steering set up needed to make it work...Looking forward to see what you come up with....
Oh yea...Keep the front in the same width parameters as the rear....
Hoodlum

Adnoh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2009, 09:43:49 AM »
Good point on the bolt up. What I had in mind was just that bolt up and go. The most work would be change the axle.
For this a 10" travle kit could be made. In the rear its a plus kit with longer shock and axle and modify I-rod,radius rod and upper arm. In the front lots more options for track width arm type drum or disc. The econo kits would yied a 30% increase in travle with better option on shocks. The rear will have an option for high low compression and rebound. This would be an upgrade of 200.00 for the rear. The front are a bit trickier. I have not found a good shock for a reasonable price yet. Works are out of the question for front and rear set up due to shaft lenghts. Also in the front no bump kit. keep it simple. six inch to ten inch would be a good inprovent at a resonible price and provide a more stable pilot.

This is why I would like input, more the marrier. If anyone was wondering if I was going to sale these, the ansawer is NO. I will post for any one to do it your self. Maybe Weed can supplie shocks and parts in a kit if he chooses. Since he is a vendor just thru it out there.  Any way toss away and I will check it out. I'm tring to update pilots so they do not get parted out and keep them around.

FL670R

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 180
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2009, 02:21:11 PM »
Rich

Once again your confusing the crap out of me...

Why would you care what price and travel should be considered if you are not going to sell these...

I've owned two different pilots with Full ATVR LT and although I do really enjoy them especially when I have the urge to fly (actually land softly), they are over priced and really don't work very well for overall riding.

A bolt on and go would be the HOT ticket...

Doesn't most of the cost come from the need to upgrade to expensive shocks ?  If we could increase the rear travel keeping stock shocks and just going to a long axle that would be trick
(Is Marv Answering his phone ?  - I'm not impressed with ATVR axles...)


BTW - I'll take two full sets...
( I've got a couple of roller FL400's so if you need something to work on just let me know...)

Dennis

hoodlum

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
  • Karma: 11
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2009, 03:23:52 PM »
Quote from: "adnoh"
Good point on the bolt up. What I had in mind was just that bolt up and go. The most work would be change the axle.
For this a 10" travle kit could be made. In the rear its a plus kit with longer shock and axle and modify I-rod,radius rod and upper arm. In the front lots more options for track width arm type drum or disc. The econo kits would yied a 30% increase in travle with better option on shocks. The rear will have an option for high low compression and rebound. This would be an upgrade of 200.00 for the rear. The front are a bit trickier. I have not found a good shock for a reasonable price yet. Works are out of the question for front and rear set up due to shaft lenghts. Also in the front no bump kit. keep it simple. six inch to ten inch would be a good inprovent at a resonible price and provide a more stable pilot.

This is why I would like input, more the marrier. If anyone was wondering if I was going to sale these, the ansawer is NO. I will post for any one to do it your self. Maybe Weed can supplie shocks and parts in a kit if he chooses. Since he is a vendor just thru it out there.  Any way toss away and I will check it out. I'm tring to update pilots so they do not get parted out and keep them around.


I don't see any way around a bump steer kit for the steering...If you put 10" of travel with the stock tie rod configuration, toe change will be suibstantial...That'sone of my turn offs on the "Yoda" kit....For the $$$$, the gain is minimal,and if you do put the longer shocks on for more travel, bumpsteer issues will follow....
Hoodlum

PilotHawK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2009, 06:22:45 PM »
More travel is good. Stock shocks SUCK ASS! Ask my doc. I've got too much hardware because of being stupid, cheap, and those shocks.

I've got an MRI in the morning to find out whats going on now.

Adnoh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2009, 07:39:52 PM »
Fl 670 I wanted the input for how to move forward with kits development. The ansawers dictate the work involved.  10" is cheaper than 12" of travle. The radius rod deflection ( twisting force on the rubber mounts cause deflection steer in the rear) is greater on 12" than 10" and stock rod rework not recomended. The shock valving and spring rate will also be effected if stock rods used inplace of new rod end type. To me it makes a diff but for other maybe not. It would make a $150.00 dollar diff.
The rear shocks can be upgraded for $250 for high low comp and rebound as long as I can keep the shaft under 9" This is also were the rod end come into play greater adjustability with the rods end on the low speed. If stock rods used the dual adjust would be a wast of money.

Hoodlum, the bump issue is defently an issue I did not know his kit bumped that bad. By chance does his kit rake. I did my numbers with the trx set up and disc. I will test with longer stock set up using the drums. The rake effects bump steer on bump by changing the tie rod position to the rear on bump( compression). Move the tie rod back and then cycle and you will see the effect.  Would It also is effected by the locationof his kit pushing it forward on the plu arms ? Thoughts for test.

Pilot hawk, Hope your ok. sound like the lt kit is to late for you. Please share your thoughts.

Hers some pics of the wide body kit using stock works shocks.

PilotHawK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2009, 09:12:57 PM »
If you go too wide in the front you need the bumpsteer kit to keep the tie rods from hitting the lower frame rail.

hoodlum

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
  • Karma: 11
    • View Profile
bumpsteer
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2009, 05:35:03 AM »
Quote from: "adnoh"
Fl 670 I wanted the input for how to move forward with kits development. The ansawers dictate the work involved.  10" is cheaper than 12" of travle. The radius rod deflection ( twisting force on the rubber mounts cause deflection steer in the rear) is greater on 12" than 10" and stock rod rework not recomended. The shock valving and spring rate will also be effected if stock rods used inplace of new rod end type. To me it makes a diff but for other maybe not. It would make a $150.00 dollar diff.
The rear shocks can be upgraded for $250 for high low comp and rebound as long as I can keep the shaft under 9" This is also were the rod end come into play greater adjustability with the rods end on the low speed. If stock rods used the dual adjust would be a wast of money.

Hoodlum, the bump issue is defently an issue I did not know his kit bumped that bad. By chance does his kit rake. I did my numbers with the trx set up and disc. I will test with longer stock set up using the drums. The rake effects bump steer on bump by changing the tie rod position to the rear on bump( compression). Move the tie rod back and then cycle and you will see the effect.  Would It also is effected by the locationof his kit pushing it forward on the plu arms ? Thoughts for test.

Pilot hawk, Hope your ok. sound like the lt kit is to late for you. Please share your thoughts.

Hers some pics of the wide body kit using stock works shocks.



Not sure how his kit works...I tried forever to get some true to life numbers on the amount of travel and how much bumpsteer is in it, but it seemed to make some kinda ticked off when the question was brought up,so I gave up...All  I ever got was speculation that you COULD do this or you COULD do that, but no one knew the end result ,and I don't think they still do....I know stoneman has it on his, but the only thing I have seen on it is a video that looks like it pushes pretty bad....
I do know this,on my kit, it has +/- 12 in. of travel,and there is no way possible to make it workwith stock tie rods...They would definately hit the frame at full droop....I am interested in what you come up with...Keep those wheels turning!!!!!
Hoodlum
TO MAKE TURBO HAPPY!!!!!!!! A FEW WEEKS AFTER POSTING THIS I GOT SOME INFO FROM YODA.....IF YOU WANT TO READ THE EMAIL,LOOK FARTHER IN THIS TOPIC AND YOU WILL FIND IT!!!!!

Adnoh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2009, 11:32:19 AM »
Did some work on front today using stock stuff. MAN was I disapointed. The fornt bumped 3" for 9" of travle. !0" was worse plus the tires hit the fenders. The best the stock stuff can do is 7 to 7.5. I played with + 2" set Up as well. If a plis two arm with anything other than stock shocks are used I feel bad for them unless They can shed light on fix. So it looks like a econmy bump kit is in order for gain in front. I did discover some other interesting facts on the front and will share as the build proceeds. It looks like some 400 ex and 450r parts are needed for build. I used a combanation of the parts on the tie rod set up to dial in bump. I can get it to go 9" with a little over 1/2" of bump and 8.5 with under 1?" bump. When I went plus 2 it could be taken to 9 with under 1/2" bump. The camber setting was 0 degrees and caster at 5 degrees. The tie rod was placed 1" forward of lower rear pivot and inbound from lower pivot 1" and up 1" from ceter line of lower pivot. I liked this number due to the traigle effcet on the geomtry.  The steering shaft angle and rotational angle of the ball joint mounting point may cause a problem with the movment relationship. I will build teat piece to see. It lookes like a four point bolt kit can be made and inserted on the inbound otside of the pivots. The cost here would be the ite rods and ends. I could use the stock end for new outer tie rod and build new rod end type for inner. This is what atvr did. Or like I did use stock inner and trx outer. If the stock hubs were used it would be a combanation of both due to the mount hole dia. The bump idler would be drilled for trx or and use pilot in hub and stem.  The estimated cost here would be around 120.00. The down side this could not be built by everyone. The pieces would need to be giged and welded for bolt up. The kit would need to have adjustment on idlers for arm change, forward, moved back and type.

I would like to take a minute and discuss the push issue or what was noticed to be a major push( dont want to have to make another apploigy). Once the stock has been altered many things change. Some for the better and some for the worse. Ill keep this short. SOme of things that change when the front is widened and the travle is changes is Track width, CG and Balance. All these have an effect on it drives. What has happened is the traction forces have been changed. If yu set it up stock it wont turn or handle poorly. By simply changing the track width you change the: Instant center,Roll centers,Center of gravity, Wheel rate. Set up front end the same as stock and it will not turn the same if you drive it the same as stock. As you say it will push and push bad. The setup will reduce turing traction focrce applied to the tire.

The new kit will need to be set for netural steer and than a change in driving style will need to be done and then dialed in.  That is what I feel make most complaint. It spins out,Its wont turn ect. SO the delma is build a set up thats not adjustable and control the output of the kit or build a set up that can be dialed infor those who can take advantage of it or both. The down side a netrual kit will limit the preformance advantge of the kit. I can make it turn if you can learn how to drive it. See the delima, blame game. Lets say the new driver is 80lbs to 100lbs more in weight with the non adjustable kit. His cornor speed will be slower than his friend 80 lbs lighter. If you was to watch different sized people will drive the same bike different into and out of the cornor or one will be faster. So what to do. set up with adjustable shocks which cost a little more and click here and click there( compression), turn here ( preload)and even things out. The clickers should reduce the bias effected by weight effecting roll center and pre load offsetting instant center change. put 100 lbs in motin and turn the inertia forces are greater which need to control to keep tire from looseing traction. Yes some of this can be controled with throttle taking some of the turning force and moving it to accerlation force ofseeting the push with oversteer ( taking cornong traction force off of rear as the front pulls it around).

Thoughts? Dont even get me started on track width bias and the effects.

PilotHawK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2009, 02:29:01 PM »
"Pilot push" is gonna happen, there is almost no way around it. One thing that helps is if you toe the rear wheel in a couple of degreees. The pilot push so bad because of the lack of a diff in the rear so both tires have to turn the same distance. Other than the toe in about the only thing that will help is to get more weight forward so the front tires will grip, or run rear tires that can "slip" when turning. You could always just lock up the rear brake and initiate a turn, then power through it. Drive with the back end, its fun when you figure it out!

Adnoh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2009, 04:03:28 PM »
Fun indead,Pilot hawk. Well I spent a couple more hours in garage and now have the stock arms with no bump kit using stock works at 9" of travle. I relocated the shock with a different lever ratio and removed the 1/4" bump stop spacer on the shaft. I removed some of the bump and tie rod frame hit by spacing up the inner rod 1/4" on steering shaft. This changed the bump at droop( extended) to were the stock was +1/16 of an inch. The stock goes from toe in at full extend to toe out mid stroke and toe in on full bump ( compressed). So far pleased with change. The bump rate is close to stock. I did say close not same. The noice thing is at whel lock theres no change. SO I fell after I set the toe for the new set up ( backing out the 1/16 inch) of toe to a static setting of 1/4" toe in it will not be noticable. This should keep the irretice steering thu woops. I Now will work on solution for stock arms for camber setting and ball joint replacement. I have an Idea borrowed for other postand this willadd 1 to 1.5 " of extension and a little added travle. The adjusted track width will help when the rear is moved out. If the front uses more travle a Bump kit will be required no exception. Heck even the bump kit will even help the stock amrs. Stock 6" hacker up to 9" thats a 33% increase. I will calculate the wheel rate change for spring set up. I hope to use the stock works rate or at least see what effect it will have. I already know I will need to change transition spacer and ride height adjustment. The plus side this should provide a greater sag and smoother ride on the tender.  I will use an online calc to compare spring rate to wheel rate I calculate. I'll post  up when done this may take a day or two. Gota work tommorow.

hoodlum

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 857
  • Karma: 11
    • View Profile
Bump
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2009, 06:57:57 PM »
Quote from: "adnoh"
Fun indead,Pilot hawk. Well I spent a couple more hours in garage and now have the stock arms with no bump kit using stock works at 9" of travle. I relocated the shock with a different lever ratio and removed the 1/4" bump stop spacer on the shaft. I removed some of the bump and tie rod frame hit by spacing up the inner rod 1/4" on steering shaft. This changed the bump at droop( extended) to were the stock was +1/16 of an inch. The stock goes from toe in at full extend to toe out mid stroke and toe in on full bump ( compressed). So far pleased with change. The bump rate is close to stock. I did say close not same. The noice thing is at whel lock theres no change. SO I fell after I set the toe for the new set up ( backing out the 1/16 inch) of toe to a static setting of 1/4" toe in it will not be noticable. This should keep the irretice steering thu woops. I Now will work on solution for stock arms for camber setting and ball joint replacement. I have an Idea borrowed for other postand this willadd 1 to 1.5 " of extension and a little added travle. The adjusted track width will help when the rear is moved out. If the front uses more travle a Bump kit will be required no exception. Heck even the bump kit will even help the stock amrs. Stock 6" hacker up to 9" thats a 33% increase. I will calculate the wheel rate change for spring set up. I hope to use the stock works rate or at least see what effect it will have. I already know I will need to change transition spacer and ride height adjustment. The plus side this should provide a greater sag and smoother ride on the tender.  I will use an online calc to compare spring rate to wheel rate I calculate. I'll post  up when done this may take a day or two. Gota work tommorow.


My kit actually moves in the s shape which works very well...It only takes a very small amount of movement in tie rod location either up or down or front to back to drastically change that to something undesirable...
As for the push, I don't know for sure what effects it, but it is almost non existant on my pilot with Aftershocks kit unless you are barely moving...Anything over around 5 mph +/- it is very minimal, and it turns VERY easy on the trails, sometimes too easy...lol....I can easily drive it with one hand with no effort other than me not trusting myself driving for long with 1 hand....
Just food for thought, several years ago, I had one of the 2 seat china buggys for my kids...The front was about 5 in. wider than the rear...That thing would turn on a dime with NO push at all...Not sure if the width of the front vs. the width of the rear had anything to do with the way it turned or not, but that was my thought....
I think the front improvement would be more desirable than the rear...It seems most jumps land on the front first,and with the works shocks I now have,I have no complaints what so ever with the way the rear works now...Going longer travel means for the most part making it wider, which keeping the rear no wider than it is now would be a MAJOR plus for us trail riders....
Hoodlum

stoneman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile

Adnoh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Idea for econmy LT kit for pilot
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2009, 05:30:32 PM »
Thanks for the link. I have read that a while back. I will do something like that for the cambeer adjsutment. I was thinking of removing the whole ball assemby and replacing with longer tube and reinforcment if a new shock was used for ten to twelve with a bump kit. just not sure how wide to go yet untill I workk some issues in the rear. Hoodlum had a god point on track width for the wood guys. The nine inch kit so far only cost $7.00 and maintains stock width.  I took some pics of the bump and made a short video of it for discussion. I also took other pics for review. I'll post up bump than the rest.