Author Topic: +2 A-arm comparison picture  (Read 3283 times)

ludedude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« on: June 25, 2004, 12:01:47 PM »
Forget who asked for this, but here's a shot of 2 pilots, one with +2's the other stock. Both have 4+2 offset rims, the one on the left has 23" tires and the one on the right has 21's.

redrider

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
close up of suspension
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2004, 01:41:50 PM »
Nice comparison Lude!  When it is convenient, take pics of a more close up view of one side of each setup.  It would be good to see the comparison of shock clearance and frame tie-in between the stock and plus arms.
Thanks.

ludedude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2004, 05:16:19 PM »
I'll try and swap some wheels around so.....noope can't do it...thoug I could get 22's on both with the same offset rims...I have 23's on 4+2...22's on 4+2 21's on 4+2 and 22's on 3.875+1.125 all beadlocks......hmmmm...could put stock rims with 22's I think on 2 machines for a comparison...I want to lay some 2x4's along side and measure width's. I think with the +2's and 4+2's the front is wider than the rear...slightly...may be an illusion, wan to check it out for curiousity. And then put the 3.875+1.125's on and see again....

So much I'd like to do....I need a time machine ;)

I'll sneak out now and snap a couple more shots..think they're still lined up.

redrider

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
offset and width
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2004, 07:55:48 PM »
With the 4+2 alum rims on the +2 arms in the front, you might be the same as the rear.  It's not an optical illusion.  I've done a lot of measuring for that very reason and found that I was within 1/2" of being the same front and rear with the outset wheels.  That is why I try to run stock rims with the +2 arms so that I get the travel and better steering but still keep the front as narrow as possible for wods trails.  I know the scrub rate would be worse with the wider wheels on but in totally open terrain I'd like the run the wide front for stability.

ludedude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2004, 05:56:47 AM »
Yeah I wish I had got 2 sets of the 3.875+1.125 rims...I may order another set and sell a set of the 4+2's. I honestly have not noticed a difference in stability, unless you're making the front wider than the rear, I think you're affecting handling (steering feedback = sore hands/arms...tight Ted?  :P ) more adversely than you're gaining in stability. The rear's wider, I think that's where the stability key is. Just my opinion. I get a kick out of guys selling rims and pilots with offset rims trying to push them like it's a bonus...wider offset...more stability....really? At what cost? Steers like a tractor with the differential locked, hey but it's stable.  :lol:  :lol:

I want to measure my 3.875+1.125's against the stockers to see how they compare. As Livewire stated the stock rims are not measured (offset wise) the same as Douglas Wheels measures theirs. I think my center to centerline with those must me close if not narrower than the stockers.

They are a far better rim than too for the fact that they have the optional beefy inner bead on them. The normal .190's with a beadlock make for a sturdy outer setup, but leave you with a weak inner bead. We've not had any trouble yet, and hopefully won't. As the inner bead does not see near the punishment the outer does, it may not be an issue. But if I order another set, I'll be ordering the beefed up inner bead again.

Back to the +2's! I see no adverse steering ability over the stock length arms. Now maybe I would if I could drive it back to back with stock then +2's. If there is a difference it's not large enough to stand out in my mind's memory of handling. I could jump into one of the other 2 pilots, but it's not a fair comparison either, one has a bent front end, the other has minimal tread up front. I could Sinc's 4+2's with good tread on Ted's machine and run the 4+2's on mine. Ted and I both have titan 489 XT's on the rear so it should be a fairly close setup....may try that next time out if I remember.

I need to measure my wheel travel up front too. I had custom Works made. I left the mounts alone, but went with a longer shock (reservoirs, pre-load adjustable and dual rate springs) and more stroke than stock. I may have made them a tad too long as on full extension you can hear the ball joints go into bind, just as the shocks max out. But it handles really nicely, very soft...maybe too soft, I have never felt it, but a few video footage shots and still photo shots looks like it must be bottomed out. Made a huge difference in handling though. I ran the +2's with the stock shocks for awhile before I received the Works. Just the +2?s alone, even with old worn stock shocks you gain in handling. So it?s a good stepping stone. Get the +2?s then the shocks later when you can afford them, if it?s too much to do all at once.

Can?t wait to get the fully adjustable ELKA shocks :P Rebound, compression and  pre-load adjustable. :shock: from Elka (when asked why more expensive Elba?s over Works):

?Our shocks (compared to works) have a stronger shaft (they use 14mm we use 16mm), a more precise valving (they use springs and small balls we use a shim stack) we offer more wheel travel and more plushness in the springs. You can check on any ATV website and see what people say about the difference, our shocks will give you much more performance then theirs.?

So we?ll see and report back on that.

Tman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2004, 01:41:09 PM »
Quote
I honestly have not noticed a difference in stability, unless you're making the front wider than the rear, I think you're affecting handling (steering feedback = sore hands/arms...tight Ted?  ) more adversely than you're gaining in stability
.

I also find the steering tends to snap faster... Try a jammed left index finger that never healed completely and numerous gouges on both index knuckles... and that without a death grip. I'd sacrifice the stability!

ludedude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2004, 06:15:31 PM »
Quote from: "Tman"
...and that without a death grip.


 :idea: That's key...in the absence of rack and pinion, floating the yoke is crucial to warding off digit injuries and hand fatigue. :idea:

ludedude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: close up of suspension
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2004, 05:24:12 AM »
Quote from: "redrider"
Nice comparison Lude!  When it is convenient, take pics of a more close up view of one side of each setup.  It would be good to see the comparison of shock clearance and frame tie-in between the stock and plus arms.
Thanks.


There's a couple more in here (more front suspension photos) I don't have any close ups of the stock one...but I'll get some

sicksand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2004, 10:37:25 PM »
What happens to the back when you add th +2's on the front?Does it give it that sag look?

ludedude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2004, 01:53:22 AM »
hmmmm...more pictures needed I guess :|

redrider

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
front, rear, "sag look?"
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2004, 07:52:56 AM »
Quote from: "SickSand"
What happens to the back when you add th +2's on the front?Does it give it that sag look?


The +2" arms on the front really won't do anything as far as giving the front or rear a "sag" look.  I'm not sure I fully understand what "look" you are describing other than the front sitting higher than the rear.
What you are seeing in Ludedude's Pilot suspension is probably the result of springs that not been sized to allow for any droop.  The springs on the front shocks are probably nearing full extension and lifting the Pilot front end.  I doubt the rear has changed.  It is possible that his rear springs may be providing some sag or droop if they are more than a single rate setup.
Ideally, you want the Pilot to sit down into the suspension a bit so that you have some "drop-out" of the suspension when traveling over holes, trenches, ditches, etc.  Lots of folks think more about hitting bumps as going over jumps, large or small and want to tighten the suspension up, but it is every bit as important to accommodate the need for the suspension to fall away or extend into a hole as to compress when hitting a rise.  Proper spring rates will allow for this and when set up properly will give the buggy more of a level profile.

sicksand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2004, 09:46:31 AM »
I was talking about the look of the pilot,like a rake on a car except reversed.Sorry guess I should of made it more clear.I wasn't sure if you raised the front of the car without the raising the rear if it would give it a lower look in the back or if you wouldn't even notice it.Redrider they do look sweet,pretty good work.I have been trying to get a hold of you via the e-mail and haven't got a response,you probaly have a few e-mail accounts.Trying to get your paypal #so I can send you some money,,,

ludedude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: front, rear, "sag look?"
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2004, 12:17:13 PM »
Quote from: "redrider"
What you are seeing in Ludedude's Pilot suspension is probably the result of springs that not been sized to allow for any droop.


Nope, Bzzzz, you're wrong :) still got droop left over!

The pictures do not do justice as the rear tires were flat  :oops:

The rear has Custom Works dual rate shocks, and the Pilot sits pretty much level (with air in all tires  :D ) when looking at the roof line. I'm pretty sure it has been raised up as well, though not as much as the front. Keep i mind the front has 23" tires as well, not the stck 22", the rear has 24".

The preload is cranked pretty much all the way on the front. But it still has a fiar bit of room for "hole" extension. Plus there's no one sitting in the Pilot in the picture either. It will compress a bit more with driver weight as well.

ludedude

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
+2 A-arm comparison picture
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2004, 01:31:36 PM »
Here's some more shots...with air in the rear :oops:  

front suspension shots

rear suspension shots

from the upper front A-arm mounting bolt

front----------at rest-------------lifted (wheel starting to slip on floor)
stock----------16-1/2"-------------18" = 1-1/2" sag
+2---------------19"----------------20-1/2" = 1-1/2" sag

rear
stock-----------10-3/4"----------------13-1/4" = 2.5" sag
+2--------------12"---------------------13-1/2" = 1.5" sag

The front, at rest sits 2.5" higher
The rear, at rest sits 1.25" higher

FYI, mine has 23" tires on front, Works shocks with Resevoirs all around. But these are not the stock configuration Works sends out if you ask for Pilot shocks. Both front and rear shocks were changed from their regular cookie cutter Pilot configuration. The rear have larger φ shafts, rebound damping adjustablility, different lengths and different stroke, than norm. The front are as well are different lenghts and have different stroke than the Works norm. All 4 have pre-load adjustability. Your values may vary if you take the above measurements, with Works "normal" Pilot configuration.

I have to pull the springs some day and get the actual wheel travel numbers measured, did it once...but lost them  :oops: