350skabarat

Shot thanx Matt, you always make shit clear as day! HAHA

Whats your 2c on cornering with zps? Does the bike not have alot of body role?

Ok i think i get it now. The way i understand it is that these shocks are fitted with spring stacks whereby one of the springs in the shock is soft, causing the bike to sag more than a normal bike. Now when the bike sags to its height, the springs basically become as stiff as normal shock springs would become, its kinda obvious, they reach equilibrium. So when the bike rides and jumps and turns the whole benifit of these shocks is that they give you more downward travel (wheels moving downward) than a normal shock. The only thing that concerns me is that by using these shock you sacrifice upward travel from the hectic saging, unless these shocks have supper long shaft travel compared to a normal shock?

Ok ive been trying to understand how peps zero preload system works and im finding it very dificult because nobody actually knows!!!! Ive evan emailed pep themselves and all they can help me with is by giving me a link that opens a pdf that explains how to set up zero preload shocks. Which doesnt realy explain how the so called "Lower ride height with no lost travel is achieved" Its actualy stupid. From what ive gathered is that all that makes these shock zero preload shocks are the tripple rate springs where one spring is supper soft so you can set the ride height low and not have your spring washers rattle. This does NOT give you full travel on the shock!!!! if you set the ride height low, you only have half the shock shaft sticking out, giving it half the ability to ubsorb bumps. When they say "Low ride height while maintaining full suspension travel" you would think that your quad could be set low and have your shock basically fully extended giving you the advantage of using your shocks full travel to ubsorb bumps. When your in the air yes then the shocks fully extend, But any shock would fully extend!!! And someone told me as soon as you start the bike the shocks fully extend!!!!!?????WTF!!!??? I just dont get it! i realy wanted to buy these shocks but it seams like its just a sales scheme? Can anyone maybe please try explain how these work if you know? maybe Mr Matt?

yfz shocks on stock a arms are crap! The bike sits high and its realy stiff. Hard ride.

anyday! Haha

doesnt matter how well it handles, if it doesnt look like a banshee its crap!

ya i know the yfz geo is better. My argument is: why not take a complete banshee and swop the frame with a yfz's. Keeping banshee plastics and all, only using the yfz frame and shocks. Burn the yfz plastics!

why do people keep doing this! Wtf! Yfz's are ugly compared to banshee's! Why not fit banshee plastics aswell! Damit! There is no hope!

i was thinking of getting the longest shocks i could find that have the most travel on them. I read that elka would be my best bet, maybe 19.5". but ill see how my budget works out. thanx for all your input Matt.

i once rode a banshee with yfz shocks and standard banshee a-arms!!!!!

ya elka's or fox valved for your weight ofcourse

I rate it will viabrate and after a while it will wear through the pipe and make a hole. Ya and it will scratch the chrome off and if you wana sell them it cause you some problems

MattSCSS thank you so much for your help. Its awsum that people like you are willing to share their knowledge with others. Well i think im gana make the upper shock mounting brackets on the frame 1" higher and 2" closer compared to a stock banshee frame. OR Ive read a few of your posts (MattSCSS) around the forum and you've said that the 250r frames where good untill 2004 when the yfz came out, so i was wondering, as you said i must get shocks first and build around that, if i must get a set of sweet shocks for a yfz 450 and build my front setup around that instead of a 250r setup? or whats your recomendation as for shocks to build around? like shock length and stuff? sorry i hope im not draging this on and on, but input from someone that knows suspension (MattSCSS ) would be great.

Kewl man thanx for the effort in trying to explain that. appreciate it. So if i understand what your saying correctly then if your shock angles are say at 45 degree's, then you have a lower triangle which will be more stable but at the cost of travel? ive seen a few banshee's where the shocks are mounted at the outside limit of the a-arms, would that be bad? And as you say it would be best to mount the top of the shocks as close to eachother as possible which makes sense, i just wonder why quad manufacturers havnt done it then? i dont see why it cannot be done?

One more question, Ive included a picture of a 250r frontend. see how the shocks are mounted almost verticall? does thiss have a benifit? im thinking it kindof must cause these bikes handling is the shiz niz!!!!

Great stuff, that makes total sence thanx dude. i guess i was looking at this way wrong. Just one question. when you speak shock angle? what does this effect? ive heard people say that when your shocks are bottoming out the angle between the shock and a-arm must be closest to 90 to have a rising rate of motion and therefor it will resist bottoming out more cause it travels faster for that last bit. Is that why the angle is considered or what?

Thanx for that. You kinda missing my question though. If a vehicle has 1000" of wheel travel or an atv has 12" of travel. When these 2 vehicles hit an identicle bump both shocks will displace the same amount. So travel wasnt of concern in my question. My question in other words: would you want a shock that moves 200ml/second of oil through the piston(high shock velocity) or would you want a shock that rather moves 20ml/second (low shock velocity)? These two extremes must definately have an effect on damping smoothness and performance. I mean if you had a liquid other than oil in a shoch that has a very low vescosity, low motion velocities would be useless as this "thin" liquid wouldnt create enough resistance traveling through the ports of the shock. With oil the vescosity is higher "Thicker" so motion velocities can be slowed down to get a good damping effect. So high and low shock velocity must obviously have advantages and disadvantages regarding tuning and performance. I would like to know where this optimum balance is? I know its alot to just ask like that but thats why i started this thread so we can all share our knowledge on the subject. You cant just say "Dont worry about motion ratio or shock velocity on a quad" Do you think elka and fox and pep and all these shock manufacturers just ignore the shock velocity their shocks will work at? i dont think so. They design these shocks to work most effectively at a certain shock velocity. Obviously this can be a range of velocities. Sure you can take any shock and change the valving to run higher velocities but what are the extents that oil will allow this. Thanx though for that info. Im not attacking anyone. Just a debate.

Thanx for your input, When you say you can control the motion, do you mean in terms of tuning? Like to tune a shock that works at high velocities produces better results than that of low velocites. . . .

Hi guys, i thought i'd start a discusion about this as ive heard different ideas on the subject. Im designing a frame for a shee with a-arms and swing arm. Now im trying to decide where to mount the front shocks on the a-arms. Closer to the wheels or halfway or where? Now what ive heard is a motion ratio of 1:1 or close to 1:1 is best. why? 1.Because this transmits less stress into the frame of the bike and 2.Helps improve body role. Ok now if you have a motion ratio of say 2:1(wheel travels 5" and shock travels 2.5") then you obviously need a shock that is valved with stiffer shims in it. The shock is also going to travel SLOWER. Half the speed of the 1:1 ratio. This is better in the way that your shocks wont fade from getting too hot (due to low shock velocities) and you get more travel outof your shock. Ok so in my understanding is that both setups would work and they do work cause hundreds of quads are setup close to 1:1 and evan some more than 2:1. Ok here's my big question. Lets say the travel of the shock is not an issue, you can mount it anywhere and have lots of travel. Where would you mount it. My question boils down to what is the best velocity a shock operates at?

Is no one ganna help me:(

Hey guys im busy designing a new front frame for a banshee, I just need abit of help. Im designing the front end towards the 250r geometry in terms or how the setup acts during travel not in terms of exact measurment. Ok here are my questions: 1. During the travel of the suspension ,due to the fact that the radius of the top a-arms is smaller than the radius of the bottom a-arms, you have a camber adjustment which how i understand normally increases negatively during travel. Now what i would like to know is what a good value for camber adjustment is? like for example on compression of the suspension you want your camber adjustment to increase by 3 or 4 degrees negatively (you want a camber of negative 3 degrees to go to negative 6 degrees) hope im explaining correctly. 2. During the travel of the suspension you also have caster adjustment. This happens because the top a-arm mount rail is not parralell to the bottom a-arm rail from a side view of the frame. So what id like to know is would you want your caster adjustment to increase positively on compression or should it decrease positively. For example say your caster on full extension of travel is positive 5 degrees, now when the suspension compresses should it increase to positive 8 degrees or decrease to positive 2 degrees? Also how much should it increase or decrease (would like it to be like a 250r)? my guess on the caster is that it should decrease on compression so that its easier to turn on decceleration? Im not sure so thats why im asking. Thanx for any help guys