Raptor Forum banner
21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts
This doesn't seem like a debate!!! :eek: Fuel guy gave an example, there was no come back other have calling names!! 8) I dont' know much.. :p but hoping to learn more here!! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Let's clear it up a little

*All Standard Travel a-arms use stock-length shocks. They can be +1, +2, +2+1, or +3. The shock mounting locations are identical. The stock shocks will bolt up, but they will not perform properly Due to increased leveage created by the wider a-arms.

*Long Travel arms actually move the lower mount further out and down so Long Travel shocks are needed. The name "Long Travel" is misleading. They really don't give you more ACTUAL wheel travel then an ST setup. The longer shafts on the shocks allow much more precise control over the valving. So "LT" doesn't stand for wheel travel. "LT" is for the shock shaft travel. You can get the same wheel travel from both types but the reason "LT" arms work really well is because the shaft travel is greater meaning that the shaft velocity is faster which will make the valving much more percise then standard travel setup.

There are several reasons that the LT (Shock shaft travel, not wheel travel) frontends seem to work a little better then the ST frontends. First off because there is more shock shaft travel the shaft speed is greater making it easier to valve the shock as well as it not being as noticeable if the shock valving is off. The shock shaft speed also helps make the valving much more efficient biengs that valving is only velocity sensetive. The other thing it helps with is using more of the springs (except for ZPS set ups). By having more shock travel the springs will be able to be set up to be softer at ride hieght but still have enough spring force to help control bottoming.I'm not saying that there is a huge difference. In fact we have been doing a lot of work with ST systems and have been able to make them work almost as well as the LT systems. One other difference that I forgot to mention has to do with the arm builder. If the shock mount is placed correctly you not only reduce the motion ratio but you can also increase the leverage curve meaning that as the suspension goes from extended to compressed you can achieve a higher progression percentage (leverage curve). By doing that you can valve and spring the shock to be very soft or cushy at ride hieght but because you have created a higher rising rate you will still have more then enough bottoming resistance.


WWW.FUELATV.COM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts
Let's clear it up a little

*All Standard Travel a-arms use stock-length shocks. They can be +1, +2, +2+1, or +3. The shock mounting locations are identical. The stock shocks will bolt up, but they will not perform properly Due to increased leveage created by the wider a-arms.

*Long Travel arms actually move the lower mount further out and down so Long Travel shocks are needed. The name "Long Travel" is misleading. They really don't give you more ACTUAL wheel travel then an ST setup. The longer shafts on the shocks allow much more precise control over the valving. So "LT" doesn't stand for wheel travel. "LT" is for the shock shaft travel. You can get the same wheel travel from both types but the reason "LT" arms work really well is because the shaft travel is greater meaning that the shaft velocity is faster which will make the valving much more percise then standard travel setup.

There are several reasons that the LT (Shock shaft travel, not wheel travel) frontends seem to work a little better then the ST frontends. First off because there is more shock shaft travel the shaft speed is greater making it easier to valve the shock as well as it not being as noticeable if the shock valving is off. The shock shaft speed also helps make the valving much more efficient biengs that valving is only velocity sensetive. The other thing it helps with is using more of the springs (except for ZPS set ups). By having more shock travel the springs will be able to be set up to be softer at ride hieght but still have enough spring force to help control bottoming.I'm not saying that there is a huge difference. In fact we have been doing a lot of work with ST systems and have been able to make them work almost as well as the LT systems. One other difference that I forgot to mention has to do with the arm builder. If the shock mount is placed correctly you not only reduce the motion ratio but you can also increase the leverage curve meaning that as the suspension goes from extended to compressed you can achieve a higher progression percentage (leverage curve). By doing that you can valve and spring the shock to be very soft or cushy at ride hieght but because you have created a higher rising rate you will still have more then enough bottoming resistance.


WWW.FUELATV.COM
This is very well said :clap: Thanks... I remember reading something just like this in a dirt wheels mag about people not understanding LT systems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
OK, all that being said and ST and LT comparisons aside ... which a-arm/shock set-up will give me the most suspension travel, in anyone's opinion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,678 Posts
FUELATV said:
Let's clear it up a little

*All Standard Travel a-arms use stock-length shocks. They can be +1, +2, +2+1, or +3. The shock mounting locations are identical. The stock shocks will bolt up, but they will not perform properly Due to increased leveage created by the wider a-arms.

*Long Travel arms actually move the lower mount further out and down so Long Travel shocks are needed. The name "Long Travel" is misleading. They really don't give you more ACTUAL wheel travel then an ST setup. The longer shafts on the shocks allow much more precise control over the valving. So "LT" doesn't stand for wheel travel. "LT" is for the shock shaft travel. You can get the same wheel travel from both types but the reason "LT" arms work really well is because the shaft travel is greater meaning that the shaft velocity is faster which will make the valving much more percise then standard travel setup.

There are several reasons that the LT (Shock shaft travel, not wheel travel) frontends seem to work a little better then the ST frontends. First off because there is more shock shaft travel the shaft speed is greater making it easier to valve the shock as well as it not being as noticeable if the shock valving is off. The shock shaft speed also helps make the valving much more efficient biengs that valving is only velocity sensetive. The other thing it helps with is using more of the springs (except for ZPS set ups). By having more shock travel the springs will be able to be set up to be softer at ride hieght but still have enough spring force to help control bottoming.I'm not saying that there is a huge difference. In fact we have been doing a lot of work with ST systems and have been able to make them work almost as well as the LT systems. One other difference that I forgot to mention has to do with the arm builder. If the shock mount is placed correctly you not only reduce the motion ratio but you can also increase the leverage curve meaning that as the suspension goes from extended to compressed you can achieve a higher progression percentage (leverage curve). By doing that you can valve and spring the shock to be very soft or cushy at ride hieght but because you have created a higher rising rate you will still have more then enough bottoming resistance.


WWW.FUELATV.COM

Excellent write-up man. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
I haven't replied because I've been on vacation. While much of what FuelATV writes is correct, his claim that no "long-travel" suspensions offer greater wheel travel is incorrect. While it is certainly true of some designs it is not a given. He only sells one brand of a-arms, so if you're looking for advice on comparing a-arm design, you're not likely to see him recommend anything else. Whether or not LT a-arms produce greater wheel travel is entirely up to the designer and entirely determined by the placement of the lower shock mount. Wheel travel has nothing to due with a-arm length other than a small amt gained by the increase in the arc radius of the wheel itself, which is secondary to the design intent. The designer has the option of using the increased shaft length to increase rate (by placing the lower shock mount further outboard), or increasing the amount of travel (by placing the lower shock mount lower), or any balance between the two. Since the end of the a-arm (and the lower shock mount) move in an arc, the shaft (with its fixed upper mount) already has a rising rate on compression, moving the lower mount outboard increases the rising rate, making it easier to valve the shock to maximize its performance throughout its operating range. If no design produced any difference in wheel travel, all LT designs would all be the same in shock performance. Most manufacturers have websites that point out the particular design and performance parameters of their own product. I suggest that anyone in the market visit those various sites rather than taking the word of someone who carries only one brand and claims the rest are the same. By the way, by no means am I debating with FuelATV. This is not directed towards him at all, it's only posted to educate potential buyers that they're not getting the facts with his claim of "no increased wheel travel". He can argue 'til he's blue in the face, various mfr's websites will give you the straight story on their own product. I have no interest in trying to get anyone to "agree" with me, opinion doesn't educate like facts. Get the facts for yourself by researching away from a "forum" venue, then you'll know what's true and what's opinion. Any brand you might be interested in will have a website from which you can learn about what they make. There is no standard design requirement for the location of the lower shock mount. Notice I didn't try to sell anybody anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
raptorsquid said:
While it is certainly true of some designs it is not a given. He only sells one brand of a-arms, so if you're looking for advice on comparing a-arm design, you're not likely to see him recommend anything else.
Wrong Again ....... i sell i-shock, lonestar, laeger and my own line. I also have access to houser prioducts. Again you are wrong about alot of points, but i am not going to argue. So are you saying ..... if Brand X and brand Y a-arm manufacturs use the same length and same brand shocks they will have the same actual WHEEL TRAVEL?


WWW.FUELATV.COM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
I like shiny things. :'(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Long Travel and standard travel will have THE SAME amount of ACTUAL wheel travel. The long travel setup uses longer shocks giving it more SHAFT travel, but not more actual wheel travel. With more shaft travel it makde the shocks easier to tune.

Can you use long travel shocks with standard A-Arms?


WWW.FUELATV.COM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
OP, give Jogaca a call and see what he can do for you and your wifes 400ex before spending big bucks on new long travel shocks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
I literally just spoke to Jogaca tonight after seeing his number in this thread, he’s super easy to work with, extremely knowledgeable, and will do whatever he can to help. He will be building shocks for 3 of rides.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top